Elicitor-Mediated Response of Growth, Yield, and Quality of Kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees, Family Acanthaceae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper seems improved based on the previous comments.

However, the current version should be improved, please consider the following comments:

·         The illustrations should be further polished and redesigned to meet the standards, please upload higher quality images, and do not stretch them. (ex. figure 3).

·         Figure 4 should be further processed to get interpretable data and to make differences clear between control and T8 treated sample.

·         Please uniform police characters and size (reduce table police)

·         Figure 1 and figure 2: ANOVA comparison is missed , no  comparison between treatments or between stages.

·         In table the same digit number should be used 0.00 please make date uniform 2.507±0.02 should be 2.51±0.02

·         The paper still includes some grammar and syntax errors also text is stuck please check and add space when required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

In the present study, the authors examined the effects of elicitors (chitosan, yeast extract, jasmone acid, and salicylic acid) on the growth, yield, and quality of kalmegh. This paper's quality, in my opinion, needs to be improved for publishing in the journal Agronomy. Firstly, the work's novelty is extremely limited. As the authors note multiple times in the text, their findings represent only the confirmation of results previously published on other plant species. In addition, there were significant omissions in the document.

The introduction is written in a very confusing manner. The elicitor definition, for example, is repeated several times. (Lines 54-57, 63-64, 72-73, 79).  Lines 95-96 are unreferenced. Reference 7 is incorrect.

Some fundamental information, such as how many plants were used in the experiment and how many repetitions, as well as how the methanol extract was produced for HPLC analysis, were not included in the Materials and methods.

The findings are also presented in an uninformative manner. For example, the figures reflect percentages visible on the graph, but no statistical analysis data is provided

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

General comment

The manuscript ''Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)'' described the significant and positive influence of elicitors (chitosan, yeast extract, jasmone acid, salicylic acid) on growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata, family Acanthaceae). Among investigated elicitors, 200 ppm salicylic acid spray at 30 and 60 days after sowing seeds on kalmegh exhibited best results in quantity and quality production of kalmegh. Article is well done and I have only minor comments.

Why authors decided to use Duncan's test instead of some other test? Please, explain.

Prepare tables according to journal' style

Minor comments

Title

Line 3: add family name after ''Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees'' to be ''Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees, family Acanthaceae'' or ''Andrographis paniculata, family Acanthaceae''

Abstract

Line 19: explain abbreviations ''CRD''

Line 21: add ''number of'' before ''secondary''

Line 29: explain abbreviations ''DAS''

1. Introduction

Line 37: add ''Andrographis paniculata'' after ''kalmegh''

Line 41: change ''immense'' in more scientifically appropriate term

Line 44: ''kalmegh'' instead of ''Kalmegh''

Line 74: omit ''[()'': add space after ''future''

2. Materials and Methods

Connect senetences parts in line 113 and 114

Line 122: delete one comma

Line 124: add space before and after multiplication symbol

Line 128: add space after ''(FYM)''

Lines 134, 147: change letter ''x'' into multiplication symbol

Line 137: chage ''3. Measurement of quality parameters'' into ''2.1. Measurement of quality parameters''

Line 152: change ''ml'' into ''mL'' and add space after ''mL''

Line 155: chage ''4. Statistical analysis'' into ''2.2. Statistical analysis''

Line 160: Connect two senetences into one

3. Results and Discussion

Line 164: change ''5. Results and Discussion'' into ''3. Results and Discussion''

Line 124: add space after ''(Figure 1)''

Line 124: add space after ''(Table 2)''

Page 6: delete explanation of symbols from ''T1'' to ''T8'' from ''Table 2'' caption. Explanation of symbols below table is enough

Page 7, line 10: add space after ''growth''

Page 7, line 16: delete the extra brackets

Page 7, paragraph 3, line 3: ''kalmegh'' instead of ''Kalmegh''

Page 7, paragraph 3, line 4: add space after ''Zarchini''

Page 7, paragraph 3, line 5: add space before ''Salicylic''

Page 7, paragraph 3, line 8: add space before ''Ali''

Page 7, paragraph 4, line 10: add space before and after ''and''

Page 9, paragraph 2, line 4: change ''found'' into ''obtained'' or similar

Page 9: move explanation of symbols in the caption of Figure 2.

Page 11: rearrange explanation of symbols below the Table 4

Page 11, paragraph 1, line 3: add space before ''According''

Page 11, paragraph 1, line 10: omit comma after 27

Page 11, paragraph 1, line 10: omit comma before dot

Page 12, paragraph 3, line 4: add space before ''in''

Page 12, paragraph 3, line 5: add space before ''which''

Page 12, paragraph 3, line 9: add space after ''concentration''

Page 13: rearrange explanation of symbols below the Table 5

Page 13: paragraph 1, line 4: add space before ''this''

Page 13: paragraph 1, line 5: add space before ''The''

Page 14: paragraph 1, lines 3,4: explain abbreviations ''IPP'', ''DMAPP'', ''MVA'' add ''MEP''

Page 14: paragraph 1, lines 7-10: rearrange sentenses

Page 14: paragraph 2, line 5: add space after ''yield''

Page 16: move explanation of symbols from to below the Figure 3

References

References should be presented according to journal style (see the style of writting journal names and volumes). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

No comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I had the opportunity to review the manuscript and my comments are as below:

Line 1,2: Title: Suggest rephrasing the title. Delete " at the end of the title

Abstract: 

Line 14. Capital letter was used for salicylic acid, jasmonic acid and so on. no need to use capital letters for all the chemicals/solutions used throughout the manuscript.

Line 15, 17. Abbreviations are used without explaining them in the first place. Eg CHT, SA. 

Line 18. what do you mean by on par? you should mention the data was significantly different or not within the parameters taken.

Line 22  and throughout the manuscript. The usage of symbols also needs to be avoided in the manuscript. In this case @ was used.

Introduction

The Introduction part was ok. The addition of more recent references would be good.

Other than that, it would be good to give some introduction to the elicitors used in the study.

Line 57-75. no citation at all.

Materials and Methods

It seems Plant Materials was missing from Materials and Methods. Please specify the source of the plant and the maintenance of the plants for the experiment.

It is good to have a few subtopics for Materials and Methods. It is very hard to follow through with the methods without clear subtitle/subsection/subtopic.

Line 82. Extensive reviews of previous articles were mentioned but no citation was found. Which articles you are referring to which say that they are using that range of concentration? Hence, the question is the basis of choosing the concentrations? 

Line 86, 87, 88 and many more: avoid using @ for 'at'. It is not that hard to type 'at'.

Line 91. no need to explain how to prepare the solutions. 

Line 111, 114. abbreviations were used without explaining what are they beforehand. CIMAP? FYM?

Line 115. Typo error for 'wasused'

Results and Discussion

The major mistake in this section is the repetition of data. For example, Table 2 and Figure 1 contain the same data. Table 7 and Figure 2 present the same data. Please only show the results once either in Table or Figure form but not both.

The authors present data in the year 2021 and 2022 and later the data were averaged. The data for 2021 and 2022 are not mentioned in the Results part which makes me question why the authors showed the data without wanting to mention them. I would suggest presenting the data in average form only so that the readers do not confuse.

There is no mention in the Materials and Methods section of why 70 DAS, why 100 DAS. And what age is at harvest stage? Please mention what is DAS in the manuscript.

Table 8 and Figure 3 presents the same data.

I would suggest separate Title for Conclusion as this manuscript quite lengthy.

Line 473-478. Please fill in this part.

Suggest submitting the manuscript for proofreading services to give better clarity to the readers.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to contribute in your esteemed Journal as a response to your valuable feedback on the submitted manuscript for improvement. As per the comments received by the expert reviewers, we have now revised the manuscript accordingly with Manuscript ID: agronomy 2477880 entitled “Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)” by incorporating the suggested changes in formatting, restructuring, adding text, addressing kind suggestions of reviewers, adding/correcting references/styles, improving English, grammar and overall readability of the entire text and modifying tables, etc, wherever necessary, accordingly. We believe that the present form of revised manuscript should satisfy the reviewers’ compliance and be fully considered for the publication in your esteemed journal. 

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestion1:Line 1,2: Title: Suggest rephrasing the title. Delete " at the end of the title

Reply:The title has been rephrased. Deleted " at the end of the title

Abstract: 

Suggestion 2:Line 14. Capital letter was used for salicylic acid, jasmonic acid and so on. no need to use capital letters for all the chemicals/solutions used throughout the manuscript.

Reply: Capital letters have been removed from all the chemicals/solutions used throughout the manuscript.

