Growing of the Containerized Seedlings of English Oak (Quercus robur L.) to Establish Sustainable Plantations in Forest-Steppe Ukraine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is of scientific value and interest. It addresses the interesting question of the substrate variation impact on germination rate of Quercus robur. This study is of relevant interest not only from the scientific point of view but also considering that their results will be useful to be applied in silvicultural practices. However, it has many structural problems that should be addressed before publication. First of all, the introduction should be restructured: why is there not an appropriate establishment of oak in Ukraine? Is climate change responsible for this? You have to justify it. The introduction must have the hypothesis and the objectives of the research. Secondly, the methodology should be described thoroughly in order to allow the repetition of the experiment by any research. Finally, the discussion should be rewritten.

 

Minor comments:

Lines 2-4. I do not recommend words such as influence, analysis, study etc. in the title. The title should be concrete and accurate enough in order to grab the attention of the readers. It is the most read part of any document.

About the abstract:

Lines 17-18. Are water and wind erosion the main threatening factors affecting oak forests in Ukraine? What about climate change that is in the title.

Lines 20. Nowadays, the value of forests is behind the wood production. What about ecosystem services?

Lines 31-35. This sentence is too long and hard to read. Remember that in English you have to use short sentences.

I do not understand the link between the impact of wind and water erosion, the lack of regeneration and the reason why the seedlings in the containers are more resistant to stress?

Did the authors test the soil composition or the seedling growth? According to the results in the abstract any reference about growing rates are mentioned.

What about climate change that is mentioned in the title?

Keywords: forest and diameter are not good keywords. You have to select words with a more bounded meaning in order to facilitate the search.

About the introduction:

The introduction should be rewritten, I suggest the following order:

The importance of forests.

Oak forest importance.

Oak forest problems they face in Ukraine.

The value of reforestation as a tool for fighting forest depletion.

The objective and hypothesis. Do not forget that any research has to address a problem. Which one is yours?

Lines 55-60. You have to mention some references here. It is obvious that previous studies mentioned the unfavorable factors that affect growth and regeneration of this species.

Line 62. Reforestation quality.

Lines 62-66. This sentence is very long and hard to read. Please rewrite it in a more convenient way.

Lines 68-72. I did not find the reason why this paragraph is in the introduction.

What is the idea of the description of the climate change in Ukraine?  Then you did not use it in the analysis.

Materials and methods:

Remember that the description of the materials and methods section should be very precise allowing other researchers to repeat the experiment.

Line 112-113. This sentence belongs to the introduction section.

Lines 119-124. Here you have a sentence that belongs to the introduction and the objective of this research that has to be in the introduction section.

Lines 130-132. This sentence does not have a verb which means that it is not a sentence.

In the title you suggested you analyzed the growth but in the materials section you did not mention any growth measurement.

In the materials and methods section you suggested you analyzed a long growing period, please especified it.

Lines 139-140. This sentence belongs to the materials section.

Lines 141-149. You did not mention in the materials section that you will analyze the germination percentage. If your intention is to analyze the germination percentage you have to describe it in the materials and methods section.

Previously, you mention that seed nutrients determine germination rate and then in the result section you mention the substrate quality as a determining factor for this. Please, modify or correct it.

Table 3. The head table and figure should be self-explanatory, that means they have to be understood without reading the text.

In this table you mention statistical results but in the materials and method section you did not mention the statistical analysis you applied.

Lines 165-167. If you made this decision of changing the experiment you have to describe it in the materials and methods section.

Lines 178-181. This sentence belongs to the materials section

Lines 190-192. If you change the containers characteristics you have to describe it in the materials and methods section.

Table 5 What is the idea of describing the soil properties in the results section? This must be mentioned in the materials and methods section.

And what about climate change? You mention it in the title but there is not any reference in the study.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for the stimulating and addressed comments. After incorporating them, the manuscript is certainly of much higher quality. However, its revision was not easy for us. The first author (Dr. Reho) and another co-author (Dr. Lisnyak) are from Kharkiv, Ukraine, where currently a difficult war situation is. Their reaction to your comments would be of better quality. Unfortunately, we did not manage to get in touch with Dr. Reho, and Dr. Lisnyak is in a not very good situation outside the university (it is partially destroyed) and his home. Nevertheless, we tried our best to respond to your recommendations.

We revised the manuscript based on the reactions of all opponents. We attach its final version.

We are aware that not all of your comments and well-intentioned recommendations were taken into account in the final. If the manuscript is unacceptable after editing, we understand that of course. At the moment, however, given the situation in Ukraine, we are unable to do more. However, we hope that the edited version will allow you to make a positive decision.

We have attached the answers to your questions and the response to the comments. Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I can see some application values of this study. But meanwhile, is it lack of theoretical values. Serious problems such as writing logic, metod presentation, data analysis should be solved for editor's further consideration.

1. Introduction.

(1) The effects of different  substrate on plant growth should be mentioned. What has has been studied  on  containerized planting stock cultivating? 

(2) And I can not see any values, purpose of this study in this section.

(3) Table 1-2,should be presented by graph with the specfic climate data from 1991to 2018.

(4) But I am really confused that the relationship beween  climate  change  and  substrate and containerized planting stock cultivating. The paper just judged the performance of the seedings grew in different  substrate. Some results and discussions about the response of seeding growth to climate changes should be supplemeted. 

2.Materials and Methods.

This section is too simple.  Sketch map/Photograph of the container, the cultivation and transplanting process should be supplemented.

The Method should consist with the order of Results section, and readers need to know the determination method of each indicator, such as  survival rate, condition assessment, etc.

Statistic analysis of data should be described in detail.

3. Discussion and conclusion

The author should  discuss the results compared with presvious studies. And then draw the conclusion.

4. I suggust that some economic value should be supplemented, including the cost of different substance, breeding cycle………

More growth and physiological indexes should be supplemented, i.e., plant hight, stem diameter, dry mass weight, soluble sugar, protein, root activity, photosynthetic traits, etc.. And thus, the stress resistance of seedlings can be conclude, the adaption of sedding to climate changes also can be further conducted.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for the stimulating and addressed comments. After incorporating them, the manuscript is certainly of much higher quality. However, its revision was not easy for us. The first author (Dr. Reho) and another co-author (Dr. Lisnyak) are from Kharkiv, Ukraine, where currently a difficult war situation is. Their reaction to your comments would be of better quality. Unfortunately, we did not manage to get in touch with Dr. Reho, and Dr. Lisnyak is in a not very good situation outside the university (it is partially destroyed) and his home. Nevertheless, we tried our best to respond to your recommendations.

We revised the manuscript based on the reactions of all opponents. We attach its final version.

We are aware that not all of your comments and well-intentioned recommendations were taken into account in the final. If the manuscript is unacceptable after editing, we understand that of course. At the moment, however, given the situation in Ukraine, we are unable to do more. However, we hope that the edited version will allow you to make a positive decision.

We have attached the answers to your questions and the response to the comments. Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I totally understand what you're going through, and admire your efforts in this work.

But (1) Figure 2 can be further improved , and it is good to provided the real photos in high definition, which can show the real siuation of the  container , different substrates, seedings, roots. And there is a spelling mistake in the title of the figure2.

(2) Considering the present data was too simple, it is best to supplement some physiological data, especially root  activity and root morphological characteristics.  But only the authors are capable of supplementing this data.

Author Response

The comment is in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx