Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The manuscript entitled “Effects of different planting densities and harvesting periods 2 on the growth and major alkaloids of Anisodus tanguticus on 3 the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau” well established the study of best planting density, growth period and yield of tropane alkaloids of A. tanguticus plant. But the manuscript is not acceptable for publication in its present format. The decision over the manuscript is major revision. All the required corrections are highlighted inside the manuscript in yellow color with attached comment boxes. Authors are asked to go through all of them and correct them.

Additionally, all the comments are enlisted as follows-

Comments:

Title: Scientific name of the species must be written with the identifier name in the Title.

Abstract: Line number 20-25: The results are okay but they are being more descriptive rather than being accurate numerical value. try to provide some numerical data in the abstract section as well.

Keywords: Arrange all the keywords in alphabetical order.

Introduction:

Line number 34-35: Little bit more description about the species need to be provided.

Additionally, introduction section needs lots of improvement. It should be in the form of- First a proper background of the study, followed by gaps of the study, hypothesis, novelty of the study and present aim of the study.

Results:

Line number 68: Provide the value with standard deviation as shown in the Table 1.

Figure 2: Figure 2 is not very clear author need to increase the resolution of the figure in the revised version of the manuscript.

Page 4, Line number 115 to 121: All the results are seemed to be very descriptive and even from the figures also it is not clearly understandable. Author needs to provide raw data in tabular format as supplementary file or in the original manuscript also author could have presented results with more accurate manner with numerical values.

Materials and Methods:

Figure 6: Source of the figure 6 need to be provided.

Page 9, line number 281-284: By whom exactly was the identification carried out?? Write the name of the name of the individual with designation or name the organization. Additionally, write one or two identifying characters of the species. Is there any herbarium specimen maintained in the departmental herbarium if yes then provide the number or if the data are available online then author can provide the URL also.

Line number 289: "m2" here the "2" should must be superscripted.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the reviewer’s positive comments and recommendation, which helps us greatly improve the quality of our paper. According to the recommendations, we have revised our manuscript carefully, and made corresponding corrections and response point by point. All changes are also highlighted in blue color in the revise manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘Effects of different planting densities and harvesting periods on the growth and major alkaloids of Anisodus tanguticus on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau’ is very well written and falls within the aim and scope of the Journal. The manuscript states that Anisodus tanguticus (Maxim.) Pascher, a medicinal plant growing in the Tibetan Plateau region with various medicinal values, is mainly used for the extraction of tropane alkaloids (TAs), and the increased demand for A. tanguticus has triggered its overexploitation. During 2020 and 2021, 15 a split-plot experiment with 3 replicates was used to study different planting densities (D1: 30×50 16 cm; D2: 40×50 cm; D3: 50×50 cm; D4: 60×50 cm) and different growth periods (first withering pe- 17 riod: October 2020; greening period: June 2021; growth period: August 2021; second withering pe- 18 riod: October 2021) on the yield and alkaloid contents (atropine, scopolamine, anisodamine, aniso- 19 dine) of A. tanguticus. The results showed that the mass per plant of A. tanguticus was higher at low 20 density, while the yield per unit area of the underground part was higher at high density, and the 21 mass of the aboveground part was higher at low density. The anisodamine and anisodine contents 22 at D2 (40 cm ×50 cm) were significantly higher than those at the other densities during the growth 23 period. The content of all four alkaloids was highest during the greening period, and the contents 24 of scopolamine, anisodamine, and anisodine were higher in the aboveground part than in the un-derground part. The total alkaloid accumulation per unit area of the whole plant reached the maximum value (1.08%, 139.48 kg/ha) in the growth period of D2; therefore, for economic efficiency and selection of the best overall quality, it was concluded that the aboveground part also had me-dicinal value, the growth period was the best harvesting period, and D2 (40 cm ×50 cm) was the best planting density for A. tanguticus.

The manuscript can be reconsidered after the following corrections;

1.      Why only these 04 alkaloids were selected for the study? There might be some more beneficial alkaloids in Anisodus tanguticus.

2.      Line 79 to 86: Word Growing Season is repeated many times? What was the growing season? Could you please write it in a better way?

3.      Does this density relate to soil properties? Was the soil analysed for this study?

4.      Please add more recent material in introduction and discussion. I am afraid the material is not sufficient.

5.      Please revisit statistical analysis in Fig. 2.

6.      Please see that references are as per journal style.

7.      Also Improve language of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the reviewer’s positive comments and recommendation, which helps us greatly improve the quality of our paper. According to the recommendations, we have revised our manuscript carefully, and made corresponding corrections and responses point by point. All changes are also highlighted in blue color in the revise manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have go through the manuscript.

The hypothesis was interesting but the quality of the presentation of the results was really low.

There are a lot of grammatical and syntax errors which made it very hard to review.

Please check the comments in the main text as attached file.

In my idea, this manuscript should be improved based on comments and then could be considered for re-submit for review again.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks very much for the reviewer’s positive comments and recommendation, which helps us greatly improve the quality of our paper. According to the recommendations, we have revised our manuscript carefully, and made corresponding corrections and responses point by point. All changes are also highlighted in blue color in the revise manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

All the quarries raised by me me satisfactory resolved now the MS is in acceptable form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have revised the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend that manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments were corrected accordingly so the current shape of manuscript could be published in Agriculture (MDPI).