Phytoliths from Woody Plants: A Review
Subir Bera
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Your manuscript is worth it for researchers using phytolith analyses in their studies. It is also relevant for the general academic public, as it summarizes relevant information that might be interesting out of the field of expertise.
Despite this, I have recommended a significant review, as several issues need to be fixed before publishing.
- English needs to be thoroughly reviewed. There are several significant mistakes along with the manuscript (see, e.g. line 338, - Phytoliths is instead of Phytoliths are, line 399).
- There are several severe mistakes regarding formatting.
- Lack of capitals, as in line 43 (sentence starting with "Many,...")
- Standardize capitals when referring to taxa (see line 99 cycadophyta instead of Cycadophyta) or to phytolith types (Block/block)
- Lack of spaces or extra spaces (see lines 207 and 210 or 355)
- The references are not standardized at all (not in the text, neither in the references at the end of the manuscript; see example in references 30 to 36, where names and surnames appear mixed, etc., or lines 376 to 379).
Regarding the abstract, although phytoliths are used for producing indexes, they are not indexes, but proxies. In line 16, consider changing "micromorphology". Within phytolith studies, we refer to the morphology of the types. Micromorphology is a pedological technique used in agricultural, paleoecological and archaeological studies to understand soil composition and development.
Some sentences might be confusing for non-experts.
See line 23:
Where you wrote, "Phytoliths are soluble silica particles absorbed by the roots (...)", it should say "Phytoliths are particles made of silica absorbed by the roots (...)".
See line 30:
Where you wrote, "Phytoliths are found in most plant communities, including atmospheric dust and marine sediments", it should say "Phytoliths are found in most plant communities, and also in atmospheric dust and marine sediments"
Please review the manuscript thoroughly as there are several mistakes like these.
Lines 70-75
Would you please review properly the name for the commission as well as the name of the nomenclature (in
- Madella, M., Alexandre, A., & Ball, T. (2005). International code for phytolith nomenclature 1.0. Annals of botany, 96(2), 253-260.
- International Committee for Phytolith Taxonomy (ICPT). International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0. Ann Bot. 2019;124(2):189-199. doi:10.1093/aob/mcz064
Lines 410
Table 1 does not show statistics at all but data. I recommend making the table look better and keeping it shorter and more compact (use the same font size, etc.).
From my point of view, this manuscript needs much work investment regarding formatting and a different arrangement of the data. There are so many references and many enumerations of phytolith types for each taxonomic information that it would be much better to have it summarized in as many tables as needed. I would acknowledge an overview on phytolith production and a general introduction to the tissues in woody taxa, followed by the information on production per genera.
Author Response
Comment 1: There are many mistakes of language (lines 338, 339) and format (lines 43, 99, 207, 210, 355, 376-379).
Response: Thank you very much for the advice. We have corrected the article as much as possible. The revised details can be found at lines 351, 352, 44, 99, 100, 219, 221, 368, 369, 389-390.
Comment 2: Regarding the abstract, phytoliths are not indexes, but proxies. In line 16, consider changing “micromorphology”. Micromorphology is a pedological technique used in agricultural, paleoecological, and archaeological studies to understand soil composition and development. In line 23, "Phytoliths are soluble silica particles absorbed by the roots (..)", it should say "Phytoliths are particles made of silica absorbed by the roots(…)”. In line 30, "Phytoliths are found in most plant communities, including atmospheric dust and marine sediments", it should say "Phytoliths are found in most plant communities, and also in atmospheric dust and marine sediments". Please review the manuscript thoroughly as there are several mistakes like these.
Response: Thank you very much for the advice. We recalibrated the usage of these terms (index, proxy, micromorphology). Your suggestion is absolutely right. We have modified the mistake and similar ones as you suggested. The revised details can be found at lines 8, 16, 302, 23, 30.
Comment 3: Lines 70-75, please review properly the name for the commission of International Code for Phytolith Nomenclature (ICPN) 2.0.
Response: Thank you very much for the advice. we change it to International Committee for Phytolith Taxonomy (ICPT). The revised details can be found at lines 71-75.
Comment 4: In line 410, table 1 does not show statistics but data. I recommend making the table look better and keeping it shorter and more compact.
Response: Thank you very much for the advice. We have changed “statistics” to “data”.
we have revised Table 1 to make it look better. We adjusted the presentation of the references and Taxa. The revised details can be found in the modified version (line 423, and table 1).
Comment 5: From my point of view, this manuscript needs much work investment regarding formatting and a different arrangement of the data. There are so many references and many enumerations of phytolith types for each taxonomic information that it would be much better to have it summarized in as many tables as needed. I would acknowledge an overview on phytolith production and a general introduction to the tissues in woody taxa, followed by the information on production per genera.
Response: Thank you very much for the advice.. We also think that the table organized by taxa, plant tissue, phytolith production, morphotype name (ICPN 2.0 and the past name), morphological description, diagnostic status, and references would be quite detailed and powerful, like Biswas et al. (2016) did. The downside is that the tables will be very large, hard to read, and difficult to complete. We estimate that over 3000 species will be included, so it's hard to do that in a short time. We are considering other ways to complete it, such as setting up an online website or cooperative monograph.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The aim of this paper is to provide a review of phytolith production in woody plants. The authors gather together a large quantity of information, particularly about the anatomical origins of phytoliths, which is of merit. I have several concerns, however, regarding the content of the article which will need major revisions before publication.
1) English grammar very poor throughout -the text must be checked extensively by a native speaker
2) The authors use outdated phytolith nomenclature which has resulted in inconsistencies and misrepresentations of some of the morphologies (e.g. "boney bodies" in Watling & Iriarte (2013) were renamed "bacculate elongates" in Piperno & McMichael (2020), according to the ICPN 2.0., but in Table 1, they appear as separate types). A review of this kind should use only the updated terms of the ICPN and, where necessary, try to resolve past naming inconsistencies.
3) It is not clear the level of diagnosticity of each morphotype presented in table 1. It is also unclear why the authors chose to make a table of phytolith production in leaves and not for the other organs studied in the paper (wood, bark, etc.). This lack of coherence should be addressed for the review to be a useful tool for phytolith researchers.
Author Response
The aim of this paper is to provide a review of phytolith production in woody plants. The authors gather together a large quantity of information, particularly about the anatomical origins of phytoliths, which is of merit. I have several concerns, however, regarding the content of the article which will need major revisions before publication.
Comment 1: English grammar is very poor throughout the text. Must be checked extensively by a native speaker.
Response: Thank you very much for the advice. Text have been checked by a native speaker. We have corrected the article as much as possible. The revised details can be found in the modified version.
Comment 2: The author use outdated phytolith nomenclature which has resulted in inconsistencies and misrepresentations of some of the morphologies (e.g. "boney bodies" in Watling & lriarte (2013) were renamed "bacculate elongates" in Piperno & McMichael (2020), according to the ICPN 2.0, but in Table 1, they appear as separate types). A review of this kind should use only the updated terms of the ICPN and, where necessary, try to resolve past naming inconsistencies.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have updated with the terms of ICPN 2.0. We use ICPN as our official name, but also refer to past names. The revised details can be found in table 1 and other places (lines 128, 132, 230, 340, 341, 399, 401, 406, 416, 419).
Comment 3: It is not clear the level of diagnosticity of each morphotype presented in table 1. It is also unclear why the authors chose to make a table of phytolith production in leaves and not for the other organs studied in the paper (wood, bark, etc.). This lack of coherence should be addressed for the review to be a useful tool for phytolith researchers.
Response: Thank you very much for the advice. In fact, the contents of Table 1 belong to the section that is useful but not discussed in text. Current results for other organs have been well summarized in this paper. We also have searched the PhytCore Website and Flora of Ecuador database, but there is not much suitable content to add to table 1. And it seems a little ahead of time to identify the diagnostic capabilities of these morphotypes with current data. But we have revised Table 1 to make it look better. We also think that a table organized by taxa, plant tissue, phytolith production, morphotype name (ICPN 2.0 and the past name), morphological description, diagnostic status, and references would be quite detailed and powerful, like Biswas et al. (2016) did. The downside is that tables will be very huge, hard to read, and difficult to complete. We estimate that over 3000 species will be included, so it's hard to do that in a short time. We are considering other ways to complete it, such as setting up an online website or cooperative monograph.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Please see the attachment for detailed response. Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for considering the comments made before. I think your manuscript has improved considerably. However, please consider the following in order to make it as good as possible;
- The morphological identification and classification of grass phytoliths are clear and detailed enough for the applying application.
Not clear what these two sentences mean (see in bold what is specifically not clear)
- There is progress in micromorphology, morphometry, and differentiation from grass types in palms and conifers phytoliths. The phytolith morphology of broad-leaved trees is summed up based on the produced parts of phytoliths.
Line 38 change (Hart 2016) per a newer reference; (Rashid er al.2019; Hodson et al. 2020)
Lines 77-83: not clear which is the difference between the two mentioned approaches.
Lines 84-89: from my point of view the fist ICPN should be mentioned here, it was the first international effort in that direction, which was changed in some aspects in 2019
Starting in line 90: you provide a classification of studies on woody phytoliths based on different criteria. Are you sure they come from the new code? I guess you can mention the new code, saying that somehow these criteria are relevant, as they have been recently considered for the ICPN update, but they are standard features that have always been considered as part of phytolith research. I would rewrite this.
Line 119 phytolith research is has only focused
Line 142-144 Not clear
In addition, coniferous phytoliths often have natural pits on their surfaces, which distinguish them from similar graminaceous (monocot) morphologies, such as Elongate and Block phytoliths (Ge 2017; An 2016).
Line 185
Standardize whether you use morphotype names in capitals. (see also Jigsaw in line 396)
In the needles of the Picea, Pinus, and Abies, the predominant phytoliths are Blocks.
Line 218
Stomata is the right plural for stoma (see also line 400)
Line 257
Phytoliths in plural in this line
Table 1: a drawing or scheme per each morphotype will make things easier
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Substantial changes have been made by the authors on the basis of reviewers' suggestions. Although I believe there is till rooms for language improvement but being a person from non English speaking country I am unable to help further in this regard.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
