Carvone-Rich Essential Oils and Their Agrobiological Interactions: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a long review article about Carvone-rich essential oils and almost all the related activities on agricultural application were concerned, including antifungal, antibacterial, insecticidal, acaricidal, nematicidal, herbicidal effects. The topic would draw attentions of some agronomists and pesticide researchers. But I don’t think the article were well organized and covered the serious concerns. So I suggest to reject the article and encourage the authors resubmit it after revising. Here are my opinion:

1. The review article should not be a list of references’ researches. It should let us know what already happened/have and what can/should we do later. But I don’t think the authors have or lead us to deeper thinking. Such as, what’s the current status, technical problems, solve methods, and application prospects of these EO?
2. The article seems to organize lots of results in some order. But the order is a few confused. In Part 3, 4, 6, the order generally maintained as carvone and then essential oils of the three species. This order feels a bit strange. Sections 4, 5, and 6 can be merged into one part as “Biologically Activities”, and then introduced antifungal, antibacterial, insecticidal, acaricidal, nematicidal, herbicidal effects, separately. In each parts, arranged references in a unified and certain order. Nematodes do not belong to arthropods.
3. In the abstract, the basic background should be mentioned and necessary information should be provided in concise and clear sentences. For example, I am more concerned about which families of plants carvone-rich essential oils come from, and then is which are the main sources. “They display strong antifungal and moderate antibacterial effects, effectively inhibiting numerous phytopathogenic fungi and certain bacteria.” weather means “They display strong antifungal effects to numerous phytopathogenic fungi, and moderate antibacterial effects to certain bacteria?” The keywords are not precise.
4. 4. In Introduction, there is too much popularization of basic knowledge about essential oils, such as the third paragraph, where readers are more concerned about the essential oil situation that this article focuses on. The topic of this article is only mentioned in the last paragraph. The species mentioned in the previous research are not the three main ones introduced in the article. Entering the topic should be more direct.
5. In Section 3, the entire paragraph about the physiological characteristics, varieties, and other aspects of the three plants can be briefly described, and it is not related to the theme of essential oils.
6. Carvone's structure has multiple representations in the text, such as (R)-(-)-carvone, (R)-carvone, L-carvone, (-)-Carvone, carvone. please unified them. In addition, there are a large number of Latin names for species in the text, please ensure they are correct and italicized.
7. “Sometimes, the bactericidal (MBC) or fungicidal (MFC) concentration is also assessed.” what about MBC and MFC mean?
8. “A range of antimicrobial activity of EOs constituents is as follows:...” do we really need these two paragraph?
9. There were many paragraphs to describe the results of one reference in one paragraph. The author need to get the points and reorganize them in a topic-related order.
10. The tables can be adjusted to more readable rather than several pages.
11. The basic Arthropods’ introduction at the first pargraph of part 5 is unnecessary.
12. The references citation and lists were not always follow the requests. Please checked carefully.
13. There is no line number to identify the revise parts. I’d like to mark some points in the PDF for later revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and provide suggestions for improving our manuscript. Based on your remarks, we have thoroughly reorganized and significantly reduced the manuscript, placing greater emphasis on the analysis than on the description of the literature data. Below are our responses to your suggestions.

 

Reviewer	Response
1. The review article should not be a list of references’ researches. It should let us know what already happened/have and what can/should we do later. But I don’t think the authors have or lead us to deeper thinking. Such as, what’s the current status, technical problems, solve methods, and application prospects of these EO?	Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. We have made every effort to summarize and organize the sources included in the review. We would also like to emphasize that the abundance of literature on this topic—particularly regarding antifungal and insecticidal activities—has made the process especially challenging. Nonetheless, we have strived to improve all aspects as much as possible.
2.  The article seems to organize lots of results in some order. But the order is a few confused. In Part 3, 4, 6, the order generally maintained as carvone and then essential oils of the three species. This order feels a bit strange. Sections 4, 5, and 6 can be merged into one part as “Biologically Activities”, and then introduced antifungal, antibacterial, insecticidal, acaricidal, nematicidal, herbicidal effects, separately. In each parts, arranged references in a unified and certain order. Nematodes do not belong to arthropods.	We have adjusted the text division in accordance with the valuable Reviewer’s comments.
3. In the abstract, the basic background should be mentioned and necessary information should be provided in concise and clear sentences. For example, I am more concerned about which families of plants carvone-rich essential oils come from, and then is which are the main sources. “They display strong antifungal and moderate antibacterial effects, effectively inhibiting numerous phytopathogenic fungi and certain bacteria.” weather means “They display strong antifungal effects to numerous phytopathogenic fungi, and moderate antibacterial effects to certain bacteria?” The keywords are not precise.	Thank you for the comment. All suggested changes have been incorporated into the abstract. The keywords were changed accordingly.
4. In Introduction, there is too much popularization of basic knowledge about essential oils, such as the third paragraph, where readers are more concerned about the essential oil situation that this article focuses on. The topic of this article is only mentioned in the last paragraph. The species mentioned in the previous research are not the three main ones introduced in the article. Entering the topic should be more direct.	Thank you for your valuable feedback. The Introduction has been revised to meet the Reviewer’s expectations better; the description of essential oils has been shortened, and the discussion of the topic has been made more direct, as suggested.
5. In Section 3, the entire paragraph about the physiological characteristics, varieties, and other aspects of the three plants can be briefly described, and it is not related to the theme of essential oils.	Thank you for your helpful comments. To improve clarity, we have removed the sections that address detailed botanical descriptions of species and their cultivars, as suggested by the Reviewer.
6. Carvone's structure has multiple representations in the text, such as (R)-(-)-carvone, (R)-carvone, L-carvone, (-)-Carvone, carvone. please unified them. In addition, there are a large number of Latin names for species in the text, please ensure they are correct and italicized.	Thank you for your suggestion. We intended to present carvone as it was described in the source article, so we have chosen not to modify this section.
7. “Sometimes, the bactericidal (MBC) or fungicidal (MFC) concentration is also assessed.” what about MBC and MFC mean?	This has been corrected, and the adequate passage has been shortened.
8. “A range of antimicrobial activity of EOs constituents is as follows:...” do we really need these two paragraph?	This and the next sentence have been removed.
9. There were many paragraphs to describe the results of one reference in one paragraph. The author need to get the points and reorganize them in a topic-related order.	Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the paragraphs to follow a more topic-related order, as recommended.
10. The tables can be adjusted to more readable rather than several pages.	Thank you for your suggestion. We split one table into two for better readability. We also suggest placing all tables horizontally in the text.
11. The basic Arthropods’ Introduction at the first paragraph of part 5 is unnecessary.	Thank you for this comment. The Introduction was condensed to the form that is necessary for this chapter.
12. The references citation and lists were not always follow the requests. Please checked carefully.	Citations and references have been corrected throughout the document.
13. There is no line number to identify the revise parts. I’d like to mark some points in the PDF for later revision.	This has been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments and suggestions are provided in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and provide suggestions for improving our manuscript. Below are our responses to your suggestions.

Response 1: The title has been changed according to the Reviewer's comment

Response 2: We shorten the description of essential oils. 

Response 3: We explained what makes this review different from the others that have been published to date.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. As noted in the Methods section, this is a narrative review. We have also clarified the principles used to select the studies included in this review. For those reasons, we could not include the PRISMA flow.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion; however, in our view, providing this data will not significantly affect the article's quality. Retention indexes are crucial data for identifying essential oil components. According to our knowledge, these data are publicly available (e.g., https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/name-ser/), and the database mentioned by the Reviewer.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment; however, in our opinion, adding the CAS, EINECS, SMILES, and InChIKey numbers to the manuscript is unnecessary, as this compound has a very simple structure and has been thoroughly described in the literature. The above-mentioned data are publicly available online (PubChem website and in the literature). Presenting them in the manuscript is pointless, as these data are unrelated to carvone's biological activity. Physicochemical data have been added to the manuscript (lines 103-105).

Resposne 7: Detailed information on specific regions of species cultivation or growth is beyond the scope of this review. Moreover, according to the other Reviewer's comment, we had to reduce the information in Chapter 3.

Response 8 and 9: Thank you for your suggestion. The structures were drawn independently by the authors using free software. References to the literature used for these structures are included in the manuscript.

Response 10: According to the Reviewer’s comment, the concentration used and the type of control were added to the ‘methods’ column in Table 5 - herbicidal activity.

Response 11: The botanical and zoological nomenclature for the insecticidal and nematocidal activities of essential oils is presented in the tables.

Response 12 and 13: The botanical and zoological nomenclature for the insecticidal and nematocidal activities of essential oils is presented in the tables.

Response 14: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to the Reviewer’s recommendation, we have added a brief description of the mechanism of herbicidal action to the paragraph discussing the herbicidal potential of carvone oils.

Since the review was not editable, we have attached the reviewers' suggestions and our responses in an additional file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article titled “Agrobiological interactions of carvone-rich essential oils – a review” presents a comprehensive and information-rich overview of agrobiological activities of carvone-rich essential oils. It compiles a large body of literature and demonstrates the broad biocidal potential of these materials. However, the review currently reads more as an exhaustive catalog of studies than as a focused, mechanistic, and critical synthesis.

The introduction is generally well framed, but the review does not consistently articulate a central hypothesis or guiding framework, such as structure–activity relationships, target specificity, or application scenarios in integrated pest management. As a result, the narrative remains largely descriptive rather than analytical. In the methodology section the relative weighting of in vitro versus in situ evidence is not explicitly discussed, which is important for a critical review.

The chemistry sections on carvone enantiomers and chemotypes are detailed and informative. However, they sometimes include agronomic or botanical details that do not clearly feed into biological relevance or practical application and could be condensed. Across biological sections, the review mainly reports MICs, LC50s, inhibition rates, and formulation effects study by study. Clear synthesis of patterns across pathogens, assay types, or matrices is limited. Comparative summaries, conceptual models, or quantitative ranges distinguishing strong from weak evidence would improve clarity.

The authors are encouraged to cite recent comprehensive work on chitosan-based encapsulation of essential oils (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141813025091081), which is highly relevant to the formulation and delivery sections of this review. This study provides mechanistic and translational insights into how biopolymer wall materials enhance stability, controlled release, and bioactivity, and would strengthen the discussion of coatings, films, and encapsulation strategies for carvone-rich systems.

Although the authors note comparability issues between diffusion and dilution assays, this caveat is not consistently used to qualify conclusions. Some striking numerical effects, such as very low MICs or strong aflatoxin suppression, are reported without sufficient discussion of experimental realism, dose feasibility, or matrix effects.

The discussion of formulations is a clear strength. However, formulation-dependent improvements are rarely compared across systems, and general design principles (when and why encapsulation is beneficial) are not clearly articulated. The insecticidal, acaricidal, and nematicidal sections demonstrate broad activity, but they mix agricultural and veterinary or public-health targets without clear separation of application domains, regulatory contexts, or risk–benefit considerations.

Mechanistic insights are scattered throughout the text. A dedicated section integrating known molecular and cellular mechanisms with observed phenotypes across taxa would substantially enhance the conceptual value of the review.

Claims regarding the relative activity of carvone enantiomers and comparisons with standard pesticides are sometimes made without consistent normalization for dose, exposure mode, or formulation. While the authors identify misinterpretations in the literature, these points could be used more effectively to propose minimum benchmarking or reporting standards.

The review appropriately highlights taxonomic and nomenclature errors in the literature. Consolidating these observations into explicit recommendations (e.g., mandatory GC–MS profiles, chiral analysis, voucher specimens) would strengthen the manuscript’s impact.

Although sustainability is emphasized, potential limitations are not rigorously addressed. These include phytotoxicity, non-target effects, resistance development, scalability of essential oil production, and environmental or economic costs.

In situ and commercial trial data are valuable but highly heterogeneous. The review does not clearly identify conditions under which essential-oil-based approaches approach the performance of synthetic standards.

Overall, the manuscript compiles an overview supporting the multi-target potential of carvone-rich essential oils. To meet the standards of a high-impact journal, it should shift from exhaustive reporting toward stronger critical synthesis, standardized comparison, and clearer translational guidance for agricultural deployment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and provide suggestions for improving our manuscript. Based on your remarks, we have thoroughly reorganized and significantly reduced the manuscript, placing greater emphasis on the analysis than on the description of the literature data. Below are our responses to your suggestions.

 

1. The Introduction is generally well framed, but the review does not consistently articulate a central hypothesis or guiding framework, such as structure–activity relationships, target specificity, or application scenarios in integrated pest management. As a result, the narrative remains largely descriptive rather than analytical. In the methodology section the relative weighting of in vitro versus in situ evidence is not explicitly discussed, which is important for a critical review.	Thank you for this comment. We attempted to separate in vitro from in situ evidence, especially for herbicidal activities.
2. The chemistry sections on carvone enantiomers and chemotypes are detailed and informative. However, they sometimes include agronomic or botanical details that do not clearly feed into biological relevance or practical application and could be condensed. Across biological sections, the review mainly reports MICs, LC50s, inhibition rates, and formulation effects study by study. Clear synthesis of patterns across pathogens, assay types, or matrices is limited. Comparative summaries, conceptual models, or quantitative ranges distinguishing strong from weak evidence would improve clarity.	Botanical details were removed from this review.
3.The authors are encouraged to cite recent comprehensive work on chitosan-based encapsulation of essential oils (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141813025091081), which is highly relevant to the formulation and delivery sections of this review. This study provides mechanistic and translational insights into how biopolymer wall materials enhance stability, controlled release, and bioactivity, and would strengthen the discussion of coatings, films, and encapsulation strategies for carvone-rich systems.	The indicated article and another one have been added.
4. Although the authors note comparability issues between diffusion and dilution assays, this caveat is not consistently used to qualify conclusions. Some striking numerical effects, such as very low MICs or strong aflatoxin suppression, are reported without sufficient discussion of experimental realism, dose feasibility, or matrix effects.	To avoid misinterpretation, we have shortened the description of the methods used in the assessment of antimicrobial activity and improved the description of the results.
5. The discussion of formulations is a clear strength. However, formulation-dependent improvements are rarely compared across systems, and general design principles (when and why encapsulation is beneficial) are not clearly articulated. The insecticidal, acaricidal, and nematicidal sections demonstrate broad activity, but they mix agricultural and veterinary or public-health targets without clear separation of application domains, regulatory contexts, or risk–benefit considerations.	Thank you for this comment. The veterinary or public-health targets were removed from the review. The benefits of encapsulation were explained in the Summary.
6. Mechanistic insights are scattered throughout the text. A dedicated section integrating known molecular and cellular mechanisms with observed phenotypes across taxa would substantially enhance the conceptual value of the review.	Due to differences in the actions of different pest types, the descriptions of the mechanisms have been expanded separately for each of them. We decided not to put all the mechanistic aspects in one chapter.
7. Claims regarding the relative activity of carvone enantiomers and comparisons with standard pesticides are sometimes made without consistent normalization for dose, exposure mode, or formulation. While the authors identify misinterpretations in the literature, these points could be used more effectively to propose minimum benchmarking or reporting standards.	An adequate explanatory passage has been added in the Conclusions.
8. The review appropriately highlights taxonomic and nomenclature errors in the literature. Consolidating these observations into explicit recommendations (e.g., mandatory GC–MS profiles, chiral analysis, voucher specimens) would strengthen the manuscript’s impact.	An adequate explanatory passage has been added in the Conclusions.
9. Although sustainability is emphasized, potential limitations are not rigorously addressed. These include phytotoxicity, non-target effects, resistance development, scalability of essential oil production, and environmental or economic costs.	Thank you for your observation. We have included the drawbacks of carvone-rich essential oils in our Summary, as suggested.
10. In situ and commercial trial data are valuable but highly heterogeneous. The review does not clearly identify conditions under which essential-oil-based approaches approach the performance of synthetic standards.	This review is based on data from scientific publications; therefore, any publication that did not include information on chemical control could not be included.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improve than the last version. Then I will directly state the review comments.  

1. I tried to adjust the order of sentences in Abstract to make it more clear, which perhaps due to the different writing models. Just for reference (No time for detailed modifications).

“Carvone-rich EOs exhibit a broad spectrum of protective effects against major agricultural threats. They display strong antifungal and moderate antibacterial effects, effectively inhibiting numerous phytopathogenic fungi. In pest management, these EOs show significant insecticidal, acaricidal, and repellent actions against various insects and mites. Furthermore, some EOs are highly effective against agricultural nematodes, suppressing mobility and egg hatching. Crucially, the EOs, and carvone specifically, demonstrate a strong capacity to suppress the germination and initial growth of many weed species, highlighting their viability as natural herbicides. This review analyzes the chemical composition, biological effects, and potential agricultural applications of carvone-rich essential oils (EOs), primarily sourced from Mentha spicata (Lamiace), Carum carvi (Apiaceae), and Anethum graveolens (Apiaceae). The biological activity of these EOs is significantly influenced by their specific composition, which varies among plant species and chemotypes. While EOs’ inherent volatility limits direct field application, this challenge is being successfully addressed by innovative formulation technologies, such as nanoemulsification and encapsulation, which enhance stability, durability, bioavailability, and targeted delivery. In conclusion, carvone-rich EOs offer safe, effective, and environmentally low-risk alternatives for the integrated management of pathogens, pests, and weeds in sustainable agriculture. They help reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and minimize the potential for resistance development.”

2. In Introduction, the main topic, “carvone”, appear too later until Line 69. One mistake, we review the carvone due to its importance rather than EOs are vital and carvoneunderexplored. Thus, the advantage of EO is necessary, but more attention to carvone shows excellent effects and potential.
3. Once you defined the abbreviations, use the abbr. in later manuscript, unless in some title or easy to confused. Including EO, CCEO, AGEO, MSEO, et al.
4. “231oC" and “25oC”in Line 104 should be “℃”.
5. In Line 146-147, you omitted the wrong CCEO references. What about the wrong “cumin oil”?
6. “Figure 2”in Line 181 should be Figure 3 and Figure 4 didn’t cite in text.
7. The section “4.1 Antifungal and Antibacterial Activity”is too long with many paragraph. Perhaps can divided into parts. Such as antifungal activity in vitro, antifungal activity in vivo/situ, antibacterial activity. Then the Table 2 could belong to the antibacterial activity parts.
8. The Table still too long to read. Many unnecessary information and repetitive information can be removed to make the table more clear. For example,

in Table 1, ref.51, Aspergillus and Fusarium could be short as “A.” or “F.” except for the first one. As well as the following names with a list of same genus name. 

List them with “,” “;” or “&” rather than one line for one species. The same could be used in results and methods. 

The last row for references could reduce column width, with title line be short as “Ref.”.

Moreover, what’s the order of the ref. examples? Could be adjusted to more clear. Such as purity compound, AGEO, CCEO, MSEO, in which catalog list as species name from A to Z.  

8. In Line 480-482, full name (abbr.name);
9. You have stat three bioassay methods: Contact Toxicity, Fumigant Toxicity, and Oral Toxicity. (in Line 450). So you can also order the ref. in related catalog in Table 3. “Contact toxicity:”or “Fumigant toxicity:”removed from the “Insecticidal effects”, as you stat in “Methods”. 24 h-LC₅₀ or LC₅₀/24 h “is” or “=”. one compound with different methods in effects use “CT, FT, OT” for short.
10. “4.2.3. Nematicidal effects”should be “4.3 Nematicidal effects”.
11. "derived primarily from caraway (C. carvi), dill (A. graveolens), and spearmint (M. spicata),"(in Line 693-694) can be removed.
12. Use AGEO, CCEO, MSEO, is OK in “4.3. Herbicidal activity”. What about MPEO in Line 729?
13. There’s three ref. 181 in Table 5, can they be integrated together?
14. check all over the manuscript to avoid grammatical error and extra spaces between words.

Author Response

1. The article has been improve than the last version. Then I will directly state the review comments.

I tried to adjust the order of sentences in Abstract to make it more clear, which perhaps due to the different writing models. Just for reference (No time for detailed modifications).

“Carvone-rich EOs exhibit a broad spectrum of protective effects against major agricultural threats. They display strong antifungal and moderate antibacterial effects, effectively inhibiting numerous phytopathogenic fungi. In pest management, these EOs show significant insecticidal, acaricidal, and repellent actions against various insects and mites. Furthermore, some EOs are highly effective against agricultural nematodes, suppressing mobility and egg hatching. Crucially, the EOs, and carvone specifically, demonstrate a strong capacity to suppress the germination and initial growth of many weed species, highlighting their viability as natural herbicides. This review analyzes the chemical composition, biological effects, and potential agricultural applications of carvone-rich essential oils (EOs), primarily sourced from Mentha spicata (Lamiace), Carum carvi (Apiaceae), and Anethum graveolens (Apiaceae). The biological activity of these EOs is significantly influenced by their specific composition, which varies among plant species and chemotypes. While EOs’ inherent volatility limits direct field application, this challenge is being successfully addressed by innovative formulation technologies, such as nanoemulsification and encapsulation, which enhance stability, durability, bioavailability, and targeted delivery. In conclusion, carvone-rich EOs offer safe, effective, and environmentally low-risk alternatives for the integrated management of pathogens, pests, and weeds in sustainable agriculture. They help reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and minimize the potential for resistance development.”

Response: Thank you for the excellent comment. The Abstract was modified according to this comment:

Carvone-rich EOs exhibit a broad spectrum of protective effects against major agricultural threats. They display strong antifungal and moderate antibacterial effects, effectively inhibiting numerous phytopathogenic fungi. In pest management, these EOs show significant insecticidal, acaricidal, and repellent actions against various insects and mites. Furthermore, some EOs are highly effective against agricultural nematodes, suppressing mobility and egg hatching. Crucially, the EOs, and carvone specifically, demonstrate a strong capacity to suppress the germination and initial growth of many weed species, highlighting their viability as natural herbicides. This review analyzes the chemical composition, biological effects, and potential agricultural applications of carvone-rich essential oils (EOs), primarily sourced from Mentha spicata (Lamiaceae), Carum carvi (Apiaceae), and Anethum graveolens (Apiaceae). The biological activity of these EOs is significantly influenced by their specific composition, which varies among plant species and chemotypes. While EOs’ inherent volatility limits direct field application, this challenge is being successfully addressed by innovative formulation technologies, such as nanoemulsification and encapsulation, which enhance stability, bioavailability, and targeted delivery. In conclusion, carvone-rich EOs offer effective and environmentally low-risk agents for the integrated management of pathogens, pests, and weeds in sustainable agriculture. They help reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and minimize the potential for resistance development.

2. In Introduction, the main topic, “carvone”, appear too later until Line 69. One mistake, we review the carvone due to its importance rather than EOs are vital and carvoneunderexplored. Thus, the advantage of EO is necessary, but more attention to carvone shows excellent effects and potential.

Response: It was corrected

 

3. Once you defined the abbreviations, use the abbr. in later manuscript, unless in some title or easy to confused. Including EO, CCEO, AGEO, MSEO, et al.

Response: That’s right. It was considered throughout the text.

 

4. “231oC" and “25oC”in Line 104 should be “℃”.

Response: It was corrected.

5. In Line 146-147, you omitted the wrong CCEO references. What about the wrong “cumin oil”?

Response: It was corrected. The wrong CCEO references are given in line 144, i.e. [21-24]

 

6. “Figure 2”in Line 181 should be Figure 3 and Figure 4 didn’t cite in text.

Response: It was corrected.

7. The section “4.1 Antifungal and Antibacterial Activity”is too long with many paragraph. Perhaps can divided into parts. Such as antifungal activity in vitro, antifungal activity in vivo/situ, antibacterial activity. Then the Table 2 could belong to the antibacterial activity parts.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. However following your previous suggestions, we have divided the microbiology table into two parts. Table 2 and the section on bacteria only contain is based on six references that is way we decided not to include an additional section. Furthermore, in its current form, it is consistent with the remaining sections of the article.

 

8. The Table still too long to read. Many unnecessary information and repetitive information can be removed to make the table more clear. For example, in Table 1, ref.51, Aspergillus and Fusarium could be short as “A.” or “F.” except for the first one. As well as the following names with a list of same genus name. List them with “,” “;” or “&” rather than one line for one species. The same could be used in results and methods.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Species names have been combined where possible. However, we have not abbreviated the microbial names because, to our knowledge, the table should be readable without reading the chapter.

9. The last row for references could reduce column width, with title line be short as “Ref.”.

Response: It was corrected.

10. Moreover, what’s the order of the ref. examples? Could be adjusted to more clear. Such as purity compound, AGEO, CCEO, MSEO, in which catalog list as species name from A to Z.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion, unfortunately at this stage of creating the manuscript it was not possible.

11. In Line 480-482, full name (abbr.name);

Response: It was corrected.

12. You have stat three bioassay methods: Contact Toxicity, Fumigant Toxicity, and Oral Toxicity. (in Line 450). So you can also order the ref. in related catalog in Table 3. “Contact toxicity:”or “Fumigant toxicity:”removed from the “Insecticidal effects”, as you stat in “Methods”. 24 h-LC50 or LC50/24 h “is” or “=”. one compound with different methods in effects use “CT, FT, OT” for short.

Response: Thank you again for your excellent comments. All comments have been carefully considered, except one: the ordering of references based on bioassays is not possible. Some references presented more than one method.

13. “4.2.3. Nematicidal effects”should be “4.3 Nematicidal effects”.

Response: That’s right. Modified.

14. "derived primarily from caraway (C. carvi), dill (A. graveolens), and spearmint (M. spicata),"(in Line 693-694) can be removed.

Response: It was removed.

15. Use AGEO, CCEO, MSEO, is OK in “4.3. Herbicidal activity”. What about MPEO in Line 729?

Response: Thank you for this comment. The abbreviation was explained in full: Mentha piperita EO.

16. There’s three ref. 181 in Table 5, can they be integrated together?

Response: Thank you for this comment. No, the references cannot be integrated. In the cited study the authors tested 4 pure compounds (including carvone - the first time cited in the table), then caraway oil (second citation in table), and Mentha spicata oil (third citation in table).

17. Check all over the manuscript to avoid grammatical error and extra spaces between words.

Response: It was corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all comments from the previous reviewers, reflecting careful attention to detail and a strong commitment to manuscript improvement. The work now meets the expected standards of scientific quality and rigor for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your worthy comments, improving our manuscript.