Mutual Water Supply Existed Between the Root Systems of Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. and Alhagi sparsifolia Shap. Under Extreme Drought Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several questions and remarks regarding the article by Fu et al. “Mutual water supply existed between the root systems of Tamarix ramosissima and Alhagi sparsifolia under extreme drought stress”.

 

Soil properties, particularly texture, have a significant impact on soil water-holding capacity and infiltration rate. Provide data on soil structure and how it varies along the soil profile.

Paragraphs between lines 446 and 465. Do these paragraphs only display the data of other scientists, or do they also include your data? If you have obtained data on root systems, please include a description of the techniques used to study root systems in the Methods section. Second, I believe that these data should be transferred to the Results section.

“For mature A. sparsifolia, the root system was dominated by the main root, with very few fine roots within 150 cm underground.” (Lines 461-462) What diameter of roots did you consider to be fine roots? Furthermore, because fine roots are readily damaged or lost during excavation, their removal from soil necessitates prudence and the use of suitable methods. As previously said, you should specifically detail the root-extraction techniques.

“…indicating that A. sparsifolia’s root water evaporated strongly with a slight increase in soil water content…” (Lines431-432) Evaporated? Please explain. Does root water evaporation occur at surface layers or across the soil profile?

“Figure 3. Soil depth (mm)” The soil depth is indicated in millimetres. Is that dimension correct?Perhaps centimetres should be used to denote depth.

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

Author Response

Comments 1: Soil properties, particularly texture, have a significant impact on soil water-holding capacity and infiltration rate. Provide data on soil structure and how it varies along the soil profile. Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made modifications. In “2.1 The study area”, we have added an introduction to soil properties.   Comments 2: Paragraphs between lines 446 and 465. Do these paragraphs only display the data of other scientists, or do they also include your data? If you have obtained data on root systems, please include a description of the techniques used to study root systems in the Methods section. Second, I believe that these data should be transferred to the Results section. Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made modifications. In “2.2.1 Samples and data collection”, we added a description of the techniques used to study root systems.   Comments 3: “For mature A. sparsifolia, the root system was dominated by the main root, with very few fine roots within 150 cm underground.” (Lines 461-462) What diameter of roots did you consider to be fine roots? Furthermore, because fine roots are readily damaged or lost during excavation, their removal from soil necessitates prudence and the use of suitable methods. As previously said, you should specifically detail the root-extraction techniques. Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made modifications. In “2.2.1 Samples and data collection”, we added a description of the techniques used to study root systems. Moreover, we introduced how to prevent the damage and the loss of fine roots.   Comments 4: “…indicating that A. sparsifolia’s root water evaporated strongly with a slight increase in soil water content…” (Lines431-432) Evaporated? Please explain. Does root water evaporation occur at surface layers or across the soil profile? Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made modifications. Plant root loses water through the transpiration of leaves. We made some modification in lines 505-513.   Comments 5: “Figure 3. Soil depth (mm)” The soil depth is indicated in millimetres. Is that dimension correct?Perhaps centimetres should be used to denote depth. Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made modifications. We have modified Figure 3.   Comments 6: Add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made modifications. We add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

This section appears to superficial with no clear-cut understanding of what the entire paper was all about. I found it difficult to comprehend the message the authors were trying to pass. I would suggest you revisit this section and tell us what your paper was all about.

Introduction

From the beginning the section was well crated but from the third paragraph, starting from line 65, there seem to be loss of thought. I am wondering why the temperature, evaporation, precipitation of the desert riparian forest should form part of an introduction, to the best of my knowledge it would be best fit for the methodology section. Further, nothing much was said about the plants under investigation, how do they react to drought condition in the studied habitat? What features do they use to receive and retain water both from the soil and groundwater in the event of a drought condition? Then, not much was said about earlier studies conducted in the research topic. Kindly search for more literature in similar studies elsewhere and in China, and if possible, in the chosen region and area where the study was conducted. Further, there must be a definite research questions or hypotheses, at the moment nothing of such. For instance, do the plant species survive the drought condition? What are their ecological conditions in the event of drought, and so on?

Plant Community and Methods

This section was well crafted and presented excepted for the too wordy nature of the section. I would suggest you summarise most of the description of the methods you used.

Results

The section was well represented but the authors did not refer to the figures and tables in which results are been presented, please do for easy tracing of the particular figure and table you are interpreting.

Discussion

I was taken about by the re-introduction of results interpretation in this section. Kindly explain. Further, I see most of your discussion centred on mere description of the results you have presented in your results section. There should be critical engagement of what your findings bring to the table as far this research is concerned. I would suggest a total overhauling of the section, because as it is now, it not close to be what I would give a pass mark for a good discussion.

 

All other specific comments on each section are in the attached document.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

Abstract

This section appears to superficial with no clear-cut understanding of what the entire paper was all about. I found it difficult to comprehend the message the authors were trying to pass. I would suggest you revisit this section and tell us what your paper was all about.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made the modification in Abstract.

 

Comments 2:

Introduction

From the beginning the section was well crated but from the third paragraph, starting from line 65, there seem to be loss of thought. I am wondering why the temperature, evaporation, precipitation of the desert riparian forest should form part of an introduction, to the best of my knowledge it would be best fit for the methodology section. Further, nothing much was said about the plants under investigation, how do they react to drought condition in the studied habitat? What features do they use to receive and retain water both from the soil and groundwater in the event of a drought condition? Then, not much was said about earlier studies conducted in the research topic. Kindly search for more literature in similar studies elsewhere and in China, and if possible, in the chosen region and area where the study was conducted. Further, there must be a definite research questions or hypotheses, at the moment nothing of such. For instance, do the plant species survive the drought condition? What are their ecological conditions in the event of drought, and so on?

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with these comments. Therefore, I/we have deleted the contents lines 65-67. We deleted the temperature, evaporation, precipitation of the desert riparian forest, because these contents have been introduced in the study area. Further, we introduced the research object of this article- T. ramosissima and A. sparsifolia, and the responses of them to drought stress. Moreover, a definite research question was proposed in lines 90-92

 

Comments 3:

Plant Community and Methods

This section was well crafted and presented excepted for the too wordy nature of the section. I would suggest you summarise most of the description of the methods you used.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have removed excess contents in “2.2 Species selection” and “2.3.2 Plant water source tracing method”.

 

Comments 4:

Results

The section was well represented but the authors did not refer to the figures and tables in which results are been presented, please do for easy tracing of the particular figure and table you are interpreting.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We have placed the figures and tables in the corresponding position.

 

Comments 5:

Discussion

I was taken about by the re-introduction of results interpretation in this section. Kindly explain. Further, I see most of your discussion centred on mere description of the results you have presented in your results section. There should be critical engagement of what your findings bring to the table as far this research is concerned. I would suggest a total overhauling of the section, because as it is now, it not close to be what I would give a pass mark for a good discussion.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have reorganized and rewritten the discussion.

 

Comments 6:

All other specific comments on each section are in the attached document.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing these out. I/We agree with these comments. Therefore, we have modified them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all the questions and comments. The manuscript has been carefully revised.

Author Response

Comment 1:

As reviewer 2 noted, the conclusion section does not adequately reflect the findings of the paper, and the authors have not addressed this issue.  In other words,  the conclusion is not supported by the paper/data.  The authors must rewrite the conclusion to align with the rest of the paper before it can be published. The title, abstract, and conclusion must all align with before this paper can be considered for publication.

Response 1:   Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewrote the conclusion and reflected the findings of the paper. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx