Improved Clonal Propagation through Rejuvenation of Mature Branch Cutting of Four Important Acacia Species
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper studies the asexual propagation technology of Acacia trees through rejuvenation of mature branch cutting of four important species, which is of great significance to solve the breeding of Acacia trees. However, the writing idea of this paper is not clear enough, and the focus of discussion is not prominent. It is suggested to increase the content of physiological and biochemical mechanisms for the improvement of rooting ability after rejuvenation, and write the results separately from the analysis and discussion.
In the Introduction, it is suggested that the 2-4 segments should be adjusted to (1) the change process of rooting ability of vegetative propagation materials with the increase of tree maturity; (2) The concept, principle and function of rejuvenation; (3) The main methods and advantages and disadvantages of rejuvenation.
The Results suggested that: (1) the flushing ability of Acacia mother tree branches cuttings; (2) Comparison of rooting ability between rejuvenating branches and mature branch of mother tree; (3) Effect of hormone treatment on seedling forming ability of rejuvenating branches and mother tree branches.
In the discussion part, it is suggested to revise as (1) the significance and limiting factors of the sprouting of mother tree branches, and compare them with Acacia species; (2) The comparison and internal mechanism of rooting improvement of rejuvenated branches compared with mature branches of parent trees; (3) Compared with the mature branches of the mother tree, hormone can improve the rooting effect of rejuvenating branches and its internal mechanism.
Specific points:
Title. It is suggested that 12-year-old be removed from the title. Please explain why the 12-year-old acacia tree was selected for research and its relationship with maturity.
Add the specific time for the start and end of the experiment in the materials and methods.
The vertical coordinate name in Figure 1 is inaccurate and the figure is not standardized.
Other modification suggestions can be found in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for all the comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. We find all the comments are relevant and need to be improved. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript as suggested. The revised manuscript with the relevant answer to the comments is attached here.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript covers the topic of vegetative reproduction of wooden plants by rooting of shoots. This is an important topic, especially for important genotypes or species that are rare or near extinction. It is interesting to see different species' responses to hormones used. However, I have some comments stated below.
First page Citation: title in a citation is different from the main manuscript title. Please check and correct
Abstract:
Line 22 -26 - Please standardize the species name’s description, once you have space once not. it should be with space between A. auriculiformis, mangium – check through the whole manuscript
Line 37 – „gestation” – change to a more appropriate word
Line 43 – “maturation” of what? – something is missing, Did you mean the plant’s sexual maturation?
Line 91 – Remove “.” before (Read et al. …)
Line 113-114 – Please clarify your aims those your analyses cover the impact of age, hormones and species.
Line 131 – Reference – should be “Kumar…” – check the reference style
Line 173 -183 Please add information on how many individual cuttings were in one group (10?)
Line 174 – you describe “three IBA concentrations”, please specify them (for the Reviewer there were two experimental groups and one control group). Add information about IBA concentrations used. Add company name from which Seradix 3 was obtained.
Methods: A figure presenting your experiment’s scheme would be helpful to understand and follow your work. Please add some photos of young and mature plants after rooting.
Line 182 – you have “p < 0.05”, but in line 201 (P < 0.05), please unify these descriptions and check the whole manuscript
Tables – In all, add the number of analyzed plants (n = ). Thus in line 149-155 you have mentioned three replicates per treatment and in line 173-177 is stated that you used 10 (72 treatments and 720 cuttings).
Please add means within tables, e.g in Table 3, 4 and 6. I will be easier to compare species. not only clones.
Line 209 – “A. crassicarpa produced the least number whit short shoots …- number of what? plants?
Line 246 – have you rooted cuttings always from the same genotype, the same “maternal” tree? please add information
Table 6. Data should be organized according to IBA amount. check Seradik 3 concentration. add these information in part of methods.
and Something is missing after 1000 mg-1… L? Add IBA
Have to testes impact and interactions between Treatment (IBA concentration) and source of cuttings? It would be interesting to get knowledge about the effect of hormones related to age and dose. There is no information about it within the table neither within text nor discussion.
Line 3432 – add “space” - with 10,000 ppm
check all values with “%” and unify them – once you have space, but in other values not. Similarly, check the table’s legends. and values with SE or SD.
Line 370 – Change “’” with “.” after A. crassicarpa
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for all the comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. We find all the comments are relevant and need to be improved. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript as suggested. The revised manuscript with the relevant answer to the comments is attached here.
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been well revised. But the discussion part needs to be improved.
1. Is "fruitinginterval" in line 37 "fruiting interval"?
2. The period is missing at the end of lines 41 and 137.
3. Add % after "survival percentage" in line 159.
4. In line 205, "Results and Discussion" are changed to "Results".
5. Please confirm (1.0) in line 219.
6. Discussion needs further improvement. Due to the summary of relevant research in the Introduction, it is necessary to avoid summarizing again in the discussion. It is suggested to carry out an in-depth comparison with other relevant experiments closely around the test results of this paper and clarify the potential relevant mechanisms.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time spent on improving our manuscript. We have corrected all the comments and taken into consideration all the suggestions as well. We made major changes to the discussion part and the reference list. We try to exclude some part of the discussion part which is not directly related to the study. We have attached a full version of the word file with all the corrections made in the red track change option. Hope the correction made was satisfactory and meet your expectation.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
