Variation and Correlation among Fine Root Traits of Desert Plants in Arid Areas of Northwest China
, Taotao Wang 1,†, Hongyong Wang 1, Jie Yang 1, Tingting Xie 1, Zhengzhong Zhang 1, Cai He 2 and Lishan Shan 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, please find attached Ms file for specific comments and suggestions..
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Overall presentation is fine. Some minor improvements may help.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI sincerely apologise for rejecting your manuscript, please kindly rethink the content arrangement and submit your manuscript again. You made such a great effort for conducting field work and your data is valuable, also the audience will find this manuscript's main theme is fascinating. However, it is well-known among the ecologists that the morphological and chemical characteristics of roots are shaped by both internal genetics and external environmental factors. Because different plant species have entirely different genetics, the substantial interspecific variation in root traits among desert plants is therefore not surprising (even though they were from the same plant family).
The authors tried to emphasize that the intraspecific variation is undeniable in the desert plants but did not discuss why they have wide or narrow range of variation. The sampling procedures will be impacted by the differences in root architecture between the two life forms (herb and shrub). I suggest being reconsider for scoping down the topic or adding up some information for better explanation. The experimental design for field data collection is acceptable but it seems unclear in details: the size of fine root (<2mm or <3mm in diameter?), the criteria of root selection, root orientation and distribution in the soil layer, etc.. These all minor details affect the quality of quantitative data for trait-based analysis. The most important issue is the author did collect the root traits at various precipitation level across the China desert, but somehow there was no discussion on this climatic variation on root traits. Additionally, root traits majorly relate to water and soil, the authors did not report the soil properties that will affect root traits (such as nutrient concentrations) so it is very difficult to interpret the intraspecific variation of root traits. I suggest the authors to rewrite and try to focus on 1-2 hypotheses that will build the strong backbone for your research story and omit the hypothesis that your results cannot explain. Please see my detailed comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA few questions and remarks on the article by Ma et al. “Variation and correlation of fine root traits of desert plants in arid areas of Northwest China”.
The authors must correctly specify the Latin names of the plants. First, you must provide an accepted biological name, not synonyms:
Nitraria tangutorum Bobrov - this name is a synonym of Nitraria sibirica (DC.) Pall (accepted Latin name),
Salsola passerina Bunge - this name is a synonym of Caroxylon passerinum (Bunge) Akhani & Roalson (accepted Latin name),
Bassia dasyphylla (Fisch. & C.A.Mey.) Kuntze - this name is a synonym of Grubovia dasyphylla (Fisch. & C.A.Mey.) Freitag & G.Kadereit (accepted Latin name),
Achnatherum splendens (Trin.) Nevski - this name is a synonym of Neotrinia splendens (Trin.) M.Nobis, P.D.Gudkova & A.Nowak (accepted Latin name),
Second, the first mention of the species' Latin name in the text should be given in full. Indicate each plant's full Latin name in Table 2.
Soil conditions have a considerable impact on the growth of roots and their characteristics, in addition to the specific features of plants. Without investigating root habitats (soil conditions), how can you research root systems? Please provide details about the mechanical (soil texture, bulk density) and agrochemical (pH, the content of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) characteristics of the soil at the test sites.
Why did the authors exclude data on their research on how soil characteristics affect the traits of fine roots? Please provide these data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I made some comments and suggestions to your manuscript. Some points need to be addressed before considered for publication. Please, go through the manuscript and make edits accordingly.
Line 171: potassium dichromate oxidation heating, Kjeldahl, and vanadium molybdenum yellow colorimetric methods, respectively (Add citation or rewrite the detailed procedures).
Line 212 – 215: Figure 1. All acronyms on the X-axis must be spelled out in the footnote (Ad, SRL, SRA, . . . etc.). Please, do the same for the rest of the figures in the manuscript. Figures must stand by themselves; all abbreviations in either the x or y-axis must be spelled out in the footnote for every detail as they appear for ease of the readers.
Line 309 – 318: The following findings are important and must be included in your conclusion in a couple of sentences.
“Research results showed that the coefficient of interspecific variation (CV) of the plant fine root traits was from 21.83% to 105.79%, and the intraspecific CV was from 12.36% to 65.46%, the magnitude of interspecific variation was greater than that of intraspecific. This is consistent with most previous studies [14,51-53], which indicate that when interspecific competition and environmental filtering simultaneously affect fine root traits, desert plant roots can adapt to highly heterogeneous desert soil environments through convergence or divergence of different traits.
“And above results also revealed that plants long to adapt to environmental conditions and can form a unique way of resource acquiring and survival strategy, as a result of the mutual choice of the plant and the environment.”
with regards,
the reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI've just finished my long reading of the manuscript.
Frankly, the manuscript is too long and difficult to follow.
The topic itself is valuable, but the presentation is too long.
My main recommendation is to shorten the text part of the manuscript.
I've put my specific comments to the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your clarification and all revisions. I agree with all changes that the authors made in the revised manuscript; the quality and structure of manuscript is meet the standard of the journal. One small point is the consistency of word, for example, 'Pearson's correlation'; please check throughout the manuscript that you use the same word.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the questions have been answered. The manuscript has been carefully revised.
Author Response
Thanks for your recognition and encouragement of our work. Best wishes for you.
