Digital, Three-Dimensional Visualization of Root Systems in Peat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

 The papers is excellent research article. However, have few questions which are described below:

1) Page 1, line 24: Can you please describe which 3D visualization model/software was utilized?

2) Page 1, line 28: The authors have said that their method is a low-cost approach and reproducible through an open source software workflow. However, can the authors please comment on their method's reliability and also comment on whether their analysis methods have to be carried out in triplicate or duplicate for better reliability and low errors.

3) Page 2, line 64: The authors have compared the results of their study with conventional methods. It would have been nice if they could have compared their results with computed tomography method (CT method). The comparison with CT would be more appropriate than conventional methods. Can the authors please comment on this.

4) Page 4, line 111: The authors said that the protocol of individual steps on image analysis can be obtained by request. It will be nice if the authors can include this protocol in the appendix section for easier reference for future readers. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Gribbe and colleagues developed a new 3D approach for visualization of the root system in peat monoliths. They argued that the digital volume measurements were similar to results from the traditional washing out of roots. Besides, the constructed 3D models could provide valuable insight into the three-dimensional structure of root system. In general, this new digital approach is fascinating and have wide potential applications, e.g., allowing analysis of root responses to nutrient availability. I suggest accepting this manuscript for publication in the journal Soil Systems after a minor revision. The authors argued their approach was low cost; however, it is time-consuming and the cost is at least comparable with traditional approaches. Besides, it is not easy to be used by researchers without training. Anyway, this does not dim the merit of this new digital approach. L20: it is not consistent with those in L74-76. In fact, two independent peat cores were retrieved. L51: change to [7, 10-12]. L66-69: Please add the country this peatland belongs and the attitude. It is better to add a map. L93-95: Why use two different cutting techniques? How they affect the results? L113-114: Why need three different versions of the same open-source software? The “Materials and Methods” section is quite low. It is better to divide it into some subsections to facilitate the reading. L219 and other places: what does ρ mean? It is not a commonly used term. Fig 9: the axis labels are too small. Fig 10: replace cor with r or R. L335: which curves? In addition, it is not easy to understand that the novel approach and the washout method correlate well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf