Exploring Genetic Variation and Trait Correlations in ‘Shiqian Taicha’ Tea Based on Comprehensive Analyses of Morphological and Biochemical Diversity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is well-written, but there are several aspects that need improvement before it can be considered for publication in this journal:

1. In the abstract, it would be beneficial to highlight which sample is identified as the best and has the potential for further research and development.

2. In the introduction, it is recommended to include a literature review that discusses agromorphological parameters relevant to the study.

3. The methods section lacks clarity on whether any extraction process was conducted before biochemical content analysis. Typically, preparation and extraction steps are necessary, and this should be clearly described.

4. In the discussion section, please provide more in-depth analysis on the factors that may contribute to the observed variability in morphological and biochemical parameters among the samples.

Author Response

Thank you very much for sending us the comments on our manuscripts. According to comments, the manuscript has been substantially revised and the changes have been highlighted by using track changes in Word. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction is formally too general saying nothing. It needs to be revised to include more specific information about analyzes similar to Genetic resources, problems when working with Genetic resources, what these analyzes have specifically brought for breeding and cultivation... the information is slightly confusing alternating with each other...

I propose to divide the introduction into two parts.

The first will bring information about tea, meaning, cultivation, substances, etc.

The second part is a specific study and what they found out, where breeding is going, what are the obstacles etc...

In the methodological part, I find many significant doubts, errors and shortcomings.

Everything, including questions, is given in the text.

Similar errors due to errors in the methodology are then in the results part... I am not sure if it is meaningful to correct the results when the experiment is methodologically incomplete.

On the other hand, the discussion and the conclusion are quite good.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe that the English is not up to print, see the hair and so on. I recommend paying for language correction.

Author Response

Thank you very much for sending us the comments on our manuscripts. According to your comments, the manuscript has been substantially revised and the changes have been highlighted by using track changes in Word. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised version of this manuscript, and I am pleased to confirm that the authors have addressed all the requested revisions effectively. The improvements made have enhanced the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the manuscript. The responses to my previous comments were thorough and satisfactory. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the made corrections correspond to the requirements which I had in the first round of comments.

I have no further comments for me at this time.