Effects of Graphene on Larix olgensis Seedlings and Soil Properties of Haplic Cambisols in Northeast China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
very nice paper, I sendo you mey comments:
Line 49 and 50 could be excluded, sinde the role of the plants describe is understood
Line 118: The numbers will v enice if cou put only "one nummer after cero" ejemple: 7.5, 15.5, 30.3, etc.
Table 2 will be good if you put the concentration of graphene instead of "a or b". if they make the corresponding change it is no longer necessary to describe each concentration i the figures (except figure2).
Table 3 is not well described in the text.
kind regard
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Your experiment was novel, and your manuscript had important results. From your results, I could understand various effects of graphene for the growth and physiology of larch. I think that the results of your experiment were valuable to publish in Forests.
However, you have to improve your manuscript before publication. At first, you have to change the multiple statistical test. Duncan’s multiple statistical test is easy to occur type I error, and this test cannot accept at recent journal. You have to change into other multiple statistical test, such as Tukey test. Also, you have to conduct ANOVA again. You have to examine effects of six treatments, three times and their interaction by ANOVA.
Also, I would like to indicate some problems of your manuscript as following;
I thought that interval of sampling was not suitable. For example, dry weight written in Figure 2 was little difference among three times of sampling. I also thought that growth of larch was slow, and interval of sampling should extend to two months. You should explain the reason why interval of sampling is only 10 days. Similarly, I could not understand the reason why root parameters were decreased at 50 days for Ck treatment. I expected that root parameters did not change for Ck treatment. You have to explain this trend. Moreover, you should change “dry weight” into “dry mass” because weight is affected gravity.
You should explain the actual situation on the pollution of graphene, especially China in the introduction. Also, it is better to introduce the case of pollution of graphene in soil.
In the introduction, you cannot use the word of “agroforestry” because this word was used for the method of agriculture that tree and crop were cultivated at same area.
You have to add the place to conduct this experiment. Also, total numbers of seedlings and pots, and number of seedlings per a pot were unclear. You have to explain this information at the beginning of second paragraph of 2.2. Moreover, you show the data of dry mass of seedling before planting.
I thought that the order of physiological parameters written in 2.3.2. was not corresponded with the order of figures. You should unify the order of physiological parameters between text and figure.
The quotations of 37, 38, 39, and 40 were written in Chinese. You cannot abbreviate the methods of analysis because the peoples of other countries cannot search the method of analysis.
From the Figure 1, I predicted that survival of seedlings was different among the treatments. You should show the results of survival rate at 50 days.
On the text of results, the word of “figure X” was written at the last of each paragraph. You should write “Figure X” at the first sentence of each paragraph.
In P. 9, L. 274, you have to write concrete enzyme activities.
In P. 10, L. 287-289, you have to omit this sentence because negative correlation is no significance.
On the first paragraph of discussion, you should start to write your results (from L. 312). On the description of L. 305-312, you should move to the introduction or the back of first paragraph.
On the text of conclusion, you need the revision. In the present circumstances, your text was summary of experiment. You should conclude according to your discussion. For example, I think that the text of P. 13, L. 415-421 is the content of conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Your manuscript was improved according to my indication. Therefore, I think that your manuscript is acceptable in progress. After minor revisions as follows, your manuscript will accept.
- You did not show the statistical data of ANOVA. In the present circumstances, I think that results of ANOVA need not show because your statistical analysis is enough by Tukey test. However, I also think that ANOVA is useful for the interpretation of your results. You have to choose “omit all of the word of ANOVA from your text” or “show the results of ANOVA by addition of new table”. If you want to show the results of ANOVA, you have to omit “ANOVA” from the figure legends of 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 because each figure is not shown the results of ANOVA.
- You have to recheck the results of Tukey test (alphabets of each figure). Some parameters showed no significantly difference (e.g. Figure 2, leaf and stem dry mass at 30 day). On these parameters, you should write “a” for all treatments. Also, I predict that some texts need revisions by the changing of statistical test. You have to check the text carefully before acceptance.
- In Figure 9, you have to revise the word of horizontal axis.
- In the discussion part, you should discuss on the data of survival rate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
