Understorey Plant Functional Traits of Platycladus orientalis Depends on Crown Closure and Soil Properties in the Loess Plateau, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with the effect of planting density of an economically important forest species on other understory species. These studies date back to the 1970s when the ideas arose to displace monocultures by introducing the concept of agroforestry systems. 

The research is more or less well conducted, however, there are some statements and experiments and interpretations that are not entirely well conducted.

Apparently, the study subject is an agroforestry system with a tree species of economic interest and several understory species, so it is worth describing this species a little more, if it is native to the area, morphological characteristics, etc., why it is planted at different densities? In addition to whether the understory plants that apparently also have economic interest are native and their characteristics, why is it of interest to know the effects on them? if they coexist with the forest species naturally.

Also, it is important to clarify what the authors mean by planting density in percentage... if you do not have the usual planting density, mentioning percentages does NOT say anything, especially since not all readers will know the tree species studied. It is completely necessary that the authors describe this agroforestry system in great detail.

The most important thing would be to say the densities in trees per hectare and use these values ​​in all statistical analyses.

It is important that the authors mention the understory species that were used in the study, and also present the behavior of two or three of these species at different tree densities.

The title is not written correctly since it is the effect of density, not the effects of density. On the other hand, it is suggested to introduce the term understorey. It is suggested: The effect of Platycladus orientalis density on understorey plant functional traits on the Loess Plateau were determined by soil water content and phosphorus content. However, there are indirect effects that were not taken into account due to other effects of planting density such as the entry of solar radiation to the understory, leaf litter, etc. In the discussion section very little is mentioned about this, the authors should go a little deeper.

All figure legends are truly horrible, the authors are suggested to think a little more about the description of their figures, please.

The authors confuse correlations with regressions.

Other concerns

Generally, the numbers from 1 to 10 are written with letters one to ten. Please check.

Line 34: What changes? Increasing or decreasing?

Line 36: (P) Use other symbol, because it can be confused with phosphorus

Line 38: What is SP?

Line 96: What is CWM?

Is P. orientalis native?

Line 165: What understory plant species were used for this study?

Lines 168-169: The asterisk is NOT a multiplication symbol but x is

Lines 169-170: How do you know, it doesn't seem that way to me in particular.

Line 181: Initials are not written at the beginning of a paragraph, the full name must be present. What is CHN?

Lines 191-192: What understorey species?

Line 196: Which instrument? 

Lines 254-257: Granted, there are significant differences in these species traits, but in values ​​how different are they? Many times we try hard to determine if there are significant differences, but these are very small, how big or small are these differences?

Lines 269-279:I do not think so, The density of P orientalis is the independent variable and LC the dependent variable, so the one that is correlated with the density is LC, not the other way around, and so on. This is truly a serious mistake.

Lines 314-317: Correct this statement! Density is the independent varaible

Line 390, paragraph: through soil but there are indirect effects...

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the manuscript is understandable, the authors need to review it in more detail. There are typo errors, syntax errors and spelling errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing in response to your recent review of our manuscript titled "[The effects of Platycladus orientalis density on plant functional traits on the Loess Plateau were determined by soil water content and phosphorus content]." We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing us with your valuable feedback and constructive comments.

Based on your suggestions, the authors have undertaken significant revisions to the manuscript. Specifically, please see the attachment.

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed all of your concerns. However, if you have any further suggestions or require any clarifications, please do not hesitate to let us know.

We kindly request that you review the revised manuscript once again and advise us on whether it is now suitable for publication. We remain committed to working with you to ensure that our research meets the highest standards of quality and rigor.

Thank you again for your careful review and guidance. We look forward to your response.

Best Regards,

Gaohui Duan

College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Re- The effects of Platycladus orientalis

 

Based on my evaluation and review, the current manuscript cannot be published due to reasons given below.

Major comments

The title is not clear, my suggestion is to change to “Plant function traits of Platycladus orientalis depends on population density and soil properties in the Loess Plateau, China”

The abstract is very weak, useless term and words have been included, key elements of the abstract, rational, aim, treatment/methodology, key results, conclusion and recommendation/implication of the studies is completely ignored. Just have written a story of non-linking statements with each other. I read the abstract critically commented, but did not what were the plant population been used, what statistical analysis were performed, only correlation and path analysis is not sufficient to provide information about the treatment you have used.

The authors failed to identify the research question, the problem is either erosion, or functional plant traits or density of the plant. In the introduction is important to understand what is the problem, and we donot need to describe all the functional traits, this section is relatively very long and needs to be properly formulated, shorten, and to present the research question along with possible hypothesis.

The most confusing section is the methodology, her is It is not clear, that whether this was field trial, with specific treatments/replication/design or a survey.  No information about the history and management on the sampled area is provided. That what were fertilization, irrigation, erosion control strategies etc. This section should be clearly divided into location, treatment and calculation/measurement. The procedure for measured parameter is either not given or not explained very well.

The way results have been written is not acceptable for publication, it is not necessary that we have to reproduced that what has been given in the tables/figure, we need to cross compare the treatment, that which treatment is better or weaker. The current version should be entirely improved for help please follow a recent journal article from the journal.  

 

What is the difference between Fig 2b and 3, and what does the different sizes of circle represent in Fig 3. Write NS, to H in Fig 4. Fig 5 is of no use, having less than even 50% R2 values, this making inferences on this will be not valid. Same for fig 6. IN Fig 7, I am not sure, that why H, LTD, SLA and LV were taken as group and been affected by other functional traits, this needs to be clarify in the methodology section, also we need to provide the model fit parameters like χ2 test, TLI test, CFI test and RSME values in the methodology section, In all figure, the notation should be explained so that each tables/figure should be understandable as alone

The discussion section needs to be improved, it is not clear, that which plant density have more stronger effects on function traits of plant or soil, this is because, that the author had not identified the problem in the introduction section, this section should  be directly linked to the objective/aim in the introduction with possible justification and supporting literature. Looking at the first paragraph seems, that the discussion section has been finished, as it was concluded over there.

Conclusion section should be really conclusion not redundancy of the results, this section should be short and have a key home message, the current version is just repetition of the results and a summary not a proper conclusion. This should be quantitative and have implication  of the study.

Minor comments

L19, There is limited research on the effects of Platycladus orientalis forest density on changes in community plant functional traits, and its mechanisms are not yet clear.---------------- not clear

L24, which are typically correlated with resource collection and distribution------------ which resources?

L25, measured the functional traits of nine shrub species and 68 herb species in 50 plots under five 25

different densities--------------- these shrub/herbs were your treatment and what about 50 plants, we need first of all to define your treatment, then methodology, and final key results/conclusion

L26, ming to explore the effects of forest stand density and soil properties on plant functional traits.------------ redundancy

L27, The consequence------------ which consequences

L29, LC was important negatively correlated with LP------------ what do you mean by important negatively

L31, significant relationships---------------- significant positive or negative or which type of relations you mean linear or non-linear, this is not clear

L32, With the increase in Platycladus orientalis forest density, there were significant 32

differences in vegetation functional traits------------- vague statement

L36, Based on a structural equation model, we found that while changes in Platycladus orientalis forest density did not directly affect plant functional traits, they could indirectly influence these traits through soil factors, primarily SWC and SP------------ support you claim in term of quantitative values  

L38, Additionally, the mechanisms of Platycladus orientalis forest density's impact on different functional traits vary------------------ what do you mean by this statement

L40, The research results provide a scientific elements for the management of Platycladus orientalis forests 40

on the Loess Plateau------------ which type of management

L64, The leaf nitrogen-phosphorus ratio is commonly considered an factor to assess nutrient supply in the community-------------- how

L150, National Soil and Water Conservation Park, located in Yulin City------------- please provide the geo-position and coordinates

L151, annual average temperature is 8.3°C,----------- please provide both max and min temp, the average temperature is misleading

L151, annual average rainfall of 486---------- average over how many year, or total in the study period

L159, The soil type is loessial soil------------ please provide the classification of the soil based on WRB system

L165, Sample design-------------- this totally confusing, what do you mean by crown density of 30%--- etc

L178, cylindrical metal sampler----------- volume and size please

L184, experimental procedures including---------------- what do you mean by this

L188, The research calculated 8 plant functional traits--------------- the research or you have calculated?

L196, leaf area instrument--------------- which instrument

L196, calculate the fresh leaf area of------------- at which stage

L201, reduced-------------- extra word please revise the statement

L201, LC, LP, and LN were measured---------- how these were measured

L203, The measurement of N, P, and C element contents followed the same method as soil property------------- is the correct to use the same methods for soil and plant samples, and what were the method for P

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need moderate revsion 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing in response to your recent review of our manuscript titled "[The effects of Platycladus orientalis density on plant functional traits on the Loess Plateau were determined by soil water content and phosphorus content]." We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing us with your valuable feedback and constructive comments.

Based on your suggestions, the authors have undertaken significant revisions to the manuscript. Specifically, please see the attachment.

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed all of your concerns. However, if you have any further suggestions or require any clarifications, please do not hesitate to let us know.

We kindly request that you review the revised manuscript once again and advise us on whether it is now suitable for publication. We remain committed to working with you to ensure that our research meets the highest standards of quality and rigor.

Thank you again for your careful review and guidance. We look forward to your response.

Best Regards,

Gaohui Duan

College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the title “The effects of Platycladus orientalis density on plant functional traits on the Loess Plateau were determined by soil water content and phosphorus content”. 

 

I suggest to renounce to the abbreviations in the abstract and only provide essential, novel and most interesting findings that support the hypothesis and that can be catchy for readers in the abstract and could attract them to read the whole paper.

 

Introduction provides a good summary of the research.

 

Material and Method is essential in facilitating the understanding of the results obtained and I suggest authors to improve this section as much as possible by trying to make it as much as possible easily comprehensible. If this is successfully achieved, then results will be very easy to follow and understand. For this purpose, I make the following suggestions:

 

-          I propose to create an experimental layout as a flow-chart and insert it as a figure, which will help readers from one glance to understand the experiment setup as well as the observations and determinations.

-          although abbreviations were given in the abstract and introduction there should be nicely presented with full name also in the Material and Methods

-          considering the number of variables was relatively large, in order to prevent any confusion and make easy for readers to follow these should be preferably grouped for the sets of observations and determinations.

For example, soil variables were – fertility parameters (P), physical parameters … while for plant functional traits - plant morphometric parameters (plant height…), leaf macroelements content (N…), physiological traits…

Furthermore, this could be helpful when discussing the importance and correlations maybe these can be expressed in general terms such as “positive significant correlation was identified between 2 out of three leaf macroelements studied” “leaf carbon content was negatively correlated with the content of P and N” etc. This would be simplified manner to present things that would highlight the most relevant findings. Right now, it is difficult to follow with so many abbreviations and many parameters. This would help the discussions also.  

 

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

fine English style and grammar improvements are needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing in response to your recent review of our manuscript titled "[The effects of Platycladus orientalis density on plant functional traits on the Loess Plateau were determined by soil water content and phosphorus content]." We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing us with your valuable feedback and constructive comments.

Based on your suggestions, the authors have undertaken significant revisions to the manuscript. Specifically, please see the attachment.

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed all of your concerns. However, if you have any further suggestions or require any clarifications, please do not hesitate to let us know.

We kindly request that you review the revised manuscript once again and advise us on whether it is now suitable for publication. We remain committed to working with you to ensure that our research meets the highest standards of quality and rigor.

Thank you again for your careful review and guidance. We look forward to your response.

Best Regards,

Gaohui Duan

College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was substantially improved and comments and suggestions were adequately addressed. It is recommended that you carefully review the manuscript since there are still some problems, especially with the figure captions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments. Just an exhaustive review of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

 I am sincerely grateful for your thoughtful review of my manuscript and for the valuable comments and suggestions you have provided. I am pleased to hear that you find the manuscript substantially improved, and I appreciate your acknowledgment that my responses to your previous comments were adequate.

However, I understand that you have identified some remaining issues, particularly with the figure captions. I have ensure to address these thoroughly and carefully. Here are the details I have take to correct and improve the figure captions:

1. In Figure 2 (a) I have added an explanation of the legend of the correlation, detailed in line 240.
2. In Figure 3 I have added an explanation of the legend of the correlation, detailed in line 259.
3. In Figure 5 I have added the legend, The details are in line 307.
4. In Figure 6 I have added the legend, The details are in line 313.

If you have any specific suggestions or clarifications regarding the figure captions, I would be happy to incorporate them into my revisions. Please let me know if there are any other aspects of the manuscript that you believe would require further attention.

Thank you once again for your feedback and for helping me to improve the quality of my work. I am committed to addressing the remaining issues and submitting a revised version that meets the highest standards of clarity, accuracy, and comprehensiveness.

Best regards,

Gaohui Duan

College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100,China

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author have incoporated most of my comments, I feel no hesitation to accept this mansucript in its current form

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

I am extremely grateful for your thoughtful review of my manuscript and your valuable feedback. I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully considered and incorporated most of your comments into the revised version.

I appreciate your recognition that the manuscript is now acceptable in its current form. Your comments have helped me strengthen the arguments, clarify certain points, and improve the overall quality of the paper.

If there are any further suggestions or clarifications you believe would be beneficial, I would be happy to make the necessary revisions. Please let me know if there are any specific aspects that you would like me to address.

Once again, I want to express my sincere gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing my work. I am confident that with your guidance, the manuscript will make a significant contribution to our field of research.

Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Best regards,

Gaohui Duan

College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100,China

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the manuscript was improved, and now has a better readability.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

I am extremely grateful for your thoughtful review of my manuscript and your valuable feedback. I am pleased to inform you that I have carefully considered and incorporated most of your comments into the revised version.

I appreciate your recognition that the manuscript is now acceptable in its current form. Your comments have helped me strengthen the arguments, clarify certain points, and improve the overall quality of the paper.

If there are any further suggestions or clarifications you believe would be beneficial, I would be happy to make the necessary revisions. Please let me know if there are any specific aspects that you would like me to address.

Once again, I want to express my sincere gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing my work. I am confident that with your guidance, the manuscript will make a significant contribution to our field of research.

Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Best regards,

Gaohui Duan

College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100,China