Review Reports - Chitosan and Brassinosteroids Mitigate Ion Imbalance and Enhancing Stolon Production in Strawberry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript systematically evaluates for the first time the physiological regulatory effects of CTS, BRs, and TDZ on stolon production in strawberry under salt stress. It identifies that BRs alone (2.53 µM) yielded the optimal results, significantly enhancing the crown diameter of mother plants, stolon number/length, daughter plant count, and reducing leaf sodium accumulation. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed.

Abstract: Results need to highlight key data. A brief statement on the research significance should be added at the end of the abstract.
Avoid redundant descriptions: Once specific treatments (e.g., Treatment 1: CTS [1.96533927 µM]) are defined in the Materials and Methods section, subsequent sections should refer simply to "Treatment X" without repeating the full details.
Scientific nomenclature: On line 429 (and throughout the text where applicable), ensure species names are italicized (e.g., Zea mays L.). Check the entire manuscript for similar issues.
Repetitive phrasing: The frequent repetition of "compared to the control" can be replaced with "compared to CK" (where CK is defined as the control group).
Discussion structure: The Discussion section is lengthy. It is suggested to organize it into subsections with subheadings.

Author Response

For research article:

Chitosan and Brassinosteroids Enhance Salt Tolerance and Stolon Production in Strawberry

Response to Reviewer X Comments
Reviewers, the authors greatly appreciate your time, dedication, and support in reviewing this manuscript and refining our work. Below, you will find detailed responses and corresponding corrections and changes in the submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved	We have modified the introduction and rewritten it
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	We have modified the references accordin to the new manuscript
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved	We have joined in Figure 2, three results Figures
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Must be improved	We have modified the conclusions and rewritten it
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors REVIEWER 1.
Comments 1: Abstract: Results need to highlight key data. A brief statement on the research significance should be added at the end of the abstract.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have changed the abstract according to your instructions.
Comments 2: Avoid redundant descriptions: Once specific treatments (e.g., Treatment 1: CTS [1.96533927 µM]) are defined in the Materials and Methods section, subsequent sections should refer simply to "Treatment X" without repeating the full details.
Response 2: Thank you for this comment. We coincide. We have modified to the treatment X without repeating the full details
Comments 3: Scientific nomenclature: On line 429 (and throughout the text where applicable), ensure species names are italicized (e.g., Zea mays L.).
Response 3. We agree with this comment. Thank you for your comment. We have corrected this part
Comments 4: Check the entire manuscript for similar issues. Repetitive phrasing: The frequent repetition of "compared to the control" can be replaced with "compared to CK" (where CK is defined as the control group). Response 4. Thank you for this comment, We have replaced compared to the control with compared to CK
Comment 5. The Discussion section is lengthy. It is suggested to organize it into subsections with subheadings Response 5. Thank you. We have modified this part. We organize the discussion into sections and subheadings.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Prof. Ms. Cecily Tan

Assistant Editor

Int. J. Plant Biol.

Please find enclosed my revision of the Manuscript ID: ijpb-3797071 Manuscript title: Effect of Foliar Application of Chitosan and Brassinosteroids 3 on Physiological Attributes and Stolon Production in Straw- 4 berry Under Salt Stress

The paper suffers from some drawbacks that may be rejected. I highly encourage the authors to carefully review the manuscript point by point to clarify some issues and ultimately improve it. Please see the attachment file

There are some problems with this manuscript

The quality of written English is poor throughout the manuscript. Many statements are nonsensical. There are many linguistic and formatting mistakes. I suggest the authors completely rewrite the manuscript and get it proofread by native English speakers.
The title must be changed there, as no salt stress is used in this experiment.
The abstract is general and descriptive and needs to be rewritten. Add a final concluding sentence to the end of the abstract (This has to be extracted from your results and discussion).
In abstract, the author indicates 24 % salt, which is so high concentration equal to 240000 mg/l, while seawater ranges 40000-50000 mg/l, and also the research results did not include any salt stress (soil or irrigation water)
The introduction lacks an in-depth presentation of data available in the literature that would provide the basis to justify the importance of the work.
In some places in the manuscript, the author used unsuitable words, like line 23 chlorophyll a protection, which should be chlorophyll a concentration. Also, line 210, the word Talolases…..Please revise the whole manuscript.
The authors used unsuitable references as they used more references interested to fruit trees; they should have used herbaceous plants
Please do not start any sentences with abbreviations or numbers.
Please, explain all abbreviations in the legends of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all abbreviations used must be clearly explained. Please double-check all tables and/or figures.
The selected concentration and treatment are not scientifically true, for example, the interactions between chitosan and BRs without TDZ, also the different concentrations in combination treatments differ from the sole treatment
Please revise the letters in the tables. Same values have different letters. How?
Line 260, I expected that there was a missing sentence
Please indicate the ecological condition throughout the experimental time
The discussion is poor; it must be rewritten with a concentration on the outcomes of your manuscript as well as other references. In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this, since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.

Yours

Dear Prof. Ms. Cecily Tan

Assistant Editor

Int. J. Plant Biol.

There are some problems with this manuscript

The quality of written English is poor throughout the manuscript. Many statements are nonsensical. There are many linguistic and formatting mistakes. I suggest the authors completely rewrite the manuscript and get it proofread by native English speakers.
The title must be changed there, as no salt stress is used in this experiment.
The abstract is general and descriptive and needs to be rewritten. Add a final concluding sentence to the end of the abstract (This has to be extracted from your results and discussion).
In abstract, the author indicates 24 % salt, which is so high concentration equal to 240000 mg/l, while seawater ranges 40000-50000 mg/l, and also the research results did not include any salt stress (soil or irrigation water)
The introduction lacks an in-depth presentation of data available in the literature that would provide the basis to justify the importance of the work.
In some places in the manuscript, the author used unsuitable words, like line 23 chlorophyll a protection, which should be chlorophyll a concentration. Also, line 210, the word Talolases…..Please revise the whole manuscript.
The authors used unsuitable references as they used more references interested to fruit trees; they should have used herbaceous plants
Please do not start any sentences with abbreviations or numbers.
Please, explain all abbreviations in the legends of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all abbreviations used must be clearly explained. Please double-check all tables and/or figures.
The selected concentration and treatment are not scientifically true, for example, the interactions between chitosan and BRs without TDZ, also the different concentrations in combination treatments differ from the sole treatment
Please revise the letters in the tables. Same values have different letters. How?
Line 260, I expected that there was a missing sentence
Please indicate the ecological condition throughout the experimental time
The discussion is poor; it must be rewritten with a concentration on the outcomes of your manuscript as well as other references. In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this, since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.

Yours

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

Comment 1. The title must be changed there, as no salt stress is used in this experiment.

Response 1. Thank you for this comment. We have now modified the title of our study.

Comment 2. The abstract is general and descriptive and needs to be rewritten. Add a final concluding sentence to the end of the abstract (This has to be extracted from your results and discussion).

Response 2. We appreciate your comment to improve our work and have modified the text of the abstract.

Comment 3. In abstract, the author indicates 24 % salt, which is so high concentration equal to 240000 mg/l, while seawater ranges 40000-50000 mg/l, and also the research results did not include any salt stress (soil or irrigation water)

Response 3. We greatly appreciate your comment. The state of Chihuahua has desert-like soils lacking organic matter in severe drought conditions and high sodium concentrations. This type of soil was analyzed in the soil laboratory and used for this study.

Comment 4. The introduction lacks an in-depth presentation of data available in the literature that would provide the basis to justify the importance of the work. In some places in the manuscript.

Response 4. Thank you very much for your comment. We have worked on and restructured the introduction text and rewritten it.

Comment 5. the author used unsuitable words, like line 23 chlorophyll a protection, which should be chlorophyll a concentration. Also, line 210, the word Talolases…..

Response 5. We appreciate your comments. We have corrected the vocabulary used in our study.

Comment 6. The authors used unsuitable references as they used more references interested to fruit trees; they should have used herbaceous plants

Response 6. Thank you very much for your observation, we have been working on focusing on herbaceous plants and recient references

Comment 7. Please do not start any sentences with abbreviations or numbers. Please, explain all abbreviations in the legends of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all abbreviations used must be clearly explained.

Response 7. Thank you for your feedback. We've removed abbreviations and numbers from the beginning of sentences. We have explained all the abbreviations in all the Figures and Tables

Comment 8. Please double-check all tables and/or figures. The selected concentration and treatment are not scientifically true, for example, the interactions between chitosan and BRs without TDZ, also the different concentrations in combination treatments differ from the sole treatment

Response 8. Thank you for your comment. All the tables and figures were double checked to ensure consistent across the document. In combination treatments BRs and CTS doses were adjusted relative to their sole applications based on preliminary trials to avoid excesive hormone levels. TDZ was tested only as a possitive control; combinations of this hormone with CTS and BRs were outsite the scope of this study. We will addressed in future works. We have added a justification in the methods section explaining why the concentrations in combination treatments differ from sole applications and why Thidiazuron was tested alone.

