Next Article in Journal
The Construction of a High-Density Genetic Map for the Interspecific Cross of Castanea mollissima × C. henryi and the Identification of QTLs for Leaf Traits
Next Article in Special Issue
Compensatory Growth and Physiological Protective Mechanisms of Populus talassica Kom. × Populus euphratica Oliv. in Response to Leaf Damage
Previous Article in Journal
The Broken Chloroplast Gene Clusters in Gymnosperms Exhibit Elevated Substitution Rates
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variations in Microbial Residue and Its Contribution to SOC between Organic and Mineral Soil Layers along an Altitude Gradient in the Wuyi Mountains
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Leaf Plasticity of the Subtropical Evergreen Tree Phoebe bournei Increases with Ontogeny in Response to Sun and Shade

Forests 2023, 14(8), 1683; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14081683
by Xin-Bei Li, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Jia-Xin Chen, Meng-Meng Zhang, Jun-Hong Zhang, Zai-Kang Tong * and Qi Yang *
Forests 2023, 14(8), 1683; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14081683
Submission received: 24 July 2023 / Revised: 14 August 2023 / Accepted: 17 August 2023 / Published: 20 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adaptive Mechanisms of Tree Seedlings to Adapt to Stress)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Manuscript title: Leaf plasticity of the subtropical evergreen tree Phoebe bournei increases with ontogeny in response to sun and shade

 

We thank the authors for their important effort in tackling the phenotypic plasticity topic in conjunction with ontogeny in a species such as Phoebe bournei. Below are some indications to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Introduction

Line 60: Write in full RuBp at its first mention

Line 82: Write P. bournei in full

 

Material and methods

Lines 119-134:

How did the authors ensure the seedlings had a similar size at the beginning of the experiment since initial seedlings ‘size can act as a covariate?

How did the authors select leaf to measure needs to be indicated.

Line 140: Put space between 28 and the degree Celsius symbol.

Line 164: Adjust the citation: “Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2011)”. Should read “Zhang et al. (2011)”.

In the “Gas exchange measurements”, “Chlorophyll fluorescence measurements”, “Light and transmission electron microscopy”, “Carbohydrate, chlorophyll and oxidative parameter analyses” sections, it appears that the authors used the same the same leaf. How was this possible if it is known that some measures (e.g., Light and transmission electron microscopy) are destructive?

 

Results

Lines 202-215: Authors should start their interpretation by the interaction between “Seedling age” the and the “shading treatment”. That is even the essence of the phenotypic plasticity!

Figures have to be improved.

1. The figure 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 captions indicated letters to segregate treatments groups, but no letters were placed on the figures themselves!

2. The violon plots in Fig 3 panels A and B did not allow depicting the information conveyed by the authors in lines. Authors are invited to replace violon plots by barplots exactly the way panel C, D E and F are presented.

3. Why were statistical comparisons only presented between 6-month-old and 1 year old seedling in Fig 3A while Fig 3B presented it in a various fashion?

Line 333: keep consistency in writing CO2 instead of CO2

 

Discussion

Line 395-396: Rephrase the sentence “Although, the summer high temperature during the experiment may also play 395 a role in decreasing Fv/Fm” as it looks incomplete in its current form

 

After reading the full manuscript, One vcast cast doubt on the key conclusion that Plasticity increase with ontogeny. As revealed by Table 1, PI increases from 6 month to 1 year old, but overall, rather decrease from 1 year to 2-year-old seedling. What is the authors say regarding that?

 

Line 480. Conflict of interest. Delete the excess of full stop.

 

References

Cross check again and ensure consistency. For instance, journals abbreviation style should be uniform.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research regards to the interesting problem which the shade is in plant life and onthogenesis. 

However, before the publication the work needs some corrections.

The Introduction may appeal to the cultivation and rhizogenesis.

The ,,Plant material..." should be more learly described. The schema may help the visibility.

How do you count the plasticity index?

Line 120 ,,heigh and ground diameter" - clear please.

  • The Figure 1, 5, 6 are unvisible.
  • The Figure 2 should be described.

English language is generally correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their effort in revising the manuscript.

Lines 411-412 of the revised manuscript: replace "Although, it is possible that the high temperatures during the experiment also 411 contributed to the decrease in Fv/Fm." by "Moreover, it is possible that the high temperatures during the experiment may have contributed to the decrease in Fv/Fm."

For Figure 1 and other figures, please add the caption what each element of the graphic represents. For instance, what does the barplot represents? in Fig, 1A and 1 B, indicate what the white lines of the boxplot within the violon plot represents.

Author Response

Point 1Lines 411-412 of the revised manuscript: replace "Although, it is possible that the high temperatures during the experiment also contributed to the decrease in Fv/Fm." by "Moreover, it is possible that the high temperatures during the experiment may have contributed to the decrease in Fv/Fm."

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We had revised it in the revised manuscript (Line 421-422).

 

Point 2:For Figure 1 and other figures, please add the caption what each element of the graphic represents. For instance, what does the barplot represents? in Fig, 1A and 1 B, indicate what the white lines of the boxplot within the violon plot represents.

Response 2:Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We had added the caption for each element in the figure legends. Please see figures of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript were corrected sufficiently.

It's fine.

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer for all insightful and constructive comments on our work.

Back to TopTop