Suggestion 3:Line 15, 17. Abbreviations are used without explaining them in the first place. Eg CHT, SA. 

Reply: Abbreviations were expanded at the first place for all abbreviations used 

Suggestion 4:Line 18. what do you mean by on par? you should mention the data was significantly different or not within the parameters taken.

Reply: on par means, significantly no difference within the parameter and within those treatments

Suggestion 5:Line 22  and throughout the manuscript. The usage of symbols also needs to be avoided in the manuscript. In this case @ was used.

Reply: @ symbol was replaced with at

Introduction

Suggestion 6:The Introduction part was ok. The addition of more recent references would be good.

Reply: some references were deleted and references of few definitions were kept as it is standard one even it is old 

Other than that, it would be good to give some introduction to the elicitors used in the study.

Elicitors introduction was added from line 57-70 and 91 to 100

Suggestion 7:Line 57-75. no citation at all.

Reply: Three references were added

Materials and Methods

Suggestion 8:It seems Plant Materials was missing from Materials and Methods. Please specify the source of the plant and the maintenance of the plants for the experiment.

Reply: Mentioned in line number 139-141

Suggestion9:It is good to have a few subtopics for Materials and Methods. It is very hard to follow through with the methods without clear subtitle/subsection/subtopic.

Reply: Subtitles were added in line 164,182

Suggestion10:Line 82. Extensive reviews of previous articles were mentioned but no citation was found. Which articles you are referring to which say that they are using that range of concentration? Hence, the question is the basis of choosing the concentrations? 

Reply: Citations were added in line 96

Suggestion11:Line 86, 87, 88 and many more: avoid using @ for 'at'. It is not that hard to type 'at'.

Reply: In all places @ replaced with at

Suggestion12:Line 91. no need to explain how to prepare the solutions. 

Reply: Chemical preparation paragraph was deleted

Suggestion13:Line 111, 114. abbreviations were used without explaining what are they beforehand. CIMAP? FYM?

Reply: Abbreviations were expanded at the first place for all abbreviations used 

Suggestion14:Line 115. Typo error for 'wasused'

Reply: Typo error was corrected

Results and Discussion

Suggestion15:The major mistake in this section is the repetition of data. For example, Table 2 and Figure 1 contain the same data. Table 7 and Figure 2 present the same data. Please only show the results once either in Table or Figure form but not both.

Reply: Replication of data both in tables and figures was corrected. Only one was kept either table or figure.

Suggestion16:The authors present data in the year 2021 and 2022 and later the data were averaged. The data for 2021 and 2022 are not mentioned in the Results part which makes me question why the authors showed the data without wanting to mention them. I would suggest presenting the data in average form only so that the readers do not confuse.

Reply: Only the average data was presented to avoid confusion

Suggestion16:There is no mention in the Materials and Methods section of why 70 DAS, why 100 DAS. And what age is at harvest stage? Please mention what is DAS in the manuscript.

Reply: Corrections were added from line 144-152

Suggestion17:Table 8 and Figure 3 presents the same data.

Reply: Replication of data both in tables and figures was corrected. Only one was kept either table or figure.

Suggestion18:I would suggest separate Title for Conclusion as this manuscript quite lengthy.

Reply: Separate title for conclusion was added

Suggestion 19:Line 473-478. Please fill in this part.

Reply: Filled

English, grammar, syntax has been corrected and overall readability of the entire text has been improved.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestion 1:Please use uniform unit format :

ml/min, ml or mL , g L-1 or  g/L, so please write L or l but not both, use / or -1 but not both.

Reply: Corrections were made

Suggestion 2:Table 1 can be placed in the text or in the supplementary file or deleted.

Reply: Table one added in material and methods

Suggestion 3:DAS abbreviation in text and table should be explained.

Reply: Abbreviations were expanded at the first place for all abbreviations used 

Suggestion 4:Results should be reported as Mean ± SD

Reply: Since S Em± and CD and CV was given, Mean ± SD was not used

Suggestion 5:Fig 1 , 2 and 3 are badly presented and should be uniform (style, color, form …etc.)  and within the journal standards.

Reply: Figure two was deleted. As others figures having different data format it was presented like that for easy understanding

Suggestion 6:Fig 4 should further polishing to be placed in the paper.

Reply: As data was replicated in both tables and figures, only table was kept and figure was deleted

Suggestion 7:Tables should be further improved and the since could be reduced, some illustrations may be placed into the supplementary files.

