Study on Salt-Ion Content and Biomass Distribution Characteristic of Different Organs of Poacynum pictum in Different Water–Salt Habitats
, Yudong Chen 1,2,3, Zhenying Ma 1,2,3, Junfang Zhou 1,2,3 and Qingbin Xu 1,2,3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled: “Study on Salt-Ion Content and Biomass Distribution Characteristic of Different Organs of Poacynum pictum in Different Water-Salt Gradients” by Xiang Wen Fu, Min Xue He, Dong Yu Chen, Ying Zhen Ma, Fang Jun Zhou, Peng Hai Feng, and Bin Qing Xu offers a highly valuable contribution to understanding the interaction between salt-ion content and biomass distribution in halophytes under varying water-salt gradients. The study focuses on Poacynum pictum, a typical halophyte in the Ebinur Lake Wetland Reserve, providing significant insights into its adaptation mechanisms in saline habitats. This topic aligns perfectly with the scope of Forests and is likely to attract the interest of its readership.
The manuscript is exceptionally well-crafted, both scientifically and technically. It presents a thorough investigation of the relationship between salt-ion content and biomass distribution across different organs of P. pictum under distinct environmental gradients. The clear focus on Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ as key ions influencing biomass development is particularly commendable, as is the detailed analysis of their distribution patterns in leaves, twigs, stems, and roots.
The authors successfully demonstrate how P. pictum adapts to saline habitats by regulating ion uptake and biomass allocation, offering novel insights into the role of specific ions like Na+ in aboveground biomass and Ca2+ in root biomass. The findings have practical implications for understanding halophyte survival and productivity in saline environments.
Despite its overall quality, the manuscript has minor shortcomings. My specific comments:
1) The manuscript does not fully adhere to the Forests journal template (particular attention should be given to the References section).
2) Qingbin Xu – no affiliation is provided in the manuscript.
3) Abstract – please include a mention of the practical implications of the study's findings.
4) Keywords – the keywords should be revised to avoid redundancy with the manuscript title and should be arranged in alphabetical order.
5) Introduction – lines 86–95 - the research hypothesis is missing.
6) Materials and Methods – section 2.2 should be titled "Plant Material, Experimental Design, and Methods." Please add a sentence clearly stating the species studied, using its full scientific name.
7) Results – for Table 1 (Line 177), Figure 1 (Line 212), and Figure 2 (Line 228), indicate which statistical test was used to compare mean values. Figure 3 – specify the meaning of *, **, and ***.
8) Conclusions - while the study's findings are well-presented, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer and more explicit statement of the conclusions.
No comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable suggestions, We have made efforts to revise the relevant questions your raised, and attached a corresponding new manuscript. The manuscript is divided into three parts, the first part is the new manuscript after modification, the second part is my reply to each question, and the third part is the proof of the traces of my modification.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find them in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made efforts to revise the relevant questions that you raised, and attached a corresponding new manuscript. The manuscript is divided into three parts, the first part is the new manuscript after modification, the second part is my reply to each quetion, and the third part is the proof of the traces of my modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors carefully addressed all my comments and revised the article in accordance with them. They also simplified by task by adding exact text of modified sentences to the replies to my comments. In general I am satisfied. My only minor recommendation is to reconsider the statement about Ca-induced decline in permeability of membranes. Author should either confirm it with a more convincing reference or just delete it.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. I have revised it according to your to your suggestions, and attached a new manuscript accordingly. The first part is my reply to your comments, and the second part is the newly revised manuscript. I am very much looking forward to communicating with your further!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
