The Application of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Regulate the Growth and Morphological Development of Torreya grandis (Taxaceae) Saplings
, Dongchen Huang †, Cheng Huang, Yinhao Tong, Feiyang Yuan, Xiaoxiang Ma, Hua Liu * and Songling Fu *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors/Dear Authors,
The proposed research and presented results are interesting and valuable for the regulation of the growth and morphological development of investigated Torreya grandis, providing important insights into the optimal dosage determination and ratio of NPK fertilizers for saplings cultivation.
However, the Manuscript must be improved in some aspects and the detailed list of comments and suggestions are given in the additional PDF file. The Abstract is too long and needs to be rewritten, according to the suggestions given in the Journal’s template. The Introduction is well structured, and all important background information is given. The aim is well stated, but some lines needs to be rewritten. Materials and Methods section needs to be improved to provide some additional explanations. Results need to be presented more clearly, mainly with regard to tables’ improvements. The Discussion is well written, but some revision is necessary.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript. Your suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The problem you mentioned has been corrected and marked in the document.I have improved the material approach and the presentation of results.I would like to express my thanks to you again for your valuable comments on my first manuscript. I will always keep your kindness in mind.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: The application of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium regulate the growth and morphological development of Torreya grandis saplings
The manuscript describes a study to determine the optimum supplementation of essential nutrients N, P, and K in saplings of Torreya grandis to improve quality before planting. The experimental design is based on an orthogonal experiment with three factors (N, P, and K) and four levels (concentrations). Different morphological parameters associated with Torreya grandis sapling growth were evaluated (root, stem, leaves, total biomass, the root collar diameter, the sapling heights and the calculated indexes, root-shoot ratio, and seedling quality index (QI). Among the nutriment supplementation, N has the higher effect on morphological changes, followed by P and K. According to the results; authors propose a concentration proportion of 1 N:0.46 P:0.75 K g.sapling-1 to improve quality in Torreya grandis saplings.
Overall, the experimental design is adequate, the morphological parameters evaluated are adequate, and the manuscript is well-redacted. The manuscript is suitable for possible publication after minor corrections. The authors have to take into account the following commentaries.
Commentaries:
Line 4, include the plant family
Line 30, in Keywords, include some keywords different from those included in the manuscript title.
Line 41, correct “40%-50%” to “40-50%”
Lines 117-118, add SD or SEM values for average plant height and root diameter.
Line 123, Table 1, soil characteristics were evaluated in the present study, values present the average or are single determinations?, in the case of replicates, indicate the values of SD or SEM, and describe this information in the manuscript.
Line 123, Table 1, correct format in TN (g.kg-1).
Line 154, correct format in “0.200” to just “0.2”
In the Materials and Methods section, the description of the morphological parameters determinations is missing. Describe the methodology employed.
Line 164, in the QI equation, define parameters “TM” and “HD”
Line 266, correct “Table .5” to “Table 5.”
Line 270, correct “Figure .3” to figure 3.”
Line 297, correct the format in the compounds “P2O5” and “K2O” use underscript for the atom numbers.
Line 299. Line 266, correct “Table .6” to “Table 6.”
Line 307, include the plant family for “Phoebe bournei” for better comparison.
Lines 310, 317, 321, 326, 379, 390, 393, 394, 395, 397, 401, and 403 use italics for T. grandis name
Author Response
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript. Your suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The problem you mentioned has been corrected and marked in the document. Thanks again for your help. Your kindness will always be in my heart.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is superficial as the treatments were taken are not having any scientific backing. Why these levels were tested per sapling. If there is any clear justifiable scientific reasoning, please provide.
The objectives and the hypothesis needs substantial improvement.
Why only chemical names were given for popular fertilizers like CO(NH4)2, Ca(H2PO4)2, KH2PO4, and 128 K2SO4., please give their comman name.
2.4 Methods to Measure Physiological Parameters parts need elaboration, it is too brief to understand and to reproduce elsewhere
Table .5 Final score formula for the four principal components part of the manuscript needs better presentation and explanation.
The results are explaining all the new information, generated in the study, therefore need careful interpretation of the data and the conclusion drawn in the study is also have clear connect with the results/findings. While in this case some of the data is abstruse and not explaining the results data comprehensively.
2The proper scientific reasonings of the cause and effect of the different treatments need to be very well explained in discussion part, a strong discussion is the heart and soul of any research paper, this part need further improvement with inclusion of crystal clear scientific rationales of the findings.
A careful look is required for references, please follow the Journal author guidelines strictly, while presenting the references.
The data in results part seem inadequate, please include more data to make the results convincing.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The language is good but some of the sentences are very generalized as have been highlighted in the body of text of MS.
Author Response
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my manuscript. Your suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. The problem you mentioned has been corrected and marked in the document. I have improved the material approach and the presentation of results.
I sincerely hope that you can understand me. I have taken your suggestions seriously and made improvements to the best of my ability. This is my first time writing an English paper, so there may be some flaws. However, I am working diligently to learn and make progress. I would like to express my thanks to you again for your valuable comments on my first manuscript. I will always keep your kindness in mind.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you for accepting my suggestions. However, with regard to my previous review, I have some additional comments. Some suggestions have been repeated, because I believe that those comments were not understood properly. All the best in your future work. Additional comments are given in PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I have revised the question you raised.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
