Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Effectively Enhances the Growth of Gleditsia sinensis Lam. Seedlings under Greenhouse Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject is presented clearly, although the presentation does need some alternations. The results may be of interest to a number of readers. I have concerns about the sample size in the study (only 12 seedlings per treatment) and the use of whole cm and mm in data presentation, but I will leave that decision to the editors.
The following items should be addressed/considered:
- use of the word"the". The following lines have one occurrence of the word the which should be deleted-- 21, 23, 24, 31, 51, 64, 65, 68, 69, 77, 81, 83, 97, 108, 111, 117,123,124, 134,143, 154, 155, 165, 166, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 196, 199, 201, 202, 211, 217, 221, 230, 231, 234, 235, 238, 245, 248, 250
-- the following lines have two occurrences of the word "the" which should be deleted -- 29, 93, 162, 171, 180, 229, 237, 239
-- the following line has three occurrences of the word "the" which should be deleted - 173
-- in all uses, should "glasshouse" be "greenhouse". If we are taliking about the same structure, I think greenhouse is the more widely accepted term.
-- L. 42-- should this be Gleditsia sinensis ( not G. species)?
-L. 49 - change "Nowadays" to "Today"
-L. 50 .... utilization of extracted bioactive compounds. -- ("extracted from.......species.")
- L 78 -- the concentration of the sulfuric acid should be presented-- not just "concentrated"
- L 92 -- should mycorrhizal be mycorrhichae ?
-L. 101 -- the entire first sentence could be deleted ( see L. 109)
-L.117 -- were calipers digital or manual? seedlings measured to what unit? nearest mm? 0.1-mm? 0.01-mm?
- Figure 2 -- young seedlings are not very large as evidenced by your data. Would it have been more appropriate to have more detailed measurements?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your constructive comments of our manuscript. Your suggestion is helpful for improving quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript using *Track Changes* function according to your comments. The responses to your comments are showed below:
Point 1: The subject is presented clearly, although the presentation does need some alternations. The results may be of interest to a number of readers. I have concerns about the sample size in the study (only 12 seedlings per treatment) and the use of whole cm and mm in data presentation, but I will leave that decision to the editors.
Response 1: Thank you for your favourable comments on our manuscript. About the sample size and the use of cm and mm in data presentation, We think, generally, 12 seedlings per treatment is sufficient to the pot experiment in the greenhouse condition; the use of cm and mm is suitable for data presentation of seedlings height and basal diameter, because seedling height was measured using a steel ruler and basal diameter was measured using a digital callipers.
Point 2: The following items should be addressed / considered: (1) Use of the word “the”. The following lines have one occurrence of the word the which should be deleted-- 21, 23, 24, 31, 51, 64, 65, 68, 69, 77, 81, 83, 97, 108, 111, 117,123,124, 134,143, 154, 155, 165, 166, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 196, 199, 201, 202, 211, 217, 221, 230, 231, 234, 235, 238, 245, 248, 250. (2) The following lines have two occurrences of the word “the” which should be deleted -- 29, 93, 162, 171, 180, 229, 237, 239. (3) The following line has three occurrences of the word "the" which should be deleted – 173.
Response 2: the overuse of “the” had been deleted, please see line 25, 27, 28, 32, 34, 54, 67, 68, 72, 81, 86, 88, 98, 102, 112, 116, 123, 128, 129, 143, 152, 175, 177, 178, 192, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 212, 214, 217, 218, 227, 233, 237, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 261, 264, 266.
Point 3: (1) In all uses, should “glasshouse” be “greenhouse”. If we are taliking about the same structure, I think greenhouse is the more widely accepted term. (2) L. 42-- should this be Gleditsia sinensis (not G. species)? (3) L. 49 - change “Nowadays” to “Today”. (4) L. 50 ... utilization of extracted bioactive compounds. -- (extracted from.......species.). (5) L 78 -- the concentration of the sulfuric acid should be presented-- not just “concentrated”. (6) L 92 -- should mycorrhizal be mycorrhichae ? (7) L. 101 -- the entire first sentence could be deleted ( see L. 109) (8) L.117 -- were calipers digital or manual? seedlings measured to what unit? nearest mm? 0.1-mm? 0.01-mm? (9) Figure 2 -- young seedlings are not very large as evidenced by your data. Would it have been more appropriate to have more detailed measurements?
Response 2: (1) All “glasshouse” were replaced by “greenhouse”, please see line 4, 22, 74, 103, 114. (2) It is right to be Gleditsia species. (3) “Nowadays” was replaced by “Today”, please see line 52. (4) The sentence was revised as “focusing on the utilization of extracted bioactive compounds from the tissues of Gleditsia species”, please see 53. (5) The concentration of the sulfuric acid was presented, please see line 82. (6) “mycorrhizal” was replaced by “hyphae”, please see line 97. (7) The sentence “The experiment conducted in the glasshouse was started at the beginning of March 2018” had been deleted. (8) The callipers was digital, we had supplied the instruction, please see line 122, seedlings measured to 0.01 mm, please see Table 1. (9) Yes, young seedlings are not very large, we had supplied the seedling heights and basal diameters of 4 and 6 months’ growth, more details on the growth parameters were provided in Table 1.
Special thanks to you for your good comments! Hope to learn more from you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
See attached copy of the manuscript for comments and suggested revisions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your constructive comments of our manuscript. Your suggestion is helpful for improving quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript using *Track Changes* function according to your comments. The responses to your comments are showed below:
Point 1: This manuscript is acceptable for publication in the journal Forests after a number of revisions. This manuscript is well written and presents detailed findings of how AFM affect the growth response of the tested tree species. There are two suggested major changes to the manuscript. First, just present growth data as dry weights. The fresh weight data is just a duplication of the dry weight data and adds little to presenting the study findings.Second, minimize the use of %s to present study findings, while emphasizing the 'real' data values and the statistical findings. The use of %s sometimes obfuscates the study results and presentation of the findings. There are a number of minor comments and suggested changes located throughout the manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you for your support and favourable comments on our manuscript. You two suggested major changes had been done, fresh weight data had been deleted in table 1, and the use of % had also been revised as absolute increase values in the Result section. We had revised English and some minor important mistakes had been corrected in the manuscript, please see line 51.
Point 2: Abstract section: Highlighted text defines awkward English usage or sentence structure in line 15-17 and line 30.
Response 2: the sentence in line 15-17 had been revised as “The Chinese honey locust tree Gleditsia sinensis Lam. (Fabaceae) is a precious ecological and economic tree species that has a wide-rang usage. However, knowledge regarding seedling cultivation especially the use of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) is scarce, which would be limited the developent of Gleditsia plantations”, please see 19-22. In line 30 the word “significantly” had been revised as “significant”.
Point 3: Introduction section: So no reported work? If available, one needs to add references on reported work on AMF with other tree species in line 68.
Response 3: We had added the references, please see 71.
Point 4: Material and Methods section: (1) More detailed information on the seed source is required. (2) Please clarify the number of seedlings (per TRT - 3?) within each experimental replication (4?) and the total seedlings in the experiment (4 TRT X 12 = 48?). (3) Define the watering regime. (4) Why measure and report both fresh and dry plant mass? Fresh mass has a tendency to present imprecise information; depending on how the data is collected. Dry mass is a more accurate measure of seedling development. I recommend that fresh mass data be deleted from the study presentation. (5) One sentence description of the colonization assessment method is required. (6) Was gas exchange measured under the greenhouse environmental conditions? Please define.
Response 4: (1) We had added more detailed information on the seed source: The seeds were air-dried and their average 1000-grain weights were 181.25 g. Please see line 81-82. (2) We had clarified the number of seedlings within each experimental replication and the total seedlings in the experiment, please see line 108-109. (3) The watering regime had been defined, please see line 118. (4) Fresh biomass data be deleted and the description of measurement had been deleted, please see line 174-175 and line 123. (5) One sentence had been added to descript the colonization assessment method, please see 130-131. (6) Environmental conditions had been defined, please see line 139-141.
Point 5: Result section: (1) “The mycorrhizal colonization status of the roots of plants from the four treatments are presented in Figure 1”was awkward English usage. (2) Why present the data as % increase? I recommend that the absolute growth values be presented as reported in Figure 2. So do the dry biomass, photosynthetic pigments and photosynthesis. (3) Please define why some '*' are large, while other '*' are small, increase text size so it is readable, greater text clarity is required both within and on the outside edges of the figure.
Response 4: (1) the sentence had been revised as “Root mycorrhizal colonization status of the four treatments are presented in Figure 1”. (2) The data as % increase of growth and dry biomass was revised as the absolute growth values and dry biomass values, so do the photosynthetic pigments and photosynthesis. The fresh biomass data was deleted and the Figure 2 was also deleted. The data of seedling height and basal diameter had been presented in Table 1. (3) The figure of Correlative analysis of mycorrhizal dependence and contribution of AMF on nutrients. MD-mycorrhizal dependency had been remodelled, it was readable now. Please see Figure 2. The text both within and on the outside edges of the figure were clarity now.
Special thanks to you for your good comments! Hope to learn more from you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript to meet my suggested comments.
