Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract, the authors must present: the experimental design, with treatments and repetitions. Numerical values ​​must be included in the results What is the recommendation for future studies?

The keywords should not include the words contained in the title

In the introduction, the authors must justify why sorghum was chosen as one of the research objects. There are several studies conducted with sorghum, what is the innovation addressed in this study? What makes it different from other existing studies? What is the hypothesis of the study?

Describe in detail the methodologies used (item 2.2 Fermentation parameters and chemical composition analysis)

The statistical models used need to be included, as well as the statistical analysis needs to present more details

For a better approach and as a way of correlating the responses obtained, I recommend that the results be separated from the discussion.

The probability values ​​should be included in Table 1.

I recommend that the interaction effects be broken down and presented in the form of graphs.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

I am very grateful for your time and generosity in reviewing my paper and sharing your insights and valuable suggestions. These feedbacks have not only greatly benefited my personal academic growth, but also made significant contributions to the improvement and development of our research projects. Please attach a Word document containing my detailed responses and revision notes based on your valuable suggestions. Thank you very much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 Effects of Additives and Planting Density on Silage Perfor-mance and Bacterial Community of Novel Sorghum bicolor × S. propinquum Hybrids

 

 

 

 Keywords: Bacterial community; Cellulase; Fermentation quality; Lactobacillus buchneri; Metabolic 34 differences; Planting density; Sorghum bicolor × S. propinquum

There are key words in the title. These cannot appear in two locations. You must choose just one!

 

 The summary has more the 200 words, must have a maximum of 200.

Conclusion:

It´s a results, not a conclusion:

“This study has effectively demonstrated that the incorporation of cellulase (CE), Lac-500

tobacillus buchneri (LAB), and their combination (LC) during the fermentation process sig-501

nificantly enhances the quality of Sorghum bicolor × S. propinquum silage. At the same time, 502

the fermentation quality of M2 and M3 was better. Specifically, the addition of LC was 503

found to elevate the levels of crude protein (CP), water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), lac-504

tic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), and ether extract (EE) in comparison to the control group 505

(CK), while simultaneously reducing the pH and the contents of neutral detergent fiber 506

(NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF).”

This too “These alterations contribute to a more favorable 507

fermentation environment and improved silage quality. Furthermore, the study high-508

lighted the beneficial effects of LAB and LC additives on the bacterial ecosystem within 509

the silage. Not only did these additives boost the abundance of Lentilactobacillus, but they 510

also orchestrated a shift in the bacterial community composition, effectively suppressing 511

the proliferation of harmful bacteria. Additionally, the use of LAB and LC additives was 512

shown to mitigate the metabolism of ascorbate and aldarate, thereby curtailing the accu-513

mulation of uronic acid.”

It isn´t a conclusion: “Further studies should explore more additives in the ensiling of Sorghum bicolor × S. propinquum.”! May be a suggestion!!

 

The authors need to redo the conclusion. This must be robust, simple and direct. In order to highlight the advantages or disadvantages of the answers obtained. But without showing results. This should be done in the results and discussions!

Reduce the number of citations to a maximum of 30

Author Response

I am very grateful for your time and generosity in reviewing my paper and sharing your insights and valuable suggestions. These feedbacks have not only greatly benefited my personal academic growth, but also made significant contributions to the improvement and development of our research projects. Please attach a Word document containing my detailed responses and revision notes based on your valuable suggestions. Thank you very much for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has shown significant improvement, but the figures are still difficult to understand. The resolution is not good, so it is not possible to understand what the authors want to present.

Author Response

非常感谢您抽出宝贵的时间及时处理我的论文并分享您的宝贵反馈。这些建议对提高我的论文质量具有重要意义。请仔细阅读以下修订内容。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx