Changes in Secondary Metabolite Production in Response to Salt Stress in Alcea rosea L.
and Andrea Mastinu 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the overall efforts for the submitted manuscript. Here are a few important comments for revisions:
1. line 29 ........is a problem
2. line 36 ....... Replace Which with These or some other word that makes the sentence proper English.
3. line 42 ...... Thus providing .................. is a sentence fragment
4. line 66 ......remove "In practice" or rewrite sentence
5. line 74-75 change order of reference to show [2,7]
6. line 97, place comma after irrigation water......
7. line 142 superscript should be placed after "m"
8. line 151 ....be consistent mM before NaCl
9. line 153 ........ Soil ECe should there be a subscript
10. line 154 ......... -1 should be superscript
11. line 156-159 ........rewrite sentence
12. line 162 sentence should start with Five not 5
13. figure 1 ..... growth stages are better if pictures for (a) was all horizontal and then (b) was made horizontal for better comparison of plants stages; lower two pictures for (a) should be improved
14. line 173 ..... add TPC after content
15. line 177 .... remove space after 80
16. line 179 ..... remove space after ) and add space before 7
17. line 180 .... remove space after 45o
18. line 181 ...... remove (total phenolic content)
19. line 186 ..... which later "was" removed....
20. line 188..... remove space between 80 and %
21. line 192 ..... remove line 192
22. line 193 .... remove "analytical"
23. line 206 .... should have figure 3 closer to it
24. section 2.4 ...should be rewritten ; remove repetition., adding subscripts were needed;
25. line 228 .....join in cluding
26. line 231..... in the dark for completion of reaction......
27. remove "firstly"
28. line 248 , is this only for seed preparation?
29. lines 250 and 251 be consistent, use either hours or h
30. figure 2 (line 256) is mentioned after figure 3 (line 206)
31. Is figure 2 relevant?
32. move header for table 2 directly above the table ; do not split pages
33. footnote - ns should not be superscript in footnote; remove period. add semicolon or colons for clarification - USE FOOTNOTE IN table as example
34. footnote for table 3......... add colon or semicolon instead of comma - USE FOOTNOTE IN table as example
35. table 4 align SSS in column 1; should 9 be 9.0 (column 5); column 4 align SSS
36. There is no mention of the weather conditions or the difference in weather (ie temperature, rain amount etc) when comparing years. Add a few statements as weather conditions may play a role in what is observed.
37. Figure 3 should be improved; make changes to title of axes, add legends like top 330 nm and bottom 270 nm; there are additional peaks that are not identified; y- axes should be the same; needs improvements
38. what is SOV in table 6?
39. identify what f-j, k-n, g-m, d-j, ab, b means
40. Section 3.3 can you provide information about mechanisms associated with what is observed
41. line 417 ddph change to DPPH
42. line 424, change T to t
43. Improve line 426 and 427
44. move sentences under
45. sec 3.6 add brief explanation
46. sec 3.6, why compare luteolin with TFC and rutin with TFC
47. Justify using PCA as part of the submission.
48. check spelling in tables 9, 10 and 11 (flavonids)
49. line 543 .... what is obtuse angles m?
50. check spelling in figure 6 A, figure 6B, figure 6C, figure 6D. Be consistent in starting name with capital letters; which mucilage is it seed, leaf?
51. line 582 remove space
52. rewrite Discussion, remove repetition
53. line 812, add . after V
54. line 814 . Pdf = is that correct?
55. line 827 be consistent in writing titles
56. line 865 change s Alinity to salinity
57. ref 43 be consistent in writing title
58. space line 907
59. check line 922
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I appreciate the overall efforts for the submitted manuscript. Here are a few important comments for revisions:
1. line 29 ........is a problem
2. line 36 ....... Replace Which with These or some other word that makes the sentence proper English.
3. line 42 ...... Thus providing .................. is a sentence fragment
4. line 66 ......remove "In practice" or rewrite sentence
5. line 74-75 change order of reference to show [2,7]
6. line 97, place comma after irrigation water......
7. line 142 superscript should be placed after "m"
8. line 151 ....be consistent mM before NaCl
9. line 153 ........ Soil ECe should there be a subscript
10. line 154 ......... -1 should be superscript
11. line 156-159 ........rewrite sentence
12. line 162 sentence should start with Five not 5
13. figure 1 ..... growth stages are better if pictures for (a) was all horizontal and then (b) was made horizontal for better comparison of plants stages; lower two pictures for (a) should be improved
14. line 173 ..... add TPC after content
15. line 177 .... remove space after 80
16. line 179 ..... remove space after ) and add space before 7
17. line 180 .... remove space after 45o
18. line 181 ...... remove (total phenolic content)
19. line 186 ..... which later "was" removed....
20. line 188..... remove space between 80 and %
21. line 192 ..... remove line 192
22. line 193 .... remove "analytical"
23. line 206 .... should have figure 3 closer to it
24. section 2.4 ...should be rewritten ; remove repetition., adding subscripts were needed;
25. line 228 .....join in cluding
26. line 231..... in the dark for completion of reaction......
27. remove "firstly"
28. line 248 , is this only for seed preparation?
29. lines 250 and 251 be consistent, use either hours or h
30. figure 2 (line 256) is mentioned after figure 3 (line 206)
31. Is figure 2 relevant?
32. move header for table 2 directly above the table ; do not split pages
33. footnote - ns should not be superscript in footnote; remove period. add semicolon or colons for clarification - USE FOOTNOTE IN table as example
34. footnote for table 3......... add colon or semicolon instead of comma - USE FOOTNOTE IN table as example
35. table 4 align SSS in column 1; should 9 be 9.0 (column 5); column 4 align SSS
36. There is no mention of the weather conditions or the difference in weather (ie temperature, rain amount etc) when comparing years. Add a few statements as weather conditions may play a role in what is observed.
37. Figure 3 should be improved; make changes to title of axes, add legends like top 330 nm and bottom 270 nm; there are additional peaks that are not identified; y- axes should be the same; needs improvements
38. what is SOV in table 6?
39. identify what f-j, k-n, g-m, d-j, ab, b means
40. Section 3.3 can you provide information about mechanisms associated with what is observed
41. line 417 ddph change to DPPH
42. line 424, change T to t
43. Improve line 426 and 427
44. move sentences under
45. sec 3.6 add brief explanation
46. sec 3.6, why compare luteolin with TFC and rutin with TFC
47. Justify using PCA as part of the submission.
48. check spelling in tables 9, 10 and 11 (flavonids)
49. line 543 .... what is obtuse angles m?
50. check spelling in figure 6 A, figure 6B, figure 6C, figure 6D. Be consistent in starting name with capital letters; which mucilage is it seed, leaf?
51. line 582 remove space
52. rewrite Discussion, remove repetition
53. line 812, add . after V
54. line 814 . Pdf = is that correct?
55. line 827 be consistent in writing titles
56. line 865 change s Alinity to salinity
57. ref 43 be consistent in writing title
58. space line 907
59. check line 922
Author Response
REVIEWER#1
I appreciate the overall efforts for the submitted manuscript. Here are a few important comments for revisions:
- line 29 ........is a problem
Response: This has been addressed. (Line 29 and 30)
- line 36 ....... Replace Which with These or some other word that makes the sentence proper English.
Response: This has been done.. (Line 36)
- line 42 ...... Thus providing .................. is a sentence fragment
- line 66 ......remove "In practice" or rewrite sentence
Response: This has been done. (Line 65)
- line 74-75 change order of reference to show [2,7]
Response: This has been done. (Line 65)
- line 97, place comma after irrigation water......
Response: This has been done. (Line 65)
- line 142 superscript should be placed after "m"
Response: This has been done. (Line 141)
- line 151 ....be consistent mM before NaCl
Response: This has been done. (Line 149 and 151)
- line 153 ........ Soil ECe should there be a subscript
Response: This has been done. (Line 152)
- line 154 ......... -1 should be superscript
Response: This has been done. (Line 154)
- line 156-159 ........rewrite sentence
Response: This has been done. (Line 155-158)
- line 162 sentence should start with Five not 5
Response: This has been done. (Line 161)
- figure 1 ..... growth stages are better if pictures for (a) was all horizontal and then (b) was made horizontal for better comparison of plants stages; lower two pictures for (a) should be improved
Response: This has been done. (Figure 2. Line 166-173)
- line 173 ..... add TPC after content
Response: This has been done. (Line 171)
- line 177 .... remove space after 80
Response: This has been done. (Line 176)
- line 179 ..... remove space after ) and add space before 7
Response: This has been done. (Line 178)
- line 180 .... remove space after 45o
Response: This has been done. (Line 179)
- line 181 ...... remove (total phenolic content)
Response: This has been done. (Line 180)
- line 186 ..... which later "was" removed....
Response: This has been done. (Line 185)
- line 188..... remove space between 80 and %
Response: This has been done. (Line 187)
- line 192 ..... remove line 192
Response: This has been done. (Line 191)
- line 193 .... remove "analytical"
Response: This has been done. (Line 192)
- line 206 .... should have figure 3 closer to it
Response: This has been done.
Standard curves of observed compounds were added to section 2.3.1. (Line 204-215)
- section 2.4 ...should be rewritten ; remove repetition., adding subscripts were needed;
Response: This has been done. (Line 216-226)
- line 228 .....join in cluding ?
- line 231..... in the dark for completion of reaction......
Response: This has been done. (Line 235)
- remove "firstly"
Response: This has been done. (Line 245)
- line 248 , is this only for seed preparation?
Response:
No. For petal, leaf and seed. (Line 252)
- lines 250 and 251 be consistent, use either hours or h
Response: This has been done. (Line 255-256)
- figure 2 (line 256) is mentioned after figure 3 (line 206)
Response: Done.
- Is figure 2 relevant?
Response: The studied varieties were very different in terms of their floral phenotype. Our team prefers to include them in the paper, but if you believe it is not needed, we will remove it in the next version.
- move header for table 2 directly above the table ; do not split pages
Response: This has been done. (Line 286-291)
- footnote - ns should not be superscript in footnote; remove period. add semicolon or colons for clarification - USE FOOTNOTE IN table as example
Response: This has been done. (Line 289-291)
- footnote for table 3......... add colon or semicolon instead of comma - USE FOOTNOTE IN table as example
Response: This has been done. (Line 300-303)
- table 4 align SSS in column 1; should 9 be 9.0 (column 5); This has been done, column 4 align SSS (Line 311-313)
- There is no mention of the weather conditions or the difference in weather (ie temperature, rain amount etc) when comparing years. Add a few statements as weather conditions may play a role in what is observed.
Response: This has been done. (Line 785-800).
- Figure 3 should be improved; make changes to title of axes, add legends like top 330 nm and bottom 270 nm; there are additional peaks that are not identified; y- axes should be the same; needs improvements
Response: This has been done. (Figure 4. Line 341-349)
- what is SOV in table 6?
Response: Explanation has been added(Line 352)
- identify what f-j, k-n, g-m, d-j, ab, b means
Response: The different letters indicate that there is statistical significance among the groups considered as shown in the table 4.
- Section 3.3 can you provide information about mechanisms associated with what is observed
Response:
- line 417 ddph change to DPPH
Response: This has been done. (Line 428)
- line 424, change T to t
Response: Done. (Line 435)
- Improve line 426 and 427
Response: Done. (Line 437-439)
- move sentences under ?
- sec 3.6 add brief explanation ?
- sec 3.6, why compare luteolin with TFC and rutin with TFC
Response: Rutin and Luteolin are types of flavonoids. For this reason, these two compounds were compared with total flavonoid content (TFC).
- Justify using PCA as part of the submission.
- check spelling in tables 9, 10 and 11 (flavonids)
Response: Done. (Line 560, 556 and 558)
- line 543 .... what is obtuse angles m?
Response: Done.
It means wide angles and the indicated word was removed. (Line 566)
- check spelling in figure 6 A, figure 6B, figure 6C, figure 6D. Be consistent in starting name with capital letters; which mucilage is it seed, leaf?
Response: Done.
The figure 6 was completely modified (Figure 7). (Line 590-604)
- line 582 remove space
Response: Done.
- rewrite Discussion, remove repetition
Response: Done. (Line 644-784)
- line 812, add . after V
Response: Done. (Line 826)
- line 814 .Pdf = is that correct?
Response: Done. (Line 829)
- line 827 be consistent in writing titles
Response: Done.
- line 865 change s Alinity to salinity
Response: Done (Line 872)
- ref 43 be consistent in writing title
Response: Done (Line 908 and 909)
- 58. space line 907 ?
- check line 922 ?
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this article, authors studed the effects of three levels of salinity on physio-biochemical traits in ten hollyhock varieties and some varieties were selected based on the phenolic compounds. Although the adaptation of plants to salt stress was studied by previous articles, this paper looks intresting.
The results and the conclusions were clear, but there are a few minor issues that the authors need to revise. For example, first, the description of phenols in the introduction is too much, which can be appropriately deleted. Second, the HPLC curve of the standards is not reflected in the paper. Third, whether the tables /figures about relevance study are repeated which can be appropriately deleted.?
Author Response
REVIEWER#2
In this article, authors studied the effects of three levels of salinity on physio-biochemical traits in ten hollyhock varieties and some varieties were selected based on the phenolic compounds. Although the adaptation of plants to salt stress was studied by previous articles, this paper looks interesting. The results and the conclusions were clear, but there are a few minor issues that the authors need to revise.
- For example, first, the description of phenols in the introduction is too much, which can be appropriately deleted.
Response: This has been done. We have tried to remove the explanations related to the phenolic section to the extent that it does not harm the continuity of the content
- Second, the HPLC curve of the standards is not reflected in the paper.
Response: The standard curves of the compounds observed from the tested samples were placed in the material and method section. (Figure 2. Line 204-215)
- Third, whether the tables /figures about relevance study are repeated which can be appropriately deleted.?
Response: This was checked. There are no repeated figures and tables in the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author conducted an interesting study. The important deficiencies of the paper is that the presentation of data is confusing and difficult to understand clearly. Please reorganize and determine the order according to a certain logic. For example, first analyze the impact of individual factors one by one, and then focus on multiple factors instead of mixing them together.
I don't quite understand how the three treatment concentrations in the paper were carried out. 0.1 mM, 100 mM, and 180 mm NaCl. Are these three concentrations referring to the concentration of the irrigation solution? the salt concentration in the soil solution? or something else?
Is there a scientific basis for the concentration of mild and severe salt stress?
“After the appearance of symptoms of salt stress on the plant growth characteristics sampling was performed.” What do symptoms refer to? Clear explanation is required. There may be significant differences in symptoms between salt tolerant and salt intolerant varieties. How did the author measure and determine?
All indicators were measured using petals as the material. The petal colors of different varieties in the experiment are significantly different. This may be an important reason for the difference in phenolic and flavonoid content. Of course, it may also be related to salt stress. Has the author considered this factor?
What is the relationship between the Petal Shape indicator and the author's research?
The author simultaneously used mM, mm, and Mm. Is its meaning consistent? If so, it is necessary to maintain consistency throughout the paper.
The significance of Fig 1 and 2 is not significant. It is recommended to delete them or present them as attachments.
The discussion and conclusion are too complex, it is recommended to significantly reduce them.
The intermediate process of data analysis generally does not need to be displayed.
The figure legends must be clear. As shown in Fig 4, the specific material source for the content value must be clearly defined. The relevant information cannot be solely reflected in the method. All figures and tables in your paper should be with self-evidence.
Author Response
REVIEWER#3
The author conducted an interesting study. The important deficiencies of the paper is that the presentation of data is confusing and difficult to understand clearly.
- Please reorganize and determine the order according to a certain logic. For example, first analyze the impact of individual factors one by one, and then focus on multiple factors instead of mixing them together.
Response: This has been done as clearly as is possible.
- I don't quite understand how the three treatment concentrations in the paper were carried out. 0.1 mM, 100 mM, and 180 mm NaCl. Are these three concentrations referring to the concentration of the irrigation solution? the salt concentration in the soil solution? or something else?
Response: The meaning of salt concentration is, in fact, the NaCl salt concentration of the irrigation solution. Irrigation water was prepared with the mentioned concentrations of NaCl salt and plants were irrigated with this concentration of salt.
- Is there a scientific basis for the concentration of mild and severe salt stress?
Response:
Three salinity levels (control (EC=0.1 mM NaCl), moderate (100 mM NaCl) and high salinity (180 mM NaCl) and ten hollyhock varieties were used in this investigation. Since no previous studies of the effect of salinity stress on the measured traits in hollyhock had been published, we decided to use levels of salinity used in previous studies of other members of the Malvaceae family, i.e. control, moderate and severe levels of salinity stress. (Line 131-134).
- “After the appearance of symptoms of salt stress on the plant growth characteristics sampling was performed.” What do symptoms refer to? Clear explanation is required. There may be significant differences in symptoms between salt tolerant and salt intolerant varieties. How did the author measure and determine?
Response: The difference between a plant that did not experience stress and a plant that was affected by stress was estimated relatively. The significant symptoms for us are the decrease in cellular turgescence and symptoms such as flaccid pale leavesa reduction in growth reduction compared to the control and before and the effects of water stress on the plant. Regarding the difference in the reaction of salt tolerant and salt sensitive plants timing of the measurements was determined relatively. This was performed as a a controlled experiment, with the appearance of the symptoms mentioned in about 80% of the plants and most of the accessions were measured.
- All indicators were measured using petals as the material. The petal colors of different varieties in the experiment are significantly different. This may be an important reason for the difference in phenolic and flavonoid content. Of course, it may also be related to salt stress. Has the author considered this factor?
Response: This is a good point and would be an interesting topic for future studies.
- What is the relationship between the Petal Shape indicator and the author's research?
Response: The factor that causes the difference between hollyhock species is the shape and state of the mericarp and not the shape of its petals. As a result, the ordinary and queeny varieties are all Alcea rosea. In this study, we used varieties that have significant differences in appearance from each other, so that the difference in response to salinity of accessions with differences in appearance, such as petal shape, can be investigated. In the final analysis s, the difference in growth performance and in salt tolerance was clear, but it was not the main topic of the research to be discussed further
- The author simultaneously used mM, mm, and Mm. Is its meaning consistent? If so, it is necessary to maintain consistency throughout the paper.
Response: Done. (Line 74, 75, 129, 145, 149, 150, 151, 233, 704, 708, 709, 729, 730).
- The significance of Fig 1 and 2 is not significant. It is recommended to delete them or present them as attachments.
Response: The figure 1 shows the different stages of plant growth in the two years under study. Figure 2 illustrates the range of floral phenotypes present in the selected varieties. Our team prefers to keep these images in the text of the paper. However, if you have a definite opinion about removing or moving these images to the attachment section, we will include this in the next version.
- The discussion and conclusion are too complex, it is recommended to significantly reduce them.
Response: This has been done. We have tried to remove the content in the discussion and conclusion sections so as not to harm the concepts and continuity of the text.
- The intermediate process of data analysis generally does not need to be displayed.
- The figure legends must be clear. As shown in Fig 4, the specific material source for the content value must be clearly defined. The relevant information cannot be solely reflected in the method. All figures and tables in your paper should be with self-evidence. ØŸ
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made some revisions to the manuscript. But the current version still appears too complex. For example, the manuscript contains 11 tables and 8 figures.
In addition, it is recommended that the author analyze the relevant content in the previous review comments during the discussion, rather than just providing a simple response, such as the fifth question.
Overall, the author has not made ideal revisions or responses to most of the review comments. I think the current manuscript still cannot meet the requirements for publication.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REVIEW 2
REVIEWER#3
The author conducted an interesting study. The important deficiencies of the paper is that the presentation of data is confusing and difficult to understand clearly.
- Please reorganize and determine the order according to a certain logic. For example, first analyze the impact of individual factors one by one, and then focus on multiple factors instead of mixing them together.
Response: This has been done as clearly as is possible.
- I don't quite understand how the three treatment concentrations in the paper were carried out. 0.1 mM, 100 mM, and 180 mm NaCl. Are these three concentrations referring to the concentration of the irrigation solution? the salt concentration in the soil solution? or something else?
Response: The meaning of salt concentration is, in fact, the NaCl salt concentration of the irrigation solution. Irrigation water was prepared with the mentioned concentrations of NaCl salt and plants were irrigated with this concentration of salt.
- Is there a scientific basis for the concentration of mild and severe salt stress?
Response: Three salinity levels (control (EC=0.1 mM NaCl), moderate (100 mM NaCl) and high salinity (180 mM NaCl) and ten hollyhock varieties were used in this investigation. Since no previous studies of the effect of salinity stress on the measured traits in hollyhock had been published, we decided to use levels of salinity used in previous studies of other members of the Malvaceae family, i.e. control, moderate and severe levels of salinity stress. (Line 131-134).
- “After the appearance of symptoms of salt stress on the plant growth characteristics sampling was performed.” What do symptoms refer to? Clear explanation is required. There may be significant differences in symptoms between salt tolerant and salt intolerant varieties. How did the author measure and determine?
Response: The difference between a plant that did not experience stress and a plant that was affected by stress was estimated relatively. The significant symptoms for us are the decrease in cellular turgescence and symptoms such as flaccid pale leavesa reduction in growth reduction compared to the control and before and the effects of water stress on the plant. Regarding the difference in the reaction of salt tolerant and salt sensitive plants timing of the measurements was determined relatively. This was performed as a a controlled experiment, with the appearance of the symptoms mentioned in about 80% of the plants and most of the accessions were measured.
- All indicators were measured using petals as the material. The petal colors of different varieties in the experiment are significantly different. This may be an important reason for the difference in phenolic and flavonoid content. Of course, it may also be related to salt stress. Has the author considered this factor?
Response:
Whilst it is true that the petal colors between the varieties do vary, and that this would affect some of the measured traits in control conditions that this doesn't really matter in our study, because we are looking at the effect of salt stress and the relative changes in the TPC and TFC caused by salt stress, so the baseline levels don't matter in the context of our study and as such the data we have presented is still valid.
- What is the relationship between the Petal Shape indicator and the author's research?
Response: The factor that causes the difference between hollyhock species is the shape and state of the mericarp and not the shape of its petals. As a result, the ordinary and queeny varieties are all Alcea rosea. In this study, we used varieties that have significant differences in appearance from each other, so that the difference in response to salinity of accessions with differences in appearance, such as petal shape, can be investigated. In the final analysis s, the difference in growth performance and in salt tolerance was clear, but it was not the main topic of the research to be discussed further
- The author simultaneously used mM, mm, and Mm. Is its meaning consistent? If so, it is necessary to maintain consistency throughout the paper.
Response: Done. (Line 74, 75, 129, 145, 149, 150, 151, 233, 704, 708, 709, 729, 730).
- The significance of Fig 1 and 2 is not significant. It is recommended to delete them or present them as attachments.
Response: The figure 1 shows the different stages of plant growth in the two years under study. Figure 2 illustrates the range of floral phenotypes present in the selected varieties. Our team prefers to keep these images in the text of the paper. However, if you have a definite opinion about removing or moving these images to the attachment section, we will include this in the next version.
- The discussion and conclusion are too complex, it is recommended to significantly reduce them.
Response: This has been done. We have tried to remove the content in the discussion and conclusion sections so as not to harm the concepts and continuity of the text.
- The intermediate process of data analysis generally does not need to be displayed.
- The figure legends must be clear. As shown in Fig 4, the specific material source for the content value must be clearly defined. The relevant information cannot be solely reflected in the method. All figures and tables in your paper should be with self-evidence.
- Response: Done.
RESPONSE REVIEW 3
REVIEWER#3
- The author has made some revisions to the manuscript. But the current version still appears too complex. For example, the manuscript contains 11 tables and 8 figures.
Response: In response to this helpful comment, three figures and one table have now been removed from the current revised version of the manuscript. We do not believe that it is possible to delete or merge any further figures or tables from the manuscript, as we are of the opinion, that the remaining figures and tables are essential components of the manuscript. We hope that the reduction in tables and figures in the revised document will now be acceptable for the publication of our manuscript
- In addition, it is recommended that the author analyze the relevant content in the previous review comments during the discussion, rather than just providing a simple response, such as the fifth question.
Response: Many thanks for your helpful comment. With regards the fifth question in your previous list of comments on the manuscript, whilst it is true that the petal colours between the selected varieties do vary, and that this would affect some of the measured traits for measurements of petals harvested from plants grown under control conditions, this does not really matter in our study, because we were investigating the effect of salt stress on the measured traits and the relative changes in the TPC and TFC caused by salt stress, so the baseline levels don't matter in the context of our study. As such, the data we have presented is valid and this point therefore does not need to be included in the discussion section of the manuscript We hope that our more detailed response to question 5 is now acceptable.
- Overall, the author has not made ideal revisions or responses to most of the review comments. I think the current manuscript still cannot meet the requirements for publication.
Response: Thank you for your comment in response to which we have made further edits to the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript has now met the requirements for publication.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is still slightly cumbersome and has a few flaws. The author may make further minor modifications on their own. Can be published.
