Alternations in Physiological and Phytochemical Parameters of German Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) Varieties in Response to Amino Acid Fertilizer and Plasma Activated-Water Treatments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented results of a 1-year trial to evaluate alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria 3 chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments. The manuscript is of interest to the journal; however, it requires some improvements. There are points that, in my opinion, must be addressed and lead me to suggest revision for the paper in its actual form.
In the introduction the authors comment that there are few studies with the hypothesis that is proposed. However, it is not clear if there are similar studies in other areas of other parts of the world with similar climate and growing conditions. In my opinion, this should be indicated in the manuscript. It would be important to add other references from other agricultural areas with similar climate and agricultural systems.
Regarding the material and methods part, it is where, from my point of view, I consider that important changes must be made so that this article can be published in this journal.
Line 91. The climatic classification, adding date average year rainfall and temperature, where the experiment was carried out should be referenced in this section. Under my point of view, I consider that presenting results of only 1 growing season is very scarce. In field experiments, it would be necessary to be at least 3 years old to be able to express conclusive results.
Line 95-96. This phrase would go better in experimental design. For a field experiment, the size of the plots chosen by the authors seems insufficient to correctly observe the parameters analyzed.
Line 96-98. These two sentences would be better in the management section.
Line 99. It would be important to put an average value of a history of at least 30 years. In this way. Table 2 shows the meteorological data for the chamomile growing seasons analyzed in this study. Ttherefore, it is difficult to compare whether each of the years of the study was drier or wetter and colder and warmer than the historical data for the region (data not shown). Therefore, it would be better to detail the historical rainfall and temperature included in these months (growing season) to be able to make a more correct comparison of the high variability of rain or temperature that may be in this climatic area (data not shown).
Line 115. Why have these doses been chosen? It would be important to put a sentence detailing and justifying the choice of those levels.
Line 120 What was the irrigation dose chosen for each irrigation?
Line 236- 239 This paragraph should be rewritten specifying in more detail how the comparison of means has been made. It would be necessary to detail more about replicas, variables and other parameters involved.
In the presentation of the results there is an excess of tables and figures that makes it very difficult to read and observe the results obtained in this investigation. In this sense, this section could be summarized considerably. Moreover, below the figures the authors forgot to add that error bars indicate standard deviation of the mean and different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Duncan´s multiple range test (p < 0.05).
Finally, in the conclusions., it would be interesting if the authors addressed the importance of the experiment with the results obtained. In this sense, a section should be included with the applicability on a real scale (farmers) of the results obtained and argued throughout the discussion. In other words, it should be noted, why is this type of study important from the agronomic, economic and environmental point of view? Where will future research go?.
Author Response
Horticulturae
Title: Alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments
Manuscript ID: Horticulturae-2517988
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for the precise and extensive analysis of the manuscript; Revisions according to the comments of reviewers were performed and detailed description of changes based on the reviewers points are listed below, and are highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors presented results of a 1-year trial to evaluate alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments. The manuscript is of interest to the journal; however, it requires some improvements. There are points that, in my opinion, must be addressed and lead me to suggest revision for the paper in its actual form.
In the introduction the authors comment that there are few studies with the hypothesis that is proposed. However, it is not clear if there are similar studies in other areas of other parts of the world with similar climate and growing conditions. In my opinion, this should be indicated in the manuscript. It would be important to add other references from other agricultural areas with similar climate and agricultural systems.
Regarding the material and methods part, it is where, from my point of view, I consider that important changes must be made so that this article can be published in this journal.
Line 91. The climatic classification, adding date average year rainfall and temperature, where the experiment was carried out should be referenced in this section. Under my point of view, I consider that presenting results of only 1 growing season is very scarce. In field experiments, it would be necessary to be at least 3 years old to be able to express conclusive results.
Response:
We have re-checked and changed it according to your comment. We agree with your opinion about a multi-year experiment, but we have many limitations in the budget and facilities at Iranian universities for doing long-time research. All expenses of this experiment have been paid with my private money. Meanwhile, we have recently initiated this new research area (Plasma application in Agriculture) at Persian Gulf University and we are still infantile in this way. Actually, as an academic researcher, I’m learning many things and points of your knowledge and international experiences during this review process. I really appreciate you.
Line 95-96. This phrase would go better in experimental design. For a field experiment, the size of the plots chosen by the authors seems insufficient to correctly observe the parameters analyzed.
Response:
We have checked and changed it according to your comment. Actually, the minimum experimental plot size is determined as one square meter. Regarding the high volume of this investigation and lack of budget and facilities, we have to choose a minimum plot size (work limitations). Otherwise, we know these issues and we have seen experimental plots for wheat, barley, and other crops. Meanwhile, it is observed in other research studies in this field. The material and methods usually are designed and performed according to literature reviews and carried out in previous scientific works. Honestly, as an academic researcher, I’m learning many things and points of your knowledge and international experiences during this review process. I really appreciate you.
Line 96-98. These two sentences would be better in the management section.
Response:
We have checked and changed it according to your comment.
Line 99. It would be important to put an average value of a history of at least 30 years. In this way. Table 2 shows the meteorological data for the chamomile growing seasons analyzed in this study. Ttherefore, it is difficult to compare whether each of the years of the study was drier or wetter and colder and warmer than the historical data for the region (data not shown). Therefore, it would be better to detail the historical rainfall and temperature included in these months (growing season) to be able to make a more correct comparison of the high variability of rain or temperature that may be in this climatic area (data not shown).
Response:
Honestly, we had no access to 30 years of meteorological data. Meanwhile, we carried out a one-year study, thus the meteorological data for the prior year or the next year of the experiment are not necessary from my point of view. Although, we know that it is difficult to control all environmental factors during field experiments in agricultural sciences. Nevertheless, we tried to reduce the experimental error to have more precise results and correct comparisons. This issue is mostly acceptable and applicable for multi-year and multi-location experiments.
Line 115. Why have these doses been chosen? It would be important to put a sentence detailing and justifying the choice of those levels.
Response:
It is necessary to mention that the recommended dosage of the foliar amino acid fertilizer was 2 ml.L-1 by manufacturer factory. Therefore, we have chosen one dosage lower and higher than recommended dosage along with distilled water as a control. The PAW had a fixed dosage which is explained in the related section.
Line 120. What was the irrigation dose chosen for each irrigation?
Response:
It depends on several factors such as soil texture, growing season, pipe size, and plant growth stage. We had not a specific irrigation dosage or irrigation regime as an experimental treatment. All plots were irrigated completely and uniformly for one hour and the irrigation water flow was around 0.6-1L/min for each plot.
Line 236- 239: This paragraph should be rewritten specifying in more detail how the comparison of means has been made. It would be necessary to detail more about replicas, variables and other parameters involved.
Response:
We have re-checked and changed it according to your comment as far as possible.
In the presentation of the results there is an excess of tables and figures that makes it very difficult to read and observe the results obtained in this investigation. In this sense, this section could be summarized considerably. Moreover, below the figures the authors forgot to add that error bars indicate standard deviation of the mean and different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Duncan´s multiple range test (p < 0.05).
Response:
We have re-checked and changed it according to your comment.
Finally, in the conclusions., it would be interesting if the authors addressed the importance of the experiment with the results obtained. In this sense, a section should be included with the applicability on a real scale (farmers) of the results obtained and argued throughout the discussion. In other words, it should be noted, why is this type of study important from the agronomic, economic and environmental point of view? Where will future research go?.
Response:
These sentences have been added to the conclusion section.
The results also showed that PAW has the potential of being a promising candidate to use as fertilizer in order to reduce the use of chemical products. Recently, PAW has focused its attention on the field of agriculture as an alternative to chemical fertilizer, controlling microorganisms and plant diseases to increase agricultural production. Production of PAW is a green technology that has many advantages such as high efficiency, being portable, user-friendly, without the need for chemicals, and also no residue.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript 'Alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments'. This study aimed to examine the influence of the spraying of PAW and amino acid fertilizer concentrations on the physiological, biochemical and phytochemical characteristics of German chamomile varieties under field conditions.
The topic of the MS is interesting, however, the logic throughout the MS is somewhat unclear and does not demonstrate the importance and innovation of this study. Specifically, descriptions of experimental design and data analysis are confusing which makes it difficult to understand what the author intended to express. Therefore, I suggest reconsider after major revision.
The logic in the introduction is rather disordered and does not highlight the originality and significance of this study.
The experimental design is confusing, for example, L167Amino acid concentrations including four levels (0 (control), 1, 2, 3 ml·L−1) and PAW treatment. L180 The volume of amino acid and PAW sprayed was 4 L for each plot. What is the dosage of PAW? How to analyze the effect of different treatments of amino acid fertilizer and plasma-activated water on physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile?
The figures and tables in the MS. Some are labeled as Fertilizer 4, while others are labeled as PAW. It is recommended to use a consistent term.
There are too many sections in the results part. It is recommended to simplify.
In Figures 3, 4, and 5, it is recommended to place the German chamomile cultivar above the graph for a clearer presentation.
It is recommended to place Table 9 in the supplementary data.
The chemical structure format on Figure 9 is incorrect.
It would be best to consult the specific guidelines provided by the journal you are submitting your work to for instructions on formatting and referencing.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Horticulturae
Title: Alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments
Manuscript ID: Horticulturae-2517988
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for the precise and extensive analysis of the manuscript; Revisions according to the comments of reviewers were performed and detailed description of changes based on the reviewers points are listed below, and are highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Manuscript 'Alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments'. This study aimed to examine the influence of the spraying of PAW and amino acid fertilizer concentrations on the physiological, biochemical and phytochemical characteristics of German chamomile varieties under field conditions.
The topic of the MS is interesting, however, the logic throughout the MS is somewhat unclear and does not demonstrate the importance and innovation of this study. Specifically, descriptions of experimental design and data analysis are confusing which makes it difficult to understand what the author intended to express. Therefore, I suggest reconsider after major revision.
The logic in the introduction is rather disordered and does not highlight the originality and significance of this study.
The experimental design is confusing, for example, L167Amino acid concentrations including four levels (0 (control), 1, 2, 3 ml·L−1) and PAW treatment. L180 The volume of amino acid and PAW sprayed was 4 L for each plot. What is the dosage of PAW? How to analyze the effect of different treatments of amino acid fertilizer and plasma-activated water on physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile?
Response:
It is necessary to mention that the recommended dosage of the foliar amino acid fertilizer was 2 ml.L-1 by manufacturer factory. Therefore, we have chosen one dosage lower and higher than recommended dosage along with distilled water as a control. The PAW was a fixed dosage which is explained in the related section of MS.
PAW features are specified by the characteristic of power supply, type of plasma interaction with water, and duration of plasma generation inside the water. We prepared 4L PAW as presented in the manuscript and the sprayed it.
The total volume of amino acid solution and PAW sprayed was 4 L for each block. In the other hand, we had 45 plots (15 plots and 3 blocks). We sprayed 4L amino acid fertilizer on 15 plots uniformly. For example, 4L amino acid solution for 1mL/L amino acid treatment in three blocks. We also sprayed 4L PAW for each 15 plots. We conducted a factorial experiment in the form of a RCBD, which included 4 concentrations of amino acid fertilizer and one concentration of PAW as 5 treatments × 3 chamomile varieties in three replications. We are going to perform an experiment on PAW different concentrations in medicinal plants. Actually, we didn’t respond of medicinal plants to PAW. Regarding to these results, we can assign the right orient in this research field. As far as I searched, this manuscript is the first report of PAW on the qualitative and quantitative traits of medicinal plants.
Honestly, as an academic researcher, I’m learning many things and points of your knowledge and international experiences during this review process. I really appreciate you.
The figures and tables in the MS. Some are labeled as Fertilizer 4, while others are labeled as PAW. It is recommended to use a consistent term.
Response:
We have deleted the number 4 within the text and replaced it with PAW in tables and figures according to your comments.
There are too many sections in the results part. It is recommended to simplify.
Response:
We have checked and corrected it according to your comment as far as possible. We have removed ANOVA tables within the text and transferred in supplementary files.
In Figures 3, 4, and 5, it is recommended to place the German chamomile cultivar above the graph for a clearer presentation.
Response:
We have checked and corrected it according to your comment.
It is recommended to place Table 9 in the supplementary data.
Response:
We have removed within the text and transferred in supplementary file.
The chemical structure format on Figure 9 is incorrect.
Response:
We have checked and corrected it according to your comment.
It would be best to consult the specific guidelines provided by the journal you are submitting your work to for instructions on formatting and referencing.
Response:
We have checked and corrected it according to your comment.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response:
Minor editing of the English language was performed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been considerably improved in this latest updated version.Author Response
Horticulturae
Title: Alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments
Manuscript ID: Horticulturae-2517988
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for the precise and extensive analysis of the manuscript; Revisions according to the comments of reviewers were performed and detailed description of changes based on the reviewers points are listed below, and are highlighted with purple color in the latest revised manuscript version.
Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
We tried to improve all sections of the manuscript as much as possible according to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1 In Line 143， author showed “the PAW had a fixed dosage which is explained in the related section”, section It is recommended that the author should clearly tell the reader in which section.
2 In Line 171, it should be “Table 4” rather than “table 4”. Please check the full text.
3. In line 171-191, The introduction of PA should not be presented in the Materials and Methods section. You can describe the characteristics of PAW in another section of the document.
4 In Line 251, the subtitle should be Chamomile oil analysis rather than GC/MS analysis, for you just use the GC/MS instrument to measure the composition of the oil. If I understand correctly, what does section 2.12 cover? Are sections 2.11 and 2.12 both about how to determine the composition of the oil?
5. In line 277 and 280, it should be p < 0.05 or p < 0.01. Please check the full text.
6. In line 281, this sentence “The mean comparison for the interaction between cultivars and fertilizer treatments demonstrated” is describe a two-way analysis, but the results should use one-way analysis. Other places such as line 290, line 316, line 332. Please check the full text. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful checking by someone with expertise in statistical analysis.
7. When you use the words like higher, highest or lower, add significance level.
8. There is a space between a number and the unit, for example: Line 339: 3 mL L-1 and not (3ml.L-1). Please check the full text.
9. Please keep the units consistent throughout the text, for example, in line 297, it is g m-2, but in line 307, it is mg/g•dw, and a “•” should not be appeared. Please check the full text.
10. Table 7, the analysis should be one-way analysis rather than Duncan results of the interaction between cultivar and fertilizer.
11. Please keep the line numbers consecutive.
12. The "results and discussion" section of an article is often the key to an article, so when writing an article, try to make the main points in the results as clear as possible, and think about how to connect these points into a story, so that the reader will be interested in reading. In this paper, the results section has too many subtitles, the results are too long, it is recommended that the author merge the results and remove unnecessary descriptions.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Horticulturae
Title: Alternations in physiological and phytochemical parameters of German chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) varieties in response to amino acid fertilizer and plasma activated-water treatments
Manuscript ID: Horticulturae-2517988
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for the precise and extensive analysis of the manuscript; Revisions according to the comments of reviewers were performed and detailed description of changes based on the reviewers points are listed below, and are highlighted with purple color in the latest revised manuscript version.
Reviewer 2
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- In Line 143，author showed “the PAW had a fixed dosage which is explained in the related section”, section It is recommended that the author should clearly tell the reader in which section.
Response:
We determined the related sections clearly as you commented. “The PAW had a fixed dosage which is explained in sections 2.4 and 2.5.”
- In Line 171, it should be “Table 4” rather than “table 4”. Please check the full text.
Response:
We re-checked and corrected it according to your comment.
- In line 171-191, The introduction of PA should not be presented in the Materials and Methods section. You can describe the characteristics of PAW in another section of the document.
Response:
We checked and translocated the descriptions of PAW to the first paragraph of discussion part as you commented.
- In Line 251, the subtitle should be Chamomile oil analysis rather than GC/MS analysis, for you just use the GC/MS instrument to measure the composition of the oil. If I understand correctly, what does section 2.12 cover? Are sections 2.11 and 2.12 both about how to determine the composition of the oil?
Response:
We changed the subtitle chamomile oil analysis rather than GC/MS analysis as you commented. The mentioned sections were merged together according to your comment.
- In line 277 and 280, it should be p< 0.05 or p < 0.01. Please check the full text.
Response:
We re-checked again and it should be p < 0.01. We have also made consistency within the full text. Only one phytochemical compound (bisabolol Oxide A) was significantly influenced by cultivar, fertilizer, and interaction between cultivar and fertilizer at (p<0.05).
- In line 281, this sentence “The mean comparison for the interaction between cultivars and fertilizer treatments demonstrated” is describe a two-way analysis, but the results should use one-way analysis. Other places such as line 290, line 316, line 332. Please check the full text. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful checking by someone with expertise in statistical analysis.
Response:
We do the analysis of variance to see if there was a significant effect between the treatments or not. In this experiment, our goal was to compare chamomile cultivars and compare different doses of fertilizers (amino acid and PAW) to know which chamomile cultivar gives the best results under which fertilizer levels.
The reason for using Duncan's multi-range test to compare means is to balance type 1 and type 2 errors.
Our goal in this experiment was to compare the levels of all treatments. Due to the high volume of work and the fact that the experiment in field conditions is affected by environmental factors, we pulled out the orientation in the experiment space with a block design. Because the effect of block and treatment is significant in the ANOVA table, we conclude that the blocking is done in the right direction.
If we had used a completely randomized design (CRD) in the field, the coefficient of variation (CV) would have increased and the effects of experimental error would have increased. For laboratory and greenhouse research where the conditions are completely under control, a completely random design should be used.
We perform one-way ANOVA when we have an independent variable. But due to the fact that we had 2 independent variables of chamomile varieties and fertilizer levels and we wanted to compare the effects of all treatment levels, we used two-way ANOVA.
Our aim is not to investigate the effect of amino acid fertilizer factor on only one chamomile cultivar, so that we can use one-way analysis of variance. In fact, we investigated the effect of 5 fertilizer levels on 3 chamomile cultivars in field conditions and used Duncan's test to compare the averages because in the analysis of variance table, block effect, treatment and interaction effects were significant.
Our study was a two-factorial experiment. Actually, our treatments were a combination of factor levels. Due to the fact that we did not consider one factor alone, rather the goal was to the changes caused by different levels of one factor at a constant level of another factor. In other words, it was to compare the average treatments. Therefore, after analysis of variance, this comparison has been done using Duncan's test, which is balanced in terms of type 1 and type 2 errors.
In relation to the one-way and two-way variance analysis mentioned by the respected reviewer, it should be noted that considering that the experiment in field conditions is associated with the possibility of non-uniformity in one direction (slope), we have done blocking in the direction perpendicular to the slope of the possible changes in the evaluation operation in the farm. As expected, blocking had a significant effect.
Therefore, in this experiment, in addition to the experimental treatments, the block should also be evaluated as another source of variations, so the experiment was conducted and analyzed as a factorial design in the form of a basic design of randomized complete blocks (RCBD). In addition, the comparison of the averages is given after the analysis of variance if the effect of the treatments is significant.
- When you use the words like higher, highest or lower, add significance level.
Response:
We added the significance level in the related places.
- There is a space between a number and the unit, for example: Line 339: 3 mL L-1 and not (3ml.L-1). Please check the full text.
Response:
We checked and corrected all spaces between numbers and the units within the full text according to your comment and highlighted with purple color.
- Please keep the units consistent throughout the text, for example, in line 297, it is g m-2, but in line 307, it is mg/g•dw, and a “•” should not be appeared.Please check the full text.
Response:
We checked and corrected all units consistent throughout the full text according to your comment.
- Table 7, the analysis should be a one-way analysis rather than Duncan results of the interaction between cultivar and fertilizer.
Response:
The ANOVA for physiological and biochemical traits is presented in Table S1. As you know, we had two independent factors including chamomile cultivars and fertilizer concentrations. As far as this experiment was carried out in the field conditions, we designed a factorial experiment in a randomized completely block design. We had not one factor to do one-way analysis because we wanted to compare all cultivars together and we wanted to compare the fertilizer treatments to each other. We have explained your doubt in the comment/question number 6 completely.
- Please keep the line numbers consecutive.
Response:
We have checked and corrected the line numbers according to your comment.
- The "results and discussion" section of an article is often the key to an article, so when writing an article, try to make the main points in the results as clear as possible, and think about how to connect these points into a story, so that the reader will be interested in reading. In this paper, the results section has too many subtitles, the results are too long, it is recommended that the author merge the results and remove unnecessary descriptions.
Response:
According to your recommendation, we have merged and deleted some unnecessary descriptions as far as possible within the manuscript text and supplementary file (Table S3).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Response:
Minor editing of English language was done as far as I know.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
