Phenotypic and Chemotypic Relations among Local Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall Landrace Collection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is well written. Some comments suggested for improvements are:

1. The abstract should be added 1 or 2 sentences in the first paragraph.

2. The novelty of this study should be highlighted in Introduction section. 

3. The validity of PCA model must be evaluated and should be explained in Statistical/Chemometrics section.

4. It is very nice if authors correlate the variables from the loading plot in PCA 

Author Response

12^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our initial draft. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

 

reviewer 1

comment	response
1. The abstract should be added 1 or 2 sentences in the first paragraph.	We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. We have done the needful changes in lines 38 -41
2. The novelty of this study should be highlighted in Introduction section.	We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have made the necessary changes in the content from line 89 to 84.
3. The validity of PCA model must be evaluated and should be explained in Statistical/Chemometrics section. 4. It is very nice if authors correlate the variables from the loading plot in PCA	We thank the reviewer for the pointing this out. We have explained PCA in the Chemometric relationship section from lines 93-100 in Page 1 after Table 2.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You did a nice job. The article is skillfully written.

The novelty of your work is low. All aspects of your study have been previously published:

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-4920-x

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26470100

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08923970600626007

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305721817

But your work has special importance since it compares results from different localities. I guess it is worth publication.

•  
•  

Author Response

12^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our initial draft. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

reviewer 2

comment

response

You did a nice job. The article is skillfully written.   The novelty of your work is low. All aspects of your study have been previously published:   https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-4920-x   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26470100   https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08923970600626007     https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305721817 But your work has special importance since it compares results from different localities. I guess it is worth publication.

Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We are glad that the reviewer has highlighted that no research has compared the different landraces of Andrographis paniculata, which is exactly the novelty of this study.   Which we have now highlighted in the article from line 81 to 86.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

“Phenotypic and chemotypic relations among local Andrographis 2 paniculata (burm.f.) landrace collection ”.

Abstract

It is necessary to highlight the novelty of this research work

Introduction:

Introduction section is well written. However, it could be interesting to make the subsequently changes:

1) Line 62-63: “Currently, the quality of A. paniculata is determined merely based on the active constituents using only one or two diterpenoid lactone constituents as the marker(s)”.

Please add the name of the diterpenoid lactone constituents more used, together with a reference that justify this affirmation.

2) Add a final sentence in the introduction section summarizing the main results obtained on this research work.

 

Materials and Methods:

Line 102-105:

“Plants were removed from the pots, clean and the biomass yield was recorded. They were then shade dried at room temperature for 5 days until the constant moisture content was reached (~6% MC) [21]. Dried material was then ground to powder using spice grinder (Spring Green Evolution, PG2500).”

Add the standard deviation of the measured 6% moisture content value.

Results and Discussion:

Line 222-228:

“Vegetative growth parameters and yield of Andrographis paniculata. To evaluate the various morphological parameters, plant samples were collected at the ideal harvesting time (90 DAT). We measured growth-attributing characteristics such as shoot length and number of branches/plants. The fresh/dry weight of the separated  leaves and stems of the whole plants was then determined. When samples attained a  constant weight while drying in the shade, their dry weights were measured. Also measured were the total fresh and dry herbage yield per plant.”

Move this paragraph to Materials and Method section, because no results are showing in it.

Line 271-272:

“However, it is known that all plant parts possess at least one bioactivity [39,40].”

Please name the bioactivity of all parts of the plant.

 

Line 272-273:

“As shown in Table 2, the total lactone was ~ 9.00 – 14.00 mg/g while KS gave the lowest amount in both leaf and stem.”

Rewrite the phrase.

 

Line 279-280:

“The antioxidant activities as determined by DPPH• and ABTS•+ were around 73 %, while the activities were significant lower in the CM for both edible parts”

Rewrite the phrase, 73% of what?.

Line 283-287:

“The DPPH and ABTS-scavenging activity were related to the total amount of phenolicand flavonoid compounds [42]. The antioxidant compounds are key elements for the prevention of diseases caused by free radicals and protecting the nervous system and 285 memory [43]. The main antioxidants in A. paniculata are phenolic acids, flavonoid, and 286 lactones that possess anticancer, neuroprotective, and neurotrophic properties [22,44-46]. “

Move this paragraph to Introduction section, because no results are showing in it.

Line 304-327:

Move this paragraph to Introduction section, because no results are showing in it.

 

Table 1. Physiological characteristics of Andrographis paniculata collected from various locations.

Review the dates showed in the table, there are some mistakes unacceptable :

CM 22.27± 23.40a? How was this DS justified?

Table 2. Chemical properties of Andrographis paniculata

Review the dates showed in the table, there are some mistakes unacceptable :

Leaf RB ABTS values: 70.78±70.78c

Stem RB ABTS values: 72.03±59.18.39ab

ABTS DS values are too high, how is this justified?

In general, it is necessary to improve the discussion of results in section 3.3 Chemical properties. The reason for the results obtained is not well justified.

Conclusions

It is necessary to highlight the novelty of this article in the conclusions.

References

Review the Reference style.

Author Response

12^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our initial draft. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

reviewer 3

comment	response
Abstract It is necessary to highlight the novelty of this research work	Thank you very much, the highlight has been added. We have done the needful changes in lines 38 -41
Introduction:
Introduction section is well written. However, it could be interesting to make the subsequently changes:	We thank the reviewer for positive and constructive comments made towards improving the article quality. We have done the needful changes as suggested by the reviewer.
1) Line 62-63: “Currently, the quality of A. paniculata is determined merely based on the active constituents using only one or two diterpenoid lactone constituents as the marker(s)”.	Thanking the reviewer for this suggestion. We add the name of the diterpenoid lactone constituents in the content from page 1 (after Table 1) in the lines 13-18.
Please add the name of the diterpenoid lactone constituents more used, together with a reference that justify this affirmation.
2) Add a final sentence in the introduction section summarizing the main results obtained on this research work.	Thank you very much, we have done the needful changes in lines 38 -41.
Materials and Methods:
Line 102-105: “Plants were removed from the pots, clean and the biomass yield was recorded. They were then shade dried at room temperature for 5 days until the constant moisture content was reached (~6% MC) [21]. Dried material was then ground to powder using spice grinder (Spring Green Evolution, PG2500).” Add the standard deviation of the measured 6% moisture content value.	Thank you very much, we have added. standard deviation of the measured (~6% ± 0.40 % MC) moisture content value from page number 3 (After Table 1) line 122-125.
Results and Discussion:
Line 222-228:
“Vegetative growth parameters and yield of Andrographis paniculata. To evaluate the various morphological parameters, plant samples were collected at the ideal harvesting time (90 DAT). We measured growth-attributing characteristics such as shoot length and number of branches/plants. The fresh/dry weight of the separated leaves and stems of the whole plants was then determined. When samples attained a constant weight while drying in the shade, their dry weights were measured. Also measured were the total fresh and dry herbage yield per plant.”	Thank you, the reviewer, for the suggestion. We have been moved this paragraph to Materials and Method in page number 3  line 113-117.
Move this paragraph to Materials and Method section, because no results are showing in it.
Line 271-272:
“However, it is known that all plant parts possess at least one bioactivity [39,40].” Please name the bioactivity of all parts of the plant.	Thank you, the reviewer, for the suggestion. we added name the bioactivity of A. paniculata compounds from page number 1 (after Figure 1) line 4-18.
Line 272-273:
“As shown in Table 2, the total lactone was ~ 9.00 – 14.00 mg/g while KS gave the lowest amount in both leaf and stem.”	Thanking the reviewer, for suggestion. we made the changes in page number 1 (after Finger 1) line 32-33
Rewrite the phrase.
Line 279-280:
“The antioxidant activities as determined by DPPH• and ABTS•+ were around 73 %, while the activities were significant lower in the CM for both edible parts”	Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. by DPPH and ABTS were around 73% of crude extract page number 2 (after Figure 1) line 38-40.
Rewrite the phrase, 73% what?.
Line 283-287:
“The DPPH and ABTS-scavenging activity were related to the total amount of phenolic and flavonoid compounds [42]. The antioxidant compounds are key elements for the prevention of diseases caused by free radicals and protecting the nervous system and 285 memory [43]. The main antioxidants in A. paniculata are phenolic acids, flavonoid, and 286 lactones that possess anticancer, neuroprotective, and neurotrophic properties [22,44-46]. “ Move this paragraph to Introduction section, because no results are showing in it.	We would like to inform the reviewer that the corresponding statement is a part of the discussion.
Line 304-327:
Move this paragraph to Introduction section, because no results are showing in it. Table 1. Physiological characteristics of Andrographis paniculata collected from various locations. Review the dates showed in the table, there are some mistakes unacceptable :	Thank you, the reviewer, I have moved Figure 1 as Table 2 to page 8.
CM 22.27± 23.40a? How was this DS justified? Table 2. Chemical properties of Andrographis paniculata Review the dates showed in the table, there are some mistakes unacceptable : Leaf RB ABTS values: 70.78±70.78c Stem RB ABTS values: 72.03±59.18.39ab ABTS DS values are too high, how is this justified? In general, it is necessary to improve the discussion of results in section 3.3 Chemical properties. The reason for the results obtained is not well justified.	Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. We are sorry for the inadvertent typographic error from our side. We have corrected the same.
Conclusions
It is necessary to highlight the novelty of this article in the conclusions.	Thank you, the reviewer, I have added this novelty content. Whereas the conclusion of this work is to look at the relationship of each tree to increase the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry and more to the breeder, there are not many domestic reports for comparison of each source from line 189-198.
References
Review the Reference style.	We have done the needful as suggested.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript reports the phenotypic and chemotypic relations among Andrographis paniculata plants obtained from five seed collections from different regions of Thailand. This species has relevant economic and medicinal importance and is widely studied from a chemical and pharmacological point of view. However, the physiological and chemical aspects described in this manuscript are important and can contribute to plant breeding programs to the increase the quality of the plants to be used in medicines.

The aims of this paper are interesting and the work is apparently well conducted. However, there are several points that need explanation and/or correction. Please see the comments below.

 1. The abstract should report better the results obtained, i. e., results should be organized to facilitate their understanding.

2- The introduction section:

- Line 44: Andrographis paniculata (burm.f.) - rephrase to Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall.

- Line 51: citations 4 and 5 refer to papers published nearly 30 years ago - please replace with more current works;

- Line 65: Dong. et al. – please remove the dot;

 3- The Material and Methods section should be improved considerably and the questions below should be corrected and/or introduced in this section:

- It is important to include the Table S1 in the manuscript because it contains location data for plant material. Please add in this table a column with the voucher number of the plants that produced the seeds used in this study.

- Please also add in this section information about the Herbarium where the vouchers were deposited;

- As the focus of the work was to verify morphological and chemical differences between plants from seeds coming from different regions, is important to present some information such as: a) Were the seeds obtained from plants grown under controlled conditions? If yes, what were those conditions? b) If the seeds were obtained from plants grown under natural environment, the climatic data of these regions must be shown;

- See also:

- Line 180: Please report in which unit the results were expressed;

- Line 190: “Concentration” – please change to “concentration”;

- Line 192: Please remove the dot after “against”;

 4- Results and discussion section:

- Lines 222 a 228: please transfer this paragraph to the Material and Methods section;

- Lines 231 to 265: The results were described in a single paragraph - please break the results into smaller paragraphs;

- Line 240: the Table 1 must be present immediately after citing in the text;

- Line 242: Is UT a variety or a location? If UT is considered a variety the title must be changed- please standardize in the text;

- Lines 250 to 252: where is this data shown? Please indicate it in the text;

- Line 253: variety – please review;

- Lines 265 to 267: Figure 1: a) Please indicate in the figure/caption who is who among the 5 collections; b) Andrographis paniculate – Correct scientific name and use italic form;

- Line 276: close the parentheses;

- Line 283: “the” – change for “the”;

- Lines 269 to 328: large paragraphs - please break the results into smaller paragraphs;

- Table 1: I suggest the follow modifications: a) Specimen Number – change to Specimen Location; b) plant height – change to Plant height; c) No. of shots, No. of leaves and No. of branches - round to whole numbers; d) SD: remove italic form;

- Table 2: Sample No – change to Sample;

- Lines 6 to 46: The entire section 3.4 (Chemometric relationship) be rephrased. See some points: a) this topic is extremely confusing; furthermore, the contribution of PCA to the analysis of these data is not clear, as well as the description of the results obtained with PCA; b) Figure 2 is crude, uninformative and not correctly indicated in the text; the quality of figure 2, as well as its caption, should be improved; c) Lines 21 to 25: Chlorophyll not measured - so not listed here; it's just inferring; d) Lines 25 to 26: there is a linguist problem with this sentence; the logic and the structure are flawed; it needs to be corrected; e) Line 26 to 28: based on the data presented, there is no basis for this conclusion; f) Please

review the caption of the Figure 2 - the caption needs to be self explanatory; g) Please review the scientific name in all the text;

- Lines 47 to 67:  the presentation of these data is also confusing – please review;

- Figure 3 is crude and and not correctly indicated in the text – please improve the quality e indicate it correctly in the text;

- Lines 83 to 86: improve the caption of the Figure 3 – what is “C”?

 5- Conclusion section: must be completely reformulated because it does not point to the real conclusion of the work. It should finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied – please review. Also pay attention to the correct scientific name.

 In my final comments, I recommend that the manuscript should be widely reviewed by the authors. The introduction, material and methods, results and discussion, and conclusion sections must be reprased in order to explain more concisely the phenotypic and chemotypic relations among Andrographis paniculata plants obtained from seed collections.

The manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker or read by a native English-speaking colleague. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

12^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our initial draft. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

reviewer 4

comment	response
This manuscript reports the phenotypic and chemotypic relations among Andrographis paniculata plants obtained from five seed collections from different regions of Thailand. This species has relevant economic and medicinal importance and is widely studied from a chemical and pharmacological point of view. However, the physiological and chemical aspects described in this manuscript are important and can contribute to plant breeding programs to the increase the quality of the plants to be used in medicines. The aims of this paper are interesting and the work is apparently well conducted. However, there are several points that need explanation and/or correction. Please see the comments below.	Thanks to the reviewer for the constructive comments. We are made the necessary changes.
1. The abstract should report better the results obtained, i. e., results should be organized to facilitate their understanding.	Thanking the reviewer for this comment, we have improvised the abstract as suggested.
2- The introduction section:
- Line 44: Andrographis paniculata (burm.f.) - rephrase to Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall. - Line 51: citations 4 and 5 refer to papers published nearly 30 years ago - please replace with more current works; - Line 65: Dong. et al. – please remove the dot;	Thank you, the reviewer, corrected form page 2, line 47.   We have also done the needful changes in reference from line 55.
3- The Material and Methods section should be improved considerably and the questions below should be corrected and/or introduced in this section: - It is important to include the Table S1 in the manuscript because it contains location data for plant material. Please add in this table a column with the voucher number of the plants that produced the seeds used in this study.   - Please also add in this section information about the Herbarium where the vouchers were deposited;   - As the focus of the work was to verify morphological and chemical differences between plants from seeds coming from different regions, is important to present some information such as: a) Were the seeds obtained from plants grown under controlled conditions? If yes, what were those conditions? b) If the seeds were obtained from plants grown under natural environment, the climatic data of these regions must be shown;	Thanks to the reviewer for this advice. We've added Table 1 with information for each seed source on the page 3 number under Materials and Methods.               We did not deposit any herbarium. However, the plants were identified by Botanist/Agronomist at Plant Bioactive Compound Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University.   The following details have been provided in Supplementary table 1.
- See also:
- Line 180: Please report in which unit the results were expressed;	Thanking the reviewer for pointing out this typographic error. We have made the necessary change in Table 2
- Line 190: “Concentration” – please change to “concentration”;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion changed from page 5 , line 210.
- Line 192: Please remove the dot after “against”;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion delete the dot after “against”; already from page 5, line 215.
4- Results and discussion section:
- Lines 222 a 228: please transfer this paragraph to the Material and Methods section;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. This content, per the reviewer's instructions, has been moved to lines 112-116.
- Lines 231 to 265: The results were described in a single paragraph - please break the results into smaller paragraphs;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The content has been indented as suggested by the reviewer from 247-284.
- Line 240: the Table 1 must be present immediately after citing in the text;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Table 1 has been moved to the end of the content and then from the page 8.
- Line 242: Is UT a variety or a location? If UT is considered a variety the title must be changed- please standardize in the text;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. UT is a regional source location. We have already made some adjustments to the sentence from line 259.
- Lines 250 to 252: where is this data shown? Please indicate it in the text;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. This information is shown data in as shown in table 1 from page 8 (after Figure 1)
- Line 253: variety – please review;	Thanks for the review, I've edited it to variety from page 6 (after Figure 1) at line 259..
- Lines 265 to 267: Figure 1: a) Please indicate in the figure/caption who is who among the 5 collections; b) Andrographis paniculate – Correct scientific name and use italic form;	Thanks to the recommended version review, we have fixed and changed the scientific name and use italic , This content has been added from  page 6 at line 289 and close the parentheses and then from 3  line 35.
- Line 283: “the” – change for “the”;	and change "the" to a lowercase character from 3 (after Table 1) line 42.
- Lines 269 to 328: large paragraphs - please break the results into smaller paragraphs;	We have edited this.
- Table 1: I suggest the follow modifications: a) Specimen Number – change to Specimen Location; b) plant height – change to Plant height; c) No. of shots, No. of leaves and No. of branches - round to whole numbers; d) SD: remove italic form; - Table 2: Sample No – change to Sample;	I've made the adjustments as the reviewers gave the initial recommendations from page 8  and Table 2 line 1, thank you very much for recommending this content.
- Lines 6 to 46: The entire section 3.4 (Chemometric relationship) be rephrased. See some points: a) this topic is extremely confusing; furthermore, the contribution of PCA to the analysis of these data is not clear, as well as the description of the results obtained with PCA; b) Figure 2 is crude, uninformative and not correctly indicated in the text; the quality of figure 2, as well as its caption, should be improved; c) Lines 21 to 25: Chlorophyll not measured - so not listed here; it's just inferring; d) Lines 25 to 26: there is a linguist problem with this sentence; the logic and the structure are flawed; it needs to be corrected; e) Line 26 to 28: based on the data presented, there is no basis for this conclusion; f) Please	Thanks to the recommended version review, We have described in the PCA analysis from line 96-103.
review the caption of the Figure 2 - the caption needs to be self-explanatory; g) Please review the scientific name in all the text;	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion edited Figure 2. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of physical characteristics of Andrographis paniculata between sample variables line 42 to 47
- Lines 47 to 67:  the presentation of these data is also confusing – please review;
- Figure 3 is crude and and not correctly indicated in the text – please improve the quality e indicate it correctly in the text;	I don't see this advice in Figure 3.
- Lines 83 to 86: improve the caption of the Figure 3 – what is “C”?	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. C is the score plot with the principal compounds. The data presented in Supplementary Table S2. The sample accessions were taken from KS= Kamphaeng Saen, UT=Udon Thani, CR= Chiang Rai, CM= Chiang Mai, RB. = Ratchaburi. page 2 (after Figure 2)  line 151-153.
5- Conclusion section: must be completely reformulated because it does not point to the real conclusion of the work. It should finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied – please review. Also pay attention to the correct scientific name.	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have been fixed according to this recommendation from (after 3) line 189-198.
In my final comments, I recommend that the manuscript should be widely reviewed by the authors. The introduction, material and methods, results and discussion, and conclusion sections must be reprased in order to explain more concisely the phenotypic and chemotypic relations among Andrographis paniculata plants obtained from seed collections. The manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker or read by a native English-speaking colleague.	Thank you very much for the advice from the reviewer, I have edited and improved the content as you suggested.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

A very interesting article, with capacity to be continued and developed. However, some and minor revisions should be made before the publication of the article.

Minor revisions:

1.      In the line 283, the authors should write “The” with lowercase letter.

2.      In the line 286, the name of plant should be in italic, including “A.”.

3.      In the section of conclusions, the name of plant should be in italic, including “A.”, please check all the occurrences.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

12^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our initial draft. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

 

review 5

comment	response
Minor revisions:
1.      In the line 283, the authors should write “The” with lowercase letter. 2.      In the line 286, the name of plant should be in italic, including “A.”. 3.      In the section of conclusions, the name of plant should be in italic, including “A.”, please check all the occurrences.	Thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have been edited for commented from line 42 (after Table 1), edited line the name of plant change in italic from line 42 and corrected all scientific names to italics from line 47

 

Once again, thank you very much for considering the manuscript and I hope with all these changes and improvements, the manuscript would meet the standard for publication of the journal.  

 

Regards,

1. E Onsa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It would be appreciated if the changes in the document were highlighted in another color. Despite this, the authors have made the necessary changes.

Author Response

17^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

 

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our revised manuscript. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

reviewer 3

comment	response
It would be appreciated if the changes in the document were highlighted in another color. Despite this, the authors have made the necessary changes.	Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated the reviewer's suggestions; the changes have been highlighted as track changing.

Once again, thank you very much for considering the manuscript and I hope with all these changes and improvements, the manuscript would meet the standard for publication of the journal.  

Regards,

1. E Onsa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The different sections of the manuscript still contain very long paragraphs. Please break long paragraphs into shorter paragraphs. See the introduction as an example.

The conclusions must be reformulated because it does not point to the real conclusion of the work. Please finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied. 

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Author Response

 

               17^th, October 2022

From: Ms. N. E Onsa

Chiang Mai University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Re: Response to the reviewer’s comment and suggestion

 

Dear editor,

 

We gratefully appreciate your advice and thoughtful comments made to our revised manuscript. With this, we have undergone extensive grammatically checked and carefully considered your comments in preparing our revision. This results in a paper that is clearer and more compelling. Below are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. The line numbers refer to our revised manuscript.

 

reviewer 4

comment

response

The different sections of the manuscript still contain very long paragraphs. Please break long paragraphs into shorter paragraphs. See the introduction as an example.      The conclusions must be reformulated because it does not point to the real conclusion of the work. Please finalize the findings presented and point out perspectives for the advancement of knowledge in the area studied.     English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Thank you for the suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer suggestion. The sentences are fractionated where necessary.   The conclusion highlighted the outcome of the finding has been added.

 

Once again, thank you very much for considering the manuscript and I hope with all these changes and improvements, the manuscript would meet the standard for publication of the journal.  

 

Regards,

1. E Onsa

Author Response File: Author Response.docx