Comparative Evaluation of Physiological Response and Drought Tolerance between Cunninghamia unica and C. lanceolata Seedlings under Drought Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
I have read the manuscript (forests -2176976). Entitle: Physiological response and drought tolerance evaluation between Cunninghamia unica and C. lanceolata seedlings under drought stress written by Xun Lei et. al., for publication of forests MDPI. In this study, the author investigated the seedling differences under different drought conditions.
The overall research is well conducted, and research is obvious application potential for the readers because this research provided the information unique pattern of C. unica is that its greater ability of maintain Ψw and open stomata than C. lanceolata under the drought. In this sense, this manuscript is much more valuable. However, I found a lack of story connection and some lack of potential references (some are suggested below). Overall after I evaluate and request the author for this manuscript as a “MAJOR REVISION”.
Major suggestions
1) Abstract: The abstract should be short and concise; it should present only important results and not need to indicate by numbering. Moreover, the author should check the grammar, especially subscripts (e.g., Ln. 20, 23). Please make it necessary to revise.
2) Introduction: The introduction is well starting with the global drought and its effect on the forest ecosystem. However, the author also should be covering the drought effect such as “reduction of plant morphology (reduced leaf size and stem length, leaf length/width, and vegetative growth) and physiological traits (reduction of photosynthesis, leaf water potential, and sap movement)”. This article help to further clarify your introduction (1) https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy153
3) Hypothesis and objectives in the introduction: The author well presented the research questions Ln. 70-73 however the objective of the studies not so clearly connected with the hypothesis. Author should be well-connect these two parts. The hypothesis should be very clear because, without appropriate literature, questions, or hypotheses in the introduction section the entire text will be unclear.
Some others comment
4) Line 141: Author should not need to describe all the statistical test in detail. Please make concise.
5) Line 118: Author should present the instrumental details (brand/company and detail address) in the materials and methods section see the Ln. 118 photosynthetic apparatus (Li-6400X, USA) and check the other instrumentation as well.
6) Line 245 (results): The author should well describe the results completely. In scientific writing each figure is independent, and it should describe the figure's story itself in the title of the figure. Please necessary correct in this and other figure and check to other as well.
7) Line no. 333-338: Author should refer to the article DOI:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.021 “physiological performance especially higher the photosynthesis is due to increase of Chlorophyll content because Chl. help to capture better light and a higher amount of light due to Chl. then higher possibility of Pn because of conversation of light energy change into the chemical energy”.
8) Discussion (Line 345-373): Improve this paragraph by describing with why ROS is emerging in stress conditions. Under drought plant produces the ROS and plant produce antioxidant, flavonoids, and secondary metabolites play to the role for protecting the plant for detoxifying ROS and protect the plant against the stress condition by stabilizing the protein and amino acid.
9) Line 381 (conclusion): The outlook and conclusion should not be repetitive in the abstract or a summary of the results section. I would love to read striking points and take-home messages that will linger in the readers’ minds. What is the novelty, how does the study elucidate some questions in this field, and the contributions the paper may offer to the scientific community?
10) Line 404 (References): please double-check the citations, their style, spell check, and other grammatical errors. moreover, the author should cut the old and less matching literature and include the latest literature some of them are above.
Good Luck !
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. The title „Physiological response and drought tolerance evaluation be-2 tween Cunninghamia unica and C. lanceolata seedlings under 3 drought stress” is sugestive and siutable for the content of this work.
The study design setup and the applied methods are adequate and the analyses were well performed.
The article is understandably written and well-organized, contain all the components I would expect, and the sections are well-developed. The methods are quite well explained, the results are well described, and the discussion is carried out very well. So, I think you did a good job.
However, please provide some photos from the field of experiences.
The rest of the work, methods and results are complex and well organized, fact that shows the correct and detailed documentation of the autors.
I also recommend a short linguistic check.
The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the paper. Congratulations for the work!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find my comments into atached file.
Regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper “Physiological response and drought tolerance evaluation between Cunninghamia unica and C. lanceolata seedlings under drought stress” deals with a stress that can and will affect plant's life in light of worsening of climate change effect. Drought causes primary and secondary physical damage as well as physiological changes in trees. The paper, though based on simple measurements, provide useful information for future forest planting. The manuscript is well written, but it needs little improvements before being published. My suggestions are in the file attached .
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author
I have read the revised manuscript. Entitled: Physiological response and drought tolerance evaluation between Cunninghamia unica and C. lanceolata seedlings under drought stress for publication in forest. This is the second submission made by the author. The author addressed all the questions and suggestions that I raised the issue in the review of the original manuscript. I satisfy the author’s revisions. Author improves their hypothesis and well connected with the research objectives in this time. This manuscript improved the flow of writing, which was comparatively shallow in the original version but in this revised copy author very well addressed all the quarries and suggestions. Before accepting this manuscript if there is anything needed to be revised by the author, especially English grammar, or spell check, I request this manuscript is currently in “Minor Revision” and the author may correct any further grammatical errors (if any) the author may improve in this stage.
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for taking my comments into account,
Regards
