Nutrient Resorption in Young Stands of Three Native Tree Species to Support Restoration of Degraded Tropical Peatland in Indonesia

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted (yellow) in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

We were improved this section with more detail description

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

We were improved this section with more detail description

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We were improved this section

Quality of English

Moderate editing of English language required

The English was improved followed the result of editing by MDPI service (please find the figure of certificate at page 3)

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Authors’ Responses

1

Moderate editing of English language required.

Overall though I highly commend the authors use of English as non-native speakers

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have improved the language by MDPI professional English editing

2.

The results section is somewhat confusing with all of the acronyms. Maybe just spell out the plant names or use “native tree species” rather than NaS.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised as suggested.

3.

The experimental design is not fully explained nor are there enough samples collected to reach any significant conclusions.

The research design and the methods must be improved.

Thank you for the comments. We have explained in more detail.

4.

The discussion is too long and should be shortened by a few paragraphs as a minimum.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we tried to make shorter this section as long as we can

5.

Section 2.3, Data Collection: “The related data was collected only at the three replications…” I am unsure what the authors are referring to here. Please describe in more detail.

Thank you, we have described it in more detail.

6.

Section 2.3, Data Collection: “We had 12 green leaves and 12 senescence leaves.” Did the researchers collect 24 total leaves per species or were 24 total leaves collected for all of the species? If the latter, this is not robust enough for any significant scientific conclusions. If the former, authors should state this.

Thank you, we have described it in more detail.

OWe have 3 composite samples of mature leaves and 3 composite samples of senesced for each species (four species). Our research is experimental research, based on research design that was established, in maximum we would have 5 composite samples of mature leaves and 5 composite samples of senesced for each species (four species), but the limited resources making we only choose 3 replications only. However, based on our best insight, scientifically, 3 replication is enough when choose ANOVA as the tool of analysis. Furthermore, to check the validity of our analysis, before ANOVA was executed, we check the normality and homogeneity of the data. 

7.

Figure 1d. The letter above senesced krassikarpa is missing.

Thank you for the reviewer's correction, we have completed the letter.

8.

Discussion, line 273: should read “[22] studied the global NR…”

Thank you, in order to make shorter the discussion this part and also this reference (22) was deleted.

9.

Discussion, line 361: what species does this “global value” refer to?

Based the information that we obtained form the reference “global value” refer to “across multiple plant species and ecosytems”

10.

Discussion, line 400: change “uncorrelation” to “lack of correlation”

Thank you for the reviewer's correction, we have corrected as suggested.

11.

Discussion, lines 422 and 424, misspelled words: suggested and involved

Thank you for the reviewer's correction, this part was improved following English edited service result

12.

Discussion, line 479: This is the first time the researchers mention mycorrhiza

Thank you, this sentence explains the potential of geronggang and we also state as the first in discussion section (line 458 in recent manuscript)

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted (green) in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We were improved this section with more detail description

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We were improved this section

Quality of English

Extensive editing of English language required

The English was improved followed the result of editing by MDPI service (please find the figure of certificate at page 2)

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

1

Extensive editing of English language required

The main issue is that the paper requires thorough and careful review / proof-reading - preferably by a native English language researcher. Then it can be re-submitted and more thoroughly refereed. Some of the English language reads rather oddly.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion, we have improved the language by MDPI professional English editing

2

There are a few quibbles - like introducing an abbreviation before saying what it is - at first mention explain in full.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion, we have improved the abbreviation by explaining in full at first mention.

3

Avoid personal statements like 'we' did ......

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion, we have revised it as suggested

4

For percentages please round up - giving them to two decimal points is meaningless.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion, we have revised it as suggested from NR value. However, for the value of nutrient content in leaves we converted the unit from percentage to another commonly used unit i.e. mg g^-1

5.

The results and conclusions can be improved

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion, we have improved it as suggested