Rich Dynamics of a General Producer–Grazer Interaction Model under Shared Multiple Resource Limitations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have some concerns and suggestions.
1. The manuscript should be improved as English writing.
2. You discuss some parts in the material and method section (such as lines 67-71) otherwise your discussion section is weak. It causes confusion for readers.
3. In the Discussion section you should explain your result and how biologists can use your result for their research. Your final result and your achievement is missing from your paper. what is your final achievement?
4. This is the suggestion why you or your team don't develop online tools and user-friendly tools which can be useful for all biologists for these formulas. It is important we make easy any formula for a common scientist.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled "Rich dynamics of a general producer-grazer interaction model under shared multiple resource limitations" proposed a multiple resource limitation growth function based on the Droop cell quota concept and incorporated it into an existing producer-grazer model to address the problem that previous models based on the Droop cell quota framework have been limited by their use of threshold formulations. The proposed multiple resource limitation growth function appears to be a promising approach to better capture the interactions of multiple resources in organism growth. The incorporation of Droop cell quota concept and time tracking of cell growth process is an innovative and relevant approach.The paper provides a clear explanation of the limitations of previous models based on the Droop cell quota framework and the need for a more comprehensive approach, and the discussion of the mathematical properties of the proposed model is informative and well-written. I only have the following comments:
1. The paper's mathematical tractability is more strength. The authors could provide more information on how the proposed model compares to previous models in terms of its ability to accurately predict organism growth in different contexts.
2. The paper would benefit from a more detailed discussion about how the proposed model can capture a wide range of scenarios beyond those presented in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have some concerns and suggestions.
1. The manuscript should be improved as English writing.
2. You discuss some parts in the material and method section (such as lines 67-71) otherwise your discussion section is weak. It causes confusion for readers.
3. In the Discussion section you should explain your result and how biologists can use your result for their research. Your final result and your achievement is missing from your paper. what is your final achievement?
4. This is the suggestion why you or your team don't develop online tools and user-friendly tools which can be useful for all biologists for these formulas. It is important we make easy any formula for a common scientist.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be accepted.
