Varietal Characteristics of Jerusalem Artichoke as a High Nutritional Value Crop for Herbivorous Animal Husbandry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the authors trying to present a relevant research topic of this journal, the current version of the manuscript is very poorly presented and missing some of the most important methodological aspects such as experimental design, treatments, analysis of biochemical components and the data analysis. Moreover, the figures and tables need appropriate formatting to meet the publishable quality and moderate English language editing is required for the text and titles of figures/tables. There should be a greater discussion on what type of livestock species will consume Jerusalem artichoke and how much they will like it. Additional comments for further improvements are given in the attached manuscript. I recommend major revisions to this paper so that the authors can have an opportunity to greatly improve their work that can be useful and readable. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study contains interesting observation of Jerusalem artichoke and growth traits of different types. Although, many studies have been conducted on nutritional value crop for herbivorous animal husbandry, the evidences of responses of the Jerusalem artichoke are still lacking. Furthermore, the research is significant for the region where the study was conducted as the results can be used to improve the efficiency and production of Jerusalem artichoke, it is meaningful for Jerusalem artichoke as a fodder crop and to estimate the energy efficiency of Jerusalem artichoke cultivation. The study aimed to address a region issue but there are many issues with the presentation of the MS, which the author(s) would have to address to make it clear and meaningful. In addition, this manuscript still needs improving in writing logic, and some language expression and the analysis of the discussion are not clear. It is recommended to modify the language for a better version. Moreover, the discussion section is not clear enough. It is recommended to have a major revision before publication.

 

1. The title is not an accurate summary of the full text, maybe it could change the title to better summarize the research content.
2. Line 17: m2/ plant? Maybe it's the wrong format.
3. In your abstract, there is too many words, and the hierarchy is not too clear, it is suggested to refine the abstract part. Abstract should reflect the key points of the paper, but this paper too much emphasis on the materials and experimental environment.
4. Line 54: ‘was’ may change to ‘were’.
5. Line 73: It is recommended that no more than three literatures are cited.
6. Line 76: It is recommended that no more than three literatures are cited.
7. Line 78: so many literatures.
8. Line 102-107: It is recommended to simplify the research objectives in the manuscript and highlight the key points.
9. Line 145: 10 C? Maybe it's the wrong format.
10. Line 150: In the MM, there are 16 Jerusalem artichoke cultivars, you’d better list the varieties information in the Table.
11. Line 170: recording plot area – 20.0 m2.? wrong format.
12. Line 188: P2O5 and K2O? Maybe it's the wrong format.
13. In Figure 10, the figure is not very standard. It is suggested to make the chart more normative and increase the readability of the MS.
14. Line 252 and Line 254: Check whether the icon number corresponds to the article content..
15. Line 271，Line 276 and Line 287, The chart format is inconsistent and the picture resolution is not clear enough.
16. Line 511: The format of multiple titles is not uniform
17. Line 603: m2/ plant? Maybe it's the wrong format.
18. First of all, you can make the visualization more beautiful, such as processing the diagram again, too many tables will affect the reading experience.
19. In addition, this experiment has more than many years and a large amount of data, so we can explore the different variable factors in further depth, find possible relationships, conduct an exploratory study, and propose a relatively novel idea.
20. I noticed that some parts of your discussion were logically incoherent and poorly organized. Perhaps you can refine it.
21. In addition, there are places where there is a lack of punctuation, you can read it again, the format or something in the perfect a little.
22. In the conclusions, the research conclusions should be concise and concise, which can make it easier for readers to get useful information from it. It is suggested to refine the conclusion part.
23. In the References, we have noticed some problems in the citation format of some literatures, and suggest modification.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to the authors have been marked at appropriate places in the PDF of the manuscript. Revision based on the comments might improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached my comments on the revised manuscript and address them accordingly. This revised version requires minor revisions especially on abstract and conclusions. I would suggest the authors to go through a professional English language editing before submitting their final version. Thank you.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx