Regulating Growth of Betula alnoides Buch. Ham. ex D. Don Seedlings with Combined Application of Paclobutrazol and Gibberellin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the present version of the article is quite clear and well organized. But I still have some considerations:
- I suggest to improve english language;
- the title needs a revision of the English language;
- I suggest to better describe the results obtained in the abstract;
- do not use keywords already present in the title;
- enter the geographical location of the experimental center;
- what are the conventional way (line 89)?
- were the analyzed data homogeneous and normal? Have you used any transformation?
- in the Results section avoid inserting discussions;
- in Table 1 indicate the treatment codes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I suggest to improve english language;
Response 1: We tried our best to improve English language of our manuscript. We have checked whole manuscript carfully sentence by sentence. We use modification mode to correct. Please see in detail in the revised manuscript. We hope that the correction is satisfactory.
Point 2: The title needs a revision of the English language;
Response 2：The title has been replaced by “Regulating Growth of Betula alnoides Seedlings with Combined Application of Paclobutrazol and Gibberellin”.
Point 3: I suggest to better describe the results obtained in the abstract;
Response 3：We have re-written some sentences about results description in the abstract.
Point 4: Do not use keywords already present in the title;
Response 4：“paclobutrazol” and “gibberellin” have been deleted, and “biomass allocation” has been added.
Point 5: Enter the geographical location of the experimental center;
Response 5：Done.
Point 6: What are the conventional way (line 89);
Response 6: We have added a reference about the conventional way in growing Betula alnoides seedlings and labeled [17]. We also adjust the subsequent order of reference citation accordingly.
Point 7: Were the analyzed data homogeneous and normal? Have you used any transformation?
Response 7: The analyzed data were homogeneous and normal. Of all the data, only relative height increment is transformed by arcsine, while other data are not transformed.
Point 8: In the Results section avoid inserting discussions;
Response 8：We have read the Results section carefully and deleted discussions. For an example, “This indicated that PBZ application could inhibit obviously the height growth of B. alnoides seedlings” in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 has been deleted.
Point 9: In Table 1 indicate the treatment codes;
Response 9：We have added the treatment codes in the first column of Table 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript (no. forests-491145) entitled: Growth Regulation with Combined Application of Paclobutrazol and Gibberellin for Betula alnoides Seedlings presents valuable in my opinion results of paclobutrazol and gibberellin different treatments on birch seedling growth and root and leaf traits. The obtained results may have practical applications for production high quality material for afforestation. Whole manuscript is generally well written and understanding.
Introduction - well presents the research problem and aim of study, but research hypothesis should be better specified.
Materials and Methods – this section needs only small corrections: Photoshop Microsoft -> Adobe Photoshop also version should be given. Authors should also explain how leaves were measured. Really using Photoshop? It is probably mistake.
Results – I have no objections.
Discussion – only small corrections are necessary:
L. 247. Eucalyptus nitens – no author abbreviation
L. 260. … [19]also …- no space
L. 262. Capssicum frutescens – no author abbreviation
L. 266. F. Americana -> F. americana
L. 271. … [7]study … - no space
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Introduction - well presents the research problem and aim of study, but research hypothesis should be better specified.
Response 1：We have described the hypothesis in more detail, and the relevant sentence has been modified as “We attempted to produce high-quality B. alnoides seedlings with flexible out-planting time through controlling seedling growth by PBZ and recovering growth by GA3 once needed, so as to meet the needs of afforestation under global warming”.
Point 2: Materials and Methods – this section needs only small corrections: Photoshop Microsoft -> Adobe Photoshop also version should be given. Authors should also explain how leaves were measured. Really using Photoshop? It is probably mistake.
Response 2：We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Point 3: L. 247. Eucalyptus nitens – no author abbreviation
Response 3：We think Eucalyptus nitens (Deane and Maiden) Maiden is Ok, no correction is needed. It is commonly used in majority of literatures.
Point 4:L. 260. … [19]also …- no space
Response 4：Done.
Point 5:L. 262. Capssicum frutescens – no author abbreviation
Response 5：Author abbreviation has been added, and the species name has been corrected as “Capsicum frutescens L. cv. Malagueta”.
Point 6: L. 266. F. Americana -> F. Americana
Response 6：Done.
Point 7: L. 271. … [7]study … - no space
Response 7：Done.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the present form of the paper is well written and organize. I have just few suggestions:
- both in the title and at line 15, please add the Buch. Ham. ex D. Don;
- line 102: please add information about fertilization, irrigation, etc...
- line 139-141: please explain about normality and homogeneity
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1:Both in the title and at line 15, please add the Buch. Ham. ex D. Don;
Response 1: Done.
Point 2: line 102: Please add information about fertilization, irrigation, etc...
Response 2: We have added “Foliar nutrient status was monitored semimonthly and compound fertilizer applied as necessary to maintain target values. The irrigation water were applied daily and watering amount depending on the weather and seedling growth conditions” in line 102.
Point 3: line 139-141: Please explain about normality and homogeneity
Response 3: Done.
