Comparative Analysis of Vegetative Development and Leaf Morpho-Anatomy in Three Taxa of Ornamental Alocasia (Araceae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article  "Comparative Analysis of Vegetative Development and Leaf Morpho-Anatomy in Three Taxa of Ornamental Alocasia (Araceae)" is interesting and deserves to be published in this journal after revision. Details in the file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, suggestions, and corrections to our manuscripts.  All edits (incomplete information, italics, order of the paper, scale bars on the graph, units) have been made. Regarding the values of the leaf anatomy, we made a mistake but we have corrected the values of the thickness (Table 4). We decided not to include the SEM EDX supplementary files, and presented  the elemental percentage as a table (Table 7). We have also omitted statements on the presence of Calcium oxalate, and a additional references to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major concerns

1. The abstract should be rephrased to emphasize important findings. How could the results related to adaptability and cultivation practice?  

2. Variation analysis and multiple comparison should be added in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 4.

3. The content of Figure 1 is repeated with Table 1, which should be removed.

4. Where is the method for carotene content? Which should be added in materials and methods part.

5. Bars should be added in Figure 4 and 5.

6. Error bars should be added in Figure 6.

7. Where is the method for element analysis? Which should be added in materials and methods part.

8. The authors should carry out correlation analysis to try to find relations between different traits. And it should be fully discussed that how to use these differences to identify or evaluate Alocasia species.

 Minor concerns

1. The number of titles in materials and methods and results part are wrong listed.

2. The names of species should be in italic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A grammar check is necessary.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, suggestions, and corrections to our manuscript. We have added variation analysis, multiple comparisons, and a correlation between leaf-specific weight and water loss, has been added. We have added carotene measurements methods, data on propagation (reflected by the number of basal shoots), and corrected the manuscript's structure. Scale bars have been added to the histology figures (Figure 2). We have corrected the writing of all scientific names into italics.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript of Comparative Analysis of Vegetative Development and Leaf Morpho-Anatomy in Three Taxa of Ornamental Alocasia (Araceae) by Krisantini et al. contains a description of the differences in morphology and structure of the three Alocasia. The manuscript is compiled and formatted in accordance with the rules.

However, this work does not contain an experimental or practical task and is of a descriptive nature, since the use of different methods does not provide information useful for identifying new species, clarifying the methodology for establishing relationships or differences, or practical applications which are mentioned in passing. The article does not contain any questions or information about the propagation of species, a description of the edible part of the plant and its productivity depending on the above-ground part and water content of the leaves. There is also no evidence of the presence of oxalates in the leaf. As for the given data of elemental analysis, they are not described and judging by the images given, the authors did not conduct an analysis that would clearly indicate their presence, in addition, there are no statistical data in this part of the work, as well as a qualitative analysis.

There is also no clarity in the given leaf cut data, there are no captions on the figures, and statistical processing is not provided.

In addition, the question of the dynamics of development and ontogenesis is not clear.

It seems to me that this article is more suitable as a good foundation for a botanical collection, then perhaps, given the uniqueness of the object, the lack of novelty and purpose can be accepted as a descriptive study.

On the other hand, the authors can expand the work by adding comparisons and dynamics of growth of the root system, or isolating sap and obtaining data on the biochemistry of oxalates, or aging different lighting conditions, or describing the differences between old and young leaves, or the influence of the transition to generative development on composition, moisture, and others options.

Unfortunately, I can't find any real evidence or other novelty factors in this work unless the authors can expand on it.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, suggestions, and corrections to our manuscripts. We have provided a table of morphological identification (quantitative and quantitative) to clarify the species identification. Information on propagation has been added, reflected as the number of new basal shoots during the study. Statistical data has been added to the leaf specific leaf weight and relative water content (Table 5). We have also added references related to the edibility of the species. We have removed the statements of the presence of Calcium oxalates from the manuscript. Calcium oxalate analysis will be included in the continued study on Alocasia.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are small errors to be corrected . The word Alocasia is not in italics in some parts: line n. 17; 142; 317; 339; 342; 407 etc. Elements are sometimes written in lowercase, sometimes with a capital letter (Magnesium line 393). On line no. 314, potassium has a percentage of 8% (and not 7%).

Author Response

Comments 1: The word Alocasia is not in italics in some parts: line n. 17; 142; 317; 339; 342; 407 etc.
Response; Thank you for pointing this out. We have now corrected this; Alocasia are written in italics in line 17, 144, 165, 207, 228, 240, 260, 335, 461, 463, 468, and 521. We have marked the changes in red.

Comments 2: Elements are sometimes written in lowercase, sometimes with a capital letter (Magnesium line 393).
Response; Thank you for pointing this out. We have now corrected this. Elements are now written in lowercase. Corrections have been made on line 408 and 412.  We have marked the changes in red.

Comments 3: On line no. 314, potassium has a percentage of 8% (and not 7%).
Response: Thank you for your correction. We have now changed 7% to 8% on line 332, and marked the changes in red.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of the comments. The manuscript could be accepted after grammar checking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A grammar checking is necessary before acceptance.

Author Response

Comments 1: A grammar checking is necessary before acceptance.
Response: One of the authors (Dr Melodina Fabillo) has done the grammar checking for the manuscript. Additionally, we have checked the grammar throughout manuscript using Grammarly Professional

Comments 2: INTRODUCTION section ‘can be improved’
Response: We have rewritten the Introduction section. Clarification has been made on the importance of this study. We have made revisions on line 37- 41, 56-68, 80-87 (marked in red).

Comments 3: CONCLUSION ‘can be improved’
Response: We have revised the Conclusion: grammatical errors have been corrected; we have added line 418-419 to describe leaf morphological variations of the three taxa, and revised the last sentence (line 427-429). All changes have been marked with red fonts.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done work to correct the comments made. Small remarks remain. Thus, in Figure 2 there is no numbering (a-h) on the sub-figures.

The manuscript may be accepted for publication with minor revisions.

Author Response

Comments 1: Results presentation ‘can be improved’.
Responses: Grammatical errors have been corrected, descriptions have been simplified for clarity (line 245-255), some sentences (line 328-330) have been combined for a better flow. Changes are marked with red fonts.
 
Comments 2: Figure 2 there is no numbering (a-h) on the sub-figures.
Responses: Numbering (a-i) has been added to Figure 2.