Use of Vegetation Activity Index for Evaluation of L-Alpha Amino Acid Treatment in Sugarcane

Comments 1: In line 132, is 2029 in "Rojo Baio et al. (2029)" a year? Please check the whole text.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. As we will discuss in the next comment, the introduction section was extensively revised, addressing this point.

Comments 2: The Introduction section cites multiple literature descriptions, but there is no summary of the current existing problems and pain points. It is recommended to add a summary first, and then introduce the problems to be solved and the specific methods used in this paper.

Response 2: We have addressed this point and significantly revised the Introduction section. We thoroughly reviewed the entire introduction section to address the comments from both reviewer 1 and reviewer 2. Please see lines 50-142.

Comments 3: In lines 251, 256, 257, etc., "Error! Reference source not found" is displayed in many places. Please check the whole text.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been corrected. There was a cross-reference issue in Word, and we have eliminated this action.

Comments 4: Formula 1 is inconsistent with other formats. In addition, all variables in the formula should be represented in italics. Please check the whole text.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The formula has been corrected (line 177). The entire text is in the format forwarded by the editor.

Comments 5: Before using all abbreviations in the text, when a certain term is first mentioned in full in the article, its abbreviation form should be marked in parentheses thereafter. Please check the whole text.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been corrected.

Comments 6: There are multiple blank lines in Table 13 and Table 14. Please check the whole text or explain their meanings.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The tables have been corrected. Please see lines 429 and 445.

Comments 7: The conclusions section in the text does not explain the practical significance and possible future application directions of the research results in agricultural practice. Please supplement and explain.

Response 7: We agree with this comment. Accordingly, we have included lines 507 to 518 to emphasize this point.

Comments 8: The article obtained the conclusion that L-alpha amino acid treatment has a certain impact on sugarcane through experiments, but it does not explain the possible reasons behind it. The results are relatively superficial. Please supplement and explain

Response 8: We agree with this comment. Accordingly, we have included lines 457 to 472 to emphasize this point.

The authors have analysed the impact of treatment with L-alpha amino acid on sugarcane via vegetation activity index (VAI) and post-harvest productivity. The analysis shows that L-alpha could be utilized to improve plant activity during some crucial circumstances. Currently, there are certain errors in the manuscript. Some of the section-wise observations to improve the scope of the manuscript are as follows:

Comments 1: Under the abstract section, what is the meaning of this line “Studies on biostimulant effects on sugarcane's metabolism, yield, and quality have been limited.” A line of novelty is required under this section. Underlines 44-45 and 46-47, the “no significant difference” must be specified with statistical values for better understanding.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. Accordingly, we have revised the entire abstract. It is important to note that the abstract is limited to 200 words. Please see line 31-45.

Comments 2: Referencing styling must be aligned with respect to Journal guidelines. There are a lot of referencing errors in the manuscript (See. 414)

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The referencing styling has been corrected.

Comments 3: Under the introduction, it is a little bit stretched. Authors are advised to use a comparative table to showcase the existing techniques including challenges and advantages of each one. Objectives are clearly defined but it's recommended to re-write in paragraph form like (a)..., (b)... It is recommended to define the name of the robust technique utilized in this article.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.

Regarding the Introduction: we reviewed all this section (lines 50-142) text and part of the text was modified, and Table 1 was introduced (line 104).

Regarding the Objective: it was updated following the reviewer's recommendation. Please see lines 137-142.

Regarding the defined name: we are calling it Vegetation Activity Index. Please see line 134 and let us know if further specification is needed.

Comments 4: The material and methods section must be separated for better understanding. A flowchart of methodology is recommended. Moreover, some of the equations are not properly defined such as see line number 279 or Eq. 1. Also cross-check that each parameter of Eq. must be specified.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.

Regarding Material and methods: The materials and methods section (line 143) was already separate from the results and discussion section (line 319)

Regarding flowchart: A flowchart has been included. Please refer to lines 315-318.

Regarding the Equations: Regarding the equations: They have been cross-checked. Please see line 177.

Comments 5: In Figure 3, the legend is missing.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 3 now is Figure 4. Please refer to the legend in Figure 6 (line 330). To avoid repeating the legend in Figures 3, 4, and 5, we prefer to include it only in Figure 6.

Comments 6: Some of the text is bold in the manuscript. What it means? See line number 424-425.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been corrected. There was a cross-reference issue in Word, and we have eliminated this action.

Comments 7: Figure 6 symmetry needs to be changed to two columns.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. The entire text is in the format forwarded by the editor.