In-Vivo In-Vitro Screening of Ocimum basilicum L. Ecotypes with Differential UV-B Radiation Sensitivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the research paper entitled ‘In-vivo in-vitro screening of Ocimum basilicum L. ecotypes with differential UV-B radiation sensitivity’ fits well with the scope of Horticulturae. The manuscript contains sufficient literature that covers the subject. The study investigates the tolerance of 9 sweet basil ecotypes in UV-B radiation. The authors evaluated chlorophyl a florescence indices and rosmarinic acid concentration. They concluded that one ecotype originated from Cuba was the most tolerant to UV-B stress.       

Manuscript:

1. Lines 21, 205, 340: delete space between OCI and 142.
2. Line 46: ‘UV-B’ instead of ‘UVB’.
3. Line 53: ‘Salvia’ in italics.
4. Line 79: add a space between var. and basilicum.
5. Table 1: center column 2.
6. Line 101: give details about falcons’ modifications.
7. Line 204: Figure 2 not 1.
8. Line 221: Figure 3 not 2.
9. In results section authors are advised to mention only the statistically significant differences.
10. Table 2 and Figure 3: why ‘OCI126A’ and not ‘OCI126’, is it another selection?
11. Figure 3: I can’t understand which column corresponds to controls, please explain.
12. I believe that Table 2 and Figure 3 are shown the same data in different format. having in manuscript Table 2 and Figure 3 is a repetition, authors have to decide which one they want to keep and explain the reason.
13. Line 317: wrong reference format.
14. Line 324: ‘OCI160’ instead of ‘OVI160’.
15. lines 336 – 350: these 2 paragraphs concerning the phenolic compound rosmarinic acid have to be transferred to the begging of the discussion section, because the results of RA (Figure 2) are shown before chlorophyl a indices. Otherwise, authors can change the order of figures in results section.

Therefore, my recommendation is ‘reconsider after major revision’.             

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the manuscript entitled “In-vivo in-vitro screening of Ocimum basilicum L. ecotypes with differential UV-B radiation sensitivity” attempts to show protection responses to high UV-B radiation of nine O. basilicum accessions.

The authors studied the changes in chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters and leaf rosmarinic acid content. Rosmarinic acid was reported to exhibit a photoprotective effect against UV-C damage. On the other hand, flavonoids may accumulate in the leaf epidermis in response to UV-B radiation. Thus, please estimate the total flavonoids, carotenoids, anthocyanins, and chlorophyll a and b in the studied ecotypes for better understanding. Figure 1 shows UV-B treatment significantly affected the morphology of studied ecotypes; thus, please indicate the leaf thickness, leaf area, and plant biomass. Regarding the JIP analyses, please indicate the specific energy fluxes parameters such as ABS/RC, TRo/RC, ETo/RC, and DIo/RC, and phenomenological energy fluxes parameters include ABC/CSo (Absorbed photon flux per CS).

L32: Please define “UV-B”

L53: Please italicize “Salvia”

L58: Lamiaceae (non-italic)

L79: Please correct the typo “Ocinum basilicum L. var.basilicum” and italicize both basilicum

L128: 65% RU?

L197: Please improve the figure 1 quality mainly UV-B treated

L189: Please italicize “O. basilicum”

L204: Should be Figure 2.

L221: Should be Figure 3A.

L233: Should be Figure 3B.

L239: Should be Figure 3C. Please explain why the same data presented in Table 2 and Figure 3.

L243: Should be Figure 3D.

L302: photosynthetic machinery and death of the photosynthetic organisms (Figure 1). Figure 1 is not supporting this claim.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors successfully addressed to most of the reviewers' comments and improved the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed few comments and improved the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx