Establishment of an Ex Situ Collection of Glycyrrhiza glabra L. as a Prerequisite for Field Cultivation in Bulgaria
, Stoyan Stoyanov 1, Elina Yankova-Tsvetkova 1,*, Vladimir Ilinkin 1,2, Strahil Berkov 1 and Marina Stanilova 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The pictures quality need improvement,it's a little blurry;
2.In table 4,B. it misses the error analysis;
3.About the relationship between soil type, chemical composition and licorice quality formation,it's necessary and important to present more samples and analysis data,as it's very complex about the accumulation of secondary metabolites within plants, affected by other environmental factors and endogenous factors but soil type and elements of N,P,and K.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt's clear in expression ,and of scientific soundness
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The pictures quality need improvement, it's a little blurry;
Answer: We improved the quality of the pictures.
- In table 4,B. it misses the error analysis;
Answer: As written in Material and methods, the plant material (roots for phytochemical analysis) were collected in limited quantity according to the special permission of the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Waters. The soil samples were taken near the donor plants – one sample per locality, around the collected roots. That’s why the error analysis cannot be done for the data presented in table. 4 B. Our purpose was to analyze the soil close to the collected roots.
- About the relationship between soil type, chemical composition and licorice quality formation, it's necessary and important to present more samples and analysis data, as it's very complex about the accumulation of secondary metabolites within plants, affected by other environmental factors and endogenous factors but soil type and elements of N, P, and K.
Answer: Of course, the accumulation of secondary metabolites in licorice roots depends on many factors including environmental and endogenous factors, as we pointed in the discussion part. However, the concentrations of glycyrrhizin and total flavonoids in plants originating from the different populations, leveled off when cultivated on the same soil under the controlled conditions of the ex situ collection of IBER.
We have made some changes to the text to improve the English language.
Thank you for your comments,
The Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Please include an overall conclusion in the abstract.
2. Expand on the botanical description of Glycyrrhiza glabra L.
3.Include an explanation of the usage of roots in medicinal practice with examples.
4. Stick to using the scientific name of the plant throughout the manuscript.
5. Enlarge Figure 1- and ensure the circles are the same size.
6. Results are presented clearly, and the discussion is well written.
7. Please include future studies in the conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor English editing required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments, we followed your suggestions to improve the overall text of the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Please include an overall conclusion in the abstract.
Answer: We included an overall conclusion in the abstract.
- Expand on the botanical description of Glycyrrhiza glabra L.
Answer: We added some information in the Introduction following your requirements, related to the botanical description of G. glabra. We also replaced reference [3] with another one, which is more suitable.
- Include an explanation of the usage of roots in medicinal practice with examples.
Answer: We included information in the Introduction related to the usage of the roots in the traditional and modern medicinal practice.
- Stick to using the scientific name of the plant throughout the manuscript.
Answer: We agree that using the scientific name of the species G. glabra is better, as the English common name licorice refers to other species of the genus Glycyrrhiza, as well. So, we replaced licorice with G. glabra where appropriate throughout the manuscript.
- Enlarge Figure 1- and ensure the circles are the same size.
Answer: Regarding Figure 1, we made the red circles to be of equal size as they point the initial plants; however, the yellow circles cannot be the same size because they mark the growth of the stolons and shoots of the plants, which are not the same. The size of the circles corresponds to the expansion of the stolons.
- Results are presented clearly, and the discussion is well written.
Answer: Thank you for your appreciation of our results and discussion presentation.
- Please include future studies in the conclusion.
Answer: We included briefly in the conclusion what we intend to do in our future studies on G. glabra.
We have made some changes to the text to improve the English language.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The paper is well written, and all the scientific procedures have been followed. However, there are a few concerns that I would like to address:
It is not clear how you obtained your ethical approval; this aspect needs more attention. Secondly, how did you validate the plant species that you are referring to? It is always important to be more descriptive with the information that is presented.
There is inconsistence with how you have references; for example, some journal names are incomplete.
https://scholar.google.bg/scholar?q=ISO+11+277:2020&hl=bg&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart needs to be referenced properly.
The selected method "SO 10390:2005 specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (volume fraction) suspension of soil in water (pH in H2O), in 1 mol/l potassium chloride solution (pH in KCl), or in 0.01 mol/l calcium chloride solution (pH in CaCl2)." has been withdrawn; how does this affect the results of your study?
Thank you for providing evidence for your study by means of pictures.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
The paper is well written, and all the scientific procedures have been followed. However, there are a few concerns that I would like to address:
It is not clear how you obtained your ethical approval; this aspect needs more attention.
Answer: Regarding the ethical approval: as we wrote in Material and methods, we collected plant material from the populations according to the special permission of the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Waters. The collection of small pieces of roots from the ex situ collection of IBER didn’t need a special approval for both this collection was created by us in the experimental field of our institute, and we took only small pieces of the roots without destroying the plants.
Secondly, how did you validate the plant species that you are referring to? It is always important to be more descriptive with the information that is presented.
Answer: For species taxonomy and accepted scientific plant names, the Kew Botanic Gardens database (Plants of the World Online or POWO) is used. This database provides information on the currently accepted name, specifically for the object of our study: Glycyrrhiza glabra L., as well as for its distribution worldwide, native and naturalized range. http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/.
There is inconsistence with how you have references; for example, some journal names are incomplete.
Answer: We reviewed the titles of the cited journals and replaced the full journal names with their abbreviations as required by “Horticulturae”. We completed some references with the links where they were missing.
https://scholar.google.bg/scholar?q=ISO+11+277:2020&hl=bg&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart needs to be referenced properly.
Answer: Thank you for this remark. We replace the link with the right one: ISO 11277:2020 https://www.iso.org/standard/69496.html
The selected method "SO 10390:2005 specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (volume fraction) suspension of soil in water (pH in H2O), in 1 mol/l potassium chloride solution (pH in KCl), or in 0.01 mol/l calcium chloride solution (pH in CaCl2)." has been withdrawn; how does this affect the results of your study?
Answer: Our soil samples were analyzed in 2020, when the version 2005 of the method was current https://www.iso.org/standard/40879.html. Also, the new 2021 version is not substantially different from that of 2005 as far as soil samples are concerned: https://www.iso.org/standard/75243.html “This document specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH within the range pH 2 to pH 12 using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (volume fraction) suspension of soil, sludge and treated biowaste in either water (pH in H2O), in 1 mol/l potassium chloride solution (pH in KCl) or in 0,01 mol/l calcium chloride solution (pH in CaCl2)”. So it could not have affected our research.
Thank you for providing evidence for your study by means of pictures.
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your appreciation of our manuscript and the illustrations of our work.
The Authors
