Variation of Fertility and Phenological Synchronization in Cunninghamia lanceolata Seed Orchard: Implications for Seed Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An in-depth study with important results for seed orchard managers.

Many edits are needed to improve the text.  For example, avoid phrases such as "Result show that" in the Abstract, "was found to" in first sentence of 3.1, "these results demonstrated that" in 3.4., and "these results indicated that" and "This study showed that" on page 11.

Change "Like" to "As" on page 10 and elsewhere.

Remove extra periods in Author Contribution.

Consistently italicize species names and use lower case letters in reference titles in References.

Check spelling in Reference 25.

Add scientific name to keywords.

Define PO in Abstract.

Suggest adding table to list the 87 clones at the end of 2.1.

Suggest adding a table to define all the variables in 2.3 and 2.5.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Variation of fertility and phenological synchronization in Cunninghamia lanceolata seed orchard: Implications for seed production” (ID: 1926358).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

1. Response to comment: Many edits are needed to improve the text.  For example, avoid phrases such as "Result show that" in the Abstract, "was found to" in first sentence of 3.1, "these results demonstrated that" in 3.4., and "these results indicated that" and "This study showed that" on page 11.

Response: Thanks. We have made correction according to your comments. Please review line 24, 244, 338, 390, and 432.

2. Response to comment: Change "Like" to "As" on page 10 and elsewhere.

Response: Thanks. We have changed this word in the manuscript. Please review line 70, 371, 381, and 408.

3. Response to comment: Remove extra periods in Author Contribution.

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of the author contribution. And we have removed the extra periods in the section of author contribution. Please review line 455-458.

4. Response to comment: Consistently italicize species names and use lower case letters in reference titles in References.

Response: We have checked and revised the italicize species names, and used lower case letters in the references. Please review line 23, 62, 84, 92, 371, 397 in the main text, and the reference 5, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 30, and 33.

5. Response to comment: Check spelling in Reference 25.

Response: We have checked and made correction the spelling in reference 25. Please review reference 27 in the revised manuscript.

6. Response to comment: Add scientific name to keywords.

Response: Thanks. We have changed “Chinese fir” to “Cunninghamia lanceolata” in the section of keywords. Please review line 41.

7. Response to comment: Define PO in Abstract.

Response: We have supplied the define of POij in the abstract. Please review line 26-27.

8. Response to comment: Suggest adding table to list the 87 clones at the end of 2.1.

Response: We have supplied a table about the information of 87 clones in our study. Please review the table 1 in the text.

9. Response to comment: Suggest adding a table to define all the variables in 2.3 and 2.5.

Response: We supplied an abbreviation table under the abstract. Please review the abbreviation table in line 42.

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Enclosed is some minor suggestions marked on the text. Equation 6 seems belong to authors. It was given by reference 14 as marked on the text. Some new references were also suggested for better discussion for the paper.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Variation of fertility and phenological synchronization in Cunninghamia lanceolata seed orchard: Implications for seed production” (ID: 1926358).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

1. Response to comment: line58, It should be "forest tree populations" instead of "seed orchards".

Response: We have made correction according to the reviewer’s comments. Please review line 58-59.

2. Response to comment:. Pinus densiflora, P. thunbergia, and P. koraiensis (13).

Response: We have made correction according to the reviewer’s comments. Please review line 62.

3. Response to comment:. SPSS software should be cited.

Response: Thanks. We have cited it in the manuscript. Please review line 177 and reference 28.

4. Response to comment: Equation 6 seems belong to authors. It was given by reference 14 as marked on the text.

Response: We have cited the reference in the text according to your suggestion. Please review line 203.

5. Response to comment: parent should be parental in Figure 1.

Response: Thanks. We have revised this word. Please review line 265.

6. Response to comment: Kang, K.-S. or Kang, K.S. It should be unifotm.

Response: Thanks. We have checked and revised the references. Please review the reference 30, 31, 37, and 38.

7. Response to comment: Reference 14, the species name should be italic.

Response: Thanks. We have made correction in the species name in the reference 14.

8. Response to comment: Some new references were also suggested for better discussion for the paper.

Response: We read the new references carefully, it has reference value for our manuscript. We have cited the references in our manuscript (reference 3 and 14).

 Special thanks to you for your good comments.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx