Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Response Characteristics of Photosynthetic Productivity to the Canopy Spatial Distribution Pattern of Larix kaempferi

Forests 2023, 14(6), 1171; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061171

by Chunyan Wu^1,†, Dongsheng Chen^1,†, Guowei Xia², Xiaomei Sun^1,* and Shougong Zhang¹

Reviewer 1:

Agnieszka Sujak

Reviewer 2:

Kristina Laužikė

Reviewer 3:

Narayan Bhusal

Forests 2023, 14(6), 1171; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14061171

Submission received: 30 April 2023 / Revised: 29 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 6 June 2023

(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on the manuscript titled „Response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pattern of Larix kaempferi „ by Chunyan Wu, Guowei Xia, Dongsheng Chen, Xiaomei Sun, and Shougong Zhang submitted to mdpi Forests

In the presented article the Authors related to the issue of a response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pat tern in Larix kaempferi

The manuscript itself is quite interesting although the drawn conclusions are rather obvious...as stated in last 5 lines of the Abstract and in the Conclusions. This actually means annual trimming of too dense canopies or getting rid of less productive trees. It is also a relatively old study dated 2014/15. However I still believe that it is valuable enough to be published.

The manuscript text is hard to read, several parameters appear in the text and they are not explained while explanation appears later or at the end in the Abbreviation list (explain parameters right after they appear or /the best option/or shift Abbreviation list the front). For example VPD at page 2, 3^rd paragraph, line 4 is explained on page 4 in chapter 2.3.; LRC appears in Keywords and is explained in Table 3 legend. Please check for other parameters.

There are other issues which have to be clarified.

Introduction is somehow clumsy and contains several repetitions of words. The Authors claim that the objectives of the study was to clarify how canopy photosynthetic productivity enhancement depends on canopy spatial distribution. This has been not done and instead second aim appears in Abstract which is the methods for improving canopy spatial distribution to increase photosynthetic productivity.

Good message is that the spatial distribution of photosynthetic parameters measured on young, 8 years old as well as on 20 years old trees show similar pattern (Fig3). Bad thing is that in the graphs showing Net photosynthesis/ Stomatal conductance and Stomatal restriction value versus Air temperature 3 outliers appear at the same temperature value. This can be the effect of an error in calculation or a problem with measurements. Can U explain that? Moreover fitting of such differing experimental values with parabolas or lines could be questionable. Can U state thje reason why U choose such a fitting?

2.2. Make clearer the experimental design. This paragraph from start to Table 1 is unclear.

Table s 1, 2,3. Please add a footnote explaining what * means here

Figure 2 is hardly readable, please shift the descriptions as: Top, 2nd…etc to the side, there is plenty of space. Application of red text on green background is not a good idea.

Table 3, Legend: please remove unnecessary spacers and add them when needed, „Height in the canopy” is very misleading as the layers are measured from top. Better to say 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd etc. and it should be equivalent to Fig 2. Please arrange the table so that each cell has the same format. If something does not fit in the width, organize the table so that the first row contains the information from the first column (i.e. transposition).

Figure 3 Can U explain a saw shape of a graphs Air temperature versus Canopy layer.

All the figures do not need a footnote when there is a legend; all the figures should be prepared with better resolution.

In the text the wording “canopy depth” (used twice in text) is used and “the canopy height” (used 7 times within the text as in Abstract line 8 from bottom) which is additional wording, please unify as it is misleading.

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed at the end of the manuscript in order of appearance in the text.

Example:

1. Introduction

The canopy photosynthetic productivity is the primary driving force for promoting and supporting forest formation [1] and is the main energy source for canopy carbon supply and metabolizm [2]. The spatial distribution of the canopy directly affects tree photosynthetic capacity and tree growth [3], and then individual tree photosynthesis affects the performance/productivity of the en-tire forest stand (Lowman and Schowalter, 2012; Slot and Winter, 2017; Meir et al., 2018). This is because photosynthetic productivity mainly depends on the three-dimensional structure of the forest stand, the photosynthetic capacity of the canopy leaves,

1. (Badgley et al., 2017)

2. (Bar-Even, 2018)………etc All the references have to be formatted according to mdpi forests style, see guidance for Authors………….

Please check English as some grammatical mistakes are present. It is advised to be read by a native speaker or at put through AI translator.

Example ...we selected the most commonly used models.....for choose the optimal model

The needles were measured in situ......

Change in situ into in situ

Change italicised and l into and l (page 7 3 rd line from bottom)

Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

English is acceptable with some moderate mistakes. A thorough read by a native speaker would be enough to correct it.

Author Response

Response letter

Comment #1

In the presented article the Authors related to the issue of a response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pat tern in Larix kaempferi

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

There are other issues which have to be clarified.

Response: thank you for careful comment, we agree with you! It has been changed,

We claim that the purpose of the study was to elucidate how increases in canopy photosynthetic productivity depend on canopy spatial distribution. This has not been done, but a second goal appears in the abstract, namely methods to improve the spatial distribution of the canopy to increase photosynthetic productivity. These two are not consistent, therefore, we have revised the contents of the abstract to make the meaning consistent.

It was shown as follow:

The spatial distribution of a forest canopy has a significant impact on the transpiration and photosynthetic capacity of trees, which ultimately affects their growth and biomass production. Despite its importance, how canopy photosynthetic productivity enhancement depends on canopy spatial distribution remains unclear.

Response: thank you for careful comment, we agree with you! It has been changed, and it was shown as follows:

The explanation for the appearance of the 3 outliers at the same temperature value is: After multiple verifications of the data, this is the effect of calculation errors or measurement problems. We are sorry for this, therefore, we modified the curve to fit the experimental values. The reason I choose this accessory is: I just want to show the changing trend of different types of Y values through the preliminary fitting of the curve.

2.2. Make clearer the experimental design. This paragraph from start to Table 1 is unclear.

Response: sorry for this confusing, it was been changed into: The trees of L. kaempferi plantation including sapling (3-year-old), young (8-year-old), and mature (20-year-old) stages were selected for researches in this study (Table 1). Three plots (20 m × 30 m) were set up in each stand with almost the same slope and aspect, and each tree was investigated. A target tree was selected, and then four neighboring trees of the target tree were selected as samples (total 36) (Xia et al., 2018).

Table s 1, 2,3. Please add a footnote explaining what * means here

Response: sorry for this mistake, it has been added.

Figure 2 is hardly readable, please shift the descriptions as: Top, 2nd…etc to the side, there is plenty of space. Application of red text on green background is not a good idea.

Response: Yes, it has been changed as follow:

Table 3. Parameters summary of all the photosynthetic light-response curves(LRCs), leaf traits and environmental conditions in 2014–2015

Canopy layer	Top	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	Bottom	Total
Pn	-0.101±0.053*	0.536±0.144*	1.212±0.258*	1.721±0.121*	2.752±0.301*	3.517±0.170*	4.854±0.169	7.766±0.292	2.782±0.507*
gs	0.026±0.003*	0.041±0.004*	0.048±0.004*	0.047±0.005*	0.070±0.002 *	0.096±0.005*	0.126±0.008*	0.173±0.004*	0.078±0.010 *
Tr	0.631 ±0.076	1.067±0.063*	1.290±0.120*	1.295±0.136*	1.980±0.106	2.555±0.092*	3.137±0.105*	3.698±0.024	1.957±0.213*
Ci	367.200 ±1.230*	351.800±1.060	326.000±9.620*	301.700±7.600*	291.900±10.550	297.800 ±4.350*	284.500±5.330*	272.000±7.260	289.200±8.530*
Ls	0.034±0.012	0.073±0.008*	0.121±0.019*	0.181±0.019*	0.200±0.017*	0.186±0.006*	0.208±0.016*	0.221±0.008	0.153±0.014*
SLA	80.199±10.291*	95.398±9.645	102.415±3.364	87.930±4.041	74.248±5.663	76.502±4.457*	69.653±5.598*	62.172±2.550*	81.065±3.210*
Ta	28.629±0.151*	29.335 ±0.043*	29.622±0.124*	30.271±0.186*	30.889±0.029*	30.941±0.012*	30.728±0.148*	29.355±0.425*	29.971±0.176*
VPD	2.152±0.012*	2.221±0.024	2.265±0.018*	2.390±0.038*	2.520±0.018	2.442±0.018*	2.320±0.053*	2.068±0.059*	2.297±0.031*
PAR	18.485±5.489*	64.460±18.892*	213.167±67.950*	224.682±26.006*	410.627±85.657*	448.559±55.456*	784.654±85.908*	836.806±22.152	375.180±62.031*

Note: Pn refers to net photosynthetic rate, gs refers to stomatal conductance, Tr refers to transpiration rate, Ci refers to intercellular CO₂ concentration, Ls refers to stomatal restriction value, SLA refers to specific leaf area, Ta refers to air temperature, VPD refers to vapor pressure deficit and PAR refers to Photosynthetically active radiation. Mean, Std., Max. and Min. represent the mean value, standard deviation, maximum value and minimum value respectively, * means P<0.01.

Figure 3 Can U explain a saw shape of a graphs Air temperature versus Canopy layer.

Response: My explanation for it is that the data values measured by the instrument are indeed not smooth, and there are certain errors.

All the figures do not need a footnote when there is a legend; all the figures should be prepared with better resolution.

Response: Yes agree with you, it has been removed.

Response: sorry for this mistake, it has been changed in the MS.

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed at the end of the manuscript in order of appearance in the text.

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed in the MS.

Example:

Introduction

(Badgley et al., 2017)
(Bar-Even, 2018)………etc All the references have to be formatted according to mdpi forests style, see guidance for Authors………….

Please check English as some grammatical mistakes are present. It is advised to be read by a native speaker or at put through AI translator.

Example ...we selected the most commonly used models.....for choose the optimal model

The needles were measured in situ......

Change in situ into in situ

Change italicised and l into and l (page 7 3 rd line from bottom)

Response: Yes, agree with you, they have been changed in the MS.

Comment #2

The authors presented an interesting manuscript on the parameters of photosynthesis in forest trees. The introduction is comprehensive, including a general overview, problems and objectives.

Some small comments:

Figure 1 remove the word "legend", it's very distracting and takes up a lot of space, and doesn't really need the extra explanation that it's a character legend.

Response: thank you for your comment. It has been changed into:

Experiment design and sampling section, don't put the tables one after the other as you discuss tree age and sampling leave a table about that then you describe the soil tests so a table with the data. Information will not be mixed.

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed into:

The trees of L. kaempferi plantation including sapling (3-year-old), young (8-year-old), and mature (20-year-old) stages were selected for researches in this study (Table 1). Three plots (20 m × 30 m) were set up in each stand with almost the same slope and aspect, and each tree was investigated. A target tree was selected, and then four neighboring trees of the target tree were selected as samples (total 36) [32]. The sapling stands were present a mixed forest of L. kaempferi and Picea crassifolia, had an open canopy structure, and there was no shelter between the branches of the four adjacent sample trees. The 8-year-old and 20-year-old stands were pure L. kaempferi forests, with a relatively large canopy closure. The branches crossed each other in the middle and lower canopy, and the four neighboring trees were shaded by each other, resulting in a lower light environment in the middle and lower canopy. The soil nutrients in the sample plots decreased with decreasing soil depth, and the ranges of C:N, C:P, and N:P were 10.50-15.90, 22.29-32.79, and 1.66~2.72, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2 the table is confusing, the numbers don't fit in the lines everywhere, everything gets mixed up. I would suggest dividing it into two tables, what do the stars show?

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed into:

Table 2. Summary of soil nutrient and stoichiometry ratio in the investigated Larix kaempferi plantations

Stand age/(a)	Soil depth/(cm)	C/(mg·g^-1)	N/(mg·g^-1)	P/(mg·g^-1)	C:N	C:P	N:P
3	0~10	19.53±4.73	1.28±0.42	0.58±0.09*	15.90±1.79*	32.79±3.84*	2.10±0.40*
	10~20	17.92±4.79*	1.24±0.39*	0.55±0.09*	15.47±0.78*	30.12±3.46*	2.03±0.33*
	20~40	14.37±6.13	0.98±0.47*	0.52±0.12*	15.47±1.11*	24.87±5.45*	1.66±0.48*
8	0~10	18.16±3.71	1.68±0.42	0.6±0.050*	11.16±0.69*	29.48±4.39*	2.72±0.57
	10~20	16.19±3.87*	1.58±0.46*	0.64±0.09*	10.65±0.70*	23.18±2.41*	2.23±0.38*
	20~40	14.25±6.54*	1.18±0.56*	0.57±0.12*	13.03±0.14*	22.49±6.13*	1.81±0.53*
20	0~10	18.93±3.98*	1.57±0.49*	0.72±0.10	12.67±2.04*	25.74±2.21*	2.10±0.42*
	10~20	16.58±3.71*	1.62±0.53	0.64±0.08*	10.50±1.54	24.08±2.50*	2.33±0.49*
	20~40	14.91±6.60	1.23±0.58	0.60±0.14*	13.50±0.56*	22.29±5.19	1.78±0.46*

Note: * means P<0.01

One practical question about photosynthesis measurements with the Li-6400XT, how did you get to measure each tree level without affecting the surrounding trees? However, the trees are tall, and their density is also considerable. And do I understand correctly that you measured from all sides of the tree at each level and averaged this data?

Response: thank you for your careful comment, agree with you!

We made sure by building photosynthesis observation towers that, you understand correctly, did take measurements from all sides of the tree at each level and averaged those data. Some pictures were shown:

In some figures, I miss the statistical evaluation, the explanation of what the error bars show.

Table 4 What are parameters a, b, c?

Response: thank you for your careful comment, the parameters a, b, c are the parameters of the Optimal LRC model.

The discussion is covered quite extensively, but I miss links to your own results and more discussion about what you got.

Response: thank you for your careful comment, the discussion has been changed in the MS.

The conclusions should be more specific, not expanded so much.

Response: thank you for your careful comment, it has been changed into: Our study aimed to improve canopy photosynthetic productivity from the perspective of canopy spatial distribution through management methods. Through scientific management, the specific leaf area can reach the optimal condition, reduce light loss, and enhance photosynthetic capacity. Our study indicates that management strategies such as timely manual trimming after the forest becomes dense and without gaps can eliminate the 1/3 lower canopy with low photosynthetic productivity and high consumption and reduce the consumption of photosynthetic productivity in "non-functional canopy." These measures should be taken to improve the photosynthetic productivity of L. kaempferi.

Comment #3

I have read the manuscript: Entitle: Response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pattern of Larix kaempferi written by Chunyan Wu et. al., for publication of forests MDPI. In this study, the author Examine on Larix kaempferi (L. kaempferi) plantations in Gansu, China, investigating the relationship between canopy height, leaf area, seasonal variations in canopy spatial distribution, and photo-synthetic parameters. Author founds that the net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate of L. kaempferi increase with greater canopy depth, while photosynthetically active radiation shows the opposite trend. Canopy photosynthetic productivity peaked in April, May, and June. Maximum leaf area (10.7 m²) and photosynthesis productivity (919.6 mg·C·h−1) were observed when the height in the canopy ranged from 48%-59%. Furthermore, author also found that the greater amount of sunlight exposure and less occlusion of space in the shaded portions of the canopy.

The overall research is well conducted but author did not mention the Line number therefore I feel very difficult and line to Line comments. Only my broad comment in mentioned in here. This study provides valuable information and provide important finding about the scientific management strategies for the forestry industry to optimize canopy structure and maximize photosynthetic productivity in L. kaempferi. However, author should significantly improve this manuscript for journal acceptance. I found a lack of story connection and some lack of potential references (some I suggested below). Overall after I evaluate and request the author for this manuscript as a “MAJOR REVISION”. If author well address the comments and improve the manuscript this article may accept for the publication.

Major Suggestions

1). Introduction: Larix kaempferi (Japanese larch) is the main afforestation tree and timber species in Northeast China. The recently publish article is also fully describe about the geographical coverage of of this species and analysis the photosynthetic capacity in Mediterranean basin and forest habitat, climate change issue and its ultimate impact on the vegetation. Author refers this article in introduction as a reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118099 well describe the photosynthetic related traits and its governing factors.

Response: yes, agree with you! The abstract of this reference has described that Larix kaempferi altered their morphological and physiological responses under drought stress; however, the Japanese larch showed greater resistance and resilience in morphological and physiological responses, and in plant-water relations.

Bhusal, N., Lee, M., Han, A. R., Han, A., and Kim, H. S. (2020). Responses to drought stress in Prunus sargentii and Larix kaempferi seedlings using morphological and physiological parameters. Forest Ecology and Management, 465, 118099.

2) Hypothesis of the study: The author well presented the research objectives in the last section of the introduction. Those are very clearly mentioned but research hypothesis is not clearly mentioned and is not connected with the objectives. The research hypothesis should be very clear and connected each other (with objectives) because without appropriate literature, questions, or hypotheses the entire introduction section will not be clear.

Response: yes, agree with you! It has been changed in the MS. The hypothesis of the study is that the response of canopy photosynthetic parameters to changes in canopy spatial distribution pattern is not significant; the canopy spatial distribution pattern of canopy physiological and ecological parameters has a complex impact on the distribution pattern of photosynthetic productivity.

Some other comments

3) Figure 1. Author clearly mentions and should give the full information of the figure legend. Please see here in Fig. one the text in the legend is not completed. Please give the full information in the research site, which should about the figures clearly. Please also follow the similarity in other figures too.

Response: yes, agree with you! Thank you for your comment, it has been changed according to your and other comments.

4) Table 1. Similar like to Figure 1, author also give the full and complete information about each table, see and correct the whole tables. Table 1, DBH should be full form somewhere in the table, most suited in footnote.

Response: yes, agree with you! Thank you for your comment, it has been changed in table 1.

5) Materials and Methods: Using a portable photosynthetic system (LI-6400XT; LI-COR, Inc., Lincoln, NE) author should mention the set of PAR, RH and internal Co2 concentration while measuring the photosynthesis.

Response: yes, agree with you! It has been added in this section.

The set of PAR was that: we demonstrated that different vertical positions of the larch canopy stabilize when photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) is 1400 mol·m^-2·s^-1. Therefore, all coniferous clusters were induced with 1400 mol·m^-2·s^-1 radiation for at least 10 min to ensure that the potential photosynthetic capacity of all needle clusters could be activated.

The set of the internal CO₂ concentration while measuring the photosynthesis is that: We adjusted the automatic measurement program of the LRCs curve, setting the CO₂ concentration to 380 µmol·mol^-1, the temperature to 25℃, and light intensity to 2000, 1500, 1000, 800, 600, 400, 200, 100, 50, 20, and 0 µmol·m^-2·s^-1 from strong to weak.

6) Discussion: Author should present the factors those related to enhance the photosynthetic traits (Ph and Gs). Refer this article as a reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.006. leaf area, shoot number, length, vegetative growth plant height, and shoot but its related interpretation in the discussion is very poor. “Reduction of plant morphology (reduced leaf size and stem length, leaf length/width, and vegetative growth) and chlorophyll content and causes reduction of physiological traits (reduction of photosynthesis, leaf water potential, and sap movement)”

Response: thank you for your careful comment. This reference sees:

Different leaves and stems have different functional capabilities. Tree species with superior physiological characteristics, larger leaf area, higher SLW, higher chlorophyll and nitrogen content.

It has been added in the MS, it has shown as: In addition, Different leaves and stems have different functional capabilities. Tree species with superior physiological characteristics, larger leaf area, higher chlorophyll and nitrogen content [63]. Specifically, reduction of plant morphology (reduced leaf size and stem length, leaf length/width, and vegetative growth) and chlorophyll content and causes reduction of physiological traits (reduction of photosynthesis, leaf water potential, and sap movement) [63].

Bhusal, N., Bhusal, S. J., and Yoon, T. M. (2018). Comparisons of physiological and anatomical characteristics between two cultivars in bi-leader apple trees (Malus× domestica Borkh.). Scientia Horticulturae, 231, 73-81.

7) Discussion: Distribution pattern of photosynthetic parameters in canopy author should further discuss in discussion section. The results highlighted the changes in canopy leaf area and photosynthesis characteristics in the canopy. With an increase in the canopy layer, the net photosynthetic rate, PAR, stomatal conductance (gs) is increasing. Please mention this reference DOI 10.1007/s13580-017-0375-y describe about the canopy height and related pattern of photosynthetic traits.

Response: thank you for your careful comment. Agree with you, it has been added in this section, it was shown as follows:

The light distribution in different parts of the canopy and the physiological characteristics of leaves. The canopy height is closely related to the overall light availability of the entire canopy. Appropriate canopy height can increase the amount of light in the lower part of the canopy, increase photosynthetic productivity, and increase leaf photosynthetic activity and specific leaf weight.

Bhusal, N., Han, S. G., and Yoon, T. M. (2017). Summer pruning and reflective film enhance fruit quality in excessively tall spindle apple trees. Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology, 58, 560-567.

8) Conclusion: Author should be mentioned the independent conclusion section instead of the summary. Further 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?

Response: yes agree with you! It has been changed into:

Our study aimed to improve canopy photosynthetic productivity from the perspective of canopy spatial distribution through management methods. Through scientific management, the specific leaf area can reach the optimal condition, reduce light loss, and enhance photosynthetic capacity. Our study indicates that management strategies such as timely manual trimming after the forest becomes dense and without gaps can eliminate the 1/3 lower canopy with low photosynthetic productivity and high consumption and reduce the consumption of photosynthetic productivity in "non-functional canopy." These measures should be taken to improve the photosynthetic productivity of L. kaempferi. This study provides a technical means to improve plantation productivity and provides a reference for canopy structure regulation of larch plantation.

9) 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.

Response: thank you for your careful comment, it has been changed in the reference and whole manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented an interesting manuscript on the parameters of photosynthesis in forest trees. The introduction is comprehensive, including a general overview, problems and objectives.

Some small comments:

Figure 1 remove the word "legend", it's very distracting and takes up a lot of space, and doesn't really need the extra explanation that it's a character legend.

Experiment design and sampling section, don't put the tables one after the other as you discuss tree age and sampling leave a table about that then you describe the soil tests so a table with the data. Information will not be mixed.

Table 2 the table is confusing, the numbers don't fit in the lines everywhere, everything gets mixed up. I would suggest dividing it into two tables, what do the stars show?

In some figures, I miss the statistical evaluation, the explanation of what the error bars show.

Table 4 What are parameters a, b, c?

The discussion is covered quite extensively, but I miss links to your own results and more discussion about what you got.

The conclusions should be more specific, not expanded so much.

Author Response

Response letter

Comment #1

In the presented article the Authors related to the issue of a response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pat tern in Larix kaempferi

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

There are other issues which have to be clarified.

Response: thank you for careful comment, we agree with you! It has been changed,

It was shown as follow:

Response: thank you for careful comment, we agree with you! It has been changed, and it was shown as follows:

2.2. Make clearer the experimental design. This paragraph from start to Table 1 is unclear.

Table s 1, 2,3. Please add a footnote explaining what * means here

Response: sorry for this mistake, it has been added.

Figure 2 is hardly readable, please shift the descriptions as: Top, 2nd…etc to the side, there is plenty of space. Application of red text on green background is not a good idea.

Response: Yes, it has been changed as follow:

Table 3. Parameters summary of all the photosynthetic light-response curves(LRCs), leaf traits and environmental conditions in 2014–2015

Canopy layer	Top	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	Bottom	Total
Pn	-0.101±0.053*	0.536±0.144*	1.212±0.258*	1.721±0.121*	2.752±0.301*	3.517±0.170*	4.854±0.169	7.766±0.292	2.782±0.507*
gs	0.026±0.003*	0.041±0.004*	0.048±0.004*	0.047±0.005*	0.070±0.002 *	0.096±0.005*	0.126±0.008*	0.173±0.004*	0.078±0.010 *
Tr	0.631 ±0.076	1.067±0.063*	1.290±0.120*	1.295±0.136*	1.980±0.106	2.555±0.092*	3.137±0.105*	3.698±0.024	1.957±0.213*
Ci	367.200 ±1.230*	351.800±1.060	326.000±9.620*	301.700±7.600*	291.900±10.550	297.800 ±4.350*	284.500±5.330*	272.000±7.260	289.200±8.530*
Ls	0.034±0.012	0.073±0.008*	0.121±0.019*	0.181±0.019*	0.200±0.017*	0.186±0.006*	0.208±0.016*	0.221±0.008	0.153±0.014*
SLA	80.199±10.291*	95.398±9.645	102.415±3.364	87.930±4.041	74.248±5.663	76.502±4.457*	69.653±5.598*	62.172±2.550*	81.065±3.210*
Ta	28.629±0.151*	29.335 ±0.043*	29.622±0.124*	30.271±0.186*	30.889±0.029*	30.941±0.012*	30.728±0.148*	29.355±0.425*	29.971±0.176*
VPD	2.152±0.012*	2.221±0.024	2.265±0.018*	2.390±0.038*	2.520±0.018	2.442±0.018*	2.320±0.053*	2.068±0.059*	2.297±0.031*
PAR	18.485±5.489*	64.460±18.892*	213.167±67.950*	224.682±26.006*	410.627±85.657*	448.559±55.456*	784.654±85.908*	836.806±22.152	375.180±62.031*

Figure 3 Can U explain a saw shape of a graphs Air temperature versus Canopy layer.

Response: My explanation for it is that the data values measured by the instrument are indeed not smooth, and there are certain errors.

All the figures do not need a footnote when there is a legend; all the figures should be prepared with better resolution.

Response: Yes agree with you, it has been removed.

Response: sorry for this mistake, it has been changed in the MS.

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed at the end of the manuscript in order of appearance in the text.

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed in the MS.

Example:

Introduction

(Badgley et al., 2017)
(Bar-Even, 2018)………etc All the references have to be formatted according to mdpi forests style, see guidance for Authors………….

Please check English as some grammatical mistakes are present. It is advised to be read by a native speaker or at put through AI translator.

Example ...we selected the most commonly used models.....for choose the optimal model

The needles were measured in situ......

Change in situ into in situ

Change italicised and l into and l (page 7 3 rd line from bottom)

Response: Yes, agree with you, they have been changed in the MS.

Comment #2

The authors presented an interesting manuscript on the parameters of photosynthesis in forest trees. The introduction is comprehensive, including a general overview, problems and objectives.

Some small comments:

Figure 1 remove the word "legend", it's very distracting and takes up a lot of space, and doesn't really need the extra explanation that it's a character legend.

Response: thank you for your comment. It has been changed into:

Experiment design and sampling section, don't put the tables one after the other as you discuss tree age and sampling leave a table about that then you describe the soil tests so a table with the data. Information will not be mixed.

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed into:

Table 2 the table is confusing, the numbers don't fit in the lines everywhere, everything gets mixed up. I would suggest dividing it into two tables, what do the stars show?

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed into:

Table 2. Summary of soil nutrient and stoichiometry ratio in the investigated Larix kaempferi plantations

Stand age/(a)	Soil depth/(cm)	C/(mg·g^-1)	N/(mg·g^-1)	P/(mg·g^-1)	C:N	C:P	N:P
3	0~10	19.53±4.73	1.28±0.42	0.58±0.09*	15.90±1.79*	32.79±3.84*	2.10±0.40*
	10~20	17.92±4.79*	1.24±0.39*	0.55±0.09*	15.47±0.78*	30.12±3.46*	2.03±0.33*
	20~40	14.37±6.13	0.98±0.47*	0.52±0.12*	15.47±1.11*	24.87±5.45*	1.66±0.48*
8	0~10	18.16±3.71	1.68±0.42	0.6±0.050*	11.16±0.69*	29.48±4.39*	2.72±0.57
	10~20	16.19±3.87*	1.58±0.46*	0.64±0.09*	10.65±0.70*	23.18±2.41*	2.23±0.38*
	20~40	14.25±6.54*	1.18±0.56*	0.57±0.12*	13.03±0.14*	22.49±6.13*	1.81±0.53*
20	0~10	18.93±3.98*	1.57±0.49*	0.72±0.10	12.67±2.04*	25.74±2.21*	2.10±0.42*
	10~20	16.58±3.71*	1.62±0.53	0.64±0.08*	10.50±1.54	24.08±2.50*	2.33±0.49*
	20~40	14.91±6.60	1.23±0.58	0.60±0.14*	13.50±0.56*	22.29±5.19	1.78±0.46*

Note: * means P<0.01

Response: thank you for your careful comment, agree with you!

In some figures, I miss the statistical evaluation, the explanation of what the error bars show.

Table 4 What are parameters a, b, c?

Response: thank you for your careful comment, the parameters a, b, c are the parameters of the Optimal LRC model.

The discussion is covered quite extensively, but I miss links to your own results and more discussion about what you got.

Response: thank you for your careful comment, the discussion has been changed in the MS.

The conclusions should be more specific, not expanded so much.

Comment #3

Major Suggestions

Some other comments

Response: yes, agree with you! Thank you for your comment, it has been changed according to your and other comments.

Response: yes, agree with you! Thank you for your comment, it has been changed in table 1.

Response: yes, agree with you! It has been added in this section.

Response: thank you for your careful comment. This reference sees:

Different leaves and stems have different functional capabilities. Tree species with superior physiological characteristics, larger leaf area, higher SLW, higher chlorophyll and nitrogen content.

Response: thank you for your careful comment. Agree with you, it has been added in this section, it was shown as follows:

Response: yes agree with you! It has been changed into:

Response: thank you for your careful comment, it has been changed in the reference and whole manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

I have read the manuscript: Entitle: Response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pattern of Larix kaempferi written by Chunyan Wu et. al., for publication of forests MDPI. In this study, the author Examine on Larix kaempferi (L. kaempferi) plantations in Gansu, China, investigating the relationship between canopy height, leaf area, seasonal variations in canopy spatial distribution, and photo-synthetic parameters. Author founds that the net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate of L. kaempferi increase with greater canopy depth, while photosynthetically active radiation shows the opposite trend. Canopy photosynthetic productivity peaked in April, May, and June. Maximum leaf area (10.7 m2) and photosynthesis productivity (919.6 mg·C·h−1) were observed when the height in the canopy ranged from 48%-59%. Furthermore, author also found that the greater amount of sunlight exposure and less occlusion of space in the shaded portions of the canopy.

Major Suggestions

Some other comments

6) Discussion: Author should present the factors those related to enhance the photosynthetic traits (Ph and Gs). Refer this article as a reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.006 . leaf area, shoot number, length, vegetative growth plant height, and shoot but its related interpretation in the discussion is very poor. “Reduction of plant morphology (reduced leaf size and stem length, leaf length/width, and vegetative growth) and chlorophyll content and causes reduction of physiological traits (reduction of photosynthesis, leaf water potential, and sap movement)”

Good Luck!

Minor english editing is required.

Author Response

Response letter

Comment #1

In the presented article the Authors related to the issue of a response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pat tern in Larix kaempferi

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

There are other issues which have to be clarified.

Response: thank you for careful comment, we agree with you! It has been changed,

It was shown as follow:

Response: thank you for careful comment, we agree with you! It has been changed, and it was shown as follows:

2.2. Make clearer the experimental design. This paragraph from start to Table 1 is unclear.

Table s 1, 2,3. Please add a footnote explaining what * means here

Response: sorry for this mistake, it has been added.

Figure 2 is hardly readable, please shift the descriptions as: Top, 2nd…etc to the side, there is plenty of space. Application of red text on green background is not a good idea.

Response: Yes, it has been changed as follow:

Table 3. Parameters summary of all the photosynthetic light-response curves(LRCs), leaf traits and environmental conditions in 2014–2015

Canopy layer	Top	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	Bottom	Total
Pn	-0.101±0.053*	0.536±0.144*	1.212±0.258*	1.721±0.121*	2.752±0.301*	3.517±0.170*	4.854±0.169	7.766±0.292	2.782±0.507*
gs	0.026±0.003*	0.041±0.004*	0.048±0.004*	0.047±0.005*	0.070±0.002 *	0.096±0.005*	0.126±0.008*	0.173±0.004*	0.078±0.010 *
Tr	0.631 ±0.076	1.067±0.063*	1.290±0.120*	1.295±0.136*	1.980±0.106	2.555±0.092*	3.137±0.105*	3.698±0.024	1.957±0.213*
Ci	367.200 ±1.230*	351.800±1.060	326.000±9.620*	301.700±7.600*	291.900±10.550	297.800 ±4.350*	284.500±5.330*	272.000±7.260	289.200±8.530*
Ls	0.034±0.012	0.073±0.008*	0.121±0.019*	0.181±0.019*	0.200±0.017*	0.186±0.006*	0.208±0.016*	0.221±0.008	0.153±0.014*
SLA	80.199±10.291*	95.398±9.645	102.415±3.364	87.930±4.041	74.248±5.663	76.502±4.457*	69.653±5.598*	62.172±2.550*	81.065±3.210*
Ta	28.629±0.151*	29.335 ±0.043*	29.622±0.124*	30.271±0.186*	30.889±0.029*	30.941±0.012*	30.728±0.148*	29.355±0.425*	29.971±0.176*
VPD	2.152±0.012*	2.221±0.024	2.265±0.018*	2.390±0.038*	2.520±0.018	2.442±0.018*	2.320±0.053*	2.068±0.059*	2.297±0.031*
PAR	18.485±5.489*	64.460±18.892*	213.167±67.950*	224.682±26.006*	410.627±85.657*	448.559±55.456*	784.654±85.908*	836.806±22.152	375.180±62.031*

Figure 3 Can U explain a saw shape of a graphs Air temperature versus Canopy layer.

Response: My explanation for it is that the data values measured by the instrument are indeed not smooth, and there are certain errors.

All the figures do not need a footnote when there is a legend; all the figures should be prepared with better resolution.

Response: Yes agree with you, it has been removed.

Response: sorry for this mistake, it has been changed in the MS.

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed at the end of the manuscript in order of appearance in the text.

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed in the MS.

Example:

Introduction

(Badgley et al., 2017)
(Bar-Even, 2018)………etc All the references have to be formatted according to mdpi forests style, see guidance for Authors………….

Please check English as some grammatical mistakes are present. It is advised to be read by a native speaker or at put through AI translator.

Example ...we selected the most commonly used models.....for choose the optimal model

The needles were measured in situ......

Change in situ into in situ

Change italicised and l into and l (page 7 3 rd line from bottom)

Response: Yes, agree with you, they have been changed in the MS.

Comment #2

The authors presented an interesting manuscript on the parameters of photosynthesis in forest trees. The introduction is comprehensive, including a general overview, problems and objectives.

Some small comments:

Figure 1 remove the word "legend", it's very distracting and takes up a lot of space, and doesn't really need the extra explanation that it's a character legend.

Response: thank you for your comment. It has been changed into:

Experiment design and sampling section, don't put the tables one after the other as you discuss tree age and sampling leave a table about that then you describe the soil tests so a table with the data. Information will not be mixed.

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed into:

Table 2 the table is confusing, the numbers don't fit in the lines everywhere, everything gets mixed up. I would suggest dividing it into two tables, what do the stars show?

Response: Yes, agree with you, it has been changed into:

Table 2. Summary of soil nutrient and stoichiometry ratio in the investigated Larix kaempferi plantations

Stand age/(a)	Soil depth/(cm)	C/(mg·g^-1)	N/(mg·g^-1)	P/(mg·g^-1)	C:N	C:P	N:P
3	0~10	19.53±4.73	1.28±0.42	0.58±0.09*	15.90±1.79*	32.79±3.84*	2.10±0.40*
	10~20	17.92±4.79*	1.24±0.39*	0.55±0.09*	15.47±0.78*	30.12±3.46*	2.03±0.33*
	20~40	14.37±6.13	0.98±0.47*	0.52±0.12*	15.47±1.11*	24.87±5.45*	1.66±0.48*
8	0~10	18.16±3.71	1.68±0.42	0.6±0.050*	11.16±0.69*	29.48±4.39*	2.72±0.57
	10~20	16.19±3.87*	1.58±0.46*	0.64±0.09*	10.65±0.70*	23.18±2.41*	2.23±0.38*
	20~40	14.25±6.54*	1.18±0.56*	0.57±0.12*	13.03±0.14*	22.49±6.13*	1.81±0.53*
20	0~10	18.93±3.98*	1.57±0.49*	0.72±0.10	12.67±2.04*	25.74±2.21*	2.10±0.42*
	10~20	16.58±3.71*	1.62±0.53	0.64±0.08*	10.50±1.54	24.08±2.50*	2.33±0.49*
	20~40	14.91±6.60	1.23±0.58	0.60±0.14*	13.50±0.56*	22.29±5.19	1.78±0.46*

Note: * means P<0.01

Response: thank you for your careful comment, agree with you!

In some figures, I miss the statistical evaluation, the explanation of what the error bars show.

Table 4 What are parameters a, b, c?

Response: thank you for your careful comment, the parameters a, b, c are the parameters of the Optimal LRC model.

The discussion is covered quite extensively, but I miss links to your own results and more discussion about what you got.

Response: thank you for your careful comment, the discussion has been changed in the MS.

The conclusions should be more specific, not expanded so much.

Comment #3

Major Suggestions

Some other comments

Response: yes, agree with you! Thank you for your comment, it has been changed according to your and other comments.

Response: yes, agree with you! Thank you for your comment, it has been changed in table 1.

Response: yes, agree with you! It has been added in this section.

Response: thank you for your careful comment. This reference sees:

Different leaves and stems have different functional capabilities. Tree species with superior physiological characteristics, larger leaf area, higher SLW, higher chlorophyll and nitrogen content.

Response: thank you for your careful comment. Agree with you, it has been added in this section, it was shown as follows:

Response: yes agree with you! It has been changed into:

Response: thank you for your careful comment, it has been changed in the reference and whole manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made major revision of the manuscript. However, I have a few more comments:

The references are not in order, for example: goes 28-30, and then 62.

Table 3 something wrong with statististics.

Author Response

Short cover letter

Dear editor,

Thank you for your letter and give me the opportunity to publish an article in your journal.

The article has been revised one by one according to the opinions of the experts. For details, please refer to the article revision footprint.

Reviewer 2

The authors made major revision of the manuscript. However, I have a few more comments:

The references are not in order, for example: goes 28-30, and then 62.

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

Table 3 something wrong with statististics.

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author

I have read the revised manuscript: Entitle: Entitle: Response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pattern of Larix kaempferi for publication of forest MDPI.Author addressed all the questions and suggestions what I raised issue in the review of the original manuscript. I satisfy the author revisions throughout the paper. The abstract issue is well-solved by the author. Now, this manuscript improved the flow of writing, which was comparatively shallow in the original version but in this revised copy author address all the quarries and suggestions where the introduction is significantly improved by author. Before accepting this manuscript, I request to author to check the whole manuscript with a native speaker for correct spell check, and other grammatical errors.

Author Response

Short cover letter

Dear editor,

Thank you for your letter and give me the opportunity to publish an article in your journal.

The article has been revised one by one according to the opinions of the experts. For details, please refer to the article revision footprint.

Reviewer 2

The authors made major revision of the manuscript. However, I have a few more comments:

The references are not in order, for example: goes 28-30, and then 62.

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

Table 3 something wrong with statististics.

Response: thank you for careful comment, they have been changed in MS.

Reviewer 3

I have read the revised manuscript: Entitle: Entitle: Response characteristics of photosynthetic productivity to the canopy spatial distribution pattern of Larix kaempferi for publication of forest MDPI. Author addressed all the questions and suggestions what I raised issue in the review of the original manuscript. I satisfy the author revisions throughout the paper. The abstract issue is well-solved by the author. Now, this manuscript improved the flow of writing, which was comparatively shallow in the original version but in this revised copy author address all the quarries and suggestions where the introduction is significantly improved by author. Before accepting this manuscript, I request to author to check the whole manuscript with a native speaker for correct spell check, and other grammatical errors.

Response: Agree with you! I have checked the whole manuscript, and also invited a native speaker for correct spell check, and the grammatical errors. For the detail, please see the whole manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Article Menu

Response Characteristics of Photosynthetic Productivity to the Canopy Spatial Distribution Pattern of Larix kaempferi

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI