Acclimatisation of White Laran (Neolamarckia cadamba Roxb. Bosser) and Binuang (Octomeles sumatrana Miq.) Seedlings to Water-Logged and Water-Stress Conditions
and Affendy Hassan 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents new and interesting findings that can be very useful for future breeding programs of N. cadamba and O. sumatrana and the establishment of plantations with these species. In general, research dealing with plant breeding and species selection for reforestation will become more important in the future, especially in light of climate change.
The title is appropriate and informative. The subject is original and the obtained results could fill the gaps when it comes to information about the use of studied species for the establishment of forest plantations.
The introduction summarizes current knowledge and identifies gaps, and clearly states the rationale for conducting this research.
The methods are appropriate, but further clarification is needed to fully understand how this research was conducted.
It is not clear in what conditions the research was conducted. Such experiments require semi-controlled or fully controlled conditions. Please clarify.
It was stated that 36 rhizotrons of appropriate dimensions were used in the experiment. It is not stated how many plants were included in the experiment. Was there one plant in one rhizotron? Is this number of plants sufficient to carry out statistical analyses? Can the results obtained on that basis be used as correct?
How many plants were used per treatment?
It was not explained what treatments were carried out. What do water stress and waterlogging mean? What is control?
The treatments must be fully explained so that the experiment could be repeated. Please clarify this part.
When displaying the measured parameters, it is described that the leaf area was measured, and in the text and the table it says Leaf Area Index (cm2). Leaf Area Index cannot be expressed in measurement units of cm2. Please correct this.
The results are comprehensively presented and mostly supported by figures and tables that help understand the findings.
The results are well discussed and compared with similar recent research.
The conclusions are rather general, without concrete messages. Besides, can this be claimed if the results showed that there are no statistically significant differences in most of the studied parameters of the applied treatments versus the control?
References are used correctly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We are pleased to re-submit of our revised manuscript after major revisions entitled “Acclimatisation of White Laran (Neolamarckia cadamba) and Binuang (Octomeles sumatrana) seedlings to Water-Logged and Water Stress Conditions” for consideration by Journal of Forests after after answering comments from both reviewers. The comments and answers are attach as below in this cover letter for your kind perusal (see attachment). We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.
Answer to Reviewer 1
|
No. |
Academic Editor’s comment |
Feedback/Answer from author |
|
1. |
The methods are appropriate, but further clarification is needed to fully understand how this research was conducted. |
The correction has made in Materials and Methods as explained below. |
|
2. |
It is not clear in what conditions the research was conducted. Such experiments require semi-controlled or fully controlled conditions. Please clarify. |
This is semi-controlled experiment as added in line number 93. |
|
3. |
It was stated that 36 rhizotrons of appropriate dimensions were used in the experiment. It is not stated how many plants were included in the experiment. Was there one plant in one rhizotron? Is this number of plants sufficient to carry out statistical analyses? Can the results obtained on that basis be used as correct? |
Yes, 36 rhizotrons are equivalent to 36 of seedlings both N. cadamba (18 rhizotrons) and O. sumatrana (18 rhizotrons). The correction as in line number 99-101.
Yes, the plants are sufficient for statistical analysis based on normality test (normal distributed) and also referring by the previous similar work in ref. number [21] - (DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2019.1675872
|
|
4. |
How many plants were used per treatment? |
The correction as in line number 100-101. |
|
5. |
It was not explained what treatments were carried out. What do water stress and waterlogging mean? What is control? |
The sentences were added as in line number 103-108. |
|
6. |
The treatments must be fully explained so that the experiment could be repeated. Please clarify this part. |
The correction has made in Section 2.2. |
|
7. |
When displaying the measured parameters, it is described that the leaf area was measured, and in the text and the table it says Leaf Area Index (cm2). Leaf Area Index cannot be expressed in measurement units of cm2. Please correct this. |
The correction is done as in line number 154-156. also, the information about LAI, unit and all mean values have corrected as in Table 5. |
|
8. |
The conclusions are rather general, without concrete messages. Besides, can this be claimed if the results showed that there are no statistically significant differences in most of the studied parameters of the applied treatments versus the control? |
The conclusion part is added and corrected as in line number 472-479. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
GENERAL
The authors made simple but interesting experimental work related to initial development of two native tree species in two envronments of contrasting water conditions. The experiment seems to be well planned and conducted, and paper is also, en general, written well and rather easy to understand.
However, I advice some improvements to this paper before publication. These improvements refer particularly to Materials and Methods and Conclusions.
Materials and Methods - I recommend to add more detailed information regarding, how the treatments were created and conducted. I can suppose, that the control (T3) was subject to natural rainfall occurring in the area. But, how the water stress treatment (T1) was created - by a kind of roof protecting from rainfall? And, a water-logged treatment (T2) by filling tubes with water every day?
My other doubt refers to the kind of soil used to fill the rhizotrons - does it reflect a natural soil ocurring in the area? Are the soils with relatively uniform organic matter content to a depth of 1m common in the area. What is the soil texture prevailing in the area of interest?
The Conclusions are too short, in my opinion. I would like to see, if the results of this study may be applied in recommendations of selection of both species to particular environmental conditions. It was slightly mentioned in Conclusions, but I recommend to write more extensively about this aspect. I recommend also to explore more the issue of gaps existing in this study which should be specified to indicate the direction of future studies.
Additionally I have some smaller observations regarding mainly, but not only, Materials and Methods.
In conclusion, I recommend to publish this paper after minor revision of the text.
DETAILED
Line 95: if the rhizotrons had the form of tube, I recommend to change the description regarding their size, from "...rhizotrons of 150 mm × 150 mm × 1000 mm" into "rhizotrons in form of vertical tubes of 150 mm of diameter and 1000 of length". The current form suggest the that the rhizorons had cuboid form.
Line 107: Is this possible to add information regarding the original horizon and WRB 2015 Reference Group of the used to mix with sand and fill the tubes?
Line 115: Please, add information regarding name (type?) and composition of fertilizer used in the experiment. Is such fertilization used commonly during establishment of forest plantations in the area?
Table 1: Does the chemical data reflect the chemical properties of soil before, or after mixing with sand? Please, specify if the numbers in the table refer to total content of particular elements or some particular forms of these elements?
Lines 337 and 339: If the "(g)" placed after dried shoot biomass refer to grams, they are not necessary and may be removed.
Line 380: Here the term "aerenchyma" is used. Is this tissue present in roots of N. cadamba and O. sumatrana? I suppose that not, but I would like to see such statement in the paper. Although, on the other hand - how the roots of both species could function in water-logged soil to adepth of about 40cm? Did the water contain some gaseous oxigen, or perhaps the soil of T2 treatment was not completely water-logged to this depth? Was it checked?
Author Response
Cover letter
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are pleased to re-submit of our revised manuscript after major revisions entitled “Acclimatisation of White Laran (Neolamarckia cadamba) and Binuang (Octomeles sumatrana) seedlings to Water-Logged and Water Stress Conditions” for consideration by Journal of Forests after after answering comments from both reviewers. The comments and answers are attach as below in this cover letter for your kind perusal (see attachment). We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.
Answer to Reviewer 2
|
No. |
Academic Editor’s comment |
Feedback/Answer from author |
|
1. |
Materials and Methods - I recommend to add more detailed information regarding, how the treatments were created and conducted. I can suppose, that the control (T3) was subject to natural rainfall occurring in the area. But, how the water stress treatment (T1) was created - by a kind of roof protecting from rainfall? And, a water-logged treatment (T2) by filling tubes with water every day? |
The sentences were added as in line number 103-108. |
|
2. |
My other doubt refers to the kind of soil used to fill the rhizotrons - does it reflect a natural soil ocurring in the area? Are the soils with relatively uniform organic matter content to a depth of 1m common in the area. What is the soil texture prevailing in the area of interest? |
Yes, the soil sample that used in the study was collected from the Tamparuli Forest Reserve where the forest species mostly found in general. The organic matter relatively uniform and the suitable soil texture for these species is ranging from sandy clay to sandy clay loam. So the soil used in the present study at least mimic to natural conditions or in the field. |
|
3. |
The Conclusions are too short, in my opinion. I would like to see, if the results of this study may be applied in recommendations of selection of both species to particular environmental conditions. It was slightly mentioned in Conclusions, but I recommend to write more extensively about this aspect. I recommend also to explore more the issue of gaps existing in this study which should be specified to indicate the direction of future studies. |
The conclusion part is added and corrected as in line number 472-479. |
|
4. |
Line 95: if the rhizotrons had the form of tube, I recommend to change the description regarding their size, from "...rhizotrons of 150 mm × 150 mm × 1000 mm" into "rhizotrons in form of vertical tubes of 150 mm of diameter and 1000 of length". The current form suggest the that the rhizorons had cuboid form. |
Corrected in line number 99-100. |
|
5. |
Line 107: Is this possible to add information regarding the original horizon and WRB 2015 Reference Group of the used to mix with sand and fill the tubes? |
This is not impossible, because the study conducted in semi-controlled conditions except in the field planting. Another reason also related to number 2 as above. |
|
6. |
Line 115: Please, add information regarding name (type?) and composition of fertilizer used in the experiment. Is such fertilization used commonly during establishment of forest plantations in the area? |
The correction is done as in line number 129.
Yes, the fertilization is common during initial forest plantation establishment. |
|
7. |
Table 1: Does the chemical data reflect the chemical properties of soil before, or after mixing with sand? Please, specify if the numbers in the table refer to total content of particular elements or some particular forms of these elements? |
The chemical properties presented in Table 1 are the properties before the experiment only. The reason is, we want to know only the nutrient status of the properties before the experiment. We don’t test the chemical properties after mixing or after experiment because all the nutrient washed out before the experiment to avoid contamination with the treatment.
Each element in the table representatives ‘Total content’. the correction is made in the Table. |
|
8. |
Lines 337 and 339: If the "(g)" placed after dried shoot biomass refer to grams, they are not necessary and may be removed. |
The ‘g’ was deleted as in line number 363 and 365. |
|
9. |
Line 380: Here the term "aerenchyma" is used. Is this tissue present in roots of N. cadamba and O. sumatrana? I suppose that not, but I would like to see such statement in the paper. Although, on the other hand - how the roots of both species could function in water-logged soil to adepth of about 40cm? Did the water contain some gaseous oxigen, or perhaps the soil of T2 treatment was not completely water-logged to this depth? Was it checked? |
The sentence ‘’Hypoxia allows the roots to gain oxygen directly from the environment, and the aerenchyma will play its role in transporting the oxygen” in the discussion was deleted to avoid misunderstanding. We don’t study aerenchyma in the present study.
The roots not appear in water-looged area. However, the explanation is corrected as in line 103-108.
We don’t need to check either water contain some gaseous oxygen or not. Because its not in our purpose or objective in the present study. It is only based on root appearance in the rhizotron. The T2 treatment was completely water-logged 30 cm from the bottom of rhizotron as explained in line number 103-108. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your responses and suggestion acceptance.
