The Field Cultivation Index, a New Method for Assessing Agricultural Practices’ Sustainability and Moving Towards Regenerative Agriculture—Application to Cosmetic Supply Chains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

An article with fine methodology, about a new evaluation tool - Field Cultivation Index, and moving towards regenerative agriculture in cosmetic supply chains. Maybe the authors agree to improve and increase the value of MS:

In lines 53-54, add a connection to the aim of sustainable development by reducing the negative impact of the Technosphere on the Biosphere.

In lines 366-368, add a point about further selection.

Yours faithfully,  

Author Response

Comment 1 : In lines 53-54, add a connection to the aim of sustainable development by reducing the negative impact of the Technosphere on the Biosphere.

Agree, the texte is adapted as follows : Many agricultural models aim to reduce their environmental impact (reasoned, extensive, precision, etc.) in order to promote sustainable development by mitigating the negative effects of the Technosphere on the Biosphere. These approaches are intended to reconcile human technological activities with ecological integrity, reducing resource depletion, pollution, and biodiversity loss, thereby contributing to long-term environmental resilience (Steffen et al., 2015)

The reference : Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98.

Comment 2 : In lines 366-368, add a point about further selection.

Agree, the texte is adapted as follows : Finally, the FCI evaluates 31 agricultural practices that are valid in all contexts. These practices were selected based on their relevance to regenerative agriculture, following a review of the literature. Further selection and addition of complementary practices could be considered to enhance the specificity and comprehensiveness of the evaluation. However, this would also risk increasing the complexity and reducing the operational functionality of the tool, potentially making it less accessible and user-friendly for field stakeholders. The strength of the FCI lies precisely in this balance: it provides sufficiently precise and relevant information to guide decision-making while remaining simple, practical, and applicable in diverse agricultural contexts.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper described the Field Cultivation Index (FCI) methodology and exposes the initial results from the evaluation of about 40 diversified cultural systems. The main shortcomings are as follows:

(1) The paper should further elaborate on the basis for setting indicator weights, so that readers can better understand and evaluate their rationality.

(2) Why doesn't the paper consider social and economic benefits?

(3) What are the advantages of our method compared to the latest existing methods? The paper should provide relevant comparative analysis.

(4) Long-term impact studies should be added.

Author Response

Comments 1 : The paper should further elaborate on the basis for setting indicator weights, so that readers can better understand and evaluate their rationality.

Answer : The weights for the categories and practices were essentially determined by bibliography and expert appraisal. The approach used is summarised in sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. 
In addition, in paragraph 2.1.2. of the manuscript, we have added the following reference to our approach: "As before, this classification is based on technical and scientific literature (references summarised in Table 1) and expert opinion."

Comments 2 : Why doesn't the paper consider social and economic benefits?

One potential development and improvement of the FCI tool could indeed involve the integration of social considerations. However, methods for assessing social benefits are already well-developed and widely implemented in many organizations, including ours. As mentioned in the manuscript, we have referred to the specific methodology developed within our organization for this purpose. At this stage, the FCI should therefore be considered as a complementary tool to these existing social assessment frameworks, with a specific focus on sustainable agricultural practices. Its current design allows it to provide targeted information on agricultural practices without duplicating existing social evaluation tools, thereby maintaining clarity, specificity, and operational simplicity.

Regarding economic considerations, the main limitation lies in the potential complexity of data collection. Economic data are often unavailable, highly variable depending on context, or subject to confidentiality constraints, which could hinder the operational applicability of the tool across diverse farming systems worldwide. Also, the supplier-customer relationship can make the sharing of economic and accounting information all the more complicated. Integrating such data would risk making the tool less accessible, less practical, and potentially less usable for field actors operating under different socio-economic conditions. The strength of the FCI lies precisely in its ability to remain simple, flexible, and applicable in various agricultural contexts while providing sufficiently relevant and robust information to guide decision-making.

We propose to add in line 105 the following text : To date, FCI does not address social aspects, which are already managed by tools developed and implemented within organizations.  Integrating social and also economic dimensions into the FCI would risk increasing the complexity of data collection, particularly due to the potential unavailability or confidentiality of information. Such an extension could reduce the tool’s operational simplicity and its applicability across diverse farming systems. However, the inclusion of these considerations could be explored as a potential improvement in future developments of the tool, provided that its usability and accessibility for field stakeholders are preserved

Comments 3 : What are the advantages of our method compared to the latest existing methods? The paper should provide relevant comparative analysis.

"As previously mentioned in the manuscript (notably around line 120 and in the opening of the conclusion), the FCI method has features that are indispensable for its use in international supply chains, and which other methods do not display. While a full comparison of methods is indeed important, it typically requires a separate study and is often carried out by independent researchers to avoid conflicts of interest. In addition, we hope that the revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments will help to clarify the distinctions between the FCI and other tools."

Comments 4 : Long-term impact studies should be added.

This point is already acknowledged in the discussion section : “Quantitative measurements to confirm the positive impact of the deployed resources. For example, specific soil, water, and biodiversity measurements can be used to correlate efforts made over time with quantitative results and impacts.“

The FCI is designed as a qualitative assessment tool that evaluates the agricultural practices applied within a production system, rather than measuring direct outcomes or long-term impacts. To validate the actual effects of these practices over time—such as improvements in soil health, water quality, or biodiversity—quantitative field measurements are essential. Such measurements, using dedicated tools and protocols (e.g., soil analyses, biodiversity surveys, water quality monitoring), provide a snapshot of the state of the system at a given time (t) but do not indicate whether the system is on an improving or degrading trajectory. This is precisely the added value of the FCI: by assessing the deployment of good agricultural practices, it allows for an evaluation of the expected trend or direction of change. Therefore, these two approaches—quantitative impact measurement and qualitative practice assessment—are complementary and should ideally be used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both current system status and its potential evolution.

We propose to complete the text in the manuscript as follows : Quantitative measurements to confirm the positive impact of the deployed resources. For example, specific soil, water, and biodiversity measurements can be used to correlate efforts made over time with quantitative results and impacts. However, such quantitative measurements provide only a snapshot of the system's status at a given time and do not capture the trajectory of change. In this respect, the FCI offers a complementary perspective by evaluating the potential direction of system evolution based on the implementation of agricultural practices. The combination of both approaches enables a comprehensive assessment of current system performance and its expected development over time.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposed a field cultivation index (FCI) to assess agricultural practices sustainability.

The study is well-structured and reflects the purpose and significance of the research. It explains the importance of assessing agricultural sustainability and provides the possible application of the FCI and regenerative agriculture.

The conclusion meets the requirements of publication. However, a major revision is needed before publication. Below are some suggestions for improvement.

Major points:

1. There is no data or strong connection between the FCI and cosmetic supply chains (unclear relationship and connection). I suggest modifying the title and conclusion accordingly.
2. In the whole manuscript, the term "cultural systems" could be misinterpreted; I suggest replacing it with "cropping systems" or "agricultural systems".
3. In the abstract, it would be much better if the authors presented some of the initial results from the evaluation of about 40 diversified systems to make findings more compelling.
4. L88 in the introduction, if possible, give a brief description of the Field Cultivation Index (FCI).
5. In the whole manuscript and Figure 1, there is confusion about whether the authors used 31 or 40 agricultural practices; please verify.
6. Testing a small number of crops (only 12 crops) for the FCI assessment may not cover different agricultural contexts.
7. The results in Figure 3 did not consistently support the hypothesis of this study that organic agricultural systems are always better than conventional ones in guaranteeing sustainability. Please clarify.
8. Testing the FCI tool on different producers through interviews or questionnaires was not explained in the methods section. Besides, the information collected from this is not presented in the manuscript.
9. There are still questions about the lack of specific numerical data on soil type and analysis, or statistics on biodiversity, or the type and quantity of pesticides used, or the amount of carbon emitted. It would be much better if the authors incorporated some quantitative data (e.g., soil tests, biodiversity indices) to complement qualitative scoring.
10. In the discussion section, the authors did not compare the proposed assessment method (FCI) with other methods and did not show the advantages of the FCI and why it is better than the other methods.
11. The study did not track changes or improvements over time to assess the sustainability of using the FCI in agriculture.
12. Although the authors discussed the limitations of the FCI, they did not give suggestions on how to overcome these problems.
13. The conclusion is too long and needs to be shortened and precise.

 

Minor points:

1. L152: see point 2.2. below.
2. L160: (Table 2).
3. L189 and Figure 2, the FCI value needs to be rechecked if it is 58 or 57.
4. The caption of Figure 3 is confusing, it should explain what the letters (A, B, C, and D) stand for.

Author Response

Comments 1 : There is no data or strong connection between the FCI and cosmetic supply chains (unclear relationship and connection). I suggest modifying the title and conclusion accordingly.

Thank for this comment, with which we do agree: our methodology is not purely linked to cosmetic supply chains. Nevertheless, such supply chains are unique due to their very diverse varieties of crops (from cereals, to flowers, to trees or specialties for perfumes), pedoclimatic contexts in which they are cultivated (arid, temperate, tropical…), as well agricultural practices and size of farms. In that context, the aim of our method, is to cover all these specificities with a simple and single tool.

We have adapted the title of our manuscrit as follow : Field Cultivation Index, a new method for assessing agricultural practices sustainability of crops cultivation systems diversity within, for instance, cosmetic supply chains and moving towards regenerative agriculture . Also, we have qualified the notion of ‘cosmetics’ in our manuscript to open up perspectives beyond this supply chain.

Comment 2 : In the whole manuscript, the term "cultural systems" could be misinterpreted; I suggest replacing it with "cropping systems" or "agricultural systems".

Agree : we replaced in the manuscript "cultural systems" with "cropping systems"

Comment 3 : In the abstract, it would be much better if the authors presented some of the initial results from the evaluation of about 40 diversified systems to make findings more compelling.

We adapted the text in the abstract as follows : “This article describes the FCI methodology and exposes the initial results from the evaluation of about 40 diversified cultural systems. It demonstrate that the FCI is an operational, sensitive, and educational tool capable of distinguishing the performance level of diversified cropping systems, while highlighting the need for a high level of regenerative practice deployment to achieve satisfactory scores. The tool supports farmers and supply chains in assessing and improving the environmental profile of agricultural production systems in line with sustainability goals.”

Comment 4 : L88 in the introduction, if possible, give a brief description of the Field Cultivation Index (FCI).

In the manuscript we have moved the first paragraph of ‘materials and methods’ to line 88 to give a brief description of the FCI :

Therefore, we developed a Field Cultivation Index (FCI) which is a qualitative index evaluating agricultural systems regarding the five environmental outcomes identified in regenerative agriculture : 1. soil (improving quality), 2. water (managing resources), 3. biodiversity (preservation and development in agroecosystems), 4. Pests and weeds (reducing the use of chemicals), 5. Carbon (sequestration and limitation of emissions).

Comment 5 : In the whole manuscript and Figure 1, there is confusion about whether the authors used 31 or 40 agricultural practices; please verify.

The FCI consists of evaluating 31 agricultural practices. And  we tested the FCI tool (thus we evaluated the 31 agricultural practices) on 40 agricultural systems (an agricultural system is a combination of agricultural practices).

Comment 6 : Testing a small number of crops (only 12 crops) for the FCI assessment may not cover different agricultural contexts.

Figure 3 shows that we have tested crops in the world's main climatic conditions (temperate, tropical, mediterranean and arid) for both perennial and annual crops (see attached file). In addition, some of the crops evaluated, such as soybean, were assessed under both temperate and tropical conditions.

Comment 7 : The results in Figure 3 did not consistently support the hypothesis of this study that organic agricultural systems are always better than conventional ones in guaranteeing sustainability. Please clarify.

The hyptohesis of this study is not that organic agricultural systems is systematically more sustainable than conventional. 

The assumption that an organic cropping system is automatically more sustainable than a conventional one would be limited to the spectrum of inputs. The sustainability of a farming system is not limited to inputs alone, but also to a whole range of sustainable agricultural practices described in the article. For example, an intensive organic monoculture has a much more adverse impact on biodiversity than a mixed farming system that includes a whole range of sustainable farming practices (cover crops, precision fertilisation, no ploughing, inclusion of legumes in rotations, etc.). Organic farming is a major lever for achieving sustainability, but it is not the only one. These conclusions and approaches are not only considered in the context of the FCI, but also in other evaluation methods such as IDEA (referenced in the manuscript).

Comment 8 : Testing the FCI tool on different producers through interviews or questionnaires was not explained in the methods section. Besides, the information collected from this is not presented in the manuscript.

The questionnaire was sent as an appendix to Sustainability Journal. If you don't have it, please let us know how we can send it to you. To summarieze, the questions asked of respondents are those listed in the description of the method. In some cases, respondents completed the questionnaire themselves.

Comment 9 : There are still questions about the lack of specific numerical data on soil type and analysis, or statistics on biodiversity, or the type and quantity of pesticides used, or the amount of carbon emitted. It would be much better if the authors incorporated some quantitative data (e.g., soil tests, biodiversity indices) to complement qualitative scoring.

This point is already acknowledged in the discussion section : “Quantitative measurements to confirm the positive impact of the deployed resources. For example, specific soil, water, and biodiversity measurements can be used to correlate efforts made over time with quantitative results and impacts.“

The FCI is designed as a qualitative assessment tool that evaluates the agricultural practices applied within a production system, rather than measuring direct outcomes or long-term impacts. To validate the actual effects of these practices over time—such as improvements in soil health, water quality, or biodiversity—quantitative field measurements are essential. Such measurements, using dedicated tools and protocols (e.g., soil analyses, biodiversity surveys, water quality monitoring), provide a snapshot of the state of the system at a given time (t) but do not indicate whether the system is on an improving or degrading trajectory. This is precisely the added value of the FCI: by assessing the deployment of good agricultural practices, it allows for an evaluation of the expected trend or direction of change. Therefore, these two approaches—quantitative impact measurement and qualitative practice assessment—are complementary and should ideally be used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both current system status and its potential evolution.

We propose to complete the text in the manuscript as follows : Quantitative measurements to confirm the positive impact of the deployed resources. For example, specific soil, water, and biodiversity measurements can be used to correlate efforts made over time with quantitative results and impacts. However, such quantitative measurements provide only a snapshot of the system's status at a given time and do not capture the trajectory of change. In this respect, the FCI offers a complementary perspective by evaluating the potential direction of system evolution based on the implementation of agricultural practices. The combination of both approaches enables a comprehensive assessment of current system performance and its expected development over time.

Comment 10 : In the discussion section, the authors did not compare the proposed assessment method (FCI) with other methods and did not show the advantages of the FCI and why it is better than the other methods.

As previously mentioned in the manuscript (notably around line 120 and in the opening of the conclusion), the FCI method has features that are indispensable for its use in international supply chains, and which other methods do not display. While a full comparison of methods is indeed important, it typically requires a separate study and is often carried out by independent researchers to avoid conflicts of interest. In addition, we hope that the revisions made in response to the reviewers' comments will help to clarify the distinctions between the FCI and other tools.

Comment 11 : The study did not track changes or improvements over time to assess the sustainability of using the FCI in agriculture.

The FCI method has only just been developed and it is therefore too early to ensure long-term monitoring. However, it remains an interesting prospect.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that the FCI measures sustainability and makes it possible to highlight the weak points in the cropping systems. But farmers are free to implement practices to improve the situation. As a result, the use of FCI is not directly correlated with the improvement of a situation.

Comments 12 : Although the authors discussed the limitations of the FCI, they did not give suggestions on how to overcome these problems.

It seems to us that this subject has been well addressed in the discussion, particularly in the dedicated paragraph. It is true that the choices made are generally justified in terms of the limits identified, which can give the impression that there are no real limits. It seems to us that, on the one hand, this is not the case for all the limits. On the other hand, we made the most favourable choices when we were confronted with a limit. The opposite would have been inappropriate.

However, in order to more explicitly open up prospects for studies comparing tools or for work testing the FCI and applying it to different types of production, we have added the words in line 384 :  Also, It would be valuable to test the FCI method across diverse production systems and compare it with other assessment tools to evaluate its robustness, highlight its strengths, and identify areas for improvement.

Comment 13 : The conclusion is too long and needs to be shortened and precise.

The conclusion has been shortened and precised as requested. Please see the new conclusion in the manuscript (file attached)

All the minor points : all the modifications have been made as requested.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I would like to congratulate you on the timely and relevant topic of your article. The writing is fluid and the text is well structured. The methodology is well described and the results are presented clearly.

However, I believe there are still some aspects that need improvement. Below are some suggestions that I think could improve the manuscript.

Good luck with the article!

 

 

Major and minor comments:

1. I would advise the authors to avoid using personal pronouns in a scientific article. Examples: lines 21, 88, 101, 105, ...
2. Line 23: To maintain consistency with the previous points, I would advise the authors to capitalise the word following 3.
3. Line 23. In my opinion, the way point 3 is written in the introduction (lines 90-91) is clearer than in the abstract. I advised the authors to complete point 3 in the abstract.
4. Line 23: There is a space missing between the words ‘made.’ and ‘Its’.
5. Remove the full stop from the last keyword.
6. Line 95: There is a caption for a figure that does not exist in the document. I believe it was from the template.
7. Lines 114-115: I would advise the authors to review the referencing format. According to the template, it should be [24-28] and not separate.
8. Figure 1: I advised the authors to improve the graphic part of the figure to make it more appealing. I believe the article would benefit from this. The description of the steps is not very clear. I asked the authors to try to improve it, although I understand that as the sentences are shorter, it may be difficult to improve. I would like to point out a small error in the last point of the table, where instead of step VI, it says IV.
9. The text refers to Table I instead of Table 1. Example: Lines 121, 130, etc.
10. Regarding Section 2.1.1, I would advise the authors to better specify the experts who contributed to the classification.
11. Line 160: The text refers to Table II, but it should be 2.
12. I would advise the authors to remove the parentheses at the end of the caption for Table 3.
13. Table 3: a small detail just to maintain consistency in formatting between lines. I would advise the authors to place the ‘1’ on a different line.
14. Line 208: I would advise the authors to capitalise the first letter of the word ‘duration’ to maintain consistency in the paragraph.
15. Figure 3: I would advise the authors to improve the quality of the figure to make it more appealing and to ensure that the text on the x-axis is completely legible.
16. Title of section 3.3.3: As this is a section title, I would advise the authors to write out the number ‘2’ in full.
17. Lines 355-357: Perhaps put the points in parentheses because with a full stop, it becomes a little more confusing, and try to put semicolons between them. Perhaps 1) ‘The deployment of a regenerative assessment...’; 2) ‘Quantitative measurements to confirm...’
18. A full stop is missing in line 399: ‘industry It is a global’
19. Although the title refers to cosmetics supply chains, little is mentioned in the text, and even the case studies are not very clear that they are related to this area. The tool presented by the authors seems to be more general in nature than specific to the cosmetics sector. Perhaps the title could be changed or this sector could be emphasised more in the text.
20. I would advise the authors to remove “et al.” from the list of references. This list should include the names of all authors.

Author Response

Comment 1 : I would advise the authors to avoid using personal pronouns in a scientific article. Examples: lines 21, 88, 101, 105, ...

Thank you for this comment, we have adapted the text in the manuscript so that it no longer contains personal pronouns.

Comment 2 : To maintain consistency with the previous points, I would advise the authors to capitalise the word following 3.

We made de modification with a capital letter

Comment 3 : Line 23. In my opinion, the way point 3 is written in the introduction (lines 90-91) is clearer than in the abstract. I advised the authors to complete point 3 in the abstract.

We adapted the manuscript following your recommendations

Comment 4 : Line 23: There is a space missing between the words ‘made.’ and ‘Its’.

The space has been inserted

Comment 5 : Remove the full stop from the last keyword.

Full stop has been removed

Comment 6 : There is a caption for a figure that does not exist in the document. I believe it was from the template.

Caption has been removed

Comment 7 : Lines 114-115: I would advise the authors to review the referencing format. According to the template, it should be [24-28] and not separate.

Referencing format has been reviewed according to your recommendations

Comment 8 : Figure 1: I advised the authors to improve the graphic part of the figure to make it more appealing. I believe the article would benefit from this. The description of the steps is not very clear. I asked the authors to try to improve it, although I understand that as the sentences are shorter, it may be difficult to improve. I would like to point out a small error in the last point of the table, where instead of step VI, it says IV.

We have taken care to improve this figure while taking into account the constraints of available space. We hope you'll find it clearer.

Comment 9  : The text refers to Table I instead of Table 1. Example: Lines 121, 130, etc.

Adaptations have been done

Comment 10 : Regarding Section 2.1.1, I would advise the authors to better specify the experts who contributed to the classification.

In view of the fact that the contributions of experts are largely a minority in obtaining the results (it is above all the existing tools and bibliographical references on which we have based ourselves), and also that the work of these experts is reported in the bibliography, we have decided to delete the reference to ‘and experts opinions’in the manuscript.

Comment 11 : Line 160: The text refers to Table II, but it should be 2.

Modification has been done

Comment 12 : I would advise the authors to remove the parentheses at the end of the caption for Table 3.

Modification has been done

Comment 13 : Table 3: a small detail just to maintain consistency in formatting between lines. I would advise the authors to place the ‘1’ on a different line.

Modification has been done

Comment 14 : Line 208: I would advise the authors to capitalise the first letter of the word ‘duration’ to maintain consistency in the paragraph.

Modification has been done

Comment 15 : Figure 3: I would advise the authors to improve the quality of the figure to make it more appealing and to ensure that the text on the x-axis is completely legible.

We tried to improve the quality of the figure, we hope it is more understandable for the reader.

Comment 16 : Title of section 3.3.3: As this is a section title, I would advise the authors to write out the number ‘2’ in full.

Modification has been done

Comment 17 : Lines 355-357: Perhaps put the points in parentheses because with a full stop, it becomes a little more confusing, and try to put semicolons between them. Perhaps 1) ‘The deployment of a regenerative assessment...’; 2) ‘Quantitative measurements to confirm...’

Modification has been done.

Comment 18 : A full stop is missing in line 399: ‘industry It is a global’

This part of the text has been deleted in the new version of the manuscript in order to reduce the conclusion section.

Comment 19 : Although the title refers to cosmetics supply chains, little is mentioned in the text, and even the case studies are not very clear that they are related to this area. The tool presented by the authors seems to be more general in nature than specific to the cosmetics sector. Perhaps the title could be changed or this sector could be emphasised more in the text.

We agree with you comment : our methodology is not purely linked to cosmetic supply chains. Nevertheless, such supply chains are unique due to their very diverse varieties of crops (from cereals, to flowers, to trees or specialties for perfumes), pedoclimatic contexts in which they are cultivated (arid, temperate, tropical…), as well agricultural practices and size of farms. In that context, the aim of our method, is to cover all these specificities with a simple and single tool.

We have adapted the title of our manuscrit as follow : Field Cultivation Index, a new method for assessing agricultural practices sustainability of crops cultivation systems diversity within, for instance, cosmetic supply chains and moving towards regenerative agriculture . Also, we have qualified the notion of ‘cosmetics’ in our manuscript to open up perspectives beyond this supply chain.

Comment 20 : I would advise the authors to remove “et al.” from the list of references. This list should include the names of all authors.

The modifications have been done

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the authors have made the requested corrections, I still have an issue with the title of the article; it does not fit with the research carried out in this study. I think the FCI in this study might be used in any agricultural sector, not specific to cosmetic supply chains.

Author Response

Comments 1 : Although the authors have made the requested corrections, I still have an issue with the title of the article; it does not fit with the research carried out in this study. I think the FCI in this study might be used in any agricultural sector, not specific to cosmetic supply chains.

Thank you for this comment. We adapted the title as follow : Field Cultivation Index, a new method for assessing agricultural practices sustainability and moving towards regenerative agriculture - Application to the Cosmetic supply chains

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you for all your responses to my comments and acknowledge your efforts to address them all. Congratulations on your work and good luck with the article.
I would just like to point out that in line 180: “presented in Table I.” You still need to replace “Table I” with “Table 1” in this line.

Author Response

Comment 1 : I would just like to point out that in line 180: “presented in Table I.” You still need to replace “Table I” with “Table 1” in this line.

Thank you for this comment, we made the necessary modification.