Comment 9. Please revise the letters in the tables. Same values have different letters. How?

Response 9. We really appreciate this observation. The apparent discrepancy between means that share the same rounded value but have different significance letters is due to rounding in the table. The statistical analysis was performed on the original, unrounded data, and significant differences were found at the reported significance level. To clarify this, we have added a note to the tables indicating that the statistical analysis was conducted on unrounded data, and rounding may result in identical displayed means having different letters.

Comment 10. Line 260, I expected that there was a missing sentence

Response 10. Thank you for your feedback. We've rewritten the Tables and Figures caption and the according text.

Comment 11. Please indicate the ecological condition throughout the experimental time

Response 11. We greatly appreciate your comment. The state of Chihuahua has desert-like soils lacking organic matter in severe drought conditions and high sodium concentrations. This type of soil was analyzed in the soil laboratory and used for this study.

Comment 12. The discussion is poor; it must be rewritten with a concentration on the outcomes of your manuscript as well as other references

Response 12. Thank you for your important correction. We restructured and rewrote the discussion.

Comment 13. In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this, since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result.

Response 13. We appreciate your feedback in improving our work. We've highlighted the importance of our work by describing the results through the mechanisms. Therefore, we've restructured the conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled “Effect of Foliar Application of Chitosan and Brassinosteroids on Physiological Attributes and Stolon Production in Strawberry Under Salt Stress” submitted by Martínez-Pérez et al. investigated the efficacy of chitosan (CTS), brassinosteroids (BRs), and thidiazuron (TDZ) in mitigating salt stress (24.7% soil Na⁺) effects on strawberry physiology and stolon production. While the topic aligns well with Int. J. Plant Biol.'s scope on plant stress responses, the manuscript requires major revisions to address methodological gaps, data presentation issues, and incomplete sections. The core findings demonstrate biological significance but lack sufficient context and robustness for acceptance in the current form.

1, The title is overly lengthy and can be condensed to "Chitosan and Brassinosteroids Enhance Salt Tolerance and Stolon Production in Strawberry".

2, The literature cited in the introduction is outdated. It is recommended to supplement with research progress on the physiological mechanisms of strawberries under salt stress in the past three years, such as ROS regulation and ion homeostasis genes.

3, The legend of Figure 5 is too simple and not clear enough. And I also think Figures 2, 3 and 5 don't need to be so large. They can be shrunk and placed on a single panel.

4, The discussion is evidently lacking in depth, as it fails to correlate physiological data with morphological phenotypes for analysis. For instance, how does BRs promote stolon growth by increasing the Mg²⁺/Na⁺ ratio? More literature is needed to elaborate on these points. Furthermore, I suggest the author incorporate similar research results from other crops into the discussion for a deeper comparison.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment 1. The manuscript requires major revisions to address methodological gaps, data presentation issues, and incomplete sections. The core findings demonstrate biological significance but lack sufficient context and robustness for acceptance in the current form.

Response 1. We greatly appreciate your comment. We have modified the content of the manuscript, focusing on your revisions.

Comment 2. The title is overly lengthy and can be condensed to "Chitosan and Brassinosteroids Enhance Salt Tolerance and Stolon Production in Strawberry".

Response 2. We have modified the title and we chose the title suggested according to the Reviewer 1 recommendation.

Comment 3. The literature cited in the introduction is outdated. It is recommended to supplement with research progress on the physiological mechanisms of strawberries under salt stress in the past three years, such as ROS regulation and ion homeostasis genes.

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have updated the introduction to include recent research from the past three years on the physiological mechanisms of strawberries under salt stress, focusing on ROS regulation and ion homeostasis genes (see introduction paragraphs 3). We believe this strengthens the context and relevance of our study."

Comment 4. The legend of Figure 5 is too simple and not clear enough. And I also think Figures 2, 3 and 5 don't need to be so large. They can be shrunk and placed on a single panel.

Response 4. We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestions. We have revised the legend of Figure 5 to make it more detailed and clearer. In addition, Figures 2, 3, and 5 have been resized and arranged on a single panel to improve readability and presentation. They are presented in Figure 2

Comment 6. The discussion is evidently lacking in depth, as it fails to correlate physiological data with morphological phenotypes for analysis. For instance, how does BRs promote stolon growth by increasing the Mg²⁺/Na⁺ ratio? More literature is needed to elaborate on these points.

Response 6. We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation and support in improving our study. In the revised version, we have expanded the discussion to better integrate the physiological and morphological aspects. Specifically, we now explain how brassinosteroids (BRs) enhance stolon growth under salinity by improving ionic homeostasis. The increase in the Mg²⁺/Na⁺ and K⁺/Na⁺ ratios contributes to maintaining enzyme activity, chlorophyll stability, and photosynthetic efficiency, which in turn provides the energy and metabolic resources necessary for stolon elongation. By reducing Na⁺ toxicity and sustaining Mg²⁺-dependent metabolic processes, BRs support both cellular integrity and energy allocation toward stolon development. We have included relevant references to support this explanation (Discussion Paragraph 2).

Comment 7. I suggest the author incorporate similar results from other crops into tehe discussion for deeper comparision.

Response 7. Thank you or your comment. We incorporated similar results from other crops in the discussion.

The authors greatly appreciate each reviewer's input and comments to improve our study and publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made good revisions to the paper, answered the reviewer's questions, and paid attention to some details.

1. Table 6: Incorrect deletion of "3".
2. It is recommended to add error bars to the bar chart.

Author Response

Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEWER 1.

Comments 1: Table 6: Incorrect deletion of "3".

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We have corrected it.

Comment 2: It is recommended to add error bars to the bar chart.

Response 2: Thank you for your correction. We did it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Prof. Ms. Cecily Tan

Assistant Editor

Int. J. Plant Biol.

Please find enclosed my revision of the Manuscript ID: ijpb-3797071 Manuscript title: Chitosan and Brassinosteroids Enhance Salt Tolerance and Sto- 3

lon Production in Strawberry

The paper suffers from some drawbacks that may need major modification and resubmission. I highly encourage the authors to carefully review point by point to clarify some issues and eventually improve the manuscript.

There are some problems with this manuscript

The quality of written English is improved, but it needs more revision. Many statements do not make any sense at all.
As indicated before in the 1^st revision, the title must be changed there is no salt stress used in this experiment. There is no salinity condition or saline water in the current study.
The introduction lacks an in-depth presentation of data available in the literature that would provide the basis to justify the importance of the work.
Lines 128-135, there are more explanations of the molecular signal; meanwhile, the manuscript did not investigate the molecular responses
Please do not start any sentences with abbreviations or numbers.
Please, explain all abbreviations in the legends of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all abbreviations used must be clearly explained. Please double-check all tables and/or figures.
The selected concentration and treatment are not scientifically true, for example, the used interactions between chitosan and BRs without TDZ, also the used different concentrations in combination treatments differ from the sole treatment. I suggest that you select 4 treatments: 1) Control, 2) BRs at 2.53 X10^-6 μM, 3) CTS at 1.96533927 μM, 4) CTS + BRs [1.96533927 μM + 2.53 X10-6 μM], and restastical analysis and rewrite the result section.
Please revise the chlorophyll equation; it may be incorrect.
Lines 324-336 must be deleted, especially since the nutrient deficiency observation is not accurate; for example, a deficiency of potassium or extra sodium and chloride may introduce the same indicators.
The discussion is poor; it must be rewritten with a concentration on the outcomes of your manuscript as well as other references. In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this, since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.
In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.

Yours

Dear Prof. Ms. Cecily Tan

Assistant Editor

Int. J. Plant Biol.

Please find enclosed my revision of the Manuscript ID: ijpb-3797071 Manuscript title: Chitosan and Brassinosteroids Enhance Salt Tolerance and Sto- 3

lon Production in Strawberry

There are some problems with this manuscript

The quality of written English is improved, but it needs more revision. Many statements do not make any sense at all.
As indicated before in the 1^st revision, the title must be changed there is no salt stress used in this experiment. There is no salinity condition or saline water in the current study.
The introduction lacks an in-depth presentation of data available in the literature that would provide the basis to justify the importance of the work.
Lines 128-135, there are more explanations of the molecular signal; meanwhile, the manuscript did not investigate the molecular responses
Please do not start any sentences with abbreviations or numbers.
Please, explain all abbreviations in the legends of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all abbreviations used must be clearly explained. Please double-check all tables and/or figures.
The selected concentration and treatment are not scientifically true, for example, the used interactions between chitosan and BRs without TDZ, also the used different concentrations in combination treatments differ from the sole treatment. I suggest that you select 4 treatments: 1) Control, 2) BRs at 2.53 X10^-6 μM, 3) CTS at 1.96533927 μM, 4) CTS + BRs [1.96533927 μM + 2.53 X10-6 μM], and restastical analysis and rewrite the result section.
Please revise the chlorophyll equation; it may be incorrect.
Lines 324-336 must be deleted, especially since the nutrient deficiency observation is not accurate; for example, a deficiency of potassium or extra sodium and chloride may introduce the same indicators.
The discussion is poor; it must be rewritten with a concentration on the outcomes of your manuscript as well as other references. In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this, since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.
In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarised in the conclusion. Kindly summarise this since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.

Yours

Author Response

Comment 1: The quality of written English is improved, but it needs more revision. Many statements do not make any sense at all.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. The translation service will surely be requested.

Comments 2: As indicated before in the 1^st revision, the title must be changed, as there is no salt stress used in this experiment. There is no salinity condition or saline water in the current study.

Response 2: We coincide. We have modified Chitosan and Brassinosteroids to Mitigate Ion Imbalance and enhance stolon Production in Strawberry

Comments 3: The introduction lacks an in-depth presentation of data available in the literature that would provide the basis to justify the importance of the work.

Response 3. The introduction has explained the basis of our work.

Comments 4: Lines 128-135, There are more explanations of the molecular signal; meanwhile, the manuscript did not investigate the molecular responses

Response 4. Thank you for this comment. On lines 128-135, molecular explanations were included at the suggestion of Reviewer number 3. “The literature cited in the introduction is outdated. It is recommended to supplement with research progress on the physiological mechanisms of strawberries under salt stress in the past three years, such as ROS regulation and ion homeostasis genes.

Comment 5. Please do not start any sentences with abbreviations or numbers.

Response 5. Thank you. We have carefully reviewed this part.

Comment 6. Please, explain all abbreviations in the legends of tables and figures. Remember that tables and figures must be self-explanatory. That is, all abbreviations used must be clearly explained. Please double-check all tables and/or figures.

Response 6. Thank you for this comment. We have addressed your important observation.

Comment 7. The selected concentration and treatment are not scientifically true, for example, the interactions between chitosan and BRs used without TDZ, and the different concentrations used in combination treatments differ from the sole treatment. I suggest that you select 4 treatments: 1) Control, 2) BRs at 2.53 10^-6 μM, 3) CTS at 1.96533927 μM, 4) CTS + BRs [1.96533927 μM + 2.53 10^-6 μM], and restastistical analysis and rewrite the result section.

Response 7. Thank you for your feedback. In our future works, we will follow your kind suggestion. In this essay, TDZ was tested only as a positive control; combinations of this hormone with CTS and BRs were outside the scope of this study. We will address your suggestions in future work

Comment 8. Please revise the chlorophyll equation; it may be incorrect.

Response 8. This equation for determining chlorophyll has been reported in several works.

Comment 9. Lines 324-336 must be deleted, especially since the nutrient deficiency observation is not accurate; for example, a deficiency of potassium or extra sodium and chloride may introduce the same indicators.

Response 9. Thank you. We have deleted the paragraph.

Comment 10. The discussion is poor; it must be rewritten with a concentration on the outcomes of your manuscript as well as other references.

Response 10. Thank you for your observation. We have modified the last part of the discussion, and we have added other references.

Comment 11. In the study's conclusion, the authors neglect to emphasize the significance of the research and the unique lessons that readers might take away from it. Furthermore, the idea of the main processes is not summarized in the conclusion. Kindly summarize this since the primary goal of any scientific paper is to identify potential processes in addition to describing the result. We can strengthen or enhance the influences if we are aware of the mechanisms. We are prone to error if we are ignorant of the mechanism. Please rephrase carefully, emphasizing the most significant conclusion or suggestion.

Response 11. Thank you for this observation. We have written the mechanisms and rephrased the conclusion.

The authors greatly appreciate each reviewer's input and comments to improve our study and publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments.

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the input and comments from each reviewer, which have helped improve our study and publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf