Preliminary Results of the Introduction of Dicotyledonous Meadow Species
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the reviewed article requires significant corrections and additions, especially in the chapter "Materials and methods". All my comments were made directly in the text. The current description of the experiment seems to have a lot of shortcomings and understatements that may affect the conclusions of the research. It is also worth checking the text by a native speaker to avoid stylistic errors and in specialized nomenclature.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachmentAuthor Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor
Thank you for inviting me for reviewing a MS entitled Effectiveness of the introduction of dicotyledonous meadow species. The ms presents interesting results in context of species introduction for ecological restoration.
I would appreciate the design of the experiments and results. However some more information on introduction would improve the quality of the paper substantially (mainly highlight of species extinction and the importance of species introduction in global context). The discussion section is poorly written and has to be revised thoroughly.
Introduction: This would ideally require some information on species extinction and relevancy of introduction of species as an integral part of species restoration
Materials and methods
Study area
Please keep the study area map and also with habitat photograph for more clarity.
Also working photographs of pots with plants would be interesting.
Results
Please change Figure 4 in the results section as it is with poor resolution.
Discussion
Line 419-423……please remove these lines here. In discussion first mention the main points of the results and then give some explanation related to the results.
Line 430-437 whose results are these? I do not think they are results of the present study. Otherwise need reference.
Line 438-442 These information will be suitable in introduction section.
Line 442-451, these sentences are not connected with the results of present study here, so would require to move it in the context.
Line 478-487 These are the results of present study, please always keep the part of results first then remaining explanation.
Lines 494-495 Please keep these information at the beginning of the paragraph.
Conclusions
Just mention our results indicated that….statistical analysis already mentioned in results.
One sentence about further recommendation as per the results of the experiment would be ideally fine.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
# Authors are advised to rewrite the abstract to make it clearer to the readers. The results and its implications were not clearly stated.
# Table 1: Why species-wise seedlings number were not equal?
# Figure 1: Misspelled word. Texts in Fig. 1 are not readable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The evaluated manuscript has been significantly improved. The Authors have satisfactorily addressed all the comments made in the first review.
There are a few minor errors in the new version of the manuscript:
-Line 269 - the word "meteorological" should be corrected;
-Table 4 - needs to be reorganized, the last three columns are too narrow;
-Line 333 - Eq. 2 should be cited;
-Line 337 - a new paragraph should be started with the words "The cluster analysis" (the equation caption should be separated).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think there are considerable changes in the revised form. However, I would suggest to replace Photo 1,2,3 and Map 1 with Figure numbers; in fact they are all figures. So revise them accordingly. I think some improvements are required for Table 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
