Cambial Activity and Phenology in Three Understory Species along an Altitude Gradient in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please use the BBCH scale for both phenophases and phenostages.
See more bibliography on the influence of light on the vegetative and generative phases... And not only auxins influence buds...

Author Response

We appreciate your recommendation to use the BBCH scale for the phenostages. The names of the main growth stages are given in Table 1 as well as in Figures 1-3. We consider that scale names give clarity to the results and discussion.

Since phenostage and phenophase are synonymous, we try to use only one of them along the text.

Introduccion, results and discussion were improved by a strong English editing and adding new references to support the finds. The different paragraphs of the introduction we re-organized.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper is interesting, but literature should be newer...I am thinking from now up to six years back - some positions.

Author Response

We appreciate your opinion considering the paper interesting, understory species need more attention since their distribution by natural or anthropogenic disturbances is affected. We improve the presentation of methods and results. References were reduced and some of them change to have more recent ones. Also the whole manuscript was edited for English.  

Reviewer 3 Report

The Jiménez-Noriega’s paper investigated the relationship between cambial activity and phenology in three understory species grown at high altitude region in Mexico.

Unfortunately, this MS is so confusing that it is very difficult to evaluate the validity of this study. The authors need to edit whole of the MS before submission to clarify the meaning of each sentence. Besides, I found some serious problems in this MS.

1. The method for distinguishing active cambium seems to be inadequate. Please refer previous references to show the validity of this method.
   
   
2. The figures are not good. Do not show illustrations. Please show quantitative data.

Followings are other points that the authors need to consider.

1. The English is confusing, having a lot of grammatical errors.
   
   
2. Line 17-18. The meaning of this sentence is unclear. Please edit English.
   
   
3. Line 67. Xylogenenesis => xylogenesis
   
   
4. Table 1. What is the meaning of “1 Infrutescence last perceptible phase in Alchemilla Procumbens”?
   
   
5. Line 137. What is the meaning of “which that have the same phenostage that the marked individuals”? What is “marked individual”?
   
   
6. Line 141-143. The explanation of this equation is inadequate. Please clarify the meanings of L1, L2, t2 and t1.
   
   
7. Line 155-157. The validity of this method for distinguishing active cambium should be supported by the previous published references.
   
   
8. Table 4. That is “leaf area dry season”?

Author Response

See attach file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate your kindness to improve the article ... there would be some aspects to be clarified but it is ok in this form as well

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors.

I accapted this paper in actual form.

Reviewer 3 Report

The MS has been greatly improved by the extensive revision. I have one minor comments on the abstract.

Line 23-24. Past tense may be better for this sentence.

---------