Forest Canopy Structures and Bamboo Rhizome Internodes Impact the Appearance Quality of Bamboo Shoots
and Jianping Tao 1,2,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript "Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots" explores a crucial aspect of the bamboo shoot industry with potential market significance. The authors conducted a study to investigate the effects of bamboo forest conversion on the sensory quality of bamboo shoots and the underlying mechanisms. The research was conducted in three distinct types of bamboo forests, each characterized by varying canopy structures: evergreen broad-leaved forest (EBF), evergreen deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest (MBF), and pure bamboo forest (PBF). Overall, the manuscript presents interesting research with the potential to contribute to our understanding of bamboo shoot quality and the factors influencing it. The topic is relevant due to the ecological and economic importance of bamboo. However, several crucial issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Here are some specific suggestions for improvement:
Abstract
ü The abstract mentions that the study aims to reveal the "mechanism" of how bamboo forest conversion affects bamboo shoot quality. However, the abstract does not clearly explain why this research gap is significant or what knowledge it adds to the field. A more detailed justification for the study is needed.
ü The abstract mentions statistical results, such as differences in fresh weight and basal diameter among forest types. However, it does not provide specific values, p-values, or the number of samples used, which are crucial for assessing the significance of these findings.
ü Discuss the significance of the differences in bamboo shoot characteristics (e.g., fresh weight, basal diameter) between forest types. Provide more specific data or statistics to support these claims.
ü The abstract mentions results such as differences in bamboo shoot weight and diameter but does not provide numerical values or statistical significance. This makes it difficult to evaluate the significance of the findings.
ü The abstract touches on several variables (e.g., chlorophyll content, basal diameter, canopy openness) and their effects on bamboo shoot quality. To enhance the impact of the study, it should delve deeper into the mechanistic insights and provide a more comprehensive analysis of these relationships.
ü The abstract does not clearly interpret the results and their implications for bamboo forest management. What is the practical significance of these findings, and how might stakeholders in the bamboo industry use them?
Introduction
ü Clearly state the motivation behind this research. Why is it important to understand the sensory quality of bamboo shoots and the impact of forest canopy structures and rhizomes?
ü Highlight the gap in the existing literature regarding the impact of forest canopy structures and bamboo rhizomes on bamboo shoot quality. Explain why this research is novel and valuable.
Methodology
ü Please provide the number of plots and topographic details in each forest type.
ü The authors mentioned the predominant soil types, but it would be helpful to provide additional information about these soils, such as pH levels, nutrient content, or any unique soil characteristics that may be relevant to the study.
ü The manuscript has a date inconsistency where the soil temperature and moisture measurements are from 2022, while the rest of the data appears to be from 2021. Please clarify this inconsistency.
ü Ensure that you've mentioned the units for all measured parameters. For instance, specify whether soil moisture is measured as a percentage and provide units for light intensity.
Results
ü The authors mention several numerical values (e.g., mean leaf angle, canopy openness), but Ms. lacks specific quantitative data. Providing numerical values and statistical significance (e.g., p-values) would enhance the credibility of the results.
ü When discussing the differences between forest types, include statistical significance values (e.g., p-values) to support your claims.
ü The manuscript uses abbreviations like "DBH," "NR," "AI," "DL," and "RL" without initial explanations.
The discussion section needs to be inconsistent with the. The Discussion is not insightful and the reasoning is not strong. There is a limited critical discussion, and some statements contradict the results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Response letter
Re: Manuscript ID: forests-2686191
Title: Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots
Nov 15th, 2023
Dear Ms. Dolly Chen and reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate the dedicated time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive and invaluable feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. In response to your comments, we have diligently revised our manuscript, aligning it with your insightful suggestions.
Please find, below, our point-by-point response to the comments raised by you and reviewer. To facilitate your review, we have provided both clean manuscript and manuscript with revision marks (highlighted in green). The page and line numbers in the response letter correspond to the manuscripts highlighted in green.
Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for considering our revised manuscript!
Sincerely,
Corresponding author
Response to Reviewer #1:
The manuscript "Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots" explores a crucial aspect of the bamboo shoot industry with potential market significance. The authors conducted a study to investigate the effects of bamboo forest conversion on the sensory quality of bamboo shoots and the underlying mechanisms. The research was conducted in three distinct types of bamboo forests, each characterized by varying canopy structures: evergreen broad-leaved forest (EBF), evergreen deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest (MBF), and pure bamboo forest (PBF). Overall, the manuscript presents interesting research with the potential to contribute to our understanding of bamboo shoot quality and the factors influencing it. The topic is relevant due to the ecological and economic importance of bamboo. However, several crucial issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Here are some specific suggestions for improvement:
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments!
#Abstract
Point 1: The abstract mentions that the study aims to reveal the "mechanism" of how bamboo forest conversion affects bamboo shoot quality. However, the abstract does not clearly explain why this research gap is significant or what knowledge it adds to the field. A more detailed justification for the study is needed.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have revised the Abstract.
(Page. 1 Lines 31-39) The linear mixed effect model showed that the number of bamboo rhizomes and the chlorophyll a content of shoots were the main factors for basal diameter thickening and elongation growth of shoots, respectively. In addition, we also found that increasing the canopy openness and mean leaf angle could help reduce the chlorophyll a content and increase the carotenoid content of shoots, which is conducive to improving or maintaining the quality of shoots. This study highlighted that from the perspective of improving or maintaining the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots, increasing the number of bamboo rhizomes, bamboo canopy and mean leaf angle were helpful to improve the appearance quality of shoots. This information provides a scientific basis for scientific management of bamboo forest and improving the
economic benefits of bamboo forest.
Point 2: The abstract mentions statistical results, such as differences in fresh weight and basal diameter among forest types. However, it does not provide specific values, p-values, or the number of samples used, which are crucial for assessing the significance of these findings.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We added specific values and statistical results of fresh weight and basal diameter of shoots of different forest types in appearance quality of bamboo shoots of Results.
(Page. 11 Lines 370-376) The fresh mass of shoots of PBF was 29.15 g, and significantly heavier than that of EBF by 10.37 g (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference with that of MBF (Fig. 4A). There was no significant difference among the height of shoots of the three forest types (Fig. 4B). The basal diameter of shoots of PBF was 1.89 cm, and significantly larger than that of EBF by 0.27 cm (P < 0.05), but no significant difference compared with that of MBF. The basal diameter of shoots of MBF was larger than that of EBF by
0.35 cm (P < 0.01, Fig. 4C).
Point 3: Discuss the significance of the differences in bamboo shoot characteristics (e.g., fresh weight, basal diameter) between forest types. Provide more specific data or statistics to support these claims.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We added the number of samples in Figure 4 of the manuscript.
(Page. 13 Figure 4)
Point 4: The abstract mentions results such as differences in bamboo shoot weight and diameter but does not provide numerical values or statistical significance. This makes it difficult to evaluate the significance of the findings.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We added the specific values and statistical results of bamboo shoot fresh weight and bamboo shoot base diameter in the 3.3 of the result section, and added the number of samples in Figure 4. The statistical results and figure are consistent with the answers to your questions 2 and 3.
Point 5: The abstract touches on several variables (e.g., chlorophyll content, basal diameter, canopy openness) and their effects on bamboo shoot quality. To enhance the impact of the study, it should delve deeper into the mechanistic insights and provide a more comprehensive analysis of these relationships.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! In the abstract, we revised the effects of chlorophyll a content, carotenoid content and canopy structure on the quality of bamboo shoots.
(Page 1 Lines 31-35) The linear mixed effect model showed that the number of bamboo rhizomes and the chlorophyll a content of shoots were the main factors for basal diameter thickening and elongation growth of shoots, respectively. In addition, we also found that increasing the canopy openness and mean leaf angle could help reduce the chlorophyll a content and increase the carotenoid content of shoots, which is conducive to improving or maintaining the quality of shoots.
Point 6: The abstract does not clearly interpret the results and their implications for bamboo forest management. What is the practical significance of these findings, and how might stakeholders in the bamboo industry use them?
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have rephrased the abstract to improve clarity.
(Page 1 Lines 35-39) This study highlighted that from the perspective of improving or maintaining the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots, increasing the number of bamboo rhizomes, bamboo canopy and mean leaf angle were helpful to improve the appearance quality of shoots. This information provides a scientific basis for scientific management of bamboo forest and improving the economic benefits of bamboo forest.
#Introduction
Point 7: Clearly state the motivation behind this research. Why is it important to understand the sensory quality of bamboo shoots and the impact of forest canopy structures and rhizomes?
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. Considering that the measurement index of sensory quality is not clear, we replace the sensory quality with the appearance quality. Furthermore, we have revised the introduction. In general, the appearance quality of bamboo shoots determines the preference of consumers, which is one of the key factors in market pricing. Bamboo shoots have the growth characteristics of basically unchanged basal diameter and rapid growth of height after unearthed, and their morphological growth characteristics affect the nutritional quality and the taste quality of bamboo shoots. Meanwhile the nutrients for shoots grown are mainly provided by the connected mature mother bamboo through its underground rhizomes. And rhizomes store and allocate nutrients by increasing the length and number of rhizome segments. One common management strategy for bamboo forests which eliminates the potential negative effects of interspecific competition, is the removal of competing trees. However, little is known about whether the transformation of mixed bamboo forests into pure bamboo forests has an effect on the appearance quality of shoots, and whether the formation of the appearance of shoots has an effect on the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots.
(Page 2 Lines 47-64) The quality of bamboo shoots, including appearance quality, nutritional quality and taste quality [2,3], has become an important factor restricting its economic value and market potential [4]. However, the appearance quality of shoots, including fresh mass, basal diameter and height [2,3], is the primary factor determining consumers’ preferences and one of the key factors in market pricing. and one of the key factors in market pricing. After the shoots were unearthed, shoots have the characteristics of rapid growth [5]. The node length of shoots is determined by the number of shoot cells and cell elongation that occur simultaneously during the elongation stage [6,7,8]. While a large amount of nutrients is consumed for shoot cell elongation, the protein (nutritional quality) of shoots decreases [9] and a large amount of cellulose and lignin deposition (taste quality) are required to offset the sudden increase in mechanical pressure during rapid cell growth [6,10,11], which means that the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots decrease [12], thereby reducing their commercial value [13]. The morphological development and growth rate of shoots may affect the taste and nutritional quality of shoots. In order to scientifically manage bamboo forests and improve the economic benefits of bamboo forests, the influencing factors on the appearance quality of shoots should be considered first. Secondly, it reveals the influence of related factors on the quality of shoots, and then puts forward the strategy of scientific management of bamboo forest.
(Page 2 Lines 82-91) Bamboo is a typical monocotyledonous clonal plant, lacking of secondary structure. The height, diameter and volume of mother bamboo remain unchanged after bamboo formation [30]. And the structure (morphological structure and spatial location) of mother bamboo affects its competitiveness to nutrients [31]. The basal diameter was almost no radial growth after shoots emerged from the ground [9]. The nutrients for shoots grown are mainly provided by the connected mature mother bamboo through its underground rhizomes [30,32,33]. And rhizomes store and allocate nutrients by increasing the length and number of rhizome segments [34]. Therefore, aboveground structure of mother bamboo, the number and the diameter of bamboo rhizomes may have an important influence on the basal diameter of shoots.
(Page 2 Lines 65-70) One common management strategy for bamboo forests which eliminates the potential negative effects of interspecific competition, is the removal of competing trees [14]. However, little is known about whether the transformation of mixed bamboo forests into pure bamboo forests has an effect on the appearance quality of shoots, and whether the formation of the appearance of shoots has an effect on the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots.
References:
- Guo Z.W., Jiang Z.B., Chen S.L., Xu B., Ye S.Y., Li M.L.Comparative Study on Quality and Palatability of Rhizome Shoot of Phyllostachys prominens and Phyllostachys edulis. Forest Research. 2015, 28 (3):447-450. https://doi.org/10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj. 2015.03.025.
- Yang, L.t., Xie, Y.Y., Yu, W.X., Chen, S.L., Guo, Z.W., Xu, S., Gu, R. Effects of Long - term Mulching on Appearance, Nutrition and Taste of Bamboo Shoots of Phyllostachys violascens. Journal of Bamboo Research. 2021, 40 (3): 7-12. https://doi.org/ 10.19560/j.cnki.issn1000-6567.2021.03.008.
- Xu, S., Chen, S., Guo, Z., He, Y., Yang, L., Dong, Y., Xie, Y., Zhang, J. Effect of Sheath Blade Removal on Phyllostachys violascens Shoot Quality. Agriculture. 2022, 12, 1396. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture12091396.
- Wang, S., Zhan, H., Li, P., Chu, C., Li, J., Wang, C. Physiological Mechanism of Internode Bending Growth After the Excision of Shoot Sheath in. FRONT PLANT SCI. 2020, 11: 418. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpls.2020.00418.
- Chen, M., Guo, L., Ramakrishnan, M., Fei, Z., Vinod, K.K., Ding, Y., Jiao, C., Gao, Z., Zha, R., Wang, C., Gao, Z., Yu, F., Ren, G., Wei, Q. Rapid growth of Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis): Cellular roadmaps, transcriptome dynamics, and environmental factors. The Plant Cell. 2022, 34, 3577-3610. https://doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koac193.
- Wei, Q., Guo L., Jiao C., Fei, Z., Chen, M., Cao, J., Ding, Y., Yuan, Q.Characterization of the developmental dynamics of the elongation of a bamboo internode during the fast growth stage. TREE PHYSIOL. 2019, 39(7): 1201-1214. https://doi.org/10.1093/ treephys/tpz063.
- Li, L., Cheng, Z., Ma, Y., Bai, Q., Li, X., Cao, Z., Wu, Z., Gao, J. The association of hormone signalling genes, transcription and changes in shoot anatomy during moso bamboo growth. PLANT BIOTECHNOL J. 2018, 16, 72-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12750.
- Liu, G., Shi, P., Xu, Q., Dong, X., Wang, F., Wang, G.G., Hui, C. Does the size-density relationship developed for bamboo species conform to the self-thinning rule? FOREST ECOL MANAG. 2016, 361, 339-345. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.030.
- Tao, G.Y., Ramakrishnan, M., Vinod, K.K., Yrjala, K., Satheesh, V., Cho, J., Fu, Y., Zhou, M. Multi-omics analysis of cellular pathways involved in different rapid growth stages of moso bamboo. TREE PHYSIOL. 2020, 40, 1487-1508. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys /tpaa090.
- Wang, Y., Chen, J., Wang, D., Ye, F., He, Y., Hu, Z., Zhao, G. A systematic review on the composition, storage, processing of bamboo shoots: Focusing the nutritional and functional benefits. J FUNCT FOODS. 2020, 71, 104015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2020. 104015.
- Wang, Y., Chen, J., Wang, D., Ye, F., He, Y., Hu, Z., Zhao, G. A systematic review on the composition, storage, processing of bamboo shoots: Focusing the nutritional and functional benefits. J FUNCT FOODS. 2020, 71, 104015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2020.104015.
- Zhao, C., Zhao, J., Wu, J., Classen, A.T., Li, Y., Lou, Y., Zhang, W., Jing, X., Shao, Y., Fu, S. Bamboo forest management leads to a shift in the soil energy channel. GEODERMA. 2019, 353, 201-203. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.07.001.
- Shi, M., Zhang, J., Sun, J., Li, Q., Lin, X., Song, X. Unequal nitrogen translocation pattern caused by clonal integration between connected ramets ensures necessary nitrogen supply for young Moso bamboo growth. ENVIRON EXP BOT. 2022, 200, 104900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.104900.
- Tachiki, Y., Makita, A., Suyama, Y., Satake, A. A spatially explicit model for flowering time in bamboos: long rhizomes drive the evolution of delayed flowering. J ECOL. 2015, 103, 585-593. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1365-2745.12390.
- Duchoslavová J., Jansa J. The direction of carbon and nitrogen fluxes between ramets in Agrostis stolonifera changes during ontogeny under simulated competition for light. J EXP BOT. 2018, 69, 2149-2158. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery068.
- Sun, J., Sun, W., Zhang, G., Lv, B., Li, C. High efficient production of plant flavonoids by microbial cell factories: Challenges and opportunities. METAB ENG. 2022, 70, 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ymben.2022.01.011.
- Li, C., Cai, Y., Xiao, L., Gao, X., Shi, Y., Zhou, Y., Du, H., Zhou, G. Rhizome extension characteristics, structure and carbon storage relationships with culms in a 10-year moso bamboo reforestation period. FOREST ECOL MANAG. 2021, 498, 119556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119556.
Point 8: Highlight the gap in the existing literature regarding the impact of forest canopy structures and bamboo rhizomes on bamboo shoot quality. Explain why this research is novel and valuable.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Previous studies have focused on the effects of bamboo forests and environmental factors. Bamboo rhizome is the nutrient storage organ of bamboo. During the growth of bamboo shoots, the nutrition required for growth comes from the supply of mother bamboo. Bamboo is a typical monocotyledonous plant with no secondary structure, and its basal diameter is basically unchanged after excavation, while bamboo shoots are basically elongated in the radial direction. The morphological growth of plants will change with the different chlorophyll of bamboo shoots. At present, a common way of bamboo forest management is to remove competitive trees. Different crowns formed by the removal of competing trees. Canopy in the composition of different changes in forest environmental factors, especially light factors. The purpose of this study is to fundamentally explore the effect of removing competitive trees on the appearance quality of branches from the perspective of the growth characteristics of clonal plants and the unique physiological development of branches.
(Page 3 Lines 101-109) Previous studies mainly studied the effects of bamboo forest density, fertilization and coverage on the quality of shoots [40,41]. However, shoot is a new leafless and branchless rhizome of mother bamboo, which is a typical monocotyledonous clonal plant without secondary structure. Additionally, shoots also have a unique development model, and the direction of shoots development is basically upward elongation growth. In particular, the change of pigment content in shoots has an important influence on the morphology and physiology of shoots. This study is to fundamentally explore the effect of removing competitive trees on the appearance quality of shoots from the perspective of the growth characteristics of clonal plants and the unique physiological development of shoots.
Reference:
- Qian, Z., Zhuang, S., Gui, R., Tang, L. Effect of soil aeration treatment on the physiological and biochemical characteristics of Phyllostachys praecox under the organic material mulching. PLANT SOIL. 2021, 459, 357-369.
- Xu, S., Chen, S., Guo, Z., He, Y., Yang, L., Dong, Y., Xie, Y., Zhang, J. Effect of Sheath Blade Removal on Phyllostachys violascens Shoot Quality. Agriculture. 2022, 12, 1396.
#Methodology
Point 9: Please provide the number of plots and topographic details in each forest type.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We added the specific number of different bamboo sample plots. At the same time, we have added the description of slope, aspect and slope position of different forest types in the supplementary Table S1.
(Page 3 Lines 149-151) The geographic information and characteristics of the tree canopy of each plot were shown in Table S1. The numbers of EBF, MBF, and PBF plots were 5, 5, and 6 respectively (Fig. 1C).
(Supplementary materials Page 1 Table S1)
Table S1
Coordinates, terrain and canopy trees characteristics of sample collection of bamboo shoots plots (means ± SD).
|
Sites |
Coordinates |
Terrain |
Information on canopy tree species |
||||||||
|
Plot |
Longitude (°) |
Latitude (°) |
Altitude (m) |
Slope (°) |
Aspect |
Slope position |
DBH (cm) |
Height (cm) |
Crown width 1 (m) |
Crown width 2 (m) |
Dominant species |
|
E1 |
107.13708 |
29.02070 |
1359 |
15 |
North |
Uphill |
20.21±9.32 |
5.08±1.60 |
2.31±1.37 |
2.20±1.10 |
Symplocos anomala |
|
E2 |
107.13695 |
29.02036 |
1351 |
12 |
North |
Uphill |
16.29±0.65 |
3.30±0.65 |
1.70±0.84 |
1.20±0.53 |
Symplocos anomala |
|
E3 |
107.13695 |
29.02034 |
1353 |
20 |
North |
Uphill |
15.33±3.55 |
3.58±0.74 |
1.61±0.76 |
1.55±0.51 |
Symplocos lancifolia |
|
E4 |
107.13687 |
29.02025 |
1356 |
23 |
North |
Uphill |
16.14±7.01 |
3.43±1.09 |
1.97±1.04 |
1.87±1.10 |
Symplocos anomala |
|
E5 |
107.13679 |
29.02015 |
1367 |
22 |
North |
Uphill |
27.98±9.63 |
6.14±2.20 |
3.06±1.26 |
2.98±1.81 |
Quercus myrsinifolia |
|
M1 |
107.13748 |
29.02039 |
1347 |
13 |
North |
Uphill |
14.18±1.94 |
3.78±0.26 |
1.38±0.37 |
1.16±0.39 |
Euscaphis japonica |
|
M2 |
107.13750 |
29.02021 |
1342 |
17 |
North |
Uphill |
23.11±13.27 |
5.08±1.14 |
1.63±0.87 |
1.59±0.75 |
Liquidambar formosana |
|
M3 |
107.13721 |
29.02008 |
1350 |
23 |
North |
Uphill |
29.77±12.11 |
6.23±2.25 |
1.87±1.63 |
2.23±1.88 |
Platycarya strobilacea |
|
M4 |
107.13729 |
29.02016 |
1353 |
23 |
North |
Uphill |
18.45±6.19 |
4.07±0.91 |
1.63±0.61 |
1.28±0.53 |
Carpinus turczaninowii |
|
M5 |
107.13708 |
29.02027 |
1347 |
22 |
North |
Uphill |
17.33±2.23 |
3.85±0.52 |
1.58±0.87 |
1.42±0.44 |
Carpinus turczaninowii |
|
P1 |
107.13624 |
29.02039 |
1355 |
10 |
North |
Uphill |
2.71±0.19 |
4.50±0.34 |
0.66±0.17 |
0.67±0.10 |
Chimonobambusa utilis |
|
P2 |
107.13635 |
29.02049 |
1355 |
10 |
North |
Uphill |
2.33±0.31 |
3.90±0.84 |
0.61±0.16 |
0.58±0.15 |
Chimonobambusa utilis |
|
P3 |
107.13614 |
29.02039 |
1357 |
10 |
North |
Uphill |
2.05±0.41 |
2.75±0.64 |
0.71±0.15 |
0.74±0.09 |
Chimonobambusa utilis |
|
P4 |
107.13686 |
29.01955 |
1355 |
12 |
North |
Uphill |
1.56±0.27 |
2.96±0.61 |
0.57±0.16 |
0.46±0.20 |
Chimonobambusa utilis |
|
P5 |
107.13687 |
29.01967 |
1353 |
18 |
North |
Uphill |
1.92±0.42 |
2.72±0.47 |
0.59±0.11 |
0.48±0.06 |
Chimonobambusa utilis |
|
P6 |
107.13682 |
29.01943 |
1349 |
17 |
North |
Uphill |
1.66±0.20 |
4.03±0.76 |
0.75±0.08 |
0.67±0.07 |
Chimonobambusa utilis |
Point 10: The authors mentioned the predominant soil types, but it would be helpful to provide additional information about these soils, such as pH levels, nutrient content, or any unique soil characteristics that may be relevant to the study.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! In this study, soil pH and soil nutrients were used as environmental factors that may affect the appearance quality of shoots (Table 1), so they were not provided additionally to avoid duplication.
(Page 10 Table 1)
Table 1. Canopy structures, mother bamboo structures and understory environmental factors of different types forests (means ± SE; canopy structures, n = 4; structure of aboveground mother bamboo, n = 9, structure of underground mother bamboo, n = 3; B, R, far red light, R/Fr, PAR and LI, n = 6, SL and DL, n = 6; Soil factors, n = 6).
|
Impact factors |
Forest types |
|||||||
|
EBF |
MBF |
PBF |
||||||
|
Canopy structures |
CO (%) |
10.67 ± 0.28 b |
13.08 ± 0.35 a |
10.58 ±0.17 b |
|
|||
|
MLA (°) |
40.53± 2.64 b |
34.39 ±1.98 b |
55.98 ± 1.64 a |
|||||
|
LAI |
2.34 ± 0.07 a |
1.98 ± 0.05 b |
2.47 ± 0.03 a |
|||||
|
Mother bamboos structures |
MDBH (cm) |
1.59 ± 0.03 c |
1.82 ± 0.03 b |
2.01 ± 0.06 a |
||||
|
MH (m) |
3.88 ± 0.07 a |
3.88 ± 0.06 a |
3.52 ± 0.13 b |
|||||
|
Density (culms hm-²) |
42640.00 ± 2592.98 a |
43760.00 ± 1773.74 a |
26066.67 ± 1978.33 b |
|||||
|
AI |
0.84 ± 0.02 b |
0.97 ± 0.01 a |
0.99 ± 0.02 a |
|||||
|
NR (clums m-²) |
32.52 ± 2.36 b |
28.80 ± 2.20 b |
75.32 ± 2.24 a |
|||||
|
RB (g m-²) |
430.96 ± 23.96 c |
643.08 ± 45.52 b |
924.32 ± 49.72 a |
|||||
|
RL |
152.72 ± 2.84 a |
151.76 ± 1.88 ab |
146.00 ± 1.84 b |
|||||
|
RD (cm m-²) |
3.88 ± 0.04 b |
4.40 ± 0.12 a |
4.24 ± 0.04 a |
|||||
|
RRB (g m-²) |
109.8 ± 5.92 b |
132.56 ± 8.44 a |
117.36 ± 3.36 ab |
|||||
|
Light parameters |
B (μmol m-2 s-1) |
5.50 ± 1.24 b |
19.51 ± 4.76 a |
5.31 ± 0.63 b |
||||
|
R (μmol m-2 s-1) |
8.97 ± 2.18 b |
31.88 ± 8.04 a |
8.14 ± 0.99 b |
|||||
|
Fr (μmol m-2 s-1) |
18.78 ± 1.70 b |
41.18 ± 6.39 a |
28.40 ± 1.28 b |
|||||
|
R/Fr |
0.38 ± 0.04 b |
0.54 ± 0.06 a |
0.26 ± 0.02 b |
|||||
|
PAR (μmol m-2 s-1) |
22.54 ± 5.20 b |
79.31 ± 19.57 a |
21.21 ± 2.47 b |
|||||
|
LI (cd) |
1204.37 ± 269.57 b |
4182.62 ± 1018.98 a |
1149.46 ± 128.78 b |
|||||
|
SL (mol m-2 yr-1) |
1416.37 ± 26.57 c |
1671.50 ± 23.37 a |
1561.68 ± 29.69 b |
|||||
|
DL (mol m-2 yr-1) |
1491.97 ± 53.05 ab |
1658.89 ± 70.21 a |
1420.82 ± 55.51 b |
|||||
|
Soil factors |
pH |
4.89 ± 0.09 |
4.74 ± 0.08 |
4.90 ± 0.05 |
||||
|
ST (℃) |
17.68 ± 0.15 b |
18.08 ± 0.06 a |
17.71 ± 0.11 b |
|||||
|
SM (%) |
15.92 ± 0.97 b |
15.97 ± 0.64 b |
25.31 ± 1.49 a |
|||||
|
TN (g kg-1) |
17.01 ± 1.00 a |
12.27 ± 0.85 b |
10.99 ± 0.62 b |
|||||
|
TC (g kg-1) |
200.91 ± 6.70 a |
150.95 ± 7.42 b |
134.68 ± 7.47 b |
|||||
|
C/N |
12.50 ± 0.43 |
12.80 ± 0.32 |
12.34 ± 0.17 |
|||||
Point 11: The manuscript has a date inconsistency where the soil temperature and moisture measurements are from 2022, while the rest of the data appears to be from 2021. Please clarify this inconsistency.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Because in 2021, the battery of the soil three-parameter instrument is broken and cannot work. Therefore, on October 4th,2022, another normal soil three parameter instrument was used to supplement the measurement of soil temperature and humidity. We have rephrased the paragraph to improve clarity.
(Page 4 Lines 169-176) On October 6th, 2021, when the three-parameter instrument was measuring soil temperature and humidity, the battery of the three-parameter instrument suddenly failed and could not work. On October 4th, 2022 (sunny day) we took another three-parameter instrument (LD-WSY, Leander Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. Shandong, China) that can work properly to supplement the measurement of soil temperature and humidity. The soil temperature and soil moisture of 6 sites were randomly measured with the three-parameter instrument in the S plot.
Point 12: Ensure that you've mentioned the units for all measured parameters. For instance, specify whether soil moisture is measured as a percentage and provide units for light intensity.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We checked all the measurement parameters, and the soil moisture was measured by a three-parameter meter in percentage. There is a problem with the unit of the light intensity, scattered light and direct light. We have corrected it.
(Page 10 Table 1) Please see point 10 Table 1.
#Results
Point 13: The authors mention several numerical values (e.g., mean leaf angle, canopy openness), but Ms. lacks specific quantitative data. Providing numerical values and statistical significance (e.g., p-values) would enhance the credibility of the results.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have added the statistical results and p-values to the result.
(Page 8 Lines 325-338) Affected by management and bamboo forest types, there were some differences in the influencing factors in the three forest types (P < 0.001, Table 1). Compared with EBF, the canopy openness and leaf area index of PBF did not change, but the mean leaf angle increased significantly (Table 1). Also compared with MBF, the mean leaf angle and leaf area index of PBF were significantly higher (P < 0.001) but canopy openness was significantly lower than MBF (P < 0.001). The DBH, number of rhizomes (NR), and rhizome biomass of PBF were the highest, while the density and height of mother bamboo were the lowest. AI values of rhizome and rhizome diameter of PBF were significantly higher than those of EBF, whereas rhizome length (RL) decreased significantly. However, there were no significant differences compared with MBF. The light factor of MBF was the largest, which was significantly different from EBF and PBF. There was no significant difference in other light factors between EBF and PBF except that DL was significantly smaller than PBF (P < 0.05, Table 1). The soil temperature of MBF, soil moisture of PBF, total N and total C of EBF were the highest.
Point 14: When discussing the differences between forest types, include statistical significance values (e.g., P-values) to support your claims.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have added statistical results and P-values to the result to support our claims.
Point 15: The manuscript uses abbreviations like "DBH," "NR," "AI," "DL," and "RL" without initial explanations.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! The initial explanations of "DBH," "NR," "AI," "DL," and "RL" have been added.
(Page 5 Lines 191-193) Rhizome length and rhizome diameter were measured by steel measuring tape and a diameter at breast height (DBH) ruler.
(Page 8 Lines 330-332) The DBH, number of rhizomes (NR), and rhizome biomass of PBF were the highest, while the density and height of mother bamboo were the lowest.
(Page 5 Line 194) Aggregation index (AI) was calculated using the formula [43] shown in (1).
(Page 4 Lines 181-184) The HemiView digital plant canopy analysis system (Delta-T Devices Ltd. UK) was used to analyze canopy photos, and canopy structure (canopy openness, mean leaf angle, leaf area index) and understory light factors (scattered light, SL; and direct light, DL) were measured.
(Page 8 Lines 332-334) AI values of rhizome and rhizome diameter of PBF were significantly higher than those of EBF, whereas rhizome length (RL) decreased significantly. However, there were no significant differences compared with MBF.
Point 16: the discussion section needs to be inconsistent with the. The Discussion is not insightful and the reasoning is not strong. There is a limited critical discussion, and some statements contradict the results.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! We have rephrased the discussion in the manuscript. We mainly discussed at different levels. Firstly, we discussed the effect of influencing factors on the appearance quality of bamboo shoots. Secondly, the influence of influencing factors on the basal diameter of bamboo shoots was discussed. Thirdly, we discussed the influence of influencing factors on the height of bamboo shoots. The effects of bamboo shoot appearance quality and bamboo shoot nutritional quality, taste quality were discussed. In all, combined with the influence of influencing factors on the appearance quality, nutritional quality and taste quality of bamboo shoots, it is suggested that increasing the number of rhizomes, the number of bamboo crown layers and the average leaf angle can improve the quality of bamboo shoots.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript: Forest canopy structures and mother bamboo rhizomes impact the sensory quality of bamboo shoots, addresses the effect of forest management on the sensory quality of bamboo shoots.
Some aspects need to be commented on the manuscript
1) This work shows shoot growth data and environmental data, but does not show sensory data. The authors should make it clearer what these sensory data are, it seems that they refer to chlorophyll (color appearance), but would a single characteristic be enough to characterize sensory quality?
2) Although the manuscript has interesting results, explanatory correlation tests, I realized that the introduction/review and discussion of the work are not expressing the objective and methodology. I think the authors should review and reformulate based on the results presented.
3) The introduction/review and the attempted discussion presented in this manuscript suggest that it is part of a larger work and that the authors presented part of the results but that it is not related to the review presented. I present some examples below:
a)The authors base their work on the sensorial quality of bamboo shoots but do not make it clear which sensory characteristics are evaluated in bamboo shoots.
b) Chlorophyll content is related to light availability, which was certainly different in the three research environments, and is key in driving the results found, however this aspect was not explored or discussed.
c) From lines 50 to 66 the authors record the effects of the quality of light on the plants, however, this quality was not evaluated in the present research and also not explored in the discussion of the results found in the 3 different environmental conditions researched.
d) from lines 87-96 the authors comment on the effects of cellulose and lignin deposition on growth and sensory quality, and in the same way as aspects of light quality, the authors do not exploit this knowledge to discuss the results of the anatomical evaluation carried out for them.
e) From lines 113 to 116 the authors comment that to maintain or improve the nutritional quality of bamboo shoots they propose a forest management strategy with the perspective of improving sensory quality.... here again I question: the quality was not evaluated nutritional value of the sprouts.
Regarding form, I present some highlights:
f) In the summary I suggest reducing the number of times you write the word bamboo, leave feathers sprout, the focus of the work is the bamboo shoot, there is no need to keep repeating it.
g) In material and methods, it does not present how the leaf area index was evaluated
h) Material and methods, the authors present in lines 142 to 145 the % coverage in the areas researched but do not show the percentage of shading generated, and in the discussion in lines 402 to 405 they try to relate their results to work with shading. I don't think it's appropriate!
i) In discussion, they comment on the effect of the shoot sheath on responses to light, but they emphasize that the species they researched does not have this sheath, so I do not think this comment is relevant either.
j) In conclusion, there is a repetition of results and the authors do not make it clear whether they achieved the proposed objectives.
Author Response
Response letter
Re: Manuscript ID: forests-2686191
Title: Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots
Nov 15th, 2023
Dear Ms. Dolly Chen and reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate the dedicated time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive and invaluable feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. In response to your comments, we have diligently revised our manuscript, aligning it with your insightful suggestions.
Please find, below, our point-by-point response to the comments raised by you and reviewer. To facilitate your review, we have provided both clean manuscript and manuscript with revision marks (highlighted in green). The page and line numbers in the response letter correspond to the manuscripts highlighted in green.
Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for considering our revised manuscript!
Sincerely,
Corresponding author
Reviewer #2:
The manuscript: Forest canopy structures and mother bamboo rhizomes impact the sensory quality of bamboo shoots, addresses the effect of forest management on the sensory quality of bamboo shoots.
Some aspects need to be commented on the manuscript:
Point 17: This work shows shoot growth data and environmental data, but does not show sensory data. The authors should make it clearer what these sensory data are, it seems that they refer to chlorophyll (color appearance), but would a single characteristic be enough to characterize sensory quality?
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! The appearance quality of shoots, including fresh mass, basal diameter and height [2,3]. Our original intention was to take the appearance color of shoots as a quality (dependent variable) of shoots like other agricultural and forestry products when we wrote this article. But in fact, we did take the pigment content of shoots as an internal influence factor (independent variable) in this study. In order to more clearly express our research objectives, research value and significance, we decided to use the appearance quality of shoots (including fresh weight, height and base diameter).
(Page 2 Lines 50-52) However, the appearance quality of shoots, including fresh mass, basal diameter and height [2,3], is the primary factor determining consumers’ preferences and one of the key factors in market pricing.
Reference:
- Guo Z.W., Jiang Z.B., Chen S.L., Xu B., Ye S.Y., Li M.L.Comparative Study on Quality and Palatability of Rhizome Shoot of Phyllostachys prominens and Phyllostachys edulis. Forest Research. 2015, 28 (3):447-450. https://doi.org/10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj. 2015.03.025.
- Yang, L.t., Xie, Y.Y., Yu, W.X., Chen, S.L., Guo, Z.W., Xu, S., Gu, R. Effects of Long - term Mulching on Appearance, Nutrition and Taste of Bamboo Shoots of Phyllostachys violascens. Journal of Bamboo Research. 2021, 40 (3): 7-12. https://doi.org/ 10.19560/j.cnki.issn1000-6567.2021.03.008.
Point 18: Although the manuscript has interesting results, explanatory correlation tests, I realized that the introduction/review and discussion of the work are not expressing the objective and methodology. I think the authors should review and reformulate based on the results presented.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We have added the research objectives and methods in the introduction/review and discussion of this study based on your recommendations.
(Page 3 Lines 115-121) The research aimed to explore whether bamboo forest conversion affects the appearance quality of shoots and reveal the reasons for external factors (environmental factors and mother bamboo structures) and internal factors (cell number, cell length, pigment content, and morphology of shoots) affecting the appearance quality of shoots. And on the premise of improving or maintaining the nutritional quality of shoots, an optimized bamboo forest management strategy will be proposed from the perspective of improving the appearance quality of shoots.
The introduction/review and the attempted discussion presented in this manuscript suggest that it is part of a larger work and that the authors presented part of the results but that it is not related to the review presented. I present some examples below:
Point 19: The authors base their work on the sensorial quality of bamboo shoots but do not make it clear which sensory characteristics are evaluated in bamboo shoots.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Our original intention was to take the appearance color of shoots as a quality (dependent variable) of shoots like other agricultural and forestry products when we wrote this article. However, after careful consideration, we believe that we do take the pigment content of shoots as an internal influencing factor (independent variable). In order to more clearly express our research objectives, research value and significance, we decided to use the appearance quality of shoots. The appearance quality of shoots, including fresh mass, basal diameter and height [2,3].
References:
- Guo Z.W., Jiang Z.B., Chen S.L., Xu B., Ye S.Y., Li M.L.Comparative Study on Quality and Palatability of Rhizome Shoot of Phyllostachys prominens and Phyllostachys edulis. Forest Research. 2015, 28 (3):447-450. https://doi.org/10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj. 2015.03.025
- Yang, L.t., Xie, Y.Y., Yu, W.X., Chen, S.L., Guo, Z.W., Xu, S., Gu, R. Effects of Long - term Mulching on Appearance, Nutrition and Taste of Bamboo Shoots of Phyllostachys violascens. Journal of Bamboo Research. 2021, 40 (3): 7-12. https://doi.org/ 10.19560/j.cnki.issn1000-6567.2021.03.008.
Point 20: Chlorophyll content is related to light availability, which was certainly different in the three research environments, and is key in driving the results found, however this aspect was not explored or discussed.
Response: We are very grateful for your valuable comments. We added the discussion of chlorophyll in the discussion. Chlorophyll was mainly positively affected by scattered light and negatively regulated by canopy openness and direct light (Figure S4A).
(Page 18 Lines 543-554) The spectrum with higher proportion of blue light has a positive effect on the accumulation of chlorophyll [61,62], while the low R/Fr has a negative effect on the accumulation of chlorophyll [63]. The biosynthesis of carotenoids is affected by factors such as radiation intensity [64] and different R/Fr ratios [65]. Except that the Fr under the forest was not related to the average leaf angle, other light quality factors were significantly correlated with the canopy structures. However, this study found that the light quality in this study had no effect on the pigment content of shoots, which was mainly affected by canopy structure and understory scattered light and direct light (Fig. S4). The chlorophyll content of shoots was positively correlated with SL, and negatively correlated with canopy openness and DL (Fig. S4A). The carotenoid content of shoots was positively correlated with mean leaf angle, and negatively correlated with DL (Fig. S4B). The effect of light on chlorophyll of shoots needs further study.
(Supplementary materials Page 4 Figure S4)
Figure S4. The line mixed effect model of influencing factors on chlorophyll a (A) and carotenoid (B) content in bamboo shoots. The correlation between cell and pigments content of bamboo shoots and nutrition and taste quality of bamboo shoots. (* means P < 0. 05, *** means P < 0.001). Notes: CO: canopy openness; MLA: mean leaf angle; LAI: leaf area index; DL: direct light; SL: scattered light.
References:
- Hogewoning S.W., Trouwborst G., Maljaars H., Poorter H., van Ieperen W., Harbinson J. Blue light dose-responses of leaf pho tosynthesis, morphology, and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combinations of red and blue light. J. Exp. Bot.2010, 61, 3107-3117. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq132.
- Naznin, M.T., Lefsrud, M., Gravel, V. Azad, M.O.K. Blue light added with red LEDs enhance growth characteristics, pigments content, and antioxidant capacity in lettuce, spinach, kale, basil, and sweet pepper in a controlled environment.Plants.2019, 8, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8040093.
- Kim, H. J., Lin, M. Y., Mitchell, C. A. Light spectral and thermal properties govern biomass allocation in tomato through morphological and physiological changes. ENVIRON EXP BOT. 2019, 157:228-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot. 2018.10. 019.
- Liu, L., Shao, Z., Zhang, M., Wang, Q. Regulation of Carotenoid Metabolism in Tomato. Molecular Plant. 2015, 8(1): 28-39. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.molp.2014.11.006.
- Sng, B.J.R., Singh G.P., Vu V. K., Chua N.H., Ram R.J., Jang I.C. Rapid metabolite response in leaf blade and petiole as a marker for shade avoidance syndrome. Plant Methods. 2020, 16(1):144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-020-00688-0.
Point 21: From lines 50 to 66 the authors record the effects of the quality of light on the plants, however, this quality was not evaluated in the present research and also not explored in the discussion of the results found in the 3 different environmental conditions researched.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have added the effects of light quality on the appearance quality of bamboo shoots.
(Page 18 Lines 516-530) It was discovered that the understory environmental factors, the conversion of canopy composition of bamboo forests changed (Table 1), had little effect on the height of shoots (Fig. 7B, Fig. 8B), which is different from the morphological characteristics of plants promoted or inhibited by light quality regulation [57, 58]. There may be three main reasons for this: one reason is that the previous study was an indoor light control experiment, and this experiment was conducted out under natural light, and the proportion of light quality in natural light has an uncertain effect on the morphology of shoots. The second is that the light factor measured in the experiment is measured every two hours, which may be more affected by the time of measurement and the canopy structure, and may be more suitable for continuous monitoring of the light quality of the forest. The third reason is that the understory light factor does not directly affect the morphological structure of shoots, but indirectly affects the morphological structure of shoots by affecting the chlorophyll content of shoots. In this study the elongation growth of shoots is affected by the network regulation path of light and hormones on the formation of chloroplasts in shoots, which is consistent with the study of Cackett et al [35].
References:
- Cackett, L., Luginbuehl, L.H., Schreier, T.B., Lopez-Juez, E., Hibberd, J.M. Chloroplast development in green plant tissues: the interplay between light, hormone, and transcriptional regulation. NEW PHYTOL. 2022, 233, 2000-2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17839.
- Falcioni, R., Moriwaki, T., Perez-Llorca, M., Munné-Bosch, S., Gibin, M.S., Sato, F., Pelozo, A., Pattaro, M.C., Giacomelli, M.E., Rüggeberg, M., Antunes, W.C. Cell wall structure and composition is affected by light quality in tomato seedlings. J PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO B. 2020, 203, 111745. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. jphotobiol.2019.111745.
- Yadav, A., Singh, D., Lingwan, M., Yadukrishnan, P., Masakapalli, S.K., Datta, S. Light signaling and UV‐B‐mediated plant growth regulation. J INTEGR PLANT BIOL. 2020, 62, 1270-1292. https://doi.org/ 10.1111 /jipb.12932.
Point 22: from lines 87-96 the authors comment on the effects of cellulose and lignin deposition on growth and sensory quality, and in the same way as aspects of light quality, the authors do not exploit this knowledge to discuss the results of the anatomical evaluation carried out for them.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We added the effects of cellulose and lignin deposition on the appearance quality of bamboo shoots. The effects of cellulose and lignin deposition on the tissue anatomy of bamboo shoots were also discussed (Fig. 6). The cell number, cell diameter and length of bamboo shoots were affected by the pigment content of bamboo shoots (Fig. S3).
(Page 17 Lines459-461) The basal diameter of shoots had no effect on the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots, while the fresh mass and height of shoots had significant effects on the cellulose and lignin content of shoots (Fig. 6).
(Page 18 Lines 506-508) RNPC was significantly negatively correlated with cellulose and lignin content in shoots, and RDPC was significantly positively correlated with cellulose and lignin content in shoots (Fig. 6).
(Page 19 Lines 574-576) The study also showed that ALPC was significantly positively correlated with cellulose and lignin content in shoots, while ANPC was significantly negatively correlated with cellulose and lignin content in shoots (Fig.6).
(Page 17-18 Lines 501-503) RNPC was negatively regulated by chlorophyll a content of shoots (Fig. S3A), while RDPC was positively regulated by chlorophyll a content of shoots (Fig. S3B).
(Page 19 Lines 577-579) The carotenoid had a significant positive effect and chlorophyll a content had a significant negative effect on the ANPC (Fig. S3C). However, ALPC was regulated by shoot pigments, which is opposite to ANPC (Fig. S3D).
(Page 15 Figure 6)
Figure 6. Correlation between cell numbers and cell length of bamboo shoot and related influencing factors (* means P < 0.05, ** means P < 0. 01). Notes: BD: basal diameters of bamboo shoots; FW: fresh mass of bamboo shoots; chl a: chlorophyll a; ca: carotenoid; ALPC: parenchyma cells length in axial system; ANPC: parenchyma cells numbers in axial system; RDPC: parenchyma cells diameter in radial system; RNPC: parenchyma cells numbers in radial system; CO: canopy openness; MLA: mean leaf angle; LAI: leaf area index; ST: soil temperature; SM: soil moisture; TN: total N; TC: total C; C_N: total C to total N ratio; SL: scattered light; DL: direct light; B: blue light; Fr: far red light; R: red light; LI: light intensity; R_Fr: red to far red light ratio; MDBH: diameter at breast height of mother bamboos; MH: height of mother bamboos; AI: aggregation index; RL: rhizome length; NR: numbers of rhizomes; RD: rhizome diameter; RB: rhizome biomass; RRB: rhizome root biomass.
(Supplementary materials Page 3 Figure S3)
Figure S3. The linear mixed effect model of influencing factors and bamboo shoot parenchyma cells numbers in radial system (A), parenchyma cells diameter in radial system (B), parenchyma cells numbers in axial system (C) and parenchyma cells length in axial system (D). (** means P < 0.01, *** means P < 0.001). Notes: chl a: chlorophyll a; ca: carotenoid.
Point 23: From lines 113 to 116 the authors comment that to maintain or improve the nutritional quality of bamboo shoots they propose a forest management strategy with the perspective of improving sensory quality.... here again I question: the quality was not evaluated nutritional value of the sprouts.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We added the method of measuring the nutritional quality and taste quality of bamboo shoots to the materials and methods. The data results are shown in Figure 5. We have also added the results and analysis in the results 3.4 section.
(Page 5 Lines 217-261) 2.5 Nutritional quality and taste quality of bamboo shoots
The soluble protein content was measured by Coomassie brilliant blue G-250 method [44]. The protein had the maximum ultraviolet absorption peak at 595 nm, and the protein content of shoots was quantitatively analyzed. The powder of fresh shoots was weighed and 0.5 g (± 0.05) was put into a centrifuge tube, 8 ml of distilled water was added and placed at room temperature for 0.5 h ~ 1 h to fully extract, and then centrifuged at 4000 r/min for 20 minute (min). The supernatant was transferred to a 10 ml volumetric flask and diluted with distilled water, which was the extract of the sample to be tested. The sample protein extract 0.5 ml was put into the test tube, and 5 ml Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 reagent was added. After 2 min, the absorbance was measured by ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) at 595 nm with blank as control, and the soluble protein content in the sample extract was obtained by standard curve.
Additionally, the content of cellulose was determined by acid hydrolysis-anthrone colorimetry. According to the fact that cellulose can be decomposed into β-glucose under acidic heating conditions, β-glucose was dehydrated and condensed with anthrone under the action of strong acid to generate yellow furfural derivatives, and the cellulose of the sample was quantitatively analyzed.Yellow furfural derivatives had the maximum ultraviolet absorption peak at 620 nm [45], and the cellulose content was quantitatively analyzed. The fresh shoots were placed in an oven at 60 °C, dried to constant mass, and ground to powder using a ball mill. The powder 0.02 g (± 0.005 g) was placed in a 20 mL test tube. 6mL 60 % H2SO4 was added to the sample to be tested and digested for 30 min, then the digested cellulose solution was transferred to a 25 mL volumetric flask, and the volume was constant to the scale with 60 % H2SO4. After shaking, it was transferred to a 50mL centrifuge tube and centrifuged (5000 r/min, 10 min). 0.5 mL of the supernatant was put into a 10 mL centrifuge tube and diluted to 10 mL to obtain a cellulose extract. 2 mL of cellulose extract was put into the test tube with plug, 0.5 mL of 2 % anthrone reagent was added, and 5 mL of concentrated H2SO4 was added along the tube wall. The plug was plugged, shaken and stood for 12 min. The absorbance value of the sample was measured at a wavelength of 620 nm using an ultraviolet spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) with the reagent blank as a control.
The lignin content was determined by acetyl bromide method [46]. The acetylated lignin had the maximum ultraviolet absorption peak at 280 nm wavelength, and the lignin content was quantitatively analyzed. The fresh shoots were placed in an oven at 60 °C, dried to constant mass, and ground to powder using a ball mill. Shoot powder of 5 mg (± 0.5) was accurately weighed and placed in a 15 mL centrifuge tube. The 25 % acetyl bromide-glacial acetic acid solution was quickly prepared and put into a sealed reagent bottle. 1 mL of 25 % glacial acetic acid solution and 0.1 mL of 70 % perchloric acid solution were added to the sample in turn, and the reaction was carried out at 70 °C constant temperature water bath for 30 min, and the oscillation was taken out every 10 min. After natural cooling, 1 mL of 2 mol/L NaOH was added to stop the reaction, and the volume was adjusted to 10 mL with glacial acetic acid. After shaking, the absorbance value was measured by ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) at 280 nm wavelength.
(Page 12 Lines 382-388) 3.4. Nutritional quality and taste quality of bamboo shoots
There was no significant difference in protein content of shoots between EBF and PBF, 4.31 mg/g and 4.36 mg/g, respectively. The protein content of shoots in MBF was 3.89 mg/g, which was significantly lower than that of EBF and PBF (P < 0.001). The lignin contents of shoots in EBF, MBF and PBF were 480.37 mg/g, 478.75 mg/g and 480.47 mg/g, respectively. The lignin content of shoots in EBF, MBF and PBF were 105.47 mg/g, 107.68 mg/g and 104.57 mg/g, respectively. There was no significant difference in cellulose and lignin content of shoots in different bamboo forests.
(Page 14 Figure 5)
Figure 5. Nutritional quality and taste quality of bamboo shoots in different bamboo forests (A): bamboo shoot protein; (B): bamboo shoot cellulose; (C): bamboo shoot lignin (means ± SD; n = 6). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different types of bamboo forests (P < 0.05). 'ns ' indicated that there was no significant difference between different bamboo forest types (P > 0.05).
References:
- Lott, J.A., Stephan, V.A., Pritchard, K.J. Evaluation of the Coomassie Brilliant Blue G-250 method for urinary protein. Clinical chemistry (Baltimore, Md.). 1983, 29, 1946-1950.
- Li, Y., Zheng, P. Determination of Crude Polysaccharides in Pine Pollen Anthrone-Sulphuric Acid Colorimetry. Journal of Yunnan Normal University. 2017, 37(4):58-63. https://doi.org/10.7699/j.ynnu.ns-2017-054.
- Yang, K., Li, L., Lou, Y., Zhu, C., Li, X., Gao, Z. A regulatory network driving shoot lignification in rapidly growing bamboo. PLANT PHYSIOL. 2021, 187, 900-916. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab289.
Regarding form, I present some highlights:
Point 24: In the summary I suggest reducing the number of times you write the word bamboo, leave feathers sprout, the focus of the work is the bamboo shoot, there is no need to keep repeating it.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. To a certain extent, we changed bamboo shoot to shoot, reducing the use of the word bamboo.
Point 25: In material and methods, it does not present how the leaf area index was evaluated
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! The canopy images of different forest types were taken with a fisheye camera at a height of 1 m in the center of the sample. The photos were processed with HemiView software, and the leaf area index of the canopy was calculated.
(Page 5 Lines 181-184) The HemiView digital plant canopy analysis system (Delta-T Devices Ltd. UK) was used to analyze canopy photos, and canopy structure (canopy openness, mean leaf angle, leaf area index) and understory light factors (scattered light, SL; and direct light, DL) were measured.
Point 26: Material and methods, the authors present in lines 142 to 145 the % coverage in the areas researched but do not show the percentage of shading generated, and in the discussion in lines 402 to 405 they try to relate their results to work with shading. I don't think it's appropriate!
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have carefully considered that this literature does not meet, and we have removed the sentence to improve clarity.
Point 27: In discussion, they comment on the effect of the shoot sheath on responses to light, but they emphasize that the species they researched does not have this sheath, so I do not think this comment is relevant either.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We carefully consider that bamboo shoot sheath is not the focus of this study. We have removed the sentence to improve clarity.
Point 28: In conclusion, there is a repetition of results and the authors do not make it clear whether they achieved the proposed objectives.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have rephrased the conclusion to improve clarity. (Page 19-20 Lines 592-609) In-depth understanding of the effects of light factors, soil factors, mother bamboo factors, shoot cells and pigment factors on the appearance quality of shoots in different bamboo forests will help us to understand the effects of removing competitive trees on the morphological growth characteristics of shoots. On this basis, it is of great significance to further understand the influence factors and the appearance quality of shoots on the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots. This information can provide guidance for improving the economic benefits and sustainable management of bamboo forests. The results have important implications that the appearance quality of shoots in pure forests significantly is improved under the early management mode of removing competitive trees. The number of bamboo rhizomes and chlorophyll a content of shoots were the main factors affecting basal diameter thickening and elongation growth of shoots, respectively. The carotenoid content of shoots increased the nutritional quality of shoots, while the chlorophyll a content of shoots decreased the taste quality of shoots. Increasing the bamboo canopy, mean leaf angle and NR could improve the appearance quality of shoots under the perspective of improving or maintaining the nutritional quality of shoots. The study also highlights the importance and feasibility of optimizing bamboo forest management strategies from the perspective of the appearance quality of shoots, which is of great significance for improving the competitive potential of shoots.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is bringing some new insights, it has importance, but in the meantime, some very serios doubts and even errors are found in the text and results:
1. Light intensity, maximum at the face of Earth is 2050 µmol m-2 s-1.
2. 2. Sensorial quality means the human sensorial estimation. Never done in this manuscript.
Abstract:
Effect is not correlation, please do not confound
Keywords: Sensorial is not adequate
Introduction:
Too long, too many stories without the direct link with results. But rhizomes had even not been mentioned, or explained.
M&M:
Not explained the density of bamboo in environments, not explained general conditions of each of them.
Always explain the details about the equipment (model, factory, city, state, and country)
You are talking about morphogenesis, but we cannot observe any time dynamics in collection and analyses.
What was the time necessary to 5-7 cm shoot growth?
Number of equations are confounded. The authors invented those equations or are using equations previously defined by other authors?
Statistics was not clearly explained. Start with design, tests and always explain which variables was analyzed by such test…
Results:
Light intensity is IMPOSSIBLE. I am afraid of veracity of any data after this light of 4182!!!!!
Please, change weight for mass…
Height is 5-7 cm, and here is 30-40 cm??
Eliminate sensorial!!!
Discussion:
Explain planophile, plagiophile, erectophile angle distributions if they leaf angles are the most important for any kind of quality.
Details are done in pdf version.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
OK
Author Response
Response letter
Re: Manuscript ID: forests-2686191
Title: Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots
Nov 15th, 2023
Dear Ms. Dolly Chen and reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate the dedicated time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive and invaluable feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. In response to your comments, we have diligently revised our manuscript, aligning it with your insightful suggestions.
Please find, below, our point-by-point response to the comments raised by you and reviewer. To facilitate your review, we have provided both clean manuscript and manuscript with revision marks (highlighted in green). The page and line numbers in the response letter correspond to the manuscripts highlighted in green.
Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for considering our revised manuscript!
Sincerely,
Corresponding author
Reviewer #3:
The manuscript is bringing some new insights, it has importance, but in the meantime, some very serios doubts and even errors are found in the text and results:
Point 29: Light intensity, maximum at the face of Earth is 2050 µmol m-2 s-1.
Response: Thank you for pointing out our mistakes! We have made a mistake in the unit of light intensity, and we have modified the unit of light intensity to Candela.
Point 30: Sensorial quality means the human sensorial estimation. Never done in this manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! The original intention of this paper is to consider the appearance color of shoots as a quality (dependent variable) of shoots like other agricultural and forestry products. However, we did use the pigment content of shoots as an internal factor (independent variable) that affects the appearance quality of shoots in this study. Therefore, in order to highlight our research objectives, research value and research significance, we changed the sensory quality of shoots to the appearance quality of shoots in our manuscript (including the fresh weight, height and base diameter of shoots).
Reference:
- Guo Z.W., Jiang Z.B., Chen S.L., Xu B., Ye S.Y., Li M.L.Comparative Study on Quality and Palatability of Rhizome Shoot of Phyllostachys prominens and Phyllostachys edulis. Forest Research. 2015, 28 (3):447-450. https://doi.org/10.13275/j.cnki.lykxyj. 2015.03.025
- Yang, L.t., Xie, Y.Y., Yu, W.X., Chen, S.L., Guo, Z.W., Xu, S., Gu, R. Effects of Long - term Mulching on Appearance, Nutrition and Taste of Bamboo Shoots of Phyllostachys violascens. Journal of Bamboo Research. 2021, 40 (3): 7-12. https://doi.org/ 10.19560/j.cnki.issn1000-6567.2021.03.008.
#Abstract:
Point 31: Effect is not correlation, please do not confound
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Considering that we use a linear mixed effect model to analyze the influence of independent variables on dependent variables, we believe that "effect" may be more appropriate.
Point 32: Keywords: Sensorial is not adequate
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have revised it.
(Page 1 Lines 40-41) Keywords: Bamboo shoot appearance quality; Bamboo shoot chlorophyll; Bamboo rhizome; Canopy structure; Bamboo forests management
#Introduction:
Point 33: Too long, too many stories without the direct link with results. But rhizomes had even not been mentioned, or explained.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions! The Introduction has been revised, especially the importance of adding the characteristics of bamboo rhizomes and the number of bamboo rhizomes.
(Page. 2 Lines 88-89) And rhizomes store and allocate nutrients by increasing the length and number of rhizome segments [34].
Reference:
- Li, C., Cai, Y., Xiao, L., Gao, X., Shi, Y., Zhou, Y., Du, H., Zhou, G. Rhizome extension characteristics, structure and carbon storage relationships with culms in a 10-year moso bamboo reforestation period. FOREST ECOL MANAG. 2021, 498, 119556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119556.
#M&M:
Point 34: Not explained the density of bamboo in environments, not explained general conditions of each of them.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! In this study, the density, diameter at breast height and height of bamboo were used as the mother bamboo factors (independent variables) affecting the growth of bamboo shoots. The specific values and statistical differences among different bamboo forests were please see Table 1 line ‘Mother bamboos structures’.
(Page.8 Lines 330-334) The DBH, number of rhizomes (NR), and rhizome biomass of PBF were the highest, while the density and height of mother bamboo were the lowest. AI values of rhizome and rhizome diameter of PBF were significantly higher than those of EBF, whereas rhizome length (RL) decreased significantly. However, there were no significant differences compared with MBF.
(Page. 10 Table 1)
Table 1. Canopy structures, mother bamboo structures and understory environmental factors of different types forests (means ± SE; canopy structures, n = 4; structure of aboveground mother bamboo, n = 9, structure of underground mother bamboo, n = 3; B, R, far red light, R/Fr, PAR and LI, n = 6, SL and DL, n = 6; Soil factors, n = 6).
|
Impact factors |
Forest types |
|||||||
|
EBF |
MBF |
PBF |
||||||
|
Canopy structures |
CO (%) |
10.67 ± 0.28 b |
13.08 ± 0.35 a |
10.58 ±0.17 b |
|
|||
|
MLA (°) |
40.53± 2.64 b |
34.39 ±1.98 b |
55.98 ± 1.64 a |
|||||
|
LAI |
2.34 ± 0.07 a |
1.98 ± 0.05 b |
2.47 ± 0.03 a |
|||||
|
Mother bamboos structures |
MDBH (cm) |
1.59 ± 0.03 c |
1.82 ± 0.03 b |
2.01 ± 0.06 a |
||||
|
MH (m) |
3.88 ± 0.07 a |
3.88 ± 0.06 a |
3.52 ± 0.13 b |
|||||
|
Density (culms hm-²) |
42640.00 ± 2592.98 a |
43760.00 ± 1773.74 a |
26066.67 ± 1978.33 b |
|||||
|
AI |
0.84 ± 0.02 b |
0.97 ± 0.01 a |
0.99 ± 0.02 a |
|||||
|
NR (clums m-²) |
32.52 ± 2.36 b |
28.80 ± 2.20 b |
75.32 ± 2.24 a |
|||||
|
RB (g m-²) |
430.96 ± 23.96 c |
643.08 ± 45.52 b |
924.32 ± 49.72 a |
|||||
|
RL |
152.72 ± 2.84 a |
151.76 ± 1.88 ab |
146.00 ± 1.84 b |
|||||
|
RD (cm m-²) |
3.88 ± 0.04 b |
4.40 ± 0.12 a |
4.24 ± 0.04 a |
|||||
|
RRB (g m-²) |
109.8 ± 5.92 b |
132.56 ± 8.44 a |
117.36 ± 3.36 ab |
|||||
|
Light parameters |
B (μmol m-2 s-1) |
5.50 ± 1.24 b |
19.51 ± 4.76 a |
5.31 ± 0.63 b |
||||
|
R (μmol m-2 s-1) |
8.97 ± 2.18 b |
31.88 ± 8.04 a |
8.14 ± 0.99 b |
|||||
|
Fr (μmol m-2 s-1) |
18.78 ± 1.70 b |
41.18 ± 6.39 a |
28.40 ± 1.28 b |
|||||
|
R/Fr |
0.38 ± 0.04 b |
0.54 ± 0.06 a |
0.26 ± 0.02 b |
|||||
|
PAR (μmol m-2 s-1) |
22.54 ± 5.20 b |
79.31 ± 19.57 a |
21.21 ± 2.47 b |
|||||
|
LI (cd) |
1204.37 ± 269.57 b |
4182.62 ± 1018.98 a |
1149.46 ± 128.78 b |
|||||
|
SL (mol m-2 yr-1) |
1416.37 ± 26.57 c |
1671.50 ± 23.37 a |
1561.68 ± 29.69 b |
|||||
|
DL (mol m-2 yr-1) |
1491.97 ± 53.05 ab |
1658.89 ± 70.21 a |
1420.82 ± 55.51 b |
|||||
|
Soil factors |
pH |
4.89 ± 0.09 |
4.74 ± 0.08 |
4.90 ± 0.05 |
||||
|
ST (℃) |
17.68 ± 0.15 b |
18.08 ± 0.06 a |
17.71 ± 0.11 b |
|||||
|
SM (%) |
15.92 ± 0.97 b |
15.97 ± 0.64 b |
25.31 ± 1.49 a |
|||||
|
TN (g kg-1) |
17.01 ± 1.00 a |
12.27 ± 0.85 b |
10.99 ± 0.62 b |
|||||
|
TC (g kg-1) |
200.91 ± 6.70 a |
150.95 ± 7.42 b |
134.68 ± 7.47 b |
|||||
|
C/N |
12.50 ± 0.43 |
12.80 ± 0.32 |
12.34 ± 0.17 |
|||||
Point 35: Always explain the details about the equipment (model, factory, city, state, and country)
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We have added information about the equipment (including model, factory, city, state, and country).
(Page. 4 Lines 159-162) From October 3rd to 5th 2021, the photon flux density of red, far red, and blue lights, as well as PAR and light intensity above each shoot from each plot S, were measured using a portable spectrometer with display (Rainbow light, MR-16-PPF, Rainbow Light Technology CO. Ltd., Taiwan, China) at 9:00 am to 3:00 pm and the measurement interval time was 2 h.
(Page. 4 Lines 164-167) The soil around the bamboo rhizomes marked with shoots in each plot numbered S, was collected on 6th October 2021 and brought back to the laboratory to determine the physical and chemical properties. Soil total carbon and total nitrogen were determined by an element analyzer (Vario EL cube, Heraeus Elementar, Hanau, Germany).
(Page. 4 Lines 167-169) Soil pH was measured using a pH meter (Mettler Toledo, FE20, Mettler-Toledo Instruments CO., Ltd. Shanghai, China) with a mixture of soil and deionized water at 1:2.5 (w/w).
(Page. 4 Lines 169-175) On October 6th, 2021, when the three-parameter instrument was measuring soil temperature and humidity, the battery of the three-parameter instrument suddenly failed and could not work. On October 4th, 2022 (sunny day) we took another three-parameter instrument (LD-WSY, Leander Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. Shandong, China) that can work properly to supplement the measurement of soil temperature and humidity. The soil temperature and soil moisture of 6 sites were randomly measured with the three-parameter instrument in the S plot.
(Page. 5 Lines 177-180) The canopy was photographed 4 times repeatedly with a fisheye camera (Canon EOS 50D camera, Tokyo, Japan; Sigma EX DC 4.5mm fisheye lens, Kanagawa, Japan) at the center of each plot numbered S on October 10th 2021, with shooting height set to 1m, the lens level was maintained, and the compass was pointed to the north direction.
(Page. 5 Lines 203-206) The section with successful staining and clear tissue from each sample was selected for observation, and photographed with a 20× objective lens of a Nikon E-Ci microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan), each section was randomly photographed 5 times and saved.
(Page. 6 Lines 226-229) After 2 min, the absorbance was measured by ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) at 595 nm with blank as control, and the soluble protein content in the sample extract was obtained by standard curve.
(Page. 6 Lines 245-248) The absorbance value of the sample was measured at a wavelength of 620 nm using an ultraviolet spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) with the reagent blank as a control.
(Page. 6 Lines 259-261) After shaking, the absorbance value was measured by ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) at 280 nm wavelength.
(Page. 6 Lines 279-281) Based on the maximum absorption peak of chlorophyll in 95 % ethanol, the absorption values at 665 nm, 649 nm, and 470 nm were measured by ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan).
Point 36: You are talking about morphogenesis, but we cannot observe any time dynamics in collection and analyses.
Response: Thank you for pointing out our mistakes! In this study, we mainly studied the morphological changes of bamboo shoots from October 1st, 2021 to October 6th, 2021.
(Page. 6 Lines 270-274) A total of 96 shoots, 6 shoots with a height of 5-7 cm (5 days (± 2 d) from the excavation) were randomly selected from each plot numbered S for labeling on October 1st, 2021. All shoots were collected and brought back to the temporary refrigerator on 6th October. The height was measured by steel tape, the basal diameter was measured by vernier caliper, and the fresh mass was measured by the electronic scale (removing shoot shell).
Point 37: What was the time necessary to 5-7 cm shoot growth?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! Bamboo shoots grow to " 5-7cm " time was usually about 5 days (± 2 d) we observed.
Point 38: Number of equations are confounded. The authors invented those equations or are using equations previously defined by other authors?
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have changed the equation number to the correct number. The source reference of the equation has also been added.
(Page. 5 Lines 194) Aggregation index (AI) was calculated using the formula [43] shown in (1).
(Page. 6-7 Lines 281-283) The contents of chlorophyll a and carotenoid were calculated in Eq. (2) and (3), where the volume of the supernatant extracted, F was the fresh mass of the samples [47].
Reference:
- Yang F., Tang M. Relationship between site and structure and its influence on biomass in Phyllostachys edulis forest. Journal of Zhejiang A & F University. 2020, 37(X): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.11833/j. issn.2095-0756.20190572.
- Zhao, S., Liu, H., Dong, X. Experimental Guidance of Plant Physiology. China Agricuture Press. 1998, 10: 68-72.
|
|
|
Point 39: Statistics was not clearly explained. Start with design, tests and always explain which variables was analyzed by such test…
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions! We have rephrased statistics and analysis based on the design and structure.
(Page. 7 Lines 285-305) Before data analysis, Shapiro-Wilk and Levene were used to test the normality and homogeneity of variance of the data. Then, one-way analysis of variance was used to test the significance of canopy structure, understory light factor, understory soil factor, mother bamboo factor, shoot pigment content, shoot tissue and shoot appearance quality of different types of bamboo forests. There were significant differences between different lowercase letters (P < 0.05).
In order to evaluate the effects of influencing factors on the morphology of bam-boo shoots, we used random forest model and linear mixed effect model for analysis. Due to the canopy structure, the sample amount of each plot was 4, the sample amount of the above-ground structure of the mother bamboo in each plot was 9, and the sample amount of the underground structure in each plot was 3, which did not match the sample amount of 6 bamboo shoots in each plot. Therefore, the average values of canopy structure, above-ground structure and underground structure of mother bamboo in each plot were calculated, and then the average values were repeated 6 times. Secondly, the sample amount of cell diameter and length in the radial and axial system of each shoot was 300(6 shoots × 5(tissue section) × 10 (cells)), while the sample amount of cell number in the radial system was 30(6 shoots × 5 (tissue section)), and the sample amount of cell number in the axial system was 90 (6 shoots × 5 (tissue section) × 3 (cells)). Therefore, the average values of cell diameter, length, and cell number in the radial and axial system of each shoot were calculated, and then the average values of these variables were used as the cell diameter, length, and number in the radial and axial system of each shoot.
#Results:
Point 40: Light intensity is IMPOSSIBLE. I am afraid of veracity of any data after this light of 4182!!!!!
Response: Thank you for pointing out our mistakes! Please see point 29.
Point 41: Please, change weight for mass…
Response: We changed the fresh weight for fresh mass in both text and Figures.
Figure 4. The appearance quality of bamboo shoots (means ± SD; n = 6). A: fresh mass of bamboo shoots; B: height of bamboo shoots; C: basal diameter of bamboo shoots. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different types of bamboo forests (P < 0.05).
Figure 6. Correlation between cell numbers and cell length of bamboo shoot and related influencing factors (* means P < 0.05, ** means P < 0. 01). Notes: FM: fresh mass of bamboo shoots; BD: basal diameters of bamboo shoots; chl a: chlorophyll a; ca: carotenoid; ALPC: parenchyma cells length in axial system; ANPC: parenchyma cells numbers in axial system; RDPC: parenchyma cells diameter in radial system; RNPC: parenchyma cells numbers in radial system; CO: canopy openness; MLA: mean leaf angle; LAI: leaf area index; ST: soil temperature; SM: soil moisture; TN: total N; TC: total C; C_N: total C to total N ratio; DL: direct light; SL: scattered light; B: blue light; Fr: far red light; R: red light; LI: light intensity; R_Fr: red to far red light ratio; MDBH: diameter at breast height of mother bamboos; MH: height of mother bamboos; AI: aggregation index; RL: rhizome length; NR: numbers of rhizomes; RD: rhizome diameter; RB: rhizome biomass; RRB: rhizome root biomass.
Point 42: Height is 5-7 cm, and here is 30-40 cm??
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! Here first answer your question "why the selected bamboo shoot height is ' 30-40 cm' ". The bamboo shoots in this study were usually collected as a commodity with a height of about 30 cm. At the same time, this means that the goal of our research needs to control the height of bamboo shoots. Secondly answer your question" why the selected bamboo shoot height is '5-7 cm' ". According to China 's 2021 weather forecast, it was predicted that the period from October 1st, 2021 to October 6th, 2021 would be sunny, while the weather would turn cloudy on October 7th. Therefore, the light factor could not be determined.Prior to this work, we observed that the optimum height for bamboo shoots to grow to 30 cm in about 5 days was about 5-7 cm.
(Page. 6 Lines 263-269) The shoots in this study are usually collected as a commodity with a height of about 30 cm. This means that the starting height of shoots needs to be established according to our research objectives. According to China 's 2021 weather forecast, it was predicted that the period from October 1st, 2021 to October 6th, 2021 would be sunny, while the weather would turn cloudy on October 7th. Therefore, the light factor could not be determined. Prior to this work, we observed that the optimum height for shoots to grow to 30 cm in about 5 days was about 5-7 cm.
Point 43: Eliminate sensorial!!!
Response: We would like to express our appreciation for your insightful comments! We have changed the sensory quality to appearance quality.
#Discussion:
Point 44: Explain planophile, plagiophile, erectophile angle distributions if they leaf angles are the most important for any kind of quality.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions! We have rephrased the paragraph to improve clarity. Leaf inclination is an important plant structural trait [69], which largely determines radiation interception [70]. The leaf inclination angle of deciduous broad-leaved tree species is often acute angle [69,72], resulting in different canopy openness, which also makes more light reach the lower part of the canopy. Gap size of tree species composition [66], leaf area index and leaf shape significantly reduced direct and scattered light in the lower canopy [71]. In this study, scattered light was significantly positively correlated with canopy openness and significantly negatively correlated with leaf area index, while direct light was significantly positively correlated with canopy openness.
(Page. 19 Lines 556-572) However, there was no significant correlation between SL and the height of shoots in this study, and there was no secondary structure in shoots. The elongation growth of shoots may affect the height of shoots by the influence of SL on the chlorophyll of shoots. In this study, SL was significantly positively correlated with canopy openness and significantly negatively correlated with leaf area index, while DL was significantly positively correlated with canopy openness (Fig.6). The position of a tree in the canopy gap determines the amount of light received [67,68]. Leaf inclination is an important plant structural trait [69], which largely determines radiation interception [70]. Gap size of tree species composition [66], leaf area index and leaf shape significantly reduced direct and scattered light in the lower canopy [71]. The EBF and PBF in this study are evergreen tree species, while the canopy tree species of MBF are deciduous broad-leaved tree species. The leaf inclination angle of deciduous broad-leaved tree species is often acute angle [69,72], resulting in different canopy openness, which also makes more light reach the lower part of the canopy. This also shows that from the perspective of the influence of canopy on understory light factors, deciduous broad-leaved tree species as canopy species of bamboo forests may not be beneficial to the nutritional quality and taste quality of bamboo forests.
Reference:
- Parhizkar, P., Sagheb-Talebi, K., Mataji, A., Nyland, R., Namiranian, M. Silvicultural characteristics of Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) regeneration under different RLI and positions within gaps. Forestry. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/ cpr004.
- Marcel Prévost, Raymond, P. Effect of gap size, aspect and slope on available light and soil temperature after patch-selection cutting in yellow birch–conifer stands, Quebec, Canada. FOREST ECOL MANAG, 2012, 274(none): 210-221. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. foreco.2012.02.020.
- Pisek, J., Diaz-Pines. E., Matteucci. G., Noe, S. Rebmann, C. On the leaf inclination angle distribution as a plant trait for the most abundant broadleaf tree species in Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2022, 323, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agrformet.2022.109030.
- Niinemets, U. A review of light interception in plant stands from leaf to canopy in different plant functional types and in species with varying shade tolerance. ECOL RES. 2010, 25(4):693-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109030.
- Zhao, W., Ren, T., Huang, X., Xu, Z., Zhou, Y., Yin, C., Zhao, R., Liu, S. Ning, T. Li, G. Leaf shape, planting density, and nitrogen application affect soybean yield by changing direct and diffuse light distribution in the canopy. PLANT PHYSIOL BIOCH. 2023, 204, 108071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108071.
- Falster, D.S. , Westoby, M. Leaf size and angle vary widely across species: what consequences for light interception? NEW PHYTOL. 2010, 158(3):509-525. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00765.x.
Details are done in pdf version.
Thank you again for your comments and careful revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors introduced several modifications that greatly improved the quality and comprehensibility of the manuscript. I believe it can be accepted
Author Response
Response letter
Re: Manuscript ID: forests-2686191
Title: Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Appearance Quality of Bamboo Shoots
Nov 26th, 2023
Dear Ms. Dolly Chen and reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the dedicated time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive and invaluable feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work.
Thank you for considering our revised manuscript!
Sincerely,
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was improved, but not essentially. The main error persisted!
1. Light intensity, maximum at the face of Earth is 2050 µmol m-2 s-1. It cannot be candle. Candle is the impression of human eye, not the valuable measure of plant use photons. NOT ACCEPTIBLE!
2. Based on candle, you cannot express spectra of light. Please, I am working on light 37 years, and this form is not scientific!
Abstract:
Improved, but tooooo long. Do not repeat words, be direct. Ones defined the quality, please, do not repeat, because reader is intelligent.
Keywords: All keywords must be direct and useful everywhere, not only for bamboo. This means that whole must be rewritten.
Introduction:
Too long, many not useful parameters are mentioned. Thanks for hypotheses. Please, rewrite as mentioned in pdf.
M&M:
Continue too long. Some methods are well developed by other scientists, and their description can be shortened. Only describe what really was modified.
Give lambda of all light quality used here, what was the interval for red (R), for far red (FR), or blue. Give real ratios!!!!!!!!
Statistics was not clearly explained. Start with design, software… Linear mixed model is applied for????? It is used normally for more than one factor, and I did not see two-three factors analyses… Very chaotic, even after improvements. If those analyses are shown in supplementary material, they merit explanations. How Chl a be a factor, it is variable! And it can be related to another variable, not a factor!
Results:
Light intensity is IMPOSSIBLE. I am afraid of veracity of any data after this light of 4182!!!!! Candles are not acceptable measures, plants use photons, not our impressions. And candles of F or R do not exist.
Discussion:
How do you think that leaf angles can be changed? What kind of engineering do you believe that you can apply?
Try to finish your subchapters responding to your hypotheses, because you are repeating results, and the response to hypotheses is still not clear. Where did you want to come?
Details are done in pdf version
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
OK. Some phrases are not complete, and word sequence must be changed. Also, many repetitions of quality... are present.
Always use past for the present research, and present for the published data and statements.
Author Response
Response letter
Re: Manuscript ID: forests-2686191
Title: Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots
Nov 26th, 2023
Dear Ms. Dolly Chen and reviewer 3,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful critiques have played a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of our work. We have diligently revised the manuscript to incorporate your valuable suggestions, and we are grateful for the constructive feedback you provided.
In response to your comments, we have provided a detailed explanation below. Additionally, we have included both a clean version of the manuscript and a version with revisions highlighted in green to facilitate your review. The page and line numbers in the response letter correspond to those in the green-highlighted manuscripts.
Kindly contact us in case you have any inquiries. We appreciate your consideration of our updated manuscript!
Regards,
Corresponding author
Reviewer #3:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript was improved, but not essentially. The main error persisted!
Point 1: Light intensity, maximum at the face of Earth is 2050 µmol m-2 s-1. It cannot be candle. Candle is the impression of human eye, not the valuable measure of plant use photons. NOT ACCEPTIBLE!
Response: We are very grateful to your professionally pointing out our mistake. The Rainbow Light, MR-16-PPF portable spectrometer, manufactured by the Rainbow Light Technology Co. Ltd. (www.rainbow-light.com.tw), was utilized by us. PPF (Photosynthetic Photon Flux) is the type of portable spectrometer with a display that is intended for measuring the spectrum and light intensity of plant growth. The portable spectrometer with a display (MR-16-PPF) can measure the spectrum and intensity of indoor light sources for plant development. About the unit of light intensity and red light, blue light and far-red light, we also consulted the engineer of the Rainbow Light Technology Co., Ltd. His response is that the unit of light intensity is cd, while the unit of red, blue and far-red light is µmol m-2 s-1. The ' Strength ' is a count, not a physical unit, which is different from the light intensity we understand. We used the wrong place, therefore, based on the above information, we decided to delete the variable of light intensity. At the same time, we have corrected Table 1, Figure 6 and Figure 7, as well as the analysis of the results for Figure 7.
(Page 12 Lines 359-364) The important predictors for the basal diameter of shoots were RNPC, NR, RDPC, rhizome diameter and FR according to the random forest model (Fig. 7A), of which the importance value of RNPC was 15.05 %, NR was 12.45 %. The chlorophyll a content (importance value = 29.49 %), ALPC (importance value = 21.29 %), ANPC (importance value = 14.58 %), and carotenoid content (importance value = 11.21 %) were the important predictors for the height of shoots (Fig. 7B).
Here is the reply mail by the engineer of Rainbow Light Technology.
Point 2: Based on candle, you cannot express spectra of light. Please, I am working on light 37 years, and this form is not scientific!
Response: We sincerely thank you for pointing out our mistakes. Please see response 1.
Point 3: Abstract: Improved, but tooooo long. Do not repeat words, be direct. Ones defined the quality, please, do not repeat, because reader is intelligent.
Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten the abstract.
(Page 1 Lines 15-35) Bamboo shoots are a healthy vegetable with significant commercial value, and their appearance quality is a key factor influencing consumer preference and market pricing. Their growth characteristics—after unearthed maintaining basal diameter while rapidly growing in height, affect the taste and nutritional quality. However, there is little attention has been given to the impact of bamboo forest management on shoot appearance. Therefore, the study addressed this research gap through a comprehensive investigation across three bamboo forest types: evergreen broad-leaved forest (EBF), evergreen deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest (MBF) and pure bamboo forest (PBF). In addition, we further assessed factors that potentially affect the appearance quality of bamboo shoots, including canopy structures, understory light factors and understory soil factors, mother bamboo factors and shoot internal factors (pigments and cells). Fresh mass and basal diameter of shoots in PBF were 29.15 g and 1.89 cm, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of EBF by 10.37 g and 0.27 cm, respectively. The basal diameter of bamboo shoots in MBF was significantly larger than that in EBF by 0.35 cm, which was 1.97 cm. The linear mixed effect model identified the number of bamboo rhizomes and the chlorophyll a content as primary factors influencing basal diameter thickening and elongation growth of shoots, respectively. In addition, increasing the bamboo canopy and mean leaf angle reduced the chlorophyll a content and increased the carotenoid content, thereby benefiting the improvement or maintenance of the taste and quality of shoots. This study highlighted that increasing the number of bamboo rhizomes, bamboo canopy and mean leaf angle were helpful to improve the appearance quality of shoots. These findings offer a scientific foundation for bamboo forest management, contributing to both ecological sustainability and economic benefits.
Point 4: Keywords: All keywords must be direct and useful everywhere, not only for bamboo. This means that whole must be rewritten.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have rewritten the keywords.
(Page 1 Line 36) Keywords: shoot appearance; chlorophyll; rhizome; canopy structure; forests management
Point 5: Introduction: Too long, many not useful parameters are mentioned.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Due to the lengthy content of the original, some of the content is repeated, so we re-concise the content of the introduction. The number of words in the original introduction was 1060, and the number of words after modification is 664.
(Page 1-2 Lines 39-91) Bamboo shoot is a vegetable that has an important economic value [1]. It is an important resource output of bamboo shoot forest, and it is one of the main bulk export agricultural products in China, with an annual consumption of more than 2 million tons [1]. The appearance quality of shoots, including fresh mass, basal diameter and height [2,3], is the primary factor determining consumers’ preferences and one of the key factors in market pricing. After the shoots were unearthed, shoots have the characteristics of rapid growth [4]. While a large amount of nutrients is consumed for shoot cell elongation, the protein (nutritional quality) of shoots decreases [5] and a large amount of cellulose and lignin deposition (taste quality) are required to offset the sudden increase in mechanical pressure during rapid cell growth [6,7,8], which means that the taste and nutritional quality of shoots decrease [9], thereby reducing their commercial value [10,11]. The morphological development and growth rate of shoots may affect the taste and nutritional quality of shoots.
The basal diameter is almost no radial growth after shoots emerged from the ground [12]. The nutrients for shoots grown are mainly provided by the connected mature mother bamboo through its underground rhizomes [13,33,34]. Rhizomes store and allocate nutrients by increasing the length and number of rhizome (NR) segments [16]. While the structure (morphological structure and spatial location) of mother bamboo affects its competitiveness to nutrients [17]. Therefore, aboveground structure of mother bamboo, the number and the diameter of bamboo rhizomes may have an important influence on the basal diameter of shoots. The developmental sequence of shoot internodes is basal-oriented, from the basal internode to the top, and the elongation of shoot internodes is determined by the number of shoot cells and cell elongation occurring simultaneously at the elongation stage [5,18,19]. Some studies have shown that the pigment content changes in some early plants’ growth, and morphogenesis changes, are regulated by the complex regulatory network of lights and hormones [20,21]. Because there is almost no radial growth in the basal diameter of shoots after they are out of the ground [12], the height growth of shoots may also be affected by chlorophyll.
One common management strategy for bamboo forests is to eliminate the potential negative effects of interspecific competition, is the removal of competing trees [22]. Studies have shown that different forest canopy reduced the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), red light, blue light and far-red light (FR) under the forest due to the absorption or reflection of solar radiation [23,24,25]. Light is the most critical factor affecting plant growth and development [26,27], and its quality regulates plant morphology through signal transduction [28,29,30,31]. Previous studies mainly studied the effects of bamboo forest density, fertilization and coverage on shoot quality [10,32]. However, little is known about whether the transformation of mixed bamboo forests into pure bamboo forests has an effect on the appearance quality of shoots.
Square bamboo, Chimonobambusa utilis (Keng) P. C. Keng, is widely planted in southwest China for its nutritional value [33]. Three bamboo forest types were randomly selected based on canopy differences: evergreen broad-leaved forest with bamboo under-story (EBF), evergreen and deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest with bamboo understory (MBF) and pure bamboo forest (PBF). The study aimed to explore the impact of bamboo forest conversion on shoot appearance quality, elucidating the contributions of external factors (canopy structures, environmental factors and mother bamboo structures) and internal factors (pigments and cells). The overarching goal is to enhance or preserve the taste and nutritional quality of bamboo shoots, concurrently improving their visual appeal. The specific hypotheses of the research were that: (i) the fresh mass, basal diameter and height of shoots would significantly increase in PBF; (ii) the larger aboveground structure of mother bamboo, along with an increase in the number and length of rhizomes, would be the dominant factors affecting the diameter thickening of shoots; (iii) the light factor and chlorophyll content of shoots would be the main factors affecting the height elongation of shoots.
Point 6: Introduction: Thanks for hypotheses. Please, rewrite as mentioned in pdf.
Response: We are very grateful for your valuable comments. We have rewritten the hypotheses.
(Page 2 Lines 85-90) The specific hypotheses of the research were that: (i) the fresh mass, basal diameter and height of shoots would significantly increase in PBF; (ii) the larger aboveground structure of mother bamboo, along with an increase in the number and length of rhizomes, would be the dominant factors affecting the diameter thickening of shoots; (iii) the light factor and chlorophyll content of shoots would be the main factors affecting the height elongation of shoots.
Point 7: M&M: Continue too long. Some methods are well developed by other scientists, and their description can be shortened. Only describe what really was modified.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have rewritten concisely the experimental methods of taste and nutritional quality of bamboo shoots.
(Page 5-6 Lines 207-237) The soluble protein content was measured using the Coomassie brilliant blue G-250 method [36]. The protein exhibited a maximum ultraviolet absorption peak at 595 nm, and the protein content of the shoots was quantitatively analyzed. The fresh shoots were grinded in to powdery form, and 0.5 g of this powder was placed into a centrifuge tube. Then, 8 ml of distilled water was added and left at room temperature for 0.5 - 1 hour to ensure full extraction. The mixture was then centrifuged at 4000 r/min for 20 minutes. The supernatant was diluted to a volume of 10 ml to obtain a soluble protein solution. The soluble protein content was determined using an ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) at 595 nm.
Additionally, the content of cellulose was determined by the acid hydrolysis-anthrone colorimetry [37]. A 0.02 g sample of dried shoot powder was placed in a 20 mL test tube. 6 mL of 60 % H2SO4 was added to the sample and digested for 30 min. Thereafter, the digested cellulose solution was then transferred to a 25 mL volumetric flask and diluted to the mark with 60 % H2SO4. After shaking, the solution was transferred to a 50 mL centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 5000 r/min for 10 min. 0.5 mL of the supernatant was transferred to a 10 mL centrifuge tube and diluted to 10 mL to obtain a cellulose extract. 2 mL of the cellulose extract was transferred to a test tube with a stopper, 0.5 mL of 2 % anthrone reagent was added, followed by 5 mL of concentrated H2SO4 added along the tube wall. With the stopper was inserted, the tube was shaken and left to stand for 12 min. The absorbance value of the sample was measured at a wavelength of 620 nm using an ultraviolet spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan).
The lignin content was determined by the acetyl bromide method [38]. A 5 mg sample of dried shoot powder was accurately weighed and placed in a 15 mL centrifuge tube. A 25 % acetyl bromide-glacial acetic acid solution was quickly prepared and transferred to a sealed reagent bottle. 1 mL of 25 % glacial acetic acid solution and 0.1 mL of 70 % perchloric acid solution were added to the sample in sequence, and the reaction was carried out in a 70 °C constant temperature water bath for 30 min, with shaking every 10 min. After natural cooling, 1 mL of 2 mol/L NaOH was added to stop the reaction, and the volume was adjusted to 10 mL with glacial acetic acid. After shaking, the absorbance value was measured by an ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer (Shimazu, UV2700, Tokyo, Japan) at a wavelength of 280 nm.
Point 8: Give lambda of all light quality used here, what was the interval for red (R), for far red (FR), or blue. Give real ratios!!!!!!!!
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We determined the light quality under natural light in different bamboo forests, so we could not give the lambda of all light quality. And the interval for red (R), for far red (FR), and blue light has been added. The R/FR ratios of EBF, MBF and PBF were 0.38, 0.54 and 0.26, respectively in the Table 1.
(Page 3-4 Lines 125-130) The photosynthetic photon flux density of blue light (400 nm - 499 nm), red light (600 nm - 699 nm) and FR light (700 nm - 780 nm), as well as PAR and light intensity above each shoot from each plot S, were measured using a portable spectrometer with display (Rainbow light, MR-16-PPF, Rainbow Light Technology CO. Ltd., Taiwan, China) from October 3rd to 5th 2021. Between the hours of nine in the morning and three in the afternoon, we took these measures every two hours.
Point 9: Statistics was not clearly explained. Start with design, software… Linear mixed model is applied for????? It is used normally for more than one factor, and I did not see two-three factors analyses… Very chaotic, even after improvements. If those analyses are shown in supplementary material, they merit explanations.
Response: We appreciate your insightful feedback on the statistical methodology and have made significant revisions for clarity. The revised statistical approach is now presented as follows:
(Page 6 Lines 239-265) To ensure the robustness of our analysis, we conducted preliminary tests using Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests in SPSS software (IBM Inc. Chicago, USA) to assess the normality and homogeneity of variance of the data. Then, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the significance of canopy structure, understory light factor, understory soil factor, mother bamboo factor, shoot pigment content, shoot tissue and shoot quality among three different bamboo forest types. The statistical significance was determined at P < 0.05.
For a comprehensive evaluation of the morphological impacts of bamboo shoots, we utilized the “randomForest” R package [39] to rank and identify the influencing factors. This involved employing the random forest model to assess the effects of various factors (canopy structure, light factors, soil factors, structural factors of mother bamboos, pigment content, cell number, and cell length of shoots) on the basal diameter and height of bamboo shoots. To elucidate the impact of these important factors on shoots height and basal diameter, we employed the linear mixed effect model using the “lmerTest” of the R package. In each model, factors with an impact exceeding 5 % (as determined by the random forest model) were considered fixed effects, while the forest type was fitted as random effects. The significance of fixed effects was evaluated using the maximum likelihood method. We initiated a full model with all variables as fixed effects and iteratively simplified it to a final model containing only significant variables (P < 0.05). Model simplification was based on the marginal R2m (the variance explained by fixed factors alone) and conditional R2c (the variance explained by fixed and random factors) calculated using the package “glmm.hp” [40]. To address discrepancies in sample sizes, particularly for the canopy structure and mother bamboo factors, we calculated average values of canopy structure, aboveground structure and underground structure of mother bamboo for each plot and repeated six times. Similarly, we averaged values for cell diameter, length and cell number in the radial and axial systems of each shoot. All statistical analyses were performed in the R 4.2.3 program environment.
Point 10: How Chl a be a factor, it is variable! And it can be related to another variable, not a factor!
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! The chlorophyll and carotenoid contents in this study refer to the distribution in the cortex tissue of bamboo shoots. Some studies have shown that the pigment content changes in some early plants’ growth, and morphogenesis changes, are regulated by the complex regulatory network of lights and hormones [20,21]. Bamboo shoots turn green when exposed to light, compared to yellow-white color when they are underground. Therefore, we propose that the chlorophyll a content of bamboo shoots as an internal factor may inherently affect the morphological characteristics of bamboo shoots, although its role has been largely neglected.
Point 11: Results: Light intensity is IMPOSSIBLE. I am afraid of veracity of any data after this light of 4182!!!!! Candles are not acceptable measures, plants use photons, not our impressions. And candles of F or R do not exist.
Response: Thank you very much for your professional guidance! Please see response 1, we have delated the parameter light intensity.
Point 12: Discussion: How do you think that leaf angles can be changed? What kind of engineering do you believe that you can apply?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! Leaf angle is an important feature of tree species, which cannot be changed, and the leaf inclination angle of deciduous broad-leaved tree species is often acute angle [58,61]. Changing forest structure and species component—reducing deciduous tree species, retaining or transplanting tree species with larger leaf inclination angles, would be beneficial to improve the taste quality and nutritional quality of bamboo shoots.
(Page 17 Lines 514-520) As reducing the canopy openness and increasing the leaf area index can help to reduce the chlorophyll a content of shoots, and increasing the mean leaf angle can help to increase the carotenoid content of shoots. Therefore, the different strategies of forest management (eg. changing forest structure and species component, reducing deciduous tree species, retaining or transplanting tree species with larger leaf inclination angles) would be beneficial to improve the taste quality and nutritional quality of bamboo shoots.
Point 13: Try to finish your subchapters responding to your hypotheses, because you are repeating results, and the response to hypotheses is still not clear. Where did you want to come?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments! We modified the related expressions. Details, please see the discussion section. The appearance quality of bamboo shoots includes fresh mass, basal diameter and height, while the basal diameter and height of bamboo shoots determine the fresh mass of bamboo shoots. Hypothesis i is the hypothesis of the appearance quality of bamboo shoots, while hypothesis ii and hypothesis iii are the hypothesis of the basal diameter and height of bamboo shoots, respectively. Therefore, the discussion process of hypothesis ii and hypothesis iii is a response to hypothesis i.
(Page 15 Lines 397-399) The results of our research were in partially consistent with the hypothesis i, basal diameter and fresh mass of shoots increased significantly, but the height of shoots in PBF did not change (Fig. 4).
(Page 15 Lines 439-440) Therefore, the hypothesis ii was partially proved, the factors affecting the number of bamboo rhizomes need to be further studied.
(Page 16 Lines 446-448) Therefore, the hypothesis ii was rejected, shoot cell factors had an important influence on the basal diameter of shoots, but the chlorophyll a content of shoots had an effect on the cells of shoots, but the effect on the basal diameter of shoots is limited.
(Page 16 Lines 452-455) Shoot pigments, ANPC and ALPC had significant effects on shoot height (Fig. 6), while the linear mixed effects model showed that chlorophyll a content and ALPC promoted principally the height of shoots Fig. 8B), which was partly consistent with hypothesis iii.
(Page 17 Lines 497-498) In this study, ALPC had a significant positive effect on the height of shoots (Fig. 8B), which rejected hypothesis iii.
Other queries in the PDF version:
Point 14: The Fr in the manuscript is changed to FR.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! We have changed Fr to FR in the text, including as well as Table 1, and Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Point 15: elevated or reduced far red to blue? Whar lamda?
“Studies showed that red light had a slight inhibitory effect on the hypocotyl elongation of Brassica napus, while blue to far-red light ratio had a strong inhibitory effect on hypocotyl elongation [24];”
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! We deleted the reference when rewriting the introduction.
Point 16: not clearly written
“However, shoot is a new leafless and branchless rhizome of mother bamboo,”
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Since we have rewritten the introduction section, this sentence has been deleted.
Point 17: What is the model ??????
“Additionally, shoots also have a unique development model, and the direction of shoots development is basically upward elongation growth.”
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! Since we have rewritten the introduction section, this sentence has been deleted.
Point 18: Write better
“And on the premise of improving or maintaining the nutritional quality of shoots, an optimized bamboo forest management strategy will be proposed from the perspective of improving the appearance quality of shoots. “
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have rewritten this sentence.
(Page 2 Lines 84-85) The overarching goal is to enhance or preserve the taste and nutritional quality of bamboo shoots, concurrently improving their visual appeal.
Point 19: not clear, from 9 to 3, two hours?
“From October 3rd to 5th 2021, the photon flux density of red, far red, and blue lights, as well as PAR and light intensity above each shoot from each plot S, were measured using 160 a portable spectrometer with display (Rainbow light, MR-16-PPF, Rainbow Light Technology CO. Ltd., Taiwan, China) at 9:00 am to 3:00 pm and the measurement interval time was 2 h.”
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! We have rewritten this paragraph.
(Page 3-4 Lines 125-130) The photosynthetic photon flux density of blue light (400 nm - 499 nm), red light (600 nm - 699 nm) and FR light (700 nm - 780 nm), as well as PAR and light intensity above each shoot from each plot S, were measured using a portable spectrometer with display (Rainbow light, MR-16-PPF, Rainbow Light Technology CO. Ltd., Taiwan, China) from October 3rd to 5th 2021. Between the hours of nine in the morning and three in the afternoon, we took these measures every two hours.
Point 20: Published? If not, this is the Result! Or, put it in the same idea as height 5-7 cm.
“Therefore, the light factor could not be determined. Prior to this work, we observed that the optimum height for shoots to grow to 30 cm in about 5 days was about 5-7 cm.”
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! We have rewritten this sentence.
(Page 5 Lines 190-191) Before this work, we observed that the optimum height for shoots to grow to 30 cm in about 5 days was about 5-7 cm, so we selected the initial height of shoots as 5-7cm.
Point 21: Delete the redundant annotations in the Figures 2,4 and 5.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! We have done it.
Point 22: repetition. where you want to come? Chl in leaves can influence what in basal shoots? More carbon, more C transport?
“RNPC was significantly negatively correlated with cellulose and lignin content in shoots, and RDPC was significantly positively correlated with cellulose and lignin content in shoots (Fig. 6).”
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We deleted this repeated sentence. The chlorophyll and carotenoid contents in this study refer to the distribution in the cortex tissue of bamboo shoots, not the sheath leaves of bamboo shoots. Some studies have shown that the pigment content changes in some early plants’ growth, and morphogenesis changes, are regulated by the complex regulatory network of lights and hormones [20,21]. Therefore, the chlorophyll a content of bamboo shoots may inherently affect the morphological characteristics of bamboo shoots.
Point 23: not level of your reserch
“CsHY5 has multiple functions in plant development, defense, and photomorphogenesis [48]. The study showed that for 1-year-old Shuchazao cuttings without UV-B treatment, after 5 days of UV-B treatment, the transcription gene CsHY5 was expressed, and chlorophyll biosynthesis was significantly increased [59]. Tian et al [60] studied the chloroplast formation and hypocotyl elongation of dicotyledonous Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings were found to be inhibited during the de-etiolation stage (establishment of photomorphogenesis), this differs from the results of this study. This may be due to the different responses of transcription factors to light and hormones in different plants [35]. The relationship between the chlorophyll content of shoots and the elongation growth of shoots needs further study.”
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! In our study, there was no research on bamboo shoots at the molecular level. Therefore, we deleted these contents.
“However, this study found that the light quality in this study had no effect on the pigment content of shoots, which was mainly affected by canopy structure and understory scattered light and direct light (Fig. S4). The chlorophyll content of shoots was positively correlated with SL, and negatively correlated with canopy openness and DL (Fig. S4A). The carotenoid content of shoots was positively correlated with mean leaf angle, and negatively correlated with DL (Fig. S4B). The effect of 553 light on chlorophyll of shoots needs further study. It was found that the growth of spruce and fir seedlings tended to appear in height rather than diameter under the same SL conditions [66]. However, there was no significant correlation between SL and the height of shoots in this study, and there was no secondary structure in shoots. The elongation growth of shoots may affect the height of shoots by the influence of SL on the chlorophyll of shoots. In this study, SL was significantly positively correlated with canopy openness and significantly negatively correlated with leaf area index, while DL was significantly positively correlated with canopy openness (Fig.6).”
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have rewritten and replied to hypothesis iii.
(Page 16 Lines 481-486) However, this study found that the light quality in this study had no effect on the pigment content of shoots, which was mainly affected by canopy structure and SLand DL (Figure S4). This indicated that the canopy structure changed the SL and DL of different bamboo forests, and SL and DL affected the chlorophyll a and carotenoid contents of shoots. The chlorophyll a and carotenoid contents of shoots affected the height of shoots, which also answered hypothesis iii.
Point 25: How do you think that this engeenhering is possible?
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments! As reducing the canopy openness and increasing the leaf area index can help to reduce the chlorophyll a content of shoots, and increasing the mean leaf angle can help to increase the carotenoid content of shoots. Therefore, the different strategies of forest management (eg. changing forest structure and species component, reducing deciduous tree species, retaining or transplanting tree species with larger leaf inclination angles) would be beneficial to improve the taste quality and nutritional quality of bamboo shoots.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was substantially improved.
Always use past for your actual research, and present for the published data and statements.
Details are done in pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response letter
Re: Manuscript ID: forests-2686191
Title: Forest Canopy Structures and Mother Bamboo Rhizomes Impact the Sensory Quality of Bamboo Shoots
Dec 5th, 2023
Dear Ms. Dolly Chen and reviewer 3,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful critiques have played a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of our work. We have diligently revised the manuscript to incorporate your valuable suggestions, and we are grateful for the constructive feedback you provided.
In response to your comments, we have provided a detailed explanation below. Additionally, we have included both a clean version of the manuscript and a version with revisions highlighted in green to facilitate your review. The page and line numbers in the response letter correspond to those in the green-highlighted manuscripts.
Kindly contact us in case you have any inquiries. We appreciate your consideration of our updated manuscript!
Regards,
Corresponding author
Reviewer #3:
Queries in the PDF version:
Point 1: Keywords need to be sorted
Response: We are very grateful for pointing out our mistake. We have revised it.
(Page 1 Line 36) Keywords: bamboo shoots; canopy structure; chlorophyll; forests management; rhizome
Point 2: The serial number of the calculation formula is wrong, and AI does not need italics.
Response: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistakes. We have corrected them.
(Page 4 Line 161) Aggregation index (AI) was calculated using the formula [34] shown in (1).
|
(1) |
(Page 5 Line 205)
|
chlorophyll a |
(2) |
|
carotenoid |
(3) |
Point 3: The R language package of statistical analysis requires single quotes, and does not require double quotes. Delete the sentence “All statistical analyses were performed in the R 4.2.3 program environment”.
Response: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistakes. We have all changed the double quotes to single quotes, and have deleted the sentence.
(Page 6 Lines 246-264) For a comprehensive evaluation of the morphological impacts of bamboo shoots, we utilized the ‘randomForest’ R package [39] to rank and identify the influencing factors. This involved employing the random forest model to assess the effects of various factors (canopy structure, light factors, soil factors, structural factors of mother bamboos, pigment content, cell number, and cell length of shoots) on the basal diameter and height of bamboo shoots. To elucidate the impact of these important factors on shoots height and basal diameter, we employed the linear mixed effect model using the ‘lmerTest’ of the R package. In each model, factors with an impact exceeding 5 % (as determined by the random forest model) were considered fixed effects, while the forest type was fitted as random effects. The significance of fixed effects was evaluated using the maximum likelihood method. We initiated a full model with all variables as fixed effects and iteratively simplified it to a final model containing only significant variables (P < 0.05). Model simplification was based on the marginal R2m (the variance explained by fixed factors alone) and conditional R2c (the variance explained by fixed and random factors) calculated using the package ‘glmm.hp’ [40]. To address discrepancies in sample sizes, particularly for the canopy structure and mother bamboo factors, we calculated average values of canopy structure, aboveground structure and underground structure of mother bamboo for each plot and repeated six times. Similarly, we averaged values for cell diameter, length and cell number in the radial and axial systems of each shoot.
Point 4: Figure 2D size is not aligned. The title of Fig.5A is not aligned.
Response: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistakes. We have corrected these mistakes.
Point 5: This sentence needs to add a reference.
“ The third reason is that the understory light factor does not directly affect the morphological structure of shoots, but indirectly affects the morphological structure of shoots by affecting the chlorophyll a content of shoots.”
Response: Thank you very much for your insightful advice! References have been added.
(Page 16 Lines 469-471) The third reason is that the understory light factor did not directly affect the morphological structure of shoots, but indirectly affected the morphological structure of shoots by affecting the chlorophyll a content of shoots [20,21].
Point 6: Always use past for your actual research
Response: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistakes. We have corrected these mistakes.
(Page 15 Lines 406-412) The high yield of PBF (Figure S1) and a large number of shoots were collected every year, which would lead to the transfer of a large number of chemical elements, resulting in a decrease in nutrient content in bamboo forests. This showed long-term management would be bound to cause soil degradation. Additionally, to improve the soil nutrients of bamboo plantations, a large amount of organic matter and chemical fertilizers were applied which led to soil degradation [42], and the soil degradation [43] changed the quality of shoots [44].
(Page 16 Lines 463-474) There may be three main reasons for this: the first reason is that the previous study was an indoor light control experiment, and this experiment was conducted out under natural light, and the proportion of light quality in natural light may have an uncertain effect on the morphology of shoots. The second is that the light factor measured in the experiment was measured every two hours, which may be more affected by the time of measurement and the canopy structure and may be more suitable for continuous monitoring of the light quality of the forest. The third reason is that the understory light factor did not directly affect the morphological structure of shoots, but indirectly affected the morphological structure of shoots by affecting the chlorophyll a content of shoots [20,21]. In our study the elongation growth of shoots was affected by the network regulation path of light and hormones on the formation of chloroplasts in shoots, which is consistent with the study of Cackett et al [20].
(Page 16 Lines 491-493) The EBF and PBF in this study were evergreen tree species, while the canopy tree species of MBF were partly deciduous broad-leaved tree species.
(Page 17 Lines 501-503) Therefore, by increasing the ANPC of shoots, it could be beneficial to improve the taste quality of shoots.
(Page 17 Lines 513-516) Therefore, reducing the canopy openness and increasing the leaf area index of bamboo forest could help to reduce the chlorophyll a content of shoots, and increasing the mean leaf angle could help to increase the carotenoid content of shoots.
(Page 17 Lines 521-538) The study was the first attempt to reveal the influence mechanism of common bamboo forest management strategies (competitive tree species removal) on improving the appearance quality of bamboo shoots. Our findings indicated that the appearance quality of bamboo shoots in pure bamboo forests significantly improved under the management strategy of removing competitive trees. The number of bamboo rhizomes and the chlorophyll a content of bamboo shoots were identified as the primary factors contributing to the basal diameter thickening and elongation growth of shoots, respectively. However, the chlorophyll a content of bamboo shoots exhibited a positive effect on the cellulose and lignin content of bamboo shoots, while the carotenoid content of bamboo shoots showed a positive influence on the protein content of bamboo shoots. In addition, we observed that increasing the canopy openness and mean leaf angle could assist in reducing the chlorophyll a content and enhancing the carotenoid content of shoots, thus contributing to the improvement or maintenance of shoot quality. This study emphasized that, for the purpose of enhancing or maintaining the nutritional quality and taste quality of shoots, increasing the number of bamboo rhizomes, bamboo canopy, and mean leaf angle would be beneficial in improving the appearance quality of shoots. These findings provided a scientific basis for the management of bamboo forests and the enhancement of their economic benefits.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
