Contrasting Non-Timber Forest Products’ Case Studies in Underdeveloped Areas in China

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

First and foremost, We would like to extend our gratitude for the exceptional input from the experts. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have revised the introduction section to include additional background information. Please see the revised manuscript, Section 1, for details.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. In response, we have enhanced the research design by refining the elements of the cases and strengthening the comparative analysis. Please refer to Section 3 of the revised manuscript for details.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. In response, we have added a discussion of the case study methods and the analysis of case selection in the case analysis. Please see Section 3.2 of the revised manuscript for details.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have re-evaluated the research results and enhanced the summary of the findings. Please refer to Section 4 of the revised manuscript for details.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Based on the research results, we have refined the conclusions. Please see Section 6 of the revised manuscript for details.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

What are the aim, research guestions, hypothesis and research gap. The introduction must be corrected in this aspects. Moreover, the Authors should provide small description how the paper is organised.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestions, we have made detailed revisions to the Introduction. We have added background information, reiterated the research problem, addressed gaps in the existing literature, and restructured the research approach of this study. Please see Section 1, Pages 2-3, Lines 52-92 for specific changes.

Comments 2:

The research problem is solved by description of four case. I am not against the case study method, but this analysis requires more statistic Information about these cases. The problem should be solved by methods using statistic data or owym research. This paper is rather description.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestions, we have verified the statistical data for each case to ensure accuracy. For the descriptive parts that could not be quantified, we have added a summary of key elements for each case and presented them using relevant charts and graphs, thereby enriching the case study section. Please see Section 4.1, Pages 7-14, Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the specific revisions.

Comments 3:

The discussion after result section should be prepared.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the discussion section of the manuscript. Please refer to Section 5 for the specific revisions.

Comments 4:

More literature should be used. When the Authors develop the discussion section than more literature will be necessary to use.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion, we have conducted a more detailed analysis of the literature review and added a new subsection. The total number of references cited in the manuscript has now exceeded 50. Please see Section 2 and the References section for the specific revisions.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point:

Needs improvements.

Response: We have analyzed and revised the language throughout the manuscript to enhance its clarity and readability. Please refer to the revised sections in the manuscript for specific changes.

5. Additional clarifications

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments, We acknowledge that our revisions may still have some areas for improvement, and we welcome continued criticism and feedback.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

First and foremost, We would like to extend our gratitude for the exceptional input from the experts. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have rewritten the introduction to include additional background information, as detailed in the revised manuscript Section 1.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. In response, we have enhanced the research design by incorporating a more detailed extraction of case elements and strengthening the comparative analysis. Please refer to Section 4 of the revised manuscript for further details.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added a case study methodology and an analysis of case selection in the case analysis section. Please refer to Section 3 of the revised manuscript for details.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have re-evaluated the research results and enhanced the summary of the findings. Please refer to Section 4 of the revised manuscript for details.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Based on the research findings, we have refined the content of the conclusions. Please refer to Section 6 for details.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?

The manuscript is relevant for the field and the journal MDPI Forests (as well as MDPI Sustainability) but the core results are NOT presented in a clear manner. The research is a case study contrast and the results in Table 2 need to be presented so that the reader can quickly compare attributes across all cases. The table is currently stacked on top of each other comparing only 2 cases at a time. More thought needs to be put into reducing the wording to the essential differences between cases. The writing in this table is in sentences and that is contributing to a lack of clarify. Table 2 needs to have only 5 columns with the 1st column being the attributes bring contrasted and the next 4 columns corresponding to the 4 case studies. Please also see my specific comments below under “*Other edits that need to be done”.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with your comment. In response, we have reorganized the original Table 2 into a new table with five columns and simplified the wording to highlight the essential differences between the cases. Please see Section 4, Pages 15-16, Table 2 in the revised manuscript for the specific changes.

Comments 2:

Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?

The majority of cited references have not been published within the last 5 years. While the cited reference are relevant to the research topic, more citations need to be added to the manuscript that have been published in the past 5 years. For example the following is not cited: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072028. Please increase the number of citations to 50 or more. There does not appear to be an excessive number of self-citations.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions and for providing the reference (https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072028), which was very insightful for us. In response to your recommendation, we have systematically organized additional literature on the sustainability of non-timber forest products, especially from the past five years, to further enrich the literature review. The total number of references cited in the manuscript has now exceeded 50. Please refer to Section 2 and the References section for the specific revisions.

Comments 3:

Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

Since this research is a case study, there is a limitation on statistical analyses that can be run to contrast the 4 case studies presented. When presenting case studies, the contrasts need to be clear both in the tables and figures in addition to the writing.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions; we fully agree with your viewpoint. In response to your advice, we have verified the statistical data for each case to ensure accuracy. For sections where data statistics could not be applied, we have added a summary of key elements for each case and incorporated relevant charts to enhance the richness and comparability of the case studies.Please see Section 4.1, Pages 7-14, Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the specific revisions.

Comments 4:

Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?

The manuscript’s results are NOT reproducible based on what is described in 2. Methods since it is not clear how the four cases were selected and how representative they are with respect to the contrasts run. This needs to be clarified in the writing.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions; we fully agree with your perspective. In response, we have revised the case selection method as recommended. For details of the revisions, please refer to Section 3.2, Pages 5-6, Lines 222-242.

Comments 5:

Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.

Table 2 organization formatting needs improvement (see my comments previous comments).  Another figure needs to be added (see my comments below)

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions; we fully agree with your perspective. In response to your recommendation, we have reorganized the original Table 2 into a new table with five columns and have simplified the wording to emphasize the essential differences between the cases.Please see Section 4, Pages 15-16, Table 2 in the revised manuscript for the specific changes.

Comments 6:

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The conclusions need to be consistent with the results presented once the presentation of results is improved.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions; we fully agree with your perspective. While organizing the research results, we have carefully reviewed the conclusions section to ensure that it aligns with the results section. For specifics, please refer to Section 6.

Comments 7:

Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure they are adequate.

The ethics statement needs to be added. The data availability statements is adequate.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestions; we fully agree with your perspective. We have added a statement at the end of the manuscript confirming adherence to academic ethics and publication standards. Please refer to Page 19, Lines 734-735 for details

*Other edits that need to be done:

Comments (1):

Please change the title to: Contrasting Non-Timber Forest Products Case Studies in Underdeveloped Areas in China.

Response (1): Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Your proposed changes have made the article title more concise and impactful. We have made the corresponding revisions, as detailed in the title section of the revised manuscript.

Comments (2):

Please do not write in bullet point nor topic point format but rather write in paragraph format (e.g., L16-26, L198-237, L261-303, L321-370, L391-431, L469-486, L512-560, and L568-583).

Response (2): Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your perspective on avoiding the use of bullet points or thematic formatting in the manuscript. Based on your recommendations, we have revised the following sections of the original text—L16-26, L198-237, L261-303, L321-370, L391-431, L469-486, L512-560, and L568-583—by removing the bullet points and presenting the content in a more professional paragraph format.

Comments (3):

Paragraphs by definition have a minimum of 3 sentences starting with a topic sentence and followed by at least two supporting sentences. Please correct single sentence and double sentence paragraphs throughout the manuscript such as on L98-101 where you can simply edit as “…[31]. This aligns…” on L99.

Response (3): Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Your advice has clarified the basic standards for paragraph writing. Accordingly, we have revised all paragraphs in the manuscript that contained fewer than two sentences to ensure that all paragraphs now meet the standards for scientific writing. Specific revisions can be found in the first paragraph on page 12, the first paragraph on page 14, and similar sections throughout the manuscript, where each paragraph now contains at least three sentences

Comments (4):

Paragraphs also do not need to be extremely long such as on L50-82. Look carefully at the content of the writing and identify topic sentences that start the paragraph and what the supporting points that follow are. If the topic changes, then this should be a new paragraph.

Response (4): Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Your additional guidance on paragraph structure has been very helpful in enhancing our writing skills. Based on your advice, we realized that the literature review section (L50-82) was too lengthy, resulting in an unclear paragraph structure. Consequently, we have divided the literature review into four paragraphs, each centered around a specific topic sentence, to improve the clarity and accuracy of the content. Please see Section 2 for the revised presentation.

Comments (5):

For example on L72, this should be Heinen et al. (2011) and in the writing the initials of the middle and/or first name should not be used. Using the year (2011) only should be used if it is absolutely critical to convey the publication year of the journal article. Otherwise just writing as Heinen et al. is sufficient.

Response (5): Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We previously overlooked this aspect in our writing, and your advice on citing references has been extremely helpful. Based on your recommendations, I have abbreviated the authors’ names throughout the manuscript, omitting middle and/or first names, and minimized unnecessary emphasis on citation years. This has resulted in a more concise and standardized citation format. The primary revisions are detailed in Section 2

Comments (6):

Please write all area units (e.g., mu) in international units (hectares or ha). You can put the mu in parentheses if you want.

Response (6): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced all instances of “mu” (a traditional Chinese unit of area) with international units (hectares) in the entire manuscript to enhance readability for an international audience. The primary modifications can be found in Section 4.1.

Comments (7):

For currency put the USD equivalent in parentheses and indicate the date of the currency conversion used the first time this comes up.

Response (7): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Since the case study in this paper is based in China, the subsidies and policies mentioned are in Chinese yuan. Converting these amounts to US dollars and adapting the policy details could introduce discrepancies. Therefore, we suggest retaining the use of Chinese yuan. If our understanding is incorrect, we will make further adjustments. Thank you again for your advice.

Comments (8):

Please add a new figure in the Introduction section of pictures representing examples of non-timber forest products. Most readers are not familiar with this topic. Visuals help. Picture should be labeled with (a), (b), (c), etc. Review formatting on this in the MDPI Forests Word template.

Response (8): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, which we fully agree with. Based on your recommendations, we have added an image in the introduction section to illustrate an example of non-wood forest products. This addition will help readers better understand the research topic of this paper. The specific modifications can be found in Section 1, Figure 1.

Comments (9):

There is an overuse of the abbreviation NTFPs and this is so much so that it interferes with the flow of the writing. Abbreviations are not used in the title and not in the abstract. Please come up with different ways to say this when there is this much repetition such as writing as non-timber forest products and then following with writing “these types of products” or “these products” etc.

Response (9): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, which we fully agree with. Based on your advice, we have reduced the use of the term “NTFPs” throughout the manuscript and replaced repetitive expressions with “these types of products/this industry” or “these products.” Your recommendations are essential for improving our writing skills. Thank you once again for your input.

Comments (10):

Please refer back to the Word template for MDPI Forests to make sure all cited References follow the correct format. For example, journals need to be abbreviated using ISO abbreviation and there is no comma after this abbreviation. Also, the issue(number) is followed by a comma and not a colon. Please also include at the end of each citation the DOI link so that the page proof editor does not have to look everything up:

References

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. We recommend preparing the references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote, ReferenceManager or Zotero to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references. Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available.

Citations and references in the Supplementary Materials are permitted provided that they also appear in the reference list here.

In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

Response (10): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have reorganized the format of the references throughout the manuscript, thoroughly reviewed the citations, abbreviated journal names, and included DOI addresses for the references. Please see the References section for the details.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comment:

Paragraph organization needs improvement. Grammar is OK.

Response : We have analyzed and revised the language throughout the manuscript to enhance its clarity and readability. Please refer to the revised sections in the manuscript for specific changes.

 Additional clarifications

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments, We acknowledge that our revisions may still have some areas for improvement, and we welcome continued criticism and feedback. 

Response to Reviewer Comments

1. Summary

First and foremost, We would like to extend our gratitude for the exceptional input from the experts. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have reorganized the Introduction and Literature Review sections to ensure that the manuscript complies with the template requirements. Please refer to the first section of the revised manuscript for details.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added a case study methodology and an analysis of case selection in the case analysis section.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have re-evaluated the research results and enhanced the summary of the findings.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Based on the research findings, we have refined the content of the conclusions.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Please add a paragraph at the end of the Introduction section going over the goal(s) and objective(s) of the research. This will replace the last paragraph of the Introduction section which needs to be deleted since it is redundant and not part of MDPI journal format.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We greatly appreciate your suggestions and fully agree with them. We have combined the Introduction and Literature Review sections and have organized them strictly according to the manuscript template requirements. At the end of the Introduction, we have added a paragraph summarizing the main content, objectives, and significance of the study. Please refer to the highlighted section in the final paragraph of the first part of the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: Please merge the Literature Review section with the Introduction section to conform to journal article format and not thesis/dissertation format.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We greatly appreciate your suggestions and fully concur with them. In response to your advice, we have merged the Introduction and Literature Review sections and organized them in strict accordance with the manuscript template requirements, as detailed in the first section of the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: Both Table 1 and Table 2 need to be improved (see the end of this second review). There is a particular clarity and style for tables. This is extremely important since tables and figures are “stand-alone” in understanding meaning a reader should be able to understand what is going on by just looking at the table or figure. Organization and clarity are important. Using less words to convey more meaning is extremely important.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We greatly appreciate your suggestions, which have clarified the necessity for clarity in tables, and the importance of avoiding lengthy textual descriptions. We also thank you for your time in clearly categorizing and organizing the contents of Tables 1 and 2, which has made the presentation more concise and clear compared to the original text, significantly enhancing the scientific rigor of the case study. In accordance with your recommendations, I have reviewed and revised the table contents. Please refer to Table 1 in Section 2 (Page 7) and Table 2 in Section 3 (Page 17) of the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: Please add a new figure that is a map of China showing the locations of the case study areas. The map should have a north arrow, distance scale in kilometers, and latitude/longitude. This would be very helpful so the reader quickly knows where these cases studies are geographically.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We greatly appreciate your suggestions and fully agree with your perspective. Consequently, we have added a map of the study area. It is important to note that with over 2,000 counties in China, the area of each individual county appears quite small on the map. Therefore, we have included additional identifying elements to make the study area more discernible. Please refer to Figure 3 in Section 2 of the revised manuscript (page 6) for details.

*Other edits that need to be done:

Comments 1: Please do not indent L1.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have removed the indentation of L1 to ensure that the manuscript aligns more closely with the journal’s template requirements. I appreciate your careful attention to this detail.

Comments 2: Capitalize Areas on L3 since this is a major word.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have capitalized the first letter of “areas” on L3. Please see the highlighted portion on L3.

Comments 3: Please reduce the number of times that NTFPs or NTFP is used as an abbreviation throughout the entire manuscript. Paraphrase this about half the time (use language other than NTFPs or NTFP to describe this). In each major section, write out fully 2 times with the second time using the (NTFP) after writing it out. Using abbreviations at the frequency used interferes with the flow of reading the manuscript. Please come up with different ways to say this when there is this much repetition such as writing as non-timber forest products and then following with writing “these types of products” or “these products” etc. This may be appropriate for a discipline specific journal but not a cross-disciplinary journal like MDPI Sustainability.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Thank you very much for your suggestion, which has made me more aware of the need to use abbreviations with caution to avoid potential misunderstandings. Following your advice, I have revised all instances of “NTFPs” in the manuscript to “these products” or “these types of products,” and changed “the NTFPs industry” to “this industry,” among other modifications. Please refer to the highlighted revisions related to NTFPs throughout the manuscript for detailed changes.

Comments 4: Please delete L84-91 since MDPI journals do not use this synopsis of the major sections of the manuscript. It is redundant.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the content from lines 84-91 as advised.

Comments 5: On L218, this is Figure 2 and not Figure 1. Please check the entire manuscript for consistency in referencing figure and table numbers.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion. We have reviewed and corrected the numbering of all figures and tables in the manuscript to ensure accuracy. Please refer to the highlighted sections in the revised manuscript for the updated figure and table numbers.

Comments 6: L222-226 is a one sentence paragraph. Paragraphs by definition are 3 sentences (topic sentence followed by a minimum of 2 supporting sentences. Please check the entire manuscript for this type of edit.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestion, which has reinforced the importance of having at least three sentences in a paragraph. Following your advice, I have revised lines 222-226 of the original manuscript. Please refer to the highlighted section in the first paragraph of Section 2.2 in the revised manuscript for details.

Comments 7: L167 changes to 2. Materials and Methods and L181 changes to 2.1. Case Analysis Framework and L221 changes to 2.2. Sample Selection. Please make similar types of edits for other sections, etc. after this.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestion. After removing the second section from the previous revision, the new manuscript now consists of five sections. We have reviewed and reordered the numbering for each section to ensure accuracy. Please refer to the highlighted section titles in the revised manuscript for details.

Comments 8: L255 change to 3. Results of Case Studies. Note that you already have a 4. Discussion section.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. As addressed in the previous response, we have reviewed and reordered the numbering of each section. Please refer to the highlighted section titles in the revised manuscript for details.

Comments 9: L696-708 needs to be one paragraph.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The original lines 696-708 indeed did not adhere to the standard paragraph format. We have revised this section accordingly. Please refer to the highlighted part in the first paragraph of Section 5 in the revised manuscript for details.

Comments 10: Author Contributions on L720-727 need to use initials and not full names (see Word template on MDPI website).

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion, We have abbreviated the author names in the author contributions section according to the template. Please refer to the highlighted section in the author contributions part of the revised manuscript for details.

Comments 11: Table 1 and Table 2 should look more like the following versions below (see Word file). In general, it is not a good idea to have writing as long as sentences in any table cell (e.g., Table 2). The writing is so long that it is not clear what writing belongs to what cell. Please see my edits.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We greatly appreciate your suggestions, which have clarified the necessity for clarity in tables, and the importance of avoiding lengthy textual descriptions. We also thank you for your time in clearly categorizing and organizing the contents of Tables 1 and 2, which has made the presentation more concise and clear compared to the original text, significantly enhancing the scientific rigor of the case study. In accordance with your recommendations, I have reviewed and revised the table contents. Please refer to Table 1 in Section 2 (Page 7) and Table 2 in Section 3 (Page 17) of the revised manuscript.

Comments 12: Everywhere in the manuscript delete Case 1, Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4 and just use the geographic location (e.g., Western, Southern, Eastern, Northern) everywhere in the manuscript where you have case numbers to describe these. The geographic locations are all unique and this reinforces for the reader the new map you will add.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion, We have removed the references to Case 1, Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4, and instead used geographic locations (Western, Southern, Eastern, Northern) to describe the cases. This approach will also help reinforce the reader’s impression of the newly added maps. For specific changes, please refer to the highlighted sections in the titles of the case analysis in subsections 3.1.1 to 3.1.4, as well as the case comparison section in subsection 3.2.2 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 13: For References that are journal articles, please make the following edits:

a) On L739 the Curr. Sci. needs to be in italics (please check all references to make sure this type of edit is made).

b) There is NO comma after the journal name so for example on L741 this should read “…Soc. Policy 2012, 3(2), 83–105.”

c) For all page ranges, the longer endash symbol (–) needs to be used (see b) above) and not the shorter hyphen (-).

d) On L739, it is not clear what is the volume(issue) number is nor the page range since it is written “994-1002-1002” so is the 111 the volume number and there is no issue number? If so, the 111 needs to be in italics. Should the page range be 994–1002?

e) There are typographical errors (typos) on L768-771. There needs to be spaces added between words and is that “General Assembly” on L771? This is not the only reference with these typos so please carefully check every reference to correct these types of errors.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In response to your suggestion, We have re-checked and reordered the references using the software to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting requirements. Please refer to the revised references section for details.

Comments 14: When you make edits, it is very helpful to the reviewers if you highlight edits in yellow. See my edits to Table 1 and Table 2 as an example of this (see Word file attached). This speeds up the review process since the reviewer can see exactly what you changed.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. For this round of revisions, we have highlighted the changes in yellow to clearly present the modifications. We sincerely appreciate your patient, detailed, and constructive feedback.

Additional clarifications

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments, We acknowledge that our revisions may still have some areas for improvement, and we welcome continued criticism and feedback.