Evaluation of the Influence of Varied Juncao Grass Substrates on Physiological and Enzymatic Reactions of Pleurotus ostreatus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document has a contribution that is related to the knowledge of the growth of Pleurotus ostreatus in non-conventional substrates.
Basic results of this type of projects are presented, and what can stand out is the evaluation of enzymes, nutritional components and metals associated with the substrates.
Some recommendations are made:
a) Check the writing of scientific names throughout the document, which are poorly written and without italics.
b) There are missing or extra spaces between the words. So the context is not understood.
c) The summary requires further explanation of the methodology
d) The introduction should include more information about the numerous substrates in which Pleurotus has been grown, in addition to justifying the importance of the grasses used and incorporating ecological and biological data about them.
e) There is no deep approach to the problem and the justification is very superficial.
f) The results require a deeper review and the discussion of them is very superficial. It is necessary to deepen the comparison of the data obtained and its comparison with the bibliography.
g) The conclusions must be rewritten and shown to be more forceful.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: The document has a contribution that is related to the knowledge of the growth of Pleurotus ostreatus in non-conventional substrates.
Response 1: Based on this comment we have changed the title of the article to this title Evaluation of the influence of varied Juncao grass substrates on physiological and enzymatic reactions of Pleurotus ostreatus which corresponds to the content of the article.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The change can be found on the first page line 1,2.
There is additional information: supplemented with 20% of the wheat brain,1% coffee grounded,1%of gypsum, and 1%of lime (Found in the abstract methodology part on the first page lines 13,14,15), Improved writing in the line
Comment 2: a)Check the writing of scientific names throughout the document, which is poorly written and without italics. b) There are missing or extra spaces between the words. So the context is not understood.
Response2 a,b, All typo errors and scientific names were written in Italics in the document. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.
Comment 3: The summary requires further explanation of the methodology
Response 3: The summary was refined.
Comment 4 The introduction should include more information about the numerous substrates in which Pleurotus has been grown, in addition to justifying the importance of the grasses used and incorporating ecological and biological data about them.
Response 4: The introduction was updated based on these comments.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.
Comment 5: The results require a deeper review and their discussion is very superficial. It is necessary to deepen the comparison of the data obtained and its comparison with the bibliography.
Response 5: We have compared the data results and bibliography and we have revised it. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.
Comment 6: The conclusions must be rewritten and shown to be more forceful.
Response 6: The conclusion part was refined based on the reviewer's comments. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease learn more about the basics scientific research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English language used is of a very low quality
Author Response
The manuscript has been revised based on the reviewer's comments.
Thank you for pointing out all the comments and we agreed with all the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The requested changes have already been made, there are still details in the writing of the scientific names.
Author Response
Comment: The requested changes have already been made, there are still details in the writing of the scientific names.
Response: I have double-checked the manuscript, and all requested changes on scientific names have been made. Thank you for pointing out this comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLaccase production could be more significant to wine and plant juices industries too.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere is a significant improvement in the English language used in this presentation over the previous one.
Author Response
There is a significant improvement in the English language used in this presentation over the previous one.
Response: Thank you so much for all the comments. The manuscript has been improved based on your useful comments.
