Multipurpose Research from a Native Woody Oil Plant Xanthoceras sorbifolia in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript of Xiao et al., reviewed the many potential applications of Xanthoceras Sorbifolia. Xanthoceras Sorbifolia is indeed an interesting biomass feedstock that could be used for many applications and therefore it *could* deserve recognition in this field of research. After reading the manuscript I have minor/major comments which ought to be addressed before publication. An extensive revision is needed before the article can be published in Forests. The major revisions are especially related to English language (please proofread the article by a native English speaker) and the literature overview that is depicted too generic (rather qualitative than qualitative).

-       - It is not really clear from the abstract what the focus of the review will be. Is the focus on biodiesel, pharmacology or the other properties related to the compounds extracted from X. Bunge? Or all? Please specify.

-     -   The review is very generically written. It gives a good overview of the many applications of this biomass source, but it does not sufficiently go into detail. It is rather quantitively written than qualitatively. Therefore, including tables with more quantitative data including additional references would be highly advised.

-    -    As the plant would be used as a biomass resource please indicate the growth rate in section 2.1. This is highly relevant if the plant is ought to be used as a *sustainable* renewable biomass feedstock.

-  -      It would be interesting to add the chemical composition (cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, extractives, etc) of the different plant parts in the manuscript. Especially for the woody material (potentially used for biofuel production) this is highly relevant. For instance, the authors can include this in the different Figures provided.

-     -   Please reformulate following sentence (Lines 28-30): “Recently, the use of fossil diesel fuels, which were nonrenewable resources, has been increasing with the expansion of industrialization, leading to the energy crisis [1].” I doubt that current energy crisis is solely due to industrial expansion. The paper the authors refer to, refers on its turn to a 2011 publication where the word “energy crisis” is not mentioned. Please correct.

-       -  Please be consistent throughout the text. Sometimes X. Bunge is in italic, sometimes time (i.e., Line 34).

-      -  Please rewrite paragraph (Lines 51-54) to facilitate reading.

-      -  Section 2.1 and 2.2 have the same title. Please adapt.

-    -    Lines 75-77 is grammatically not correct. Please adapt.

-        - Line 77: What is meant with a *violent* rise ?

-      -  Line 85, does the sentence end with “landscape” ? Seems that word(s) are missing there.

-     -   Please rewrite Lines 87-89 as they are grammatically incorrect.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript of Xiao et al., reviewed the many potential applications of Xanthoceras Sorbifolia. Xanthoceras Sorbifolia is indeed an interesting biomass feedstock that could be used for many applications and therefore it *could* deserve recognition in this field of research. After reading the manuscript I have minor/major comments which ought to be addressed before publication. An extensive revision is needed before the article can be published in Forests. The major revisions are especially related to English language (please proofread the article by a native English speaker) and the literature overview that is depicted too generic (rather qualitative than qualitative).

 

-       - It is not really clear from the abstract what the focus of the review will be. Is the focus on biodiesel, pharmacology or the other properties related to the compounds extracted from X. Bunge? Or all? Please specify.

Response: Thank you for your consideration. This review aims to provide a multipurpose research of X. sorbifolia. And we have revised the Abstract in our revision.

 

-     -   The review is very generically written. It gives a good overview of the many applications of this biomass source, but it does not sufficiently go into detail. It is rather quantitively written than qualitatively. Therefore, including tables with more quantitative data including additional references would be highly advised.

Response: We strongly agree with your suggestion, but there were two systematic reviews have reported the chemical components, bioactivities, and distribution parts of X. sorbifolia [1, 2] published in this year. And owing to length constraints, we added some characteristic compounds isolated from different part of X. sorbifolia in supporting information. (Figures S1-S6, Tables S1-S2)

1. Chen, X.Q.; Lei, Z. L.; Cao, J.; Zhang, W.; Wu, R.; Cao, F. L.; Guo, Q.R.; Wang, J. H. Traditional uses, phytochemistry, pharmacology and current uses of underutilized Xanthoceras Sorbifolium Bunge: A Review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2022, 283, 114747.
2. Zang E, Qiu B, Chen N, Li C, Liu Q, Zhang M, Liu Y and Li M (2021) Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge: A Review on Botany, Phytochemistry, Pharmacology, and Applications. Front. Pharmacol. 12,708549.

 

-    -    As the plant would be used as a biomass resource please indicate the growth rate in section 2.1. This is highly relevant if the plant is ought to be used as a *sustainable* renewable biomass feedstock.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have added the sentence as “In general, this shrub takes two to three years to ripen after sowing seeds.” In section of 2.1.

 

-  -      It would be interesting to add the chemical composition (cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, extractives, etc) of the different plant parts in the manuscript. Especially for the woody material (potentially used for biofuel production) this is highly relevant. For instance, the authors can include this in the different Figures provided.

Response: Thank you very much for your advice. And we have added the relevant content both in figures 2-5.

 

-     -   Please reformulate following sentence (Lines 28-30): “Recently, the use of fossil diesel fuels, which were nonrenewable resources, has been increasing with the expansion of industrialization, leading to the energy crisis [1].” I doubt that current energy crisis is solely due to industrial expansion. The paper the authors refer to, refers on its turn to a 2011 publication where the word “energy crisis” is not mentioned. Please correct.

Response: Thanks for your consideration. And we have deleted the words “leading to the energy crisis”.

 

-       -  Please be consistent throughout the text. Sometimes X. Bunge is in italic, sometimes time (i.e., Line 34).

Response: We have corrected it, and revised it one by one in our manuscript.

 

-      -  Please rewrite paragraph (Lines 51-54) to facilitate reading.

Response: We have corrected it, as “Therefore, this paper discussed the research progress comprehensively about X. sorbifolia’s traits, history, current culture, pharmaceutical uses, bioactive compounds, and multifunctionalities. Overall, findings summarized in this study exemplify solid guidance for further study, utilization, and promotion of X. sorbifolia.”

 

-      -  Section 2.1 and 2.2 have the same title. Please adapt.

Response: We have made correction, and 2.2 should be “History and current status”.

 

-    -    Lines 75-77 is grammatically not correct. Please adapt.

Response: We have rephased the sentences as “While its large-scale commercial plantation history dates back to the 1950s.”

 

-        - Line 77: What is meant with a *violent* rise ?

Response: We have deleted the word “violent”.

 

-      -  Line 85, does the sentence end with “landscape” ? Seems that word(s) are missing there.

Response: We have changed the word “landscape” to “ornamental gardens”.

 

-     -   Please rewrite Lines 87-89 as they are grammatically incorrect.

Response: Thanks for your consideration. And we have revised as “Due to the Chinese government's encouragement and support for the plantation of X. sorbifolia, its composition, pharmacology, food, and economic values have received much attention from researchers. Totally, 1663 relevant pieces of literature were recorded in the database including Scifinder, Web of Science, and CNKI, shown in Figure 1.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This review summarizes the research published on Xanthoceras Sorbifolia a
native woody plant of China. The authors, after a sufficient introduction,
deal with the subject by dividing the plant into its main parts and describing
for each the potential applications reported by the current literature.
The work is well written, with particular care and attention to the graphics
of the figures which help the reader a lot in summarizing the information.
In my opinion the manuscript can be published as is.

Author Response

Response: Thank you for your kind consideration.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors 

Now I had review  the current  MS entitled,

“Multipurpose research from a native woody oil plant Xanthoceras Sorbifolia in China”. The manuscript has tried to review the uses, current applications as well as the different values of Xanthoceras sorbifolia Bunge. but there is a lot of shortfall on most of the topics that should be more elaborated and reviewed in details. The comments are given below and the manuscript can be accepted after major revision.

Reviewer’s comments:

1. In the heading, the species name should start with small letter and identifier's name.

2. In abstract, keywords should be in alphabetical orders

3. In Introduction, line no. 34, the scientific name should be in italics and space between the

genus name and species name,

4. In line no.37, give space between it is.

5. In line no.55, First of all, the heading of point 2 is missing. Secondly, point 2.1 should not

be in bold letters. Thirdly, you wrote the paragraph on the morphological characteristics.

6. In line no. 56, an instead of the

7. In line no.60, the words have been repeated from line no.56

8. In line no. 72, follow the appropriate format of the journal. the sub-headings should be in

italics and not in bold letters.

9. In line no. 73, The following paragraph does not correspond with the heading that you

have provided. Either you give an appropriate heading or write a new paragraph related

to biological characteristics.

10. In line no. 87, Separate the sentence into two and try to write exactly what you want to

convey.

11. In line no. 94, you can give another sub-heading as 3.1.1 and no bold letters.

12. In line no. 94, the sentence is wrong. it should be "in the past"

13. In line no. 96, follow the appropriate format of the journal. sub-heading 3.1.2 with no bold

letters

14. In line no. 100, give a sub-heading with no bold letters.

15. In line no. 101, write as instead of in.

16. In line no. 105, bracket is missing.

17. In line no. 122, make it into sub-heading with no bold letters.

18. In line no. 128, sub-heading and no bold letters. Compress and concise the whole

paragraph without separating the heading for each paragraph

19. In line no. 143, The sentence could not be understood. Frame the sentence for the

readers to understand.

20. Highlights in line no. 149,163,168,184,196,202 should be written as sub-headings with no

bold letters.

21. In line no. 172 and 177, the scientific name should be in italics.

22. In line no. 177, the sentence should be reframed.

23. In conclusion line no. 225, it should be it is not it’s.

Author Response

Now I had review the current MS entitled,

“Multipurpose research from a native woody oil plant Xanthoceras Sorbifolia in China”. The manuscript has tried to review the uses, current applications as well as the different values of Xanthoceras sorbifolia Bunge. but there is a lot of shortfall on most of the topics that should be more elaborated and reviewed in details. The comments are given below and the manuscript can be accepted after major revision.

Reviewer’s comments:

1. In the heading, the species name should start with small letter and identifier's name.

Response: We have corrected it, and revised it one by one in our manuscript.

2. In abstract, keywords should be in alphabetical orders

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised it.

3. In Introduction, line no. 34, the scientific name should be in italics and space between the genus name and species name,

Response: Thanks for your consideration. And we have revised it.

4. In line no.37, give space between it is.

Response: Thanks for your consideration. And we have revised the words

5. In line no.55, First of all, the heading of point 2 is missing. Secondly, point 2.1 should not be in bold letters. Thirdly, you wrote the paragraph on the morphological characteristics.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised the heading from the whole manuscript.

6. In line no. 56, an instead of the

Response: We have revised it.

7. In line no.60, the words have been repeated from line no.56

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestion, and we have revised in our manuscript in line 60 as “this plant grows well..”

8. In line no. 72, follow the appropriate format of the journal. the sub-headings should be in italics and not in bold letters.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised the heading from the whole manuscript.

9. In line no. 73, The following paragraph does not correspond with the heading that you have provided. Either you give an appropriate heading or write a new paragraph related to biological characteristics.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised the heading of 2.1 as Morphological characteristics.

10. In line no. 87, Separate the sentence into two and try to write exactly what you want to convey.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised it.

11. In line no. 94, you can give another sub-heading as 3.1.1 and no bold letters.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised it in the whole manuscript.

12. In line no. 94, the sentence is wrong. it should be "in the past"

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised it as “had been” in 4.1.1. section.

13. In line no. 96, follow the appropriate format of the journal. sub-heading 3.1.2 with no bold letters.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised all the sub-headings in the whole manuscript.

14. In line no. 100, give a sub-heading with no bold letters.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have revised all the sub-headings in the whole manuscript.

15. In line no. 101, write as instead of in.

Response: Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have changed the words “in” to “as”.

16. In line no. 105, bracket is missing.

Response: We have added the bracket.

17. In line no. 122, make it into sub-heading with no bold letters.

Response: We have revised all the sub-headings in the whole manuscript.

18. In line no. 128, sub-heading and no bold letters. Compress and concise the whole paragraph without separating the heading for each paragraph.

Response: We have revised all the sub-headings in the whole manuscript.

19. In line no. 143, The sentence could not be understood. Frame the sentence for the readers to understand.

Response: we revised the sentences as “Its seed especially the kernel was enriched in oil, while from the oil residue, several phenolic acids, terpenes, saponins, and alkaloids were obtained.”

20. Highlights in line no. 149,163,168,184,196,202 should be written as sub-headings with no bold letters.

Response: We have revised all the sub-headings in the whole manuscript.

21. In line no. 172 and 177, the scientific name should be in italics.

Response: We have revised it.

22. In line no. 177, the sentence should be reframed.

Response: we revised the sentences as “X. sorbifolia was a highly prized ornamental shrub for its flowers”

23. In conclusion line no. 225, it should be it is not it’s.

Response: We have revised it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have addressed the questions and comments of the reviewer and therefore the reviewer accepts this manuscript for publication in Forests.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

All the suggested corrections have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors. The MS may be accepted.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article on Xanthoceras sorbifolia submitted for the review was prepared perfunctorily. Considering recently published review publications on this genre, this article does not bring any new content. While the introduction was prepared in a fairly reliable manner, chapter 3 "The multifunctionality of X. sorbifolia" (the main chapter) presents only a summary of information contained in the articles already published (eg. see below).

Therefore, in my opinion, this article should not be accepted for publication.

 

Chen, X. Q.; Lei, Z. L.; Cao, J.; Zhang, W.; Wu, R.; Cao, F. L.; Guo, Q. R.; Wang, J. H. Traditional uses, phytochemistry, pharmacology and current uses of underutilized Xanthoceras Sorbifolium Bunge: A Review. J. Ethnopharmacol.2022, 283, 114747.

Zang, E. H.; Qiu, B.; Chen, N. H.; Li, C. F.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, M.; Liu, Y. C.; Li, M. H. Xanthoceras Sorbifolium Bunge: A review on botany, phytochemistry, pharmacology, and applications. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 708549.

Yang, F.; Han, S. S.; Nan, Y.; Chen, X. J.; Sun, Y. B.; Liu, S. C.; Ma, B. P. Progress in research and development of Xanthoceras Sorbifolia. 2021, 46, 4334-4343

Yang, Y. M.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Q.; Qian, G. R. Influence of catalysts on bio‑oil yield and quality: a review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 30986-31001

Reviewer 2 Report

After reviewing the study, I consider that a section on chemical composition should be added to explain the molecules causing the activity, as they are mentioned in a general way as a group but no mention is made of specific compounds, or it should be added to each part of the plant describing the pharmacological activity. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1.          The information in the manuscript is confusing, and the author should restructure it.

2.          It is recommended to present some of the information in diagrams, which are helpful for reading

3.          Energy shortage, biodiesel and renewable resources mentioned in the manuscript do not fit the theme

4.          Please follow Instructions for Authors to write manuscripts