Synergistic Effects of Fulvic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity, Root Productivity, and Yield

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

After evaluating the manuscript, I believe it presents several issues. Below are my detailed comments:

Abstract
The gap mentioned at the beginning of the abstract is incorrect. Several studies have already shown the effects of humic substances, including fulvic acid, on P dynamics. Please correct this statement.
The dose of fulvic acid used should be clearly stated, as its effect is dose-dependent.
Summarize the main findings of the experiment, as the abstract contains excessive information and must comply with the 250-word limit.
Avoid repeating keywords already included in the article title.

Introduction
Correct the term "essential nutrients"—all nutrients are essential. Use “essential elements” or just “nutrients.”
The introduction must be restructured, with the removal and addition of paragraphs and relevant theories.
The interaction between fulvic acid and P is barely addressed in the introduction. The references are generic and lack depth. The main direct and indirect effects of fulvic acid, and how these can enhance P use efficiency via fertilizers, should be emphasized.
The introduction is weak, especially considering the extensive theoretical basis available. Significant advances have been made in the last decade regarding the effect of humic substances on P acquisition, whether by stimulating transporter activity or through interactions in the soil solution or solid phase—yet this is not adequately covered.
The study’s hypothesis is poorly formulated, and the objectives are too broad and not aligned with the study's conclusions.

Materials and Methods
A complete characterization of macro- and micronutrients is required, especially the organic matter content, as the effectiveness of humic substances depends heavily on this.
The dose, source, and characterization (chemical, spectroscopic, and nutrient content) of the fulvic acid used are not mentioned. Without this information, the manuscript should not proceed in the review process. There are many types of fulvic acids, and their properties define their effects on P dynamics and plant growth.
The experimental design does not clarify why fulvic acid was not tested in isolation. This would allow assessing both its individual effects and interactions. This choice must be justified in the methods section.

Results
All acronyms in the figures must be explained in the captions—the figure must be self-explanatory.
The quality of the figures must be improved, as some labels are too small to read. Resize them as needed.
Despite frequent references to P and fulvic acid interaction, no variables related to P efficiency or uptake were assessed. This is crucial to determine whether fulvic acid had any real effect on P, and its absence significantly undermines the study's credibility.
A correlation analysis is presented in the results, but its methodology is not described in the materials and methods. Please provide this information in the appropriate section.

Discussion
It is clear that the authors lack a proper understanding of what fulvic acid is and how it is separated. The statement “Fulvic Acid (FA) is one of the important components of Humic Acid” is conceptually incorrect—both FA and humic acids are distinct fractions of humic substances with unique properties. The authors should consult someone with expertise in this area.
The information provided on FA is overly generic and does not help to deepen the discussion on its role in P dynamics.
Many of the observed effects are due to direct actions of FA, and others to indirect effects, yet none of this is mentioned. The authors must delve deeper into the topic to enhance the discussion. I strongly recommend reading the following review articles:

• • https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26082256

  • https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000525

These references will provide a proper understanding of what FA and humic substances are, and their effects, allowing for a significantly improved and scientifically sound discussion.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Synergistic Effects of Fulvic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity, Root Productivity, and Yield”.

All these comments are valuable and helpful to us in revising and improving the paper, and they are important guidance for our research. We thank you for your constructive comments and well-intentioned suggestions. We have carefully studied these comments and revised them, and we hope they will be approved by you. The revised parts are marked in red in the manuscript. The major revisions in the manuscript and responses to the editor's and reviewers' comments are listed below.

 

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

 

In response to comments from Reviewer 1:

Reviewing 1

 

Abstract

The gap mentioned at the beginning of the abstract is incorrect. Several studies have already shown the effects of humic substances, including fulvic acid, on P dynamics. Please correct this statement.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the beginning of the abstract as “Cotton root system sustain photosynthesis by nutrient uptake and coordinate with above-ground growth to influence yield. This study explored the effects of fulvic acid (FA) and phosphorus (P) fertilizers on the relationships between cotton photosynthetic capacity (CAP) and root carbohydrate metabolism.” in lines 24-27. The purpose of our study was to investigate the effects of combined application of FA and P fertilizer on cotton population photosynthesis, root productivity, and root carbohydrate metabolism. Through literature review, we added some content about the effects of FA on P fertilizer in the introduction and discussion sections.

 

 

The dose of fulvic acid used should be clearly stated, as its effect is dose-dependent.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Due to the word limit, we have placed the dose of fulvic acid in the Materials and Methods as “The fulvic acid was mineral fulvic acid potassium (humic acid ≥50%, fulvic acid ≥50%, organic matter ≥60%, potassium oxide ≥10%, pH 8-11) and was applied at a rate of 45 kg ha⁻¹.” in lines 114-117.

 

Summarize the main findings of the experiment, as the abstract contains excessive information and must comply with the 250-word limit.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the Abstract as “Cotton root system sustain photosynthesis by nutrient uptake and coordinate with above-ground growth to influence yield. This study explored the effects of fulvic acid (FA) and phosphorus (P) fertilizers on the relationships between cotton photosynthetic capacity (CAP) and root carbohydrate metabolism. A field experiment was conducted including five treatments: no P fertilizer (CK), 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ (P1), 150 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ (P2), 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + FA (FP1) , and 150 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + FA (FP2). Results found that FP2 showed the most significant advantage, ensuring a suitable leaf area index (LAI) and cotton fractional interception of photosynthetically active radiation (IPAR) and consequently maintaining a high CAP. Compared with the FP2, FP1 resulted in an increase in the boll loading of the root system (BLR) by 8.1% and the boll capacity of the root system (BCR) by 9.3%. During the peak flowering stage to peak boll setting stage, sucrose and starch contents in FP1 were 6.2%–19.2% and 26.5%–27.9% lower than those in FP2, respectively. Conversely, fructose and glucose contents in FP1 were 6.4%–10.8% and 7.2%–8.8% higher than in FP2. The cotton reproductive organ biomass was increased by 11.1% and 14.7% relative to FP2. Moreover, FP1 achieved the highest yield, with an increase of 8.5% and 11.0% compared with P2 and FP2, respectively. Taken together, our study suggests that application of FP1 (105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + FA) could be a proper P fertilization method in cotton production of saline-alkali and arid regions.” in lines 25-41. 

 

 

Avoid repeating keywords already included in the article title.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the keywords as “cotton; biomass allocation; boll loading of the root system; boll capacity of the root system; root carbohydrate metabolism” in lines 42-43.

 

 

Introduction

Correct the term "essential nutrients"—all nutrients are essential. Use “essential elements” or just “nutrients.”

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Because we rewrite the entire Introduction section, this sentence was deleted during the process.

 

The introduction must be restructured, with the removal and addition of paragraphs and relevant theories.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten the entire Introduction part. And we reemphasized our research purpose.

 

 

The interaction between fulvic acid and P is barely addressed in the introduction. The references are generic and lack depth. The main direct and indirect effects of fulvic acid, and how these can enhance P use efficiency via fertilizers, should be emphasized. The introduction is weak, especially considering the extensive theoretical basis available. Significant advances have been made in the last decade regarding the effect of humic substances on P acquisition, whether by stimulating transporter activity or through interactions in the soil solution or solid phase—yet this is not adequately covered.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. By carefully reading the literature you recommended, we have rewritten the Introduction part.

 

The study’s hypothesis is poorly formulated, and the objectives are too broad and not aligned with the study's conclusions.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed these sentences as “Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effects of FA combined with different P application rates on cotton photosynthetic capacity, biomass, root productivity, and root carbohydrate content across different cotton growth stages, with the goal of identifying the optimal combination of P fertilizers and FA to enhance cotton root productivity and yield. We hypothesize that FA combined with 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ can establishing a balance between root-shoot biomass allocation (root-shoot ratio) and source-sink coordination (leaf area index vs. boll loading of root system and boll capacity of root system), ultimately improving root productivity and cotton yield. ” in Lines 92-99.

 

 

Materials and Methods

A complete characterization of macro- and micronutrients is required, especially the organic matter content, as the effectiveness of humic substances depends heavily on this.

The dose, source, and characterization (chemical, spectroscopic, and nutrient content) of the fulvic acid used are not mentioned. Without this information, the manuscript should not proceed in the review process. There are many types of fulvic acids, and their properties define their effects on P dynamics and plant growth.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added these information about fulvic acid as “The fulvic acid was mineral fulvic acid potassium (humic acid ≥50%, fulvic acid ≥50%, organic matter ≥60%, potassium oxide ≥10%, pH 8-11) and was applied at a rate of 45 kg ha⁻¹. This mineral fulvic acid potassium fertilizer was a commercial fertilizer and was purchased from Fenxiang Xiannong Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Shandong, China).” in lines 118-121. 

 

The experimental design does not clarify why fulvic acid was not tested in isolation. This would allow assessing both its individual effects and interactions. This choice must be justified in the methods section.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added these information about fulvic acid as “As this is a commercial fertilizer with a national standard registration number, no additional elemental testing was conducted. ” in line 123.

 

Results

All acronyms in the figures must be explained in the captions—the figure must be self-explanatory.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sentence “CK, without chemical P fertilizer; P1, 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹; P2, 150 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹; FP1, 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + fulvic acid; FP2, 150 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + fulvic acid. ” in each figure.

 

The quality of the figures must be improved, as some labels are too small to read. Resize them as needed.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the size of the different letters in bars for better visibility in each figure.

 

Despite frequent references to P and fulvic acid interaction, no variables related to P efficiency or uptake were assessed. This is crucial to determine whether fulvic acid had any real effect on P, and its absence significantly undermines the study's credibility.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The purpose of our study was to investigate the effects of combined application of FA and P fertilizer on cotton population photosynthesis, root productivity, and root carbohydrate metabolism. Therefore, we did not include P use efficiency and uptake in this article. This part of the data is in our other manuscript about on the effect of fulvic acid combined with P fertilizer on soil P availability.

 

A correlation analysis is presented in the results, but its methodology is not described in the materials and methods. Please provide this information in the appropriate section.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sentence “Correlation analysis among yield, the photosynthetic capacity of cotton population, root productivity, and carbohydrate contents in cotton root was analyzed by Origin 2024 using a correlation plot app. ” in lines 186-188.

 

 

 

Discussion

It is clear that the authors lack a proper understanding of what fulvic acid is and how it is separated. The statement “Fulvic Acid (FA) is one of the important components of Humic Acid” is conceptually incorrect—both FA and humic acids are distinct fractions of humic substances with unique properties. The authors should consult someone with expertise in this area.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Here we have confused the concepts. After reading the literature recommended by reviewers and consulting relevant materials, we have changed the sentence “Fulvic Acid (FA) is one of the important components of humic substances, derived from decomposed biological materials (e.g., animal carcasses or lignin) through microbial degradation or fermentation. FA is characterized by a small molecular weight, abundant acidic functional groups, and good water solubility, enabling high bioavailability. Unlike other humic fractions, FA exhibits excellent solubility and stability under alkaline conditions and can be easily taken up and utilized by crops, thereby accelerating crop growth by enhancing nutrient absorption. Numerous studies have shown that humic substances combined with inorganic fertilizers can stimulate plant growth and increase yields. The current results fully support our hypothesis that FA combined with 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ can establishing a balance between root-shoot biomass allocation (root-shoot ratio) and source-sink coordination (leaf area index vs. boll loading of root system and boll capacity of root system), ultimately improving root productivity and cotton yield.” in lines 381-393.

 

 

The information provided on FA is overly generic and does not help to deepen the discussion on its role in P dynamics.

Many of the observed effects are due to direct actions of FA, and others to indirect effects, yet none of this is mentioned. The authors must delve deeper into the topic to enhance the discussion. I strongly recommend reading the following review articles:

 

https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26082256·

https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000525·

These references will provide a proper understanding of what FA and humic substances are, and their effects, allowing for a significantly improved and scientifically sound discussion.

Response: We are extremely grateful to the reviewers for providing these two references. They have enabled us to gain a deeper understanding of the effects of humic substances on phosphorus, and have also provided great assistance for our further in-depth research. Through literature review, we added some content about the effects of FA on P fertilizer in the introduction and discussion sections. Thanks again!

 

We again thank the reviewers and editors for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions. We have made some important improvements and changes in the revised

Manuscript for grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers will be satisfied with our response to their concerns and the corresponding revisions made to manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely,

Sumei Wan

May. 2025

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I congratulate you on the topic addressed and the results obtained from the research carried out. You will find my comments on the revised manuscript and I appreciate that they will be useful for making some minor changes, so that the content of the work is better understood by the reader.

Sincerely yours,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Synergistic Effects of Fulvic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity, Root Productivity, and Yield”.

All these comments are valuable and helpful to us in revising and improving the paper, and they are important guidance for our research. We thank you for your constructive comments and well-intentioned suggestions. We have carefully studied these comments and revised them, and we hope they will be approved by you. The revised parts are marked in red in the manuscript. The major revisions in the manuscript and responses to the editor's and reviewers' comments are listed below.

 

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

 

In response to comments from Reviewer 2:

Reviewing 2

Line 27. and phosphorus (P) fertilizers ...

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this mistake.

 

Line 30. Please pay attention to the writing mode for this indicator, as I specified in text, too.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this mistake and  unified throughout the entire manuscript.

 

Line 34. The order, please..... a suitable leaf area index (LAI)......

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this mistake and  checked the whole manuscript.

 

Line 49-50. our study suggests....be a proper ..............

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the sentence as “Taken together, our study suggests that application of FP1 (105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + FA) could be a proper P fertilization method in cotton production of saline-alkali and arid regions.” 

 

Line 52. Please pay attention to this indicator.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Incorporating the suggestions of another reviewer, we have changed the keywords as “cotton; biomass allocation; boll loading of the root system; boll capacity of the root system; root carbohydrate metabolism”. And cotton photosynthetic capacity (CAP) have been unified throughout the entire manuscript.

 

 

Line 125. in each treatment, at different phenological stages:

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the sentence as “Five cotton plants were randomly collected in each treatment, at different phenological stages: peak squaring stage (PSS), peak flowering stage (PFS), peak boll setting stage (PBS), and boll opening stage (BOS), respectively.” in Lines 124-126.

 

Line 133...then calculate seed cotton yield......then calculate seed cotton yield.....Cover 6 cotton plants in the box and ensure .....Past tense, please.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the sentence as “When cotton was harvested, 20 consecutive cotton plants with uniform growth were selected from each plot. The number of bolls per plant was recorded, and their weight was recorded after air-drying to calculate seed cotton yield. The lint yield was obtained after ginning.” in Lines 134-137.

 

 

Line 170. The CAP was calculated by the measured value plus the soil respiration rate, and expressed as.........?...the leaves of sample have been removed ......

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the calculation formula as “The CAP was calculated as following: CAP=(D×Δc×V)/(S×Δt), where D refers to the concentration of CO₂ gas, Δc（ppm）refers to the difference in CO₂ gas concentration within the assimilation chamber over a certain period of time (Δt, s), V refers to the volume of the assimilation chamber, S (m²) refers to the area occupied by the plants inside the assimilation chamber.” in lines 171-174.

 

 

Line 204. It would be useful for the reader to also write the legend for the treatments applied, even if the explanations of the abbreviations were given in the material and methods section.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sentence “CK, without chemical P fertilizer; P1, 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹; P2, 150 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹; FP1, 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + fulvic acid; FP2, 150 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ + fulvic acid. ” in each figure.

 

Line 207. Formatting of Mathematical Components Unfortunately, I don't understand the use of this concept in this context.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected as “Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity”.

 

Line 238. Now, The cotton canopy apparent photosynthesis rate (CAP) .....But,

In Materials and Methods, there was used: The photosynthetic capacity of the cotton population (CAP)....  

Line 250. So, please use the same everywhere in text. on capacity of the cotton population ? Please consider the previous observation as regard as this indicator.

Line 335. the Photosynthetic Capacity of the Cotton Population ? Please consider the previous observation as regard as this indicator.....the photosynthetic capacity of the cotton population ?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Cotton photosynthetic capacity (CAP) have been unified throughout the entire manuscript.

 

Line 295. As the cotton phenological stages advanced ...

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected as “During the development of cotton across various phenological stages, there was a gradual decrease in the root–shoot ratio (R/S)”.

Lines 344-345...vary from 1.0 (red) to −1.0 blue).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected as “Correlation coefficients vary from 1.0 (red) to −1.0 (blue).”

 

Fulvic acid (FA) is one of the important components of humic acid ....

...with humic acid, FA has .....

...that humic acid .................

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Thank you for pointing this out. Here we have confused the concepts. After reading the literature recommended by reviewers and consulting relevant materials, we have changed the sentence “Fulvic Acid (FA) is one of the important components of humic substances, derived from decomposed biological materials (e.g., animal carcasses or lignin) through microbial degradation or fermentation. FA is characterized by a small molecular weight, abundant acidic functional groups, and good water solubility, enabling high bioavailability. Unlike other humic fractions, FA exhibits excellent solubility and stability under alkaline conditions and can be easily taken up and utilized by crops, thereby accelerating crop growth by enhancing nutrient absorption. Numerous studies have shown that humic substances combined with inorganic fertilizers can stimulate plant growth and increase yields. The current results fully support our hypothesis that FA combined with 105 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹ can establishing a balance between root-shoot biomass allocation (root-shoot ratio) and source-sink coordination (leaf area index vs. boll loading of root system and boll capacity of root system), ultimately improving root productivity and cotton yield. ” in Lines 381-393.

 

Volume.....italic

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have checked all the references and made the necessary corrections.

 

 

 

We again thank the reviewers and editors for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions. We have made some important improvements and changes in the revised

Manuscript for grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers will be satisfied with our response to their concerns and the corresponding revisions made to manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely,

Sumei Wan

May. 2025

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of your manuscript “Synergistic Effects of Fulvic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity, Root Productivity, and Yield”.

The content of the manuscript seeks solutions to problems of practical relevance. It presents results using a number of sophisticated indicators (BCR, BLR).

Some comments on the content of the manuscript:

In the Abstract section:

I suggest shortening this section, limiting it to the most important results.

In line 50, the notation FP2 should be replaced by FP1.

In the Introduction section:

I propose to clarify the statements made in lines 61-62: what is the relationship between soil pH and salinity and the amount of phosphorus compounds that are difficult to absorb?

In the Materials and methods section:

2.3: How was the weight of the roots measured? What method was used to remove the roots from the soil and how were the roots cleaned of adhering soil particles?

2.6: References to the methods described in lines 158-160 should be inserted.

In the Results section:

My suggestion is to increase the size of figures 2-11 or increase the size of the lettering indicating the differences between treatments for better visibility.

In line 233, the words interception and of should be written separately.

In the Discussion section:

On line 394, the word The should start with a lower case letter.

In line 396, after the word reproductive, I recommend to write plant parts.

In line 411, before the citation (30), in my opinion, the name of the cited author(s) should also be inserted.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thanks for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Synergistic Effects of Fulvic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity, Root Productivity, and Yield”.

All these comments are valuable and helpful to us in revising and improving the paper, and they are important guidance for our research. We thank you for your constructive comments and well-intentioned suggestions. We have carefully studied these comments and revised them, and we hope they will be approved by you. The revised parts are marked in red in the manuscript. The major revisions in the manuscript and responses to the editor's and reviewers' comments are listed below.

 

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

 

In response to comments from Reviewer 3:

Reviewing 3

 

First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of your manuscript “Synergistic Effects of Fulvic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizers on Cotton Photosynthetic Capacity, Root Productivity, and Yield”.

The content of the manuscript seeks solutions to problems of practical relevance. It presents results using a number of sophisticated indicators (BCR, BLR).

 

Some comments on the content of the manuscript:

 

 

In the Abstract section:

I suggest shortening this section, limiting it to the most important results.

In line 50, the notation FP2 should be replaced by FP1.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed “FP2” to “FP1” in line 40.

 

In the Introduction section:

I propose to clarify the statements made in lines 61-62: what is the relationship between soil pH and salinity and the amount of phosphorus compounds that are difficult to absorb?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We originally wrote the sentence as “In Xinjiang's saline-alkali (calcareous) soils, rich in CaCO₃ and exchangeable calcium, P fixation caused primarily caused by calcium phosphate precipitation leads to high P fixation capacity.” to explain the relationship between pH, salinity and phosphorus, but it was deleted when we rewrote the introduction based on the suggestion of another reviewer.

 

In the Materials and methods section:

2.3: How was the weight of the roots measured? What method was used to remove the roots from the soil and how were the roots cleaned of adhering soil particles?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sentence “A rectangular soil volume (40 cm × 10 cm × 60 cm) was delineated around the sample plant, and the entire cotton plant with its root system was removed as completely as possible. These plant samples were separated according to different organs (root, stem, leaf, flower, and boll). Root samples from various sampling sites were placed in a 0.25 mm sieve and rinsed gently with running water to remove soil. All plant samples were dried at 105 ℃ for 30 min using an oven and then dried at 80 ℃ for 48 h until reaching constant weight. Finally, the samples were weighed ” in lines 129-135.

 

2.6: References to the methods described in lines 158-160 should be inserted.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the reference in line 165.

 

 

In the Results section:

My suggestion is to increase the size of figures 2-11 or increase the size of the lettering indicating the differences between treatments for better visibility.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the size of the different letters in bars for better visibility in each figure.

 

In line 233, the words interception and of should be written separately.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have separated the words “interception” and “of” in lines.

 

In the Discussion section:

On line 394, the word The should start with a lower case letter.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have already corrected this mistake.

 

In line 396, after the word reproductive, I recommend to write plant parts.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the sentence as “BCR and BLR served as key indicators of the coordination between root system function and reproductive organ development.” in lines

 

In line 411, before the citation (30), in my opinion, the name of the cited author(s) should also be inserted.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have already corrected this mistake.

 

 

 

We again thank the reviewers and editors for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions. We have made some important improvements and changes in the revised

Manuscript for grammatical errors. We hope that the reviewers will be satisfied with our response to their concerns and the corresponding revisions made to manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely,

Sumei Wan

May. 2025

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors, I believe that the main points raised have been properly addressed, resulting in a substantial improvement of the manuscript. I consider it now suitable for publication. Congratulations to the authors.