You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Vladan Ivetić1,*,
  • Marianthi Tsakaldimi2 and
  • Jovana Devetaković1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript is a modified version of a previous submission. The authors have carefully followed the suggestions given during the last review.

Author Response

Authors’ want to thank you for the suggestions. Your suggestions were very useful and help us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors because they accepted everything that was suggested. Also, I would like to thank the authors for the precise answers and explanations. Revised manuscript is interesting and useful for the scientific community. I am glad that the authors appreciated my comments and that I had contributed from my side for this very interesting publication.

Some minor issues:

  1. It is recommended to use the citation of the map at Figure 1.
  2. The authors should mention the number of replications per treatment and the number of plants per each treatment.
  3. Table 3 is double printed in this version and I couldn’t check it.
  4. At table 4 the letters of the comparison of means are missing, or a part of the Table is missing.

Author Response

Authors’ want to thank you for the suggestions. Your suggestions were very useful and help us to improve the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: It is recommended to use the citation of the map at Figure 1.

Response 1: Authors’ added resource of the map.

Point 2: The authors should mention the number of replications per treatment and the number of plants per each treatment.

Response 2: Number of samples was described in section Materials and methods (subsection 2.2.1. and 2.2.2.and 2.3.) and it was different for each treatment.

Point 3: Table 3 is double printed in this version and I couldn’t check it.

Response 3: In last version of the manuscript situation with Table 3 is correct.

Point 4: At table 4 the letters of the comparison of means are missing, or a part of the Table is missing.

Response 4: In last version of the manuscript situation with Table 4 is correct. The letters of the comparison means were missed only where there were not observed statistically significant differentiation.