Reply: All tables were modified and arranged properly

Suggestion 8:The dendrogram also is of low quality, in which basis the distance was calculated? and how the grouping is made.? There is no bootstrap in the branches!

Reply: As we did dendrogram for only knowing treatment differences and similarities Euclidean distance was used for the distance measure. And grouping was made based on scree plot and eigenvalues more than 1. As we want to know only significant difference between treatments for all parameters bootstrap for all branches were not used, for easy understanding just we used bootstrap for selecting optimum number of clusters which is 60.

Suggestion 9:

All these sections should be filled:

• Author Contributions: Given in the MS
• Funding:added-
• Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
• Informed Consent Statement:added.
• Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
• Conflicts of Interest:added.
  

Suggestion 10:The paper includes some grammar and syntax errors and should be revised to meet the publication standards

Reply: All grammatical & syntax errors as well as typos were rectified

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Methods, please add some necessary information:

1.1 At what stage of development did the harvest of plants take place, i.e. what determined the date of harvesting.

Reply: Added in line 144. At 50% flowering stage crop was harvested. Since andrographolides content attains its peak at flowering season only (Sanjutha et al., 2008).

1.2 How was the leaf area measured and the leaf area index calculated.

Reply: Added in line 152-155. Leaf area of 20 randomly selected leaves from each plant was measured using leaf area meter and average was calculated for obtaining the leaf area of single leaf. The leaf area per plant and leaf area index was calculated by adopting specific leaf area method (Wolf et al., 1972).

1.3 How was the yield of dry matter obtained.

Reply: Added in line 155-156. The dry matter content in percent was calculated by dividing dry weight by fresh weight (Gowda et al., 2019).

2. Results

2.1 In my opinion, there is no need to show the results from both years separately, they are very similar and the authors do not correlate the results with the weather conditions. Therefore, I believe that only averages from both years should be included in the tables, especially since in the description the authors refer only to averages (not pooled). As a result, the number of tables will also be reduced, because more parameters can be placed in one table. The results from individual years, if the authors so wish, can be included in supplementary materials.

Reply: Only the average data was presented to avoid confusion

2.2 The letters next to the results should be larger, they are illegible at the moment.

Reply: The font size was increased, as suggested.

2.3 Graphs that show the same data that are in the tables are completely unnecessary. Please remove them.

Reply: Replication of data both in tables and figures was corrected. Only one was kept either table or figure.

2.4 The results, especially in Tables 1-5, should be discussed in more detail.

2.5 At the beginning of the description of individual parameters, a reference to the table should be found.

Reply: reference to the table was added at the beginning of the description of individual parameters

2.6 on par - should be on a par without italics

Reply: Corrections was made throughout the manuscript.

2.7 The results should not be repeated in the description of the results. Differences in % between individual combinations can be entered.

Reply: The difference in % compared to control was added instead of same values as in tables.

2.8 Yield and dry matter content were probably miscalculated. Both values are much higher, even 5-8 times compared to the results obtained by other authors (e.g. Plant Archives Vol. 19 No. 2, 2019 pp. 2093-2098). Herbaceous plants are usually not characterized by 30% dry matter content.

Reply: Dry matter content was calculated by using the formula {(dry weight/fresh weight)*100}.The results of following authors were in line with our research values.

Author	Fresh weight	Dry weight	Dry matter	Reference
Chandana et al., (2021)	3.12 kg per plot at 15 x 15 cm spacing	1.56 kg per plot at 15 x 15 cm spacing	50%	https://www.researchgate. net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fdoi. org%2F10.22271%2Fchemi. 2021.v9.i1ac.11527
Makwana et al., (2009)	10517 kg/ha	4102 kg/ha	39%	Makwana PD, Patel J.J., and Patel HK. Effect of different organic manures and spacing on yield and yield attiributes of kalmegh-panchang (Andrographis paniculata Wall. Ex. Nees.) under middle Gujarat conditions. Int. J. Pl. Sci., 2009: 5 (1): 30-32.
Praveen kumar et al., (2018) : Ram et al., (2008)	94.18 q/ha	54.33q/ha	57.68%	https://doi.org/10.20546/ ijcmas.2018.709.325

2.9 Please establish abbreviations for all measures used and use them in the text.

Reply: Abbreviations were expanded at the first place for all abbreviations used 

2.10 The numbers defining individual combinations next to the letter T are too small and invisible.

 Reply: The font size was increased

Please adapt the citation rules to the requirements of MDPI.

