Morphological Variability and Adaptability and Phenolic Content of Ajuga iva Collected from Distinct Moroccan Geographical Locations
Venkatesan Kannan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of the manuscript “Morphological Variability and Adaptability and Phenolic Content of Ajuga iva Collected from Distinct Geographical Locations” determined the morphological variability and phenolic content of Ajuga iva collected from the Jbel Zerhoun, Immouzzer Kandar, Azrou, and Fez.
L28: Please avoid the keywords from the title.
L38: Please include the botanical description of Ajuga iva.
L51: Please indicate the major bioactive compounds.
L56: Please indicate the variety name (Brassica oleracea var.).
L66: The samples are taken from only four populations.
L74: A. iva (Italize the botanical name throughout the manuscript).
L81: Please explain why the authors used whole plants to extract phenolics. Please analyze and provide data on the phenolic content of leaves, stems, and roots.
L84: filtrated and kept until (Indicate the filtration method, final volume of the extract, and storage condition).
L99-101: Please delete.
L112: Please recheck the statistical analysis. Also, correct the values: 12.47±2.098; 9,367±2.289?
L118: water extract.
L129: Please indicate ***
L196: A; iva (typo).
Minor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer comments
First of all, I want to thank the Editorial team and Reviewers for their objective efforts, comments, and suggestion in order to improve our paper.
All changes and modifications were highlighted in yellow
Reviewer 1
The authors of the manuscript “Morphological Variability and Adaptability and Phenolic Content of Ajuga iva Collected from Distinct Geographical Locations” determined the morphological variability and phenolic content of Ajuga iva collected from the Jbel Zerhoun, Immouzzer Kandar, Azrou, and Fez.
L28: Please avoid the keywords from the title.
Answer: Dear reviewer thank you for your comment, we rectified the keywords used in revised version as requested
L38: Please include the botanical description of Ajuga iva.
Answer: Thank you for your comment, we added the botanical description of the plant under study. Please see lines 38-42
L51: Please indicate the major bioactive compounds.
Answer: Thank you for your comment, we added the concerned part. Please see lines 57-64.
L56: Please indicate the variety name (Brassica oleracea var.).
Answer: Done
L66: The samples are taken from only four populations.
Answer: Thank you for your question, yes, we collected the samples under study from distinct Moroccan geographical locations
L74: A. iva (Italize the botanical name throughout the manuscript).
Answer: Done
L81: Please explain why the authors used whole plants to extract phenolics. Please analyze and provide data on the phenolic content of leaves, stems, and roots.
Answer: Thank you for asking; this is the initial research for our project thesis. The next stage was to examine the phenolic profile variability of the various parts of the plant that were being studied.
L84: filtrated and kept until (Indicate the filtration method, final volume of the extract, and storage condition).
Answer: Done
L99-101: Please delete.
Answer: Done
L112: Please recheck the statistical analysis. Also, correct the values: 12.47±2.098; 9,367±2.289?
Answer: Done
L118: water extract.
Answer: Done
L129: Please indicate ***
Answer: Thank you for your comment, we adopted the obtained results of multiple comparison
L196: A; iva (typo).
Answer: Done
Reviewer 2 Report
MS required major revision. The word file with corrections and suggestions is attached for revision.
The country name Morocco to be added in the Title.
Abstract to be modified with more results than just statement and it should represent Introduction, methods, major results with conclusion.
In Materials and methods, the range of TPC content is too high. It has to be rechecked or to be redo the experiment. Details of field experiment is not given. please see attached file.
In Results, the multivariate analysis to be done without 'ALT' and to be rewritten accordingly. Correlation part to be written carefully by seeing the importance of traits?
Discussion part to be revised. because, statements are repeated from results and the review is not good or up to standard. Eg. Two statements from same references are continued. Please check and improve it all.
Conclusion is also required improvement.
References are not in full format. Please check and correct them all.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
In general, there is lot of scope for improvement of english in through out the manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer comments
First of all, I want to thank the Editorial team and Reviewers for their objective efforts, comments and suggestion in order to improve our paper.
All changes and modifications were highlighted in yellow
MS required major revision. The word file with corrections and suggestions is attached for revision.
The country name Morocco to be added in the Title.
Answer: Done
Abstract to be modified with more results than just statement and it should represent Introduction, methods, major results with conclusion.
Answer: Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your feedback, the abstract was rectified as required. Please see the abstract section.
In Materials and methods, the range of TPC content is too high. It has to be rechecked or to be redo the experiment. Details of field experiment is not given. please see attached file.
Answer: Done
In Results, the multivariate analysis to be done without 'ALT' and to be rewritten accordingly. Correlation part to be written carefully by seeing the importance of traits?
Answer: Done
Discussion part to be revised. because, statements are repeated from results and the review is not good or up to standard. Eg. Two statements from same references are continued. Please check and improve it all.
Answer: Done
Conclusion is also required improvement.
Answer: Done
References are not in full format. Please check and correct them all.
Answer: Thank you for your comment, all references used are managed using Zotero according to the Journal guidelines.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the manuscript has improved a lot. The field details of experiment is not presented like spacing, where raised etc. The correlation results to be checked as only lower diagonal of Table to be used for interpretation. The reason for more range difference for TPC is not addressed. Discussion part is like a review of literature instead of discussing results obtained in the study.
Author Response
First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to the Editorial Board and Reviewer for their impartial efforts, criticism, and suggestions to enhance our paper. Yellow was used to highlight all changes and adjustments.
Overall, the manuscript has improved a lot.
Comment 1: The field details of experiment is not presented like spacing, where raised etc.
Answer: Thank you for your insightful comment, we changed the corresponding section and highlighted it in yellow.
Comment 2: The correlation results to be checked as only lower diagonal of Table to be used for interpretation.
Answer: We appreciate your insightful observation, and we reran the correlation test and provided the necessary interpretation. Look at lines 177-183
Comment 3: The reason for more range difference for TPC is not addressed.
Answer: Thank you for your insightful response, the necessary paragraph is included in accordance with your suggestion. observe lines 255-266.
Comment 4: Discussion part is like a review of literature instead of discussing results obtained in the study.
Answer: We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, and we have developed a discussion of phenolic content variability and factors affecting the recovery of phenolic content from the vegetal matrix.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
