Responses of Planting Modes to Photosynthetic Characteristics and Fluorescence Parameters of Fokienia hodginsii Seedlings in a Heterogeneous Nutrient Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Manuscript entitled ‘Effects of Plant Competition on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Fluorescence Parameters of Fokienia hodginsii Seedlings in a Heterogeneous Nutrient Environment’ authored by Li et al. reports research findings on impact of planting method and nutrients environment on photosynthetic characteristics and fluorescence traits of a conifer seedling. The content of the ms can be of interest to wide readers of the Forest and it fits well within the aim and scope of the journal as well. However, there are crucial deficiencies and shortcomings that need author’s consideration in order to impart content clarity and scientific soundness.

TITLE, It is perhaps better to replace title with a conclusive statement.

ABSTRACT, Readers to expect problem statement which had necessitated conducting this study as the starting phrase of abstract but authors have skipped this crucial statement.

 Authors have excessively used abbreviations in abstract which have not been defined in full at first which creates confusion and makes whole abstract ambiguous and confusing.

Overall, results have been described as generalized statements without describing any comparative difference in percentage of employed treatments on response variables, which is not acceptable at all.

Furthermore, abstract is too lengthy that needs to be brought within the acceptable range as prescribed in journal’s instructions.

KEYWORDS, contain repetitive words of title which must be omitted to replace with other high frequency words.

INTRODUCTION, Authors have skipped the pertinence of establishing research and knowledge gaps by critically analysing the peer-findings on the subject matter.

Additionally, planting methods have not been discussed.

On what research hypothesis study was planned, it remains unclear.

METHODOLOGY, It lacks vital information and even employed treatments have not been elaborated.

Nutrient patches terms confuses whole content of the methodology while stating there a pot trial and a greenhouse trial, its really ambiguous.

RESULTS, These have been stated by adding unnecessary details while critical comparative analysis of employed treatments in terms of percentage difference must be added.

DISCUSSION, It is perhaps better to enrich this section by interpreting recorded findings which must be supported by recent studies on the subject matter related to photosynthetic traits and other variables.

Conclusion section must be strengthened by adding research findings were in line or in contradiction with the postulated research hypothesis.

Author Response

Hello Professor, I have revised the article according to your valuable comments.I have improved the quality of the abstract and reduced its content. I have added and modified the preface, experimental methods, discussion and conclusion sections according to your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

-          In the second paragraph of page 2, what do you mean with vulnerable plants?

-          In the introduction section, up to the second page the writing style generates confusion regarding the relationship between competition for light and soil heterogeneity. I suggest to revise the writing of this section.

-          In the introduction, it is advice to include information regarding shade-tolerance of Fokienua hodginsii.

-          In section 2.1, what does it mean “with sufficient sunshine hours”? Please specify an approximately range of daylight hours.

-          In section 2.2, besides indicating the differences in diameter and height between plants, it is suggested to add the average height and diameter.

-          In regard to the explanation of nutrient rich or nutrient poor treatment described in table 1, it is not clear in these were the final nutrient concentrations considering the nutrient contents of the selected soil, or if these were added concentrations on top of nutrients from the soil.

-          Table 1 is confusing. The difference between Zone A and Zone B in the homogeneous nutrient patches is not clear in the table nor in the description of them. I also suggest a better description of what it is considered an homogeneous vs. and heterogeneous nutrient patch.

-          In section 2.3 it is advised to explain the actual experimental design, the experimental unit, and number of replicates. Also, describe the difference between single and pure planting.

-          In section 2.5, data analysis indicates that a two-way ANOVA was used to determine the interaction between two environmental factors. However, it is not clear which are the two environmental factors (planting mode and nutrient heterogeneity?), also considering that (as I assume) the experimental design is not a factorial design.

-          In section 3.1.

-          In figure 1, treatments in the x-axis are names as F-SP, F-PP, and F-MP but there is no explanation of the meaning of each, these correspond to the planting pattern?. Also, please improve image quality.

-          In section 3.1 it is stated that “Pn in the single planting treatment was 28% and 22% higher than that in the pure and mixed planting modes, irrespective of nutrient environment”. I´m not sure if this statement is entirely true, as the Pn of the F-PP treatment growing in HET-P is significantly lower than the rest. Thus, the growing media could have an interaction with planting mode to affect Pn. To clarify this and the following results I suggest to add an ANOVA table with p-values of single effects and interaction.

-          Figure 1, is poorly described. There should be a letter, from A to D for each panel and a description in figure caption. Also, a description of nutrient treatment and planting mode is also lacking. The error bars should also be described in figure caption, as there is no knowledge if they describe standard error or standard deviation. This should also be applied for further images.

-          The letters above the bars in figure 1 are confusing. The note indicates that capital letter indicate differences under different planting patterns in the same nutrient path, while lowercase letter indicate differences between nutrient patches under the same planting pattern. This lettering style should be used if the data was analyzed as a single ANOVA. However, authors indicate that this corresponds to a factorial design. Thus, this lettering does not allow to infer on interaction between factors. I suggest to change the lettering pattern and include the ANOVA table (with p-values, not f-values). Figure 1 does not clearly reflect the results observed in table 2.  

 

-          In section 3.3 results regarding a correlation analysis between photosynthetic and fluorescence parameters is shown. This analysis was not described in the methodology section and doesn´t seem to have a relationship with the general objective of this research. The same issue holds true for the comprehensive analysis shown in table 6. 

Author Response

Hello Professor, thank you for your valuable comments on my article, I have improved the preamble and the test method part of the article, and corrected the problems you mentioned in the analysis of the results

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have gone through the revised version and satisfied to glance that authors have incorporated most of the suggestions forwarded previously, however there are still few ambiguities and confusions that must be rectified before publication consideration of this MS.

Treatments are still not clear in abstract as authors could have described what planting modes and nutrient environments actually describe in brackets for readers clarity.

Again, authors have overlooked the suggestion to describe the treatments superiority over the control ones in terms of integral values or percentile difference for giving readers an explicit idea of treatments effects.

Introduction section still lacks literature on planting modes impacts in a critical way for highlighting research gaps.

Still, research hypothesis is missing.

 2.1. ‘Overview of the’ can be omitted.

 Pot experiments were carried out in four

‘nutrient environments, namely homogeneous nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) environments’ not clear and authors have ignored suggestion to clarify it. It is one of the most important things around which whole of the MS REVOLVES.

To take benefit of free-of-charge colour figures, I shall strongly suggest transforming figures into coloured ones.

My prime concern regarding results description still exists as results have not been described to portrait the treatment impacts in terms of percentile or integral value differences.

Discussion still lacks appropriate results interpretations.

Conclusion is not making sense so far especially lack of future perspectives of the study and salient limitation have not been elaborated.

Author Response

Hello Professor, thank you for your valuable comments on my thesis, I have improved it according to your comments by adding accurate descriptions in the abstract section and also improving the quality of the content in each section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx