Illuminating the Patterns of Fungal Community Succession, Physicochemical Properties, Volatiles and Their Relationships in Fermented Grains for the Production of Chinese Strong-Flavor Baijiu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript with title "Illuminating the patterns of fungal community succession, physicochemical properties, volatiles and their relationships in fermented grains for the production of Chinese strong-flavor Baijiu" is very interesting and deals with important area of food industry - fermented drinks and brewing technology. The experimental design is planned well and results are clearly discussed.

However, I will suggest improving of the manuscript in several points:

1. Line 51-52: Two sentences finishing and beginning on the same way "in recent years". This should be changed.
2. 2.1. Sample collection: What is used for fermentation sorghum or millet, which type of grains was used for fermentation?
3. 2.2 Determination of physicochemical properties of FGs: Except TA (total acidity), why VA (volatile acidity) is not measured?
4. 2.5 Semi-quantitative analysis of volatile compounds in FGs - Why authors used semi-quantification with acid and not full quantification with pure standards?
5. Line 515-517: Why 3 genera were correlated with 1-butanol, 1-hexanol, and ethyl (S)-2
   hydroxypropionate, while the remaining 8 volatile compounds were each correlated 
   with 1 or 2 genera? Which genera produced more alcohols and which more esters?
6. In conclusion (line 708-709) authors concluded that genera such as Trichoderma and Fusarium could promote the accumulation of key flavor substances including
   1-butanol and 1-hexanol. How they concluded that 1-butanol and 1-hexanol are the key flavor compounds without headspace and olfactometry?
7. Conclusion should include the influence of the temperature on the days of fermentation. If the temperature was lower or higher which volatile compounds would dominate?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editors,

The manuscript with title "Illuminating the patterns of fungal community succession, physicochemical properties, volatiles and their relationships in fermented grains for the production of Chinese strong-flavor Baijiu" is very interesting and deals with important area of food industry - fermented drinks and brewing technology. The experimental design is planned well, and results are clearly discussed.

However, I will suggest improving of the manuscript in several points:

1. Line 51-52: Two sentences finishing and beginning on the same way "in recent years". This should be changed.
2. 2.1. Sample collection: What is used for fermentation sorghum or millet, which type of grains was used for fermentation?
3. 2.2 Determination of physicochemical properties of FGs: Except TA (total acidity), why VA (volatile acidity) is not measured?
4. 2.5 Semi-quantitative analysis of volatile compounds in FGs - Why authors used semi-quantification with acid and not full quantification with pure standards?
5. Line 515-517: Why 3 genera were correlated with 1-butanol, 1-hexanol, and ethyl (S)-2
   hydroxypropionate, while the remaining 8 volatile compounds were each correlated 
   with 1 or 2 genera? Which genera produced more alcohols and which more esters?
6. In conclusion (line 708-709) authors concluded that genera such as Trichoderma and Fusarium could promote the accumulation of key flavor substances including
   1-butanol and 1-hexanol. How they concluded that 1-butanol and 1-hexanol are the key flavor compounds without headspace and olfactometry?
7. Conclusion should include the influence of the temperature on the days of fermentation. If the temperature was lower or higher which volatile compounds would dominate?

Author Response

Reviewer 1’s Comments and Our Responses

Reviewer Comment 1: Dear Authors,The manuscript with title "Illuminating the patterns of fungal community succession, physicochemical properties, volatiles and their relationships in fermented grains for the production of Chinese strong-flavor Baijiu" is very interesting and deals with important area of food industry - fermented drinks and brewing technology. The experimental design is planned well and results are clearly discussed.However, I will suggest improving of the manuscript in several points:

Line 51-52: Two sentences finishing and beginning on the same way "in recent years". This should be changed.

Our Response: Thank you for your review of the manuscript. We have removed the phrase "in recent years" at the beginning of line 54.

Reviewer Comment 2: 2.1. Sample collection: What is used for fermentation sorghum or millet, which type of grains was used for fermentation?

Our Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion. In this study, the fermentation material used for the production of Chinese strong-flavor Baijiu (CSFB) was sorghum, which is consistent with the traditional brewing process of CSFB. The relevant information has been supplemented in Section 1 (Introduction) of the revised manuscript. We have revised lines 32-37 of the original manuscript to "CSFB is one of the most mainstream flavor types of Chinese Baijiu. Produced mainly from sorghum through core technologies including pit mud fermentation, successive grain-residue blending, and mixed steaming-distillation, CSFB exhibits distinct sensory attributes: intense pit aroma, mellow-sweet and clean taste, harmonious flavor profile, and long-lasting aftertaste."

Reviewer Comment 3: 2.2 Determination of physicochemical properties of FGs: Except TA (total acidity), why VA (volatile acidity) is not measured?

Our Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's attention to the selection of indicators for determining the physicochemical properties of FGs in this study. In the analysis of the physicochemical properties of FGs in this research, we chose to determine total acidity (TA) rather than volatile acidity (VA) for the following reasons: Firstly, TA is a classic and comprehensive indicator reflecting the fermentation state of FGs. Changes in its value can comprehensively reflect the total accumulation of organic acids in FGs, thereby indicating microbial metabolic activity, substrate degradation and transformation efficiency, and the acid-base balance environment of FGs during fermentation. This information is crucial for analyzing the correlation between the structure and function of the microbial community in FGs. Secondly, based on a review of relevant literature in the field of Baijiu brewing, TA is one of the most commonly used indicators in the study of the physicochemical properties of FGs, while the determination of VA is usually applied to the flavor quality evaluation of finished Baijiu rather than the dynamic monitoring of the fermented grain fermentation process, as reflected in the following two reports: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110626; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102987.

Reviewer Comment 4: 2.5 Semi-quantitative analysis of volatile compounds in FGs - Why authors used semi-quantification with acid and not full quantification with pure standards?

Our Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable question, which has helped us correct a critical typo in the manuscript. First, we apologize for the inaccuracy in the original English text: the term "each acid" was a typographical error, and the correct expression should be "each compound". We have revised lines 148-150 of the original manuscript to "Finally, the ratio of the peak area of each compound to the internal standard peak area was used as a semi-quantitative result."

Reviewer Comment 5: Line 515-517: Why 3 genera were correlated with 1-butanol, 1-hexanol, and ethyl (S)-2

hydroxypropionate, while the remaining 8 volatile compounds were each correlated 

with 1 or 2 genera? Which genera produced more alcohols and which more esters?

Our Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's valuable revision suggestions. As stated in lines 515-517 of the original PDF manuscript: "In addition, 3 genera were correlated with 1-butanol, 1-hexanol, and ethyl (S)-2-hydroxypropionate, while the remaining 8 volatile compounds were each correlated with 1 or 2 genera", and in lines 522-524 of the original PDF manuscript: "Specifically, at least 3 genera were correlated with 2,2'-methylenebis[6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol] and 1-butanol, while the remaining 5 volatile compounds were each correlated with at least 1 genus." After careful rechecking in combination with Figure 8, we found that the conclusions presented were inappropriate. Therefore, we have deleted the expressions in these two parts of the original manuscript. In addition, in lines 513-514 of the original PDF manuscript, we wrote: "Among these 9 genera, 45.45% were positively correlated with alcohols, 36.36% with esters, 9.09% with phenols, and 9.09% with other compounds." Upon prudent verification, we identified that the second "9.09%" should be corrected to "9.10%". Consequently, lines 513–514 of the original PDF manuscript have been revised to: "Among these 9 genera, 45.45% were positively correlated with alcohols, 36.36% with esters, 9.09% with phenols, and 9.10% with other compounds."

Reviewer Comment 6: In conclusion (line 708-709) authors concluded that genera such as Trichoderma and Fusarium could promote the accumulation of key flavor substances including

1-butanol and 1-hexanol. How they concluded that 1-butanol and 1-hexanol are the key flavor compounds without headspace and olfactometry?

Our Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions.1-Butanol and 1-hexanol are key auxiliary flavor substances of CSFB, not main aroma components. However, they play an irreplaceable role in the integrity and harmony of the liquor's flavor and are important components forming the flavor framework of CSFB. 1-Butanol has a slight alcoholic and fruity aroma, while 1-hexanol exhibits a grassy and fatty aroma. Their synergistic effect can enrich the aroma layers of the liquor and enhance the "complex pit aroma sensation" of CSFB. As pointed out by the reviewer, it is imprecise to define 1-butanol and 1-hexanol as key flavor compounds without conducting headspace analysis and olfactory measurement. Therefore, we have removed the word "key". In the original PDF manuscript, lines 708–709 have been revised to: "The association between fungal communities and volatile flavor substances showed significant specificity: genera such as Trichoderma and Fusarium could promote the accumulation of flavor substances including 1-butanol and 1-hexanol."

Reviewer Comment 7: Conclusion should include the influence of the temperature on the days of fermentation. If the temperature was lower or higher which volatile compounds would dominate?

Our Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The core purpose of focusing on temperature in this manuscript is to divide the entire fermentation process of CSFB into three stages—early stage (0-7 d), middle stage (7-25 d), and late stage (45-60 d)—by integrating the dynamic change patterns of fermentation temperature and physicochemical properties (Figure 1). This method of stage division facilitates the systematic analysis of the succession of microbial community structure, the metabolic accumulation of flavor substances, and the interaction mechanism between them during each fermentation stage. Notably, the division of fermentation stages based on the characteristics of temperature changes is a classic and widely adopted strategy in the field of Baijiu fermentation research, as reflected in relevant literature such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110626; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102987; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114647; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.114173. In addition, the core scientific question of this study focuses on the association mechanism between microbial communities and flavor substances during different fermentation stages, rather than the regulatory effect of fermentation temperature on the fermentation cycle or the influence of temperature changes on the dominant types of volatile compounds.

We are deeply grateful for your rigorous oversight and invaluable guidance. We have made substantial revisions as requested, and we respectfully ask for your review of the revised manuscript. If you believe there are any additional areas that need optimization, we will actively cooperate to complete all necessary improvements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic and demonstrates strong experimental execution. However, the current prioritizes completeness over clarity. The manuscript would benefit greatly from conceptual streamlining, stronger synthesis, and clearer articulation of key biological mechanisms.

1. Novelty and Research Gap

The Introduction provides an extensive background but does not sufficiently distinguish what is fundamentally new compared to previous CSFB microbiome studies.

Please explicitly clarify:

• What new ecological or mechanistic insight does this work provide beyond existing fungal succession studies?
• How does focusing on fungi–volatile correlations advance current understanding rather than confirm known associations?

A short paragraph clearly stating “What is known / What is unknown / What this study adds” would significantly strengthen the manuscript

2- Excessive repetition between Results and Discussion.
Over-interpretation of correlation-based analyses without sufficient caution.
Limited synthesis of findings into clear mechanistic insights.
Length and redundancy beyond what is typically expected for an original research article.
3- Structure and Redundancy
There is substantial repetition between Results (Sections 3.1–3.7) and Discussion (Section 4).
Many results are re-described in near-identical wording in the Discussion without deeper interpretation.
Suggestion:

Shorten the Results to factual observations only.
In the Discussion, avoid repeating numerical trends and instead focus on:

4- Volatile Compounds: Sensory and Functional Context

• Although 47 volatiles are identified, their sensory relevance is not sufficiently contextualized.

Several compounds are statistically discussed but not clearly linked to:

• Aroma thresholds
• Sensory contribution to CSFB flavor
• Practical quality control implications

Suggestion:
Add a concise table or paragraph summarizing:

Key volatiles

• Known sensory descriptors
• Likely microbial contributors
• Fermentation stage relevance

5. Length and Focus

The manuscript is unusually long for an original research article. Please consider; 

• Moving detailed taxonomic descriptions to Supplementary Material
• Condensing repetitive explanations of fermentation stages

Final recommendation: Major Revision

The study is scientifically sound and valuable, but I believe the manuscript can reach publishable quality after substantial revision.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2’s Comments and Our Responses

Reviewer Comment 1: The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic and demonstrates strong experimental execution. However, the current prioritizes completeness over clarity. The manuscript would benefit greatly from conceptual streamlining, stronger synthesis, and clearer articulation of key biological mechanisms.

1. Novelty and Research Gap

The Introduction provides an extensive background but does not sufficiently distinguish what is fundamentally new compared to previous CSFB microbiome studies.

Please explicitly clarify:

    What new ecological or mechanistic insight does this work provide beyond existing fungal succession studies?

    How does focusing on fungi–volatile correlations advance current understanding rather than confirm known associations?

A short paragraph clearly stating “What is known / What is unknown / What this study adds” would significantly strengthen the manuscript

Our Response:

We sincerely appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and the valuable suggestions provided.

Regarding Question 1: What new ecological or mechanistic insight does this work provide beyond existing fungal succession studies?

Thank you for this question. Most existing studies on fungal succession in FGs of CSFB have focused on single-dimensional changes in community structure, or only analyzed the associations between fungal succession and either physicochemical properties or flavor substances, lacking a systematic elucidation of the dynamic coupling relationships among the three. By integrating dynamic data on eukaryotic microbial community succession, key physicochemical properties of FGs (moisture, acidity, starch, reducing sugar, etc.), and flavor substances throughout the entire fermentation cycle (0-60 d), and employing multivariate statistical methods such as Redundancy Analysis (RDA) and network analysis, this study provides the following new ecological and mechanistic insights: Firstly, it identifies the key ecological nodes (7 d, 25 d, and 45 d) of fungal community succession during the long-term fermentation of CSFB, reveals the core driving factors of fungal communities in different fermentation stages, and improves the spatiotemporal succession ecological framework of fungal communities in FGs. Secondly, it constructs a coupling mechanism of "physicochemical property-driven fungal community succession-flavor substance production", confirming that fungal community succession is not only regulated by physicochemical factors, but changes in its community structure also directly affect the metabolic accumulation of key flavor substances such as alcohols and esters. In turn, the accumulation of flavor substances reacts on the physicochemical properties of FGs, forming a dynamic feedback loop. The revelation of this mechanism provides a new theoretical perspective for understanding the functional stability of the fermented grain ecosystem.

Regarding Question 2: How does focusing on fungi–volatile correlations advance current understanding rather than confirm known associations?

Thank you for this valuable question. Given that the core objective of this study is to elucidate the dynamic correlations between fungal communities and volatile substances throughout the fermentation cycle, we did not supplement experiments related to cultivable microorganisms in the manuscript. However, based on the existing results, our subsequent research will conduct targeted isolation, identification, and pure culture of the dominant functional fungal taxa identified in this study. Through bioaugmentation fermentation experiments combined with multi-omics technologies, we will further verify their regulatory effects on the composition and content of flavor substances in FGs, thereby achieving a leap from "microorganism-flavor substance correlation analysis" to "causal verification". This will provide more direct theoretical support for improving CSFB quality through targeted microbial regulation and further advance the understanding of fungal functions and flavor formation mechanisms in the field.

Regarding Question 3: A short paragraph clearly stating “What is known / What is unknown / What this study adds” would significantly strengthen the manuscript.

In accordance with your suggestion, we have supplemented a paragraph on innovation and a core paragraph of "What is known / What is unknown / What this study adds" at the end of the Introduction, clearly clarifying the essential differences between this study and previous works as well as its academic contributions. We have revised lines 99-104 of the original manuscript to "Collectively, the correlations between physicochemical parameters and fungal communities, the intra-interaction network characteristics of eukaryotic microbial communities, as well as the specific correlation patterns between fungi and key flavor compounds (e.g., higher alcohols and esters) during the long-term fermentation of CSFB remain largely elusive. In this study, by combining physicochemical analysis, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) detection, and Illumina HiSeq sequencing technology, we elucidated the dynamic variation characteristics of physicochemical properties, eukaryotic microbial communities, and flavor compounds in FGs at different time points (0, 7, 15, 25, 45, and 60 d) during CSFB fermentation. Furthermore, we revealed the correlation relationships between key eukaryotic taxa, physicochemical factors, and flavor substances, and constructed the intra-interaction network of eukaryotic microorganisms. The results of this study can provide a theoretical basis for improving the quality stability of CSFB and optimizing the fermentation process."

Reviewer Comment 2: Excessive repetition between Results and Discussion.

Over-interpretation of correlation-based analyses without sufficient caution.

Limited synthesis of findings into clear mechanistic insights.

Length and redundancy beyond what is typically expected for an original research article.

Our Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

In the results section of the correlation analysis, after careful inspection, we found that the content in lines 404-408 and lines 413-434 of the original PDF manuscript was duplicated with that in lines 435-460. This might have been caused by accidental duplicate pasting when we copied the manuscript content into the template. We have deleted the duplicated content in lines 404-408 and lines 413-434. We would like to express our sincere gratitude again for your careful review, which helped us identify this error.

Regarding the results of the correlation analysis, we carefully checked the expressions of the analysis results. Specifically, in Section 3.7 "Correlation between fungal microorganisms and the dynamics of volatile compounds in FGs", we found that there were indeed some imprecise expressions in the conclusions of the original manuscript. Therefore, we deleted the content in lines 515-517 of the original PDF manuscript: "In addition, 3 genera were correlated with 1-butanol, 1-hexanol, and ethyl (S)-2-hydroxypropionate, while the remaining 8 volatile compounds were each correlated with 1 or 2 genera", as well as the content in lines 522-524 of the original PDF manuscript: "Specifically, at least 3 genera were correlated with 2,2'-methylenebis[6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methylphenol] and 1-butanol, while the remaining 5 volatile compounds were each correlated with at least 1 genus."

Reviewer Comment 3: Structure and Redundancy

There is substantial repetition between Results (Sections 3.1–3.7) and Discussion (Section 4).

Many results are re-described in near-identical wording in the Discussion without deeper interpretation.

Suggestion:

Shorten the Results to factual observations only.

In the Discussion, avoid repeating numerical trends and instead focus on:

Our Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In the Discussion section (Section 4), we have revised and deleted the content while ensuring that readers can fully understand the manuscript. In the original PDF manuscript, we deleted the content in lines 543-548: “During the early fermentation stage, the pH value, moisture content, and TE content of FGs all exhibited a trend of first increasing and then decreasing, while the contents of RS, Et, and TA gradually increased with the fermentation process. Combined with Figure. 3, microbial diversity and species richness in the early fermentation stage showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. It is speculated that the FGs environment had not yet formed strong selective pressure at the initial stage of pit entry, and microorganisms such as”. We revised the content in lines 555-558 from “the contents of moisture, Et, and TA continued to increase; the RS, pH value, and TE content showed a downward trend; and the NH4+ content first increased and then decreased, which is consistent with the findings of Liu et al. on the FGs of CTRB.” to “the dynamic changes in the physicochemical properties of FGs, such as moisture content, ethanol content, and total acid content, were largely consistent with the findings reported by Liu et al. in their study on the FGs of CTRB.” We revised the content in lines 573-575 from “Hu Xiaolong et al. also reported the same finding: the newly detected flavor substances in the late fermentation stage of strong-flavor liquor were esters” to “Hu et al. also reported the same finding: the newly detected flavor substances in the late fermentation stage of CSFB were esters”. We deleted the content in lines 579-581 of the original PDF manuscript: “As alcohol and acid substrates changed from single components to multiple combinations in the late fermentation stage, species diversity increased with the proliferation of acid-tolerant and alcohol-tolerant microorganisms.” In addition, to ensure the rigor of the conclusions drawn, we deleted the content in lines 591-594 of the original PDF manuscript: “This also explains why in traditional Baijiu brewing processes, extending the optimal metabolic window in the middle stage can often improve substrate conversion rate and product accumulation, thereby achieving the goal of optimizing Baijiu quality.” Furthermore, we revised the content in lines 597-604 of the original PDF manuscript from “Previous studies have shown that Ascomycota was the absolutely dominant phylum during different rounds of pile fermentation of FGs for Chinese Baijiu production, with a relative abundance ranging from 96.57% to 99.99% [28]. In addition, other studies have confirmed that Ascomycota is the main fungal phylum in FGs for the fermentation of strong-flavor, Maotai-flavor, and light-flavor Baijiu, indicating that this phylum plays a key role as a fungal microbial group in the Baijiu fermentation process [29], while also revealing commonalities in the core microorganisms involved in the fermentation of Baijiu with different flavor types.” to “Previous studies have indicated that Ascomycota is the dominant fungal phylum in the fermentation of FGs for CSFB, Maotai-flavor, and light-flavor Baijiu, with a relative abundance ranging from 96.57% to 99.99% [28-29]. This finding not only confirms the key role of Ascomycota in Baijiu fermentation but also reveals the commonalities of core microorganisms involved in the fermentation of Baijiu with different flavor types.” We deleted the content “of liquor.” in line 621 of the original PDF manuscript. We deleted the content in lines 624-631 of the original PDF manuscript: “Previous studies have analyzed the microbial communities in FGs and their influencing factors, with different research focuses. For example, some studies have shown that the diversity of fungal communities in CSFB-FGs was significantly correlated with starch content [23]. However, in the correlation analysis between physicochemical indicators and microbial diversity during the fermentation of Feng-flavor Baijiu, no significant correlation was found between starch content and fungal diversity [34], and this difference may be attributed to variations in fermentation processes and geographical regions.” We deleted the content in lines 634-635 of the original PDF manuscript: “Combined with the results of Mantel tests between physicochemical factors and dominant fungal genera in Figure. 7”. We deleted the word “Haideng” in line 639 and the word “Zhiguo” in line 642 of the original PDF manuscript. We deleted the content in lines 646-649 of the original PDF manuscript: “An increase in total acid in the fermentation environment affects the dissociation of nutrients in the fermentation environment, impairs the physiological functions and permeability of microbial cell membranes [35], and thus leads to the succession of microbial communities.” Besides, we have replaced all instances of “liquor” with “Baijiu” in the Discussion section.

Reviewer Comment 4: Volatile Compounds: Sensory and Functional Context

    Although 47 volatiles are identified, their sensory relevance is not sufficiently contextualized.

Several compounds are statistically discussed but not clearly linked to:

    Aroma thresholds

    Sensory contribution to CSFB flavor

    Practical quality control implications

Suggestion:

Add a concise table or paragraph summarizing:

Key volatiles

    Known sensory descriptors

    Likely microbial contributors

    Fermentation stage relevance

Our Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Indeed, the core focus of this study is not on the aroma thresholds of volatile compounds and their sensory contributions to the flavor of CSFB, but rather on the correlation analysis between key flavor substances and dominant microbial genera. Based on published literature, we selected representative flavor compounds including 1-butanol and 1-hexanol, and systematically elucidated their interactive relationships with dominant microbial genera in FGs. Furthermore, in the discussion section of the original manuscript, we have already presented a detailed elaboration on the succession patterns of dominant microbial genera and the dynamic variation characteristics of flavor compounds across different fermentation stages of CSFB. Your suggestions have provided highly valuable insights for our research. In subsequent studies, we will focus on conducting in-depth investigations into higher alcohols such as 1-propanol, isobutanol, isoamyl alcohol, and β-phenylethanol, aiming to further clarify their intrinsic regulatory relationships with dominant microbial genera and physicochemical properties in FGs.

Reviewer Comment 5: Length and Focus

The manuscript is unusually long for an original research article. Please consider;

    Moving detailed taxonomic descriptions to Supplementary Material

    Condensing repetitive explanations of fermentation stages

Final recommendation: Major Revision

The study is scientifically sound and valuable, but I believe the manuscript can reach publishable quality after substantial revision.

Our Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments, which have provided crucial guidance for optimizing the manuscript structure and highlighting the key research findings. In response to the issues regarding manuscript length and focus that you pointed out, we have earnestly implemented the relevant revisions. For instance, we have moved Figures 3 and 4 to the supplementary materials to ensure that the main text focuses on the core research findings, thereby avoiding the diversion of attention caused by detailed taxonomic descriptions. Furthermore, we have strictly streamlined the repetitive explanations of fermentation stages; the specific deletions have been completed concurrently with the revisions for Question 4, which ensures the logical coherence and concise expression of the entire manuscript. Once again, we thank you for your rigorous review and professional guidance. We have completed extensive revisions as required and sincerely request that you review the revised manuscript. Should there be any further aspects that need improvement, we will actively cooperate with additional adjustments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The revised manuscript with title "Illuminating the patterns of fungal community succession, physicochemical properties, volatiles and their relationships in fermented grains for the production of Chinese strong-flavor Baijiu" is significantly improved and all my questions, remarks and suggestions are answered well. Although some of additional analysis are not performed, the revised version of the manuscript is enough improved to be published.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language is well and there is no need further improvement. However, I am not native English speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript. The authors have thoroughly addressed all reviewer comments, and the revisions have significantly improved the clarity, structure, and scientific rigor of the manuscript. The responses were clear and appropriate, and the revised version now presents a well-balanced and coherent study.

I have no further comments and support the manuscript in its current form.