Reply: MDPI citation rules has been adapted. 

More comments are included in the article.

peer-review-30314815.v1.pdf

English, grammar, syntax has been corrected and overall readability of the entire text has been improved.

Reply: The comments included in the article was corrected

Thanking you,

With profound regards,

Yours sincerely

Dr A B Sharangi, Professor

BCKV-Agricultural University, WB, INDIA

[email protected]

(On behalf of all co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is of interest and is worthy of investigation, however the paper is not well prepared. Overall, the paper reports some preliminary data not ready for publication, they are not well discussed and this draft needs a thoughtful revision to be reconsidered by the journal.

Please consider the following comments:

Please use uniform unit format :

ml/min, ml or mL , g L-1 or  g/L, so please write L or l but not both, use / or -1 but not both.

Table 1 can be placed in the text or in the supplementary file or deleted.

DAS abbreviation in text and table should be explained.

Results should be reported as Mean ± SD

Fig 1 , 2 and 3 are badly presented and should be uniform (style, color, form …etc.)  and within the journal standards.

Fig 4 should further polishing to be placed in the paper.

Tables should be further improved and the since could be reduced, some illustrations may be placed into the supplementary files.

The dendrogram also is of low quality, in which basis the distance was calculated? and how the grouping is made.? There is no bootstrap in the branches!

All these sections should be filled:

·         Author Contributions:

·         Funding:

·         Institutional Review Board Statement:

·         Informed Consent Statement:

·         Data Availability Statement:

·         Conflicts of Interest: 

thepaper includes some grammar and syntax errors and should be revised to meet the publication standrads

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to contribute in your esteemed Journal as a response to your valuable feedback on the submitted manuscript for improvement. As per the comments received from your end, we have now revised the manuscript accordingly with Manuscript ID: agronomy 2477880 entitled “Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)” by incorporating the suggested changes in formatting, restructuring, adding text, addressing kind suggestions of reviewers, adding/correcting references/styles, improving English, grammar and overall readability of the entire text and modifying tables, etc, wherever necessary, accordingly. We believe that the present form of revised manuscript should satisfy the reviewers’ compliance and be fully considered for the publication in your esteemed journal.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestion 1:Please use uniform unit format :

ml/min, ml or mL , g L-1 or  g/L, so please write L or l but not both, use / or -1 but not both.

Reply: Corrections were made

Suggestion 2:Table 1 can be placed in the text or in the supplementary file or deleted.

Reply: Table one added in material and methods

Suggestion 3:DAS abbreviation in text and table should be explained.

Reply: Abbreviations were expanded at the first place for all abbreviations used 

Suggestion 4:Results should be reported as Mean ± SD

Reply: Since S Em± and CD and CV was given, Mean ± SD was not used

Suggestion 5:Fig 1 , 2 and 3 are badly presented and should be uniform (style, color, form …etc.)  and within the journal standards.

Reply: Figure two was deleted. As others figures having different data format it was presented like that for easy understanding

Suggestion 6:Fig 4 should further polishing to be placed in the paper.

Reply: As data was replicated in both tables and figures, only table was kept and figure was deleted

Suggestion 7:Tables should be further improved and the since could be reduced, some illustrations may be placed into the supplementary files.

Reply: All tables were modified and arranged properly

Suggestion 8:The dendrogram also is of low quality, in which basis the distance was calculated? and how the grouping is made.? There is no bootstrap in the branches!

Reply: As we did dendrogram for only knowing treatment differences and similarities Euclidean distance was used for the distance measure. And grouping was made based on scree plot and eigenvalues more than 1. As we want to know only significant difference between treatments for all parameters bootstrap for all branches were not used, for easy understanding just we used bootstrap for selecting optimum number of clusters which is 60.

Suggestion 9:

All these sections should be filled:

• Author Contributions: Given in the MS
• Funding:added-
• Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
• Informed Consent Statement:added.
• Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
• Conflicts of Interest:added.
  

Suggestion 10:The paper includes some grammar and syntax errors and should be revised to meet the publication standards

Reply: All grammatical & syntax errors as well as typos were rectified

Thanking you,

With profound regards,

Yours sincerely

Dr A B Sharangi, Professor

BCKV-Agricultural University, WB, INDIA

[email protected]

(On behalf of all co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article contains an interesting analysis of the use of some elicitors in the cultivation of kalmegh. However, the work needs a lot of editing.

1. Methods , please add some necessary information:

1.1 At what stage of development did the harvest of plants take place, i.e. what determined the date of harvesting.

1.2 How was the leaf area measured and the leaf area index calculated.

1.3 How was the yield of dry matter obtained.

2. Results

2.1 In my opinion, there is no need to show the results from both years separately, they are very similar and the authors do not correlate the results with the weather conditions. Therefore, I believe that only averages from both years should be included in the tables, especially since in the description the authors refer only to averages (not pooled). As a results, the number of tables will also be reduced, because more parameters can be placed in one table. The results from individual years, if the authors so wish, can be included in supplementary materials.

2.2 The letters next to the results should be larger, they are illegible at the moment.

2.3 Graphs that show the same data that are in the tables are completely unnecessary. Please remove them.

2.4 The results, especially in Tables 1-5, should be discussed in more detail.

2.5 At the beginning of the description of individual parameters, a reference to the table should be found.

2.6 on par - should be on a par without italics

2.7 The results should not be repeated in the description of the results. Differences in % between individual combinations can be entered.

2.8 Yield and dry matter content were probably miscalculated. Both values are much higher, even 5-8 times compared to the results obtained by other authors (e.g. Plant Archives Vol. 19 No. 2, 2019 pp. 2093-2098). Herbaceous plants are usually not characterized by 30% dry matter content.

2.9 Please establish abbreviations for all measures used and use them in the text.

2.10 The numbers defining individual combinations next to the letter T are too small and invisible. 

Please adapt the citation rules to the requirements of MDPI.

More comments are included in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to contribute in your esteemed Journal as a response to your valuable feedback on the submitted manuscript for improvement. As per the comments received from your end, we have now revised the manuscript accordingly with Manuscript ID: agronomy 2477880 entitled “Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)” by incorporating the suggested changes in formatting, restructuring, adding text, addressing kind suggestions of reviewers, adding/correcting references/styles, improving English, grammar and overall readability of the entire text and modifying tables, etc, wherever necessary, accordingly. We believe that the present form of revised manuscript should satisfy the reviewers’ compliance and be fully considered for the publication in your esteemed journal.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Methods, please add some necessary information:

1.1 At what stage of development did the harvest of plants take place, i.e. what determined the date of harvesting.

Reply: Added in line 144. At 50% flowering stage crop was harvested. Since andrographolides content attains its peak at flowering season only (Sanjutha et al., 2008).

1.2 How was the leaf area measured and the leaf area index calculated.

Reply: Added in line 152-155. Leaf area of 20 randomly selected leaves from each plant was measured using leaf area meter and average was calculated for obtaining the leaf area of single leaf. The leaf area per plant and leaf area index was calculated by adopting specific leaf area method (Wolf et al., 1972).

1.3 How was the yield of dry matter obtained.

Reply: Added in line 155-156. The dry matter content in percent was calculated by dividing dry weight by fresh weight (Gowda et al., 2019).

2. Results

2.1 In my opinion, there is no need to show the results from both years separately, they are very similar and the authors do not correlate the results with the weather conditions. Therefore, I believe that only averages from both years should be included in the tables, especially since in the description the authors refer only to averages (not pooled). As a result, the number of tables will also be reduced, because more parameters can be placed in one table. The results from individual years, if the authors so wish, can be included in supplementary materials.

Reply: Only the average data was presented to avoid confusion

2.2 The letters next to the results should be larger, they are illegible at the moment.

Reply: The font size was increased, as suggested.

2.3 Graphs that show the same data that are in the tables are completely unnecessary. Please remove them.

Reply: Replication of data both in tables and figures was corrected. Only one was kept either table or figure.

2.4 The results, especially in Tables 1-5, should be discussed in more detail.

2.5 At the beginning of the description of individual parameters, a reference to the table should be found.

Reply: reference to the table was added at the beginning of the description of individual parameters

2.6 on par - should be on a par without italics

Reply: Corrections was made throughout the manuscript.

2.7 The results should not be repeated in the description of the results. Differences in % between individual combinations can be entered.

Reply: The difference in % compared to control was added instead of same values as in tables.

2.8 Yield and dry matter content were probably miscalculated. Both values are much higher, even 5-8 times compared to the results obtained by other authors (e.g. Plant Archives Vol. 19 No. 2, 2019 pp. 2093-2098). Herbaceous plants are usually not characterized by 30% dry matter content.

Reply: Dry matter content was calculated by using the formula {(dry weight/fresh weight)*100}.The results of following authors were in line with our research values.

Author	Fresh weight	Dry weight	Dry matter	Reference
Chandana et al., (2021)	3.12 kg per plot at 15 x 15 cm spacing	1.56 kg per plot at 15 x 15 cm spacing	50%	https://www.researchgate. net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fdoi. org%2F10.22271%2Fchemi. 2021.v9.i1ac.11527
Makwana et al., (2009)	10517 kg/ha	4102 kg/ha	39%	Makwana PD, Patel J.J., and Patel HK. Effect of different organic manures and spacing on yield and yield attiributes of kalmegh-panchang (Andrographis paniculata Wall. Ex. Nees.) under middle Gujarat conditions. Int. J. Pl. Sci., 2009: 5 (1): 30-32.
Praveen kumar et al., (2018) : Ram et al., (2008)	94.18 q/ha	54.33q/ha	57.68%	https://doi.org/10.20546/ ijcmas.2018.709.325

2.9 Please establish abbreviations for all measures used and use them in the text.

Reply: Abbreviations were expanded at the first place for all abbreviations used 

2.10 The numbers defining individual combinations next to the letter T are too small and invisible.

 Reply: The font size was increased

Please adapt the citation rules to the requirements of MDPI.

Reply: MDPI citation rules has been adapted. 

More comments are included in the article.

peer-review-30314815.v1.pdf

English, grammar, syntax has been corrected and overall readability of the entire text has been improved.

Reply: The comments included in the article was corrected

Thanking you,

With profound regards,

Yours sincerely

Dr A B Sharangi, Professor

BCKV-Agricultural University, WB, INDIA

[email protected]

(On behalf of all co-authors)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you authors for the correction. I do not have much to comment but please address these questions/suggestions below:

1. Co author name. Superscript the number.

2. Abstract- a) are you sure you conduct this experiment in CRD design? the study conducted in year 2021 and 2022, don't you think time is a block?. 

b) the usage 'on par' in the abstract or anywhere else in the manuscript is not appropiate and please change this. Use a more scientific term like 'significant' or 'not significant' when comparing the results.

3. Line 62-72 - the new sentences does not have citations. Please give credit where credit is due.

4. for all the data presented in Figure or Table, please add standard error. Data with mean separation is not sufficient.

the English is readable

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity once again to contribute in your esteemed Journal as a response to your valuable feedback on the submitted revised manuscript for further improvement. As per the comments received by the Academic Editor and expert reviewers, we have now revised the manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy 2477880 entitled “Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)”) further by incorporating the suggested changes in addressing kind suggestions of reviewers, adding/correcting references/graph styles, improving  the overall readability of the entire text further and modifying tables, etc, wherever necessary, as suggested. We believe that the present form of further revised manuscript should satisfy the reviewersas well as the editor and be finally considered for the publication in your esteemed journal.

REVIWER-1:

I do not have much to comment but please address these questions/suggestions below:

Suggestion1:Co author name. Superscript the number.

Response: Superscript of numbers were done

Suggestion 2:

Abstract- a) are you sure you conduct this experiment in CRD design? the study conducted in year 2021 and 2022, don't you think time is a block?. 

Response: No, we cannot consider time as a block. We did pooled-over-year analysis. When our experiment material is heterogeneous, it separates as homogeneous block for local control. In our study, experimental material is Kalmegh plant which is homogeneous.

1. b) the usage 'on par' in the abstract or anywhere else in the manuscript is not appropriate and please change this. Use a more scientific term like 'significant' or 'not significant' when comparing the results.

Response: Throughout the manuscript, the word “on par” has been replaced with the word “not significant”.

Suggestion 3:   Line 62-72 - the new sentences does not have citations. Please give credit where credit is due.

Response: References has been added

Suggestion 4:   for all the data presented in Figure or Table, please add standard error. Data with mean separation is not sufficient.

Response: for all the data presented in Figure or Table, standard error has been added.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The English is readable

Thanking you,

With profound regards,

Yours sincerely

Dr A B Sharangi, Professor

BCKV-Agricultural University, WB, INDIA

[email protected]

(On behalf of all co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

the corrected paper do not meet the publication criteria, the data presented and experimental design cannot answer the study hypothesis, overall the paper is below the journal standards and cannot be accepted in the current form

table and figures should be improved the figures should be polished and error bars are missed, histograms are not presented uniformly and using a professional style so they should be redrawn the ddat presented should be placed into supplementary files since  no clear information provide as an ex. fig4  table 6 the differents parameters are correlated which is obvious

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity once again to contribute in your esteemed Journal as a response to your valuable feedback on the submitted revised manuscript for further improvement. As per the comments received by the Academic Editor and expert reviewers, we have now revised the manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy 2477880 entitled “Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)”) further by incorporating the suggested changes in addressing kind suggestions of reviewers, adding/correcting references/graph styles, improving  the overall readability of the entire text further and modifying tables, etc, wherever necessary, as suggested. We believe that the present form of further revised manuscript should satisfy the reviewersas well as the editor and be finally considered for the publication in your esteemed journal. 

REVIWER-2:

Suggestion 1: The corrected paper do not meet the publication criteria, the data presented and experimental design cannot answer the study hypothesis, overall the paper is below the journal standards and cannot be accepted in the current form

Response: Following your kind and positive suggestions, the paper was re-written as per journal standards. The tables and figures format were changed.

Even the years of investigation falls under Covid-19 pandemic, the research was conducted sincerely with more precision without wasting time. The objective of research was to study the effect of elicitors on growth, yield and quality of kalmegh. The pot experiment was conducted with CRD design disregarding the constraints and following sound statistical rules. The objectives of our research were met. And we found some elicitors having significant effect on improving the quality yield of kalmegh. So, we wish to publish these results.

All data pertaining to Kalmegh growth, yield and quality was taken as per National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi, India mentioned in “Minimal Descriptors of Agri-Horticultural Crops Part IV: Medicinal and Aromatic Plants”. So, this data, results and their logical interpretation well supplemented with convincing references will be helpful for further research on elicitors for improvement of secondary metabolites and yield in kalmegh as well as in other medicinal plants as it was proven by our research that elicitors have significant positive impact on crop improvement with respect to growth, yield and quality.

We consider our research as novel and possibly the first time that the external spraying of elicitors was conducted on kalmegh resulting with exciting results. Our preliminary results will definitely serve as the foundation of conducting this type of research in future for helping e farming community and the pharmaceutical industry as well.

Suggestion 2:Table and figures should be improved. 

Response: The tables and figures format has been changed and improved.

Suggestion 3:The figures should be polishedand error bars are missed,

Response: Error bars have been added and figure format has been changed

Suggestion 4:histograms are not presented uniformly and using a professional style so they should be redrawn.

Response: Histograms were presented uniformly and redrawn in professional style.

Suggestion 5:The data presented should be placed into supplementary files since no clear information provide as an ex. Fig 4  table 6 the differents parameters are correlated which is obvious

Response:  Fig 4 and Table 6 has been placed into supplementary file.

Thanking you,

With profound regards,

Yours sincerely

Dr A B Sharangi, Professor

BCKV-Agricultural University, WB, INDIA

[email protected]

(On behalf of all co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I put all my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity once again to contribute in your esteemed Journal as a response to your valuable feedback on the submitted revised manuscript for further improvement. As per the comments received by the Academic Editor and expert reviewers, we have now revised the manuscript (Manuscript ID: agronomy 2477880 entitled “Elicitors mediated response of growth, yield and quality of kalmegh (Andrographis paniculata Wall. ex Nees)”) further by incorporating the suggested changes in addressing kind suggestions of reviewers, adding/correcting references/graph styles, improving  the overall readability of the entire text further and modifying tables, etc, wherever necessary, as suggested. We believe that the present form of further revised manuscript should satisfy the reviewersas well as the editor and be finally considered for the publication in your esteemed journal.

REVIWER-3:

Suggestion-

I put all my comments in the attached file.
peer-review-30713231.v1.pdf 

 Response: The dry matter content has been changed as air dry matter as we dried the herb in ambient temperature. Mathematical formula to estimate Leaf area index has been given and leaf area meter specifications have been added. Other corrections have been made like changing pooled into mean of results, deleting additional graph, etc.

Thanking you,

With profound regards,

Yours sincerely

Dr A B Sharangi, Professor

BCKV-Agricultural University, WB, INDIA

[email protected]

(On behalf of all co-authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx