PONE-D-24-23349Characteristics of wild hazelnut species in northeast China and selection of superior provenances：a provenance trial.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali Akbar Ghasemi-Soloklui, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

This research was funded by Basic Research Fees of Universities in Heilongjiang Province, China (145309628)(https://kygl.webvpn.qqhru.edu.cn/userAction!do_casLogin.action). 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The research paper focuses on the characterization and evaluation of hazelnut species in Northeast China based on their growth, nut economic traits, and species selection criteria. Through meticulous measurements and statistical analyses, the study highlights the importance of assessing multiple economic traits to determine tree excellence, utilizing tools like Principal Component Analysis for comprehensive evaluations. Strengths of the paper include its detailed methodology, rigorous data collection and analysis techniques, and the incorporation of both morphometric and nutrient content analyses to identify target species with exceptional traits. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the significance of overwintering success and nut economic characteristics in selecting superior hazelnut species, providing valuable insights for future breeding and cultivation efforts in the region.

Shortcomings of the abstract of the paper include:

1. Lack of clarity on the research methodology: The abstract do not provide detailed information on the specific methodology used in the provenance trials and genetic analysis of the hazelnut species. Without a clear explanation of the experimental design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis, it is difficult for readers to assess the reliability and validity of the study's findings.

Shortcomings of the Introduction of the paper include:

1. Limited context and background information: While the introduction briefly touches upon the ecological and economic significance of wild hazelnut species in China, it lacks a comprehensive review of existing literature on hazelnut or other nut trees breeding, genetics, and cultivation practices. Providing more context and background information would help situate the study within the broader research landscape and highlight the novelty and significance of the findings. For example, the author may use the following papers:

10.3390/plants10112234

10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109369

10.1007/978-3-030-23112-5_11

10.1016/j.scienta.2022.110885

10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1139.18

10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1318.37

10.1007/978-981-19-9497-5_4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379666419_Targeted_Breeding_Innovations_in_Nut_Tree_Cultivars

2. Absence of comparative analysis: The introduction emphasizes the geographical variations and unique characteristics of the different provenances of wild hazelnut species in Northeast China. However, there is a lack of comparative analysis or discussion on how these variations may impact the hazelnuts' overall productivity, adaptability, and market value. A more thorough comparative analysis would enhance the depth of the study and provide stronger insights for potential breeding and cultivation strategies. For example, the author may benefit from the following papers:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113275

10.1093/jxb/erz467

10.22059/ijhst.2020.299930.352

10.1093/hr/uhac124

10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1074.18

4. Limited discussion on sustainability and future implications: While the introduction briefly mentions the industrial and medicinal benefits of hazelnuts, there is a lack of discussion on the sustainability aspects of hazelnut cultivation and the potential long-term implications of the study's findings. Including a section on the environmental sustainability, socio-economic impact, and future research directions would enrich the paper and demonstrate a broader perspective on the importance of wild hazelnut biodiversity conservation and utilization.

The "Materials and Methods" section of the research paper contains valuable details about the procedures and techniques utilized in the study. However, there are a few shortcomings that could be addressed to enhance the clarity and rigor of the methodology:

1. Lack of detail on sampling methodology: The section briefly mentions the collection of hazelnut seeds from various provenances within Northeast China, but it does not provide specific details on the sampling strategy employed. Information on how the seeds were collected, the criteria used for selecting specific provenances, and the rationale behind the selection of the eight hazelnut species could strengthen the transparency and reproducibility of the study.

2. Insufficient information on experimental design: While the section mentions the establishment of provenance trial forests with a randomized complete block design and three repeats, it lacks explicit details on the allocation of treatments, the randomization process, and the specific variables measured in the study. Providing a more comprehensive description of the experimental design, including the control measures implemented, could aid in better understanding the reliability and validity of the results obtained.

3. Limited explanation of data analysis techniques: The section briefly mentions the use of statistical analysis tools such as principal component analysis (PCA) and Microsoft Excel for processing and analyzing the data. However, it would be beneficial to include more information on the specific statistical tests used, how the data were managed and cleaned, and any assumptions underlying the analyses. This would provide readers with insights into the robustness of the statistical findings and interpretations.

4. Lack of discussion on potential biases and limitations: The section does not address any potential biases or limitations that may have affected the study's outcomes. Acknowledging potential sources of bias, such as environmental variability, sampling errors, or measurement inconsistencies, could help contextualize the results and offer insights into the generalizability of the findings.

By addressing these shortcomings and providing more detailed information on sampling, experimental design, data analysis, and potential biases, the "Materials and Methods" section could be strengthened to ensure the robustness and reliability of the study's findings.

Reviewer #2: This research has investigated some characteristics of wild hazelnut species in northeastern China to selection of superior provenances. Many indicators have been measured. However, the results of this research are mostly of local use and may not be interesting for readers from other parts of the world. In addition, the evaluation of genetic diversity based on morphological characters alone without the use of molecular techniques belongs to the last decade, and nowadays new techniques are used to evaluate genetic diversity. It is not clear how to choose the species.

Were they selected from the population or were the characteristics of these species already known? If there was a population, how was the selection of the population? What was the size of the population (how many hectares). One-year measurement data is not reliable and should be repeated at least two or three years for morphological and phenological indicators.

This manuscript is recommended for publication in local journals.

Reviewer #3: It is an interesting study, evaluating valuable genetic resources of hazelnut in China. It contain quite good mod of data presentation and quality macro and micro pictures, but sufferers some weak points which needs to be considered;

-Some sections specially materials and methods as well as the results are too lengthy and needs to be summarized.

-the overall English is good but still needs to be improved preferably by a native speaker.

-As mentioned in introduction as well as in table 1, the all plant materials belongs to two distinct species, this is while authors speak about 8 distinct species!! it seems they need to name the plant materials belonged to one species as populations, ecotype etc.

-Some terms are not selected properly; for example growth condition (instead you can use growth attributes/ or parameters), long in table 2 (instead use length), flowering length in table 3 and 4 (use flowering period/ or duration), percent kernel (use kernel percentage) etc.

-The line for NJ is absent in Fig 2 & 3.

-For mean comparison in tables use same order of alphabet letters from highest value to lowest value (a/ or A for highest value).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-23349R1Characteristics of wild hazelnut populations in northeast China and selection of superior provenancesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ali Akbar Ghasemi-Soloklui, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors appear to have addressed most of the points raised by the reviewers effectively:

1. Methodology Clarification: The authors added more detailed descriptions regarding the provenance trials and genetic analysis, addressing Reviewer #1's concern. The revised abstract provides a clear breakdown of the methodology, including seed collection, pollen observations, and principal component analysis.

2. Introduction Enhancements: The authors expanded the introduction to include background on hazelnut breeding, genetics, and cultivation practices, which Reviewer #1 highlighted as lacking. The inclusion of broader context regarding hazelnut resource exploitation and the sustainability of hazelnut cultivation was also added, as suggested.

3. Materials and Methods: The authors responded to the need for more detail on sampling methodology, such as how seeds were collected, the selection criteria for provenances, and the experimental design. They provided information on the sampling and experimental procedures, including statistical methods, randomization, and how variables were measured. This meets Reviewer #1’s request for greater transparency and strengthens the study's reproducibility.

4. Length of Sections: The authors made attempts to summarize the lengthier sections, specifically the materials and methods and results, as suggested by Reviewer #3. However, further streamlining may still be necessary, especially in the results section, which contains a great deal of detail.

5. Comparison of Nut Traits and Geographic Variation: The paper also addressed Reviewer #2's suggestion on comparative analysis of productivity, adaptability, and market value by examining geographic variations in hazelnut characteristics. This was done through a detailed principal component analysis.

Points Needing Further Attention:

1. Reference Formatting: As you pointed out, some of the newly added references do not include the journal names, page numbers, or volumes. The authors should standardize their references in line with the required citation style of PLOS ONE. Ensuring complete and consistent referencing, including missing elements (e.g., journal name, pages, volume), is critical for a high-quality academic manuscript.

2. Clarification on One-Year Data: Reviewer #2 questioned the reliability of one-year measurement data, advising a longer observational period. The authors justified their use of one-year data by referencing another publication, but they should be clearer about potential limitations and perhaps indicate plans for longer-term data collection in future studies to strengthen this defense.

3. Potential for Further Summarization: While the authors shortened some sections, there are still lengthy parts, particularly in the results section. More concise presentation could enhance the paper’s readability.

Recommendations for Authors:

- Ensure reference formatting is fully compliant with the journal’s style guidelines. Include missing journal names, pages, and volumes.

- Continue revising for conciseness, particularly in the results section. Summarizing some repetitive details may help the paper be more reader-friendly.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Characteristics of wild hazelnut populations in northeast China and selection of superior provenances

PONE-D-24-23349R2

Dear Dr. Guan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ali Akbar Ghasemi-Soloklui, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

 <!--</p-->

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors revised the paper according to the reviewers' comments thoroughly and the paper can be considered as an accepted paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********