Impact of Different Pruning Practices on Height Growth of Paulownia Clon in Vitro 112®
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments are given in the text of the paper. Please add some references in the introduction.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your revision. We hope we correct and filled everything what we can.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Title:
In my opinion, it is better to correct the title. Refer to the “height growth of Paulownia seedlings”.
Introduction:
What is the volume growth (m3 ha-1 yr-1) of Paulownia plantations?
Paulownia been afforested in Europe? What about the Czech Republic?
What is the use of Paulownia wood? Which industries and in what dimensions is it consumed?
The objectives of the research should be clearly stated.
Methods:
In my opinion, it is better to prepare pictures of afforestation and add it to the article.
Line 86-87: Correct the sentence. Use the International Soil Classification.
Indicate the percentage of humidity, minimum and maximum temperature.
It seems better to use "seedlings" instead of "plants" and “trees”.
Table 1 in SS column: It is not clear which mean is compared to which other mean and by which statistical test.
Use the word "average ± SD" instead of the words "height (±SD)" and "length ±SD".
Use the word “P-value” instead of the word “statistical significant”.
Line 204-206: Please state clearly which hypothesis you used the Kruskal-Wallis test to accept or reject. Were the means tested? Also, which test was used to compare and differentiate the significant difference between the means? Why not use a data conversion method to normalize data distribution? In that case, you can use ANOVA and one of the post-hok tests.
Results:
Lines 209 to 212 are not results and should be passed to the method section.
Figures 1, 2, and 3: are not clear. Are they averages?
Lines 215 to 217 are not results.
In my opinion, it is better to present the means (±SD) and results of statistical tests in a table, and show the difference between the treatments and the control by the figure.
Tables 2 and 3: Title is unclear. What is the percentage difference of which variable?Are they length? Are there differences in the means?
Line 299: I think the “maximum” should be “minimum”.
Line 304-305: I could not see these results in Table 4. Also, the meaning of this sentence is opposite to the previous sentences. Please check.
Line 307: “15.1%” instead of “16.1%”
Line 308: I think the “maximum” should be “minimum”.
Line 311: “10.9%” instead of “10.1%”.
Discussion:
Line: 338-340, unclear, please revise.
Line 367-369, please mention to tree species.
Line 370-371, please mention and write the means by numbers.
Conclusion:
Please mention the research highlights on a case by case basis.
Author Response
Thank you for your revision. We hope we corrected and filled everything what we can.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
Many corrections have been made to the modified version of the paper. However, the quality of the figures needs to be improved. Also in the conclusion section, in my opinion, it is better to refer to the highlights of the research.
Author Response
Dear rewiever,
thank you for your revision. Please, I tried to change the conclusion. I hope I changed it better (please - look at it). I made new draw lines. All figures are in reduced size in article, but these figures are in full size in supplementary files. I hope you will "pleased". You had true, I do not know why, figures (mainly spring pruning) were bad and ugly.
Best regards
J.Kadlec
