Effect of Planting Ground Treatments Using Artificial Rainfall Slope Simulating Degraded Forestland on Drought Stress Susceptibility of Pinus densiflora

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript “Effect of Planting Ground Treatments using Artificial Rainfall Slope Simulating Degraded Forestland on Drought Stress Susceptibility of Pinus densiflora” deals with the physiological responses of Pinus densiflora to different treatments in a simulated degraded forest environment. There are few concern which need to be considered and addressed before the final decision is made.

Comments

·       Write one future impact line in the abstract section.

·       The study simulated degraded forest conditions with an artificial rainfall slope, but did not specify the exact parameters or how closely these matched natural conditions. Kindly provide few lines about it in the introduction section.

·       How accurately does the artificial rainfall slope mimic real-world conditions of a degraded forest area? What are the specific soil moisture levels observed in the Control, Mulching, and Waterbag treatments?

·       Ln 82-87: Rewrite the line for better clarity.

·       Details on how soil moisture levels fluctuated over time in each treatment would provide a clearer picture of water stress.

·       The recovery period (R30) is mentioned, but more specifics on the environmental conditions and plant responses during this period are needed. Kindly discuss it.

·       What factors contribute to the Waterbag treatment being less effective than the Mulching treatment?

·       Check units throughout the manuscript.

·       Although the Waterbag treatment showed better results compared to the Control, its effectiveness was still less than that of the Mulching treatment. This raises questions about the practicality and cost-effectiveness of implementing the Waterbag treatment in large-scale forest restoration projects.

·       What are the broader ecological implications of using Mulching and Waterbag treatments in degraded forests?

·       While mulching is stated as the most effective, the study could explore why this is the case in greater detail.

·       Fig. 3 is not clear. Provide high definition figures.

·       How might the findings of this study be applied to other tree species facing similar environmental stressors?

·       In the result and discussion section the study should provide statistical significance levels for the differences observed between treatments.

·       Further research is needed to determine if similar treatments would be effective for other tree species in degraded forests. What future research is needed to further understand and enhance the adaptive mechanisms of trees in degraded forest areas? This can be included in the conclusion section.

 

·       Conclusion section is too large. Kindly make it short. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review on „Effect of Planting Ground Treatments using Artificial Rainfall Slope Simulating Degraded Forestland on Drought Stress Susceptibility of Pinus densiflora” (forests-3111762).

Drought stress in forests is a significant environmental issue that affects the health and sustainability of forest ecosystems. The authors examined the effects of three treatments (control – no treatment, mulching, and waterbegging) on Pinus densiflora’s some physiological characteristics (chlorophyll and carotenoid content, root collar growth, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and stomatal transpiration rate) and soil properties. The authors stated that mulching was most effective at retaining long-term soil moisture for seedlings and extending their physiological response mechanisms for survival for over a week, thereby complementing planting grounds in deforested areas. Compared to the control, the waterbag treatment was less effective than mulching, but it still significantly contributed to better growth conditions.  

The manuscript is formatted according to the rules and contains the necessary sections. The reseach topic fits very well to the aim of the Forest journal. Generally, the manuscript is well-written and contains valuable information. However, the manuscript needs some improvement before publication.

Abstract:

Line 17, 20 and check the whole manuscript: Do not necessarily use a capital letter for treatments, please correct it.

Keywords:

Please arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.

Materials and Methods:

Line 163: Please be more precise and add the information on how the dry weight was determined? I guess it was measured using an analytical scale. If so please add this information and provide the scale specifications like producer, country of origin, etc.

Line 170, 177: Check and use superscript.

Line 202: Please correct „dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO)” – provide the full name of the chemical

Results:

I suggest moving the Figure 1 part C (C) Soil water contents of P. densiflora under three different planting ground treatments and present here not in the Materials and Methods section, and please improve the quality of the figure.

Line 237: I did not find Figure 1H in the manuscript, please check it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discusses the effect of planting ground treatments using artificial rainfall slope simulating degraded forestland on drought stress susceptibility of Pinus densiflora.

 

The text is well-written. Some points are raised below. All answers should be included in the text.

 

1.           Ls.20-22: unclear.

2.           L.25: treatments.

3.           In the subsections, i.e., 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, values for trees not undergoing stress conditions should be added for comparison’s sake.

4.           Ls. 324-5: Explanation needed.

5.           The authors should include a paragraph about the practical application of their findings in real forests.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several questions and remarks regarding the paper by Lee et al. “Effect of Planting Ground Treatments using Artificial Rainfall Slope Simulating Degraded Forestland on Drought Stress Susceptibility of Pinus densiflora”.

 

Conceptual remarks.

“By creating an artificial rainfall slope that simulates the conditions of a degraded area in a controlled environment, the study seeks to provide basic data on effective planting ground establishment methods…” (Lines 91-95) The authors experimented with only two-year-old Japanese pine seedlings in a controlled laboratory setting. Then attempting to extrapolate these data to similar but natural environments. There are many environmental factors in nature that are frequently unpredictable. Accordingly, there will be considerable variation in the plant's (in this example, pine trees') response. How correct can such an extrapolation be?

 

Special issues.

The soil data were limited to the mechanical characteristics. Woody plant growth and drought tolerance are also influenced by the chemical properties of soils. Provide data on the chemical characteristics of the soils used in the experiments. Soil acidity, organic carbon content, nitrogen content, phosphorous content, etc.

Subsection “3.2. Root Diameter and Leaf Water Saturation Deficit” Add a description of the techniques used to examine the root systems of tree samples in the "Methods" section. How the diameter of the roots was measured and how they were selected. For now, the only available information is the method used to measure the root collar diameter.

Conclusions. Paragraph between lines 563-570. These are obvious and trivial facts. Why include them in the conclusions?

Add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant changes in the manuscript. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of the issues mentioned during the initial round of review were thoroughly addressed. The manuscript has been carefully revised.