Effects of Different Planting Environments on the Fragrance of Dalixiang (Oryza sativa L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article ID: applied sciences-3738877

“Effects of different planting environments on the aroma of Dalixiang”

Dear Authors,

first of all the lines are not numerated, I will do my best in reviewing the manuscript.

My additional comments are listed below, point by point. I hope they will be helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Specific comments

Introduction

Why did you use in the title and also as a keyword “aroma” but throughout the manuscript you used the word “fragrance”? I know that they are synonym, but why? Sometimes it is cacophonic, for example “the fragrance of fragrant rice” in the Introduction section (at the beginning of the second part).

You only presented the factors that influence fragrant rice aroma, but noting about the used rice in your study. I suggest to add information about Dalixiang.

Where is the aim of your study at the end of the introduction section? Please add it.

References should not be write as apex. Please correct throughout the manuscript.

1. Materials and Methods

Please specify the sample amount used for all the analysis in each paragraph and in which unit you present your data.

Paragraph 1.1

First line: why here did you write Dailixiang in italics and all the previous times not. Please be consistent. Moreover it should be Dalixiang. Please correct throughout the manuscript.

End of the paragraph: you should specify on which samples you did your analysis. Only on the leaves? Please improve description.

Paragraph 1.7

Please specify the significance level. What kind of statistical analysis did you performed? This paragraph is very poor in details and needs to be improved.

2. Results

Please add the P value in the text when you compare significant different means.

Paragraph 2.1

Line 6: you already said in the M&M how you performed your analysis. Please delete.

Note and Table 1 description should be separate.

Table 1: row and first column have the same sentence. Are the numbers in the table P value? If so, in the table you should present also mean values and SEM (standard errors of the means). Please correct.

Paragraph 2.2

Last sentence: this sentence sounds more like a comment instead of result. I suggest to move it in the Discussion.

Paragraph 2.3

Line 12: you already said in the M&M how you performed your analysis. Please delete.

Paragraph 2.4

Last sentence: again, this last sentence sounds more like a comment instead of result. I suggest to move it in the Discussion.

Paragraph 2.5

Last sentence: again, this last sentence sounds more like a comment instead of result. I suggest to move it in the Discussion.

I did not see paragraph 2.6, please correct.

Paragraph 2.7

There is a problem in the formatting of the paragraph. Please correct.

You do not need to report all the mean values if they are already listed in the table. I suggest to delate them in the text or to remove the table.

Where is Table 2? You skipped from Table 1 to Table 3. Please correct.

Table 3: where are the P values? Please add them.

Tables and Figures: you should specify all the acronyms.

3. Discussion

The last part of discussion sounds like conclusions, that actually are written. I suggest to delete this part or substitute conclusion paragraph with this part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the topic of your manuscript seems interesting—though not obvious, which may make it unique. The introduction is complete and coherent—leaving no doubt as to your thorough analysis of the work's subject matter. The material and methods are described clearly and adequately. I only ask for details regarding the normal distribution, the significance level at which you compare means, and the post-hoc test you use to analyze differences between mean results. In my opinion, this should be included in the description of statistics in the methodology. I would appreciate a more detailed description of the analytical method—for example, regarding the content of macro and microelements in soil (mineralization process? spectrometer?). The results are described clearly, although according to a single scheme, which introduces an element of stagnation in the reading. The discussion is conducted coherently and accurately. The conclusion is quite simple—it probably shouldn't be expanded upon by drawing out additional scientific aspects.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your prompt revision. I have just one final comment, which I have already highlighted in my first revision. You skipped from paragraph 2.5 to paragraph 2.7. There is no paragraph 2.6. Please correct this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx