Exploring the Efficient Irrigation Period for Larix kaempferi Seedlings in Nursery Pots in Greenhouse Conditions Using Optical Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study evaluated the growth status of Larix kaempferi under stress and rehydration based on optical measurements. The authors have conducted interesting work, but there is a need for further improvement in the analysis methods. Some points to note include.
1. The introduction does not clearly state the rationale for conducting this study.
2. It is necessary to describe in as much detail as possible how the plants were grown. If this is a greenhouse, then you must indicate its average humidity, air humidity, illumination, type of greenhouse covering, etc. What moisture levels did both the drought and drought-rehydration groups reach, and to what extent of drought? The above content should be presented in the Materials and Methods section.
3. How many seedlings are there in each treatment? This should be presented in the Materials and Methods section.
4. What software was used for plotting?
5. The abbreviations in each figure and table should be explained below.
6. Please explain the experimental design. In Table 3, the survival rates of seedlings for 8D-RH, 10D-RH, and 12D-D-RH differ at D6. All were subjected to 6 days of drought treatment. Why are the survival rates different among these treatments?
7. Each indicator can be compared at different levels of drought severity, as well as at different rehydration time points. A comparison can also be made at a specific time point after rehydration. I do not understand the meaning of the content described in Section 3.3 of the manuscript.
8. You can analyze the relationship between soil moisture content, seedling mortality rate, and various indicators.
9. The discussion of results should be more detailed, focusing on comparisons with previous studies and the perspectives that this study aims to clarify.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
10. Certain parts of the text contain grammar errors and stylistic inaccuracies, which may make the material difficult to understand.
Author Response
Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments and suggestions are attached below:
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor English language editing is required.
Author Response
Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript evaluates optical measurements to identify the efficient irrigation period for Larix kaempferi seedlings in a greenhouse setting. The research explores the impact of drought stress on seedling survival and growth using various techniques like VI (vegetation indices), FL (fluorescence) and TH (thermal) imaging. The approach holds promise, but the manuscript has several drawbacks that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
In the abstract, briefly state the research gap and the novelty of the study. Also, briefly mention the key findings without going into specifics.
In the introduction, clearly state the research question. Strengthen the connection between seedling production and the chosen methodology by explaining how optical measurements can be used for irrigation management. Briefly discuss the limitations of traditional methods and how optical measurements could offer advantages.
In the “Materials and Methods” provide more details on drought stress and rehydration treatments. Explain the rationale behind the specific timing of measurements. Clearly describe the data analysis methods used for each parameter (e.g., which parameters were compared using one-way ANOVA).
In the “results” section, instead of just reporting significant differences, discuss the trends observed in VI, FL, and TH parameters with drought progression. Integrate findings from different measurement techniques to provide a complete understanding of seedling responses.
The “Discussion” should focus on the most impactful findings, particularly the sensitivity of TH imaging compared to VI and FL. Discuss the limitations of the study, such as the pot environment impacting soil moisture conditions. Link the findings to existing literature on drought stress responses in L. kaempferi or similar species.
The “conclusion” needs revision. Briefly summarize the most important findings on the efficient irrigation period and the role of TH imaging. Also, highlight the practical effects for nursery irrigation management.
There are numerous grammatical errors and complex phrasings.
By addressing these points, the authors can strengthen the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are numerous grammatical errors and complex phrasings. Critically proofread the manuscript for language editing.
Author Response
Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease explain the relationship and reasons between soil moisture content, seedling mortality rate, and various indicators.
Could you point out where the enhanced analysis in section 3.3 is? I didn’t see it.
In the discussion, please add comparisons with previous studies and clarify the points this research aims to elucidate.
If there are no new data or more convincing analyses, the authors' explanations still leave doubts about the reliability of the results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe updated version of the manuscript has undergone another rigorous review, during which the changes implemented following the previous review were critically examined.
In the resubmitted manuscript, the authors have made significant revisions to address the concerns raised in the earlier review. Furthermore, they have provided well-justified responses to various queries that were raised.
Through the process of addressing these queries and incorporating the suggested amendments, the manuscript has undergone substantial improvement and enhancement. A few minor grammatical errors were still spotted, which can easily be rectified during the proofreading of the final galley, if the manuscript is accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA few minor grammatical errors were still spotted, which can easily be rectified during the proofreading of the final galley, if the manuscript is accepted.
Author Response
We have uploaded the newly revised manuscript. Thanks to your valuable advice, we were able to improve the quality of the manuscript.
