Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, find attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1

L18-21 Be more specific when reporting results in the abstract. Include the specific %, name the strata, localities and pre-germination treatments etc.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully revised the abstract to include more specific results as requested. The updated version now reports exact percentages (e.g., 100% survival with urea application and 96% of individuals with straight stems), names of the evaluated strata (secondary forest, riparian forest, and pasture), the localities (The Tundo and The Victoria), and the pre-germination treatments applied (control, mechanical scarification, hot water immersion, and water-sun exposure). This information has been incorporated while ensuring the abstract remains within the journal’s word limit.

 Comment 2

L22 Include specific moisture loss (2%).

Response2: Thank you for the observation. We have revised line 22 to explicitly include the specific moisture loss value of 2%, as indicated in the results. This clarification enhances the precision of the reported findings and ensures consistency with the data presented in the manuscript.

 

Comment 3

L27 Based on the rather limited study material and results reported, I would suggest to replace “offering a scientific basis” with something more grounded, e.g. “adding to scientific basis” or “contributing to scientific basis”

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion regarding line 27. We've revised the sentence accordingly to reflect a more grounded contribution by replacing “offering a scientific basis” with: “These findings provide key technical evidence to optimize the propagation and establishment of J. neotropica in ecological restoration and forest production contexts.” We believe this phrasing better aligns with the scope and depth of the study.

 

Comment 4

L30 keyword “genetic variability” is misleading, since the results don’t report it.

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. The keyword 'genetic variability' has been corrected, as it does not align with the results presented. The revised list of keywords is: Tropical silviculture; Seed quality; Phenotypic variability; Forest improvement; Environmental adaptation.

Comment 5

L34 “fragility and vitality” seems awkward combination of these two words, which characterises something opposite, to my understanding. Try to clarify this sentence.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comment. The sentence has been revised to improve its clarity and coherence. Instead of ‘fragility and vitality,’ a wording that more precisely expresses the observed contrast has been chosen—for example: 'marked by a delicate balance between ecological fragility and biological vitality.' This version aims to convey how both traits coexist in the Andean ecosystem, reflecting its natural complexity.

 Comment 6

L35 “highly valuable goods” – be more specific.

Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. For greater clarity, the highly valuable goods produced and preserved by the Andean forests include timber resources used in construction and carpentry, medicinal plants essential to both traditional and modern healthcare, native foods, and essential ecosystem services such as water regulation, carbon storage, and biodiversity protection. These elements not only benefit local communities but also play a crucial role in global environmental sustainability.

 Comment 7

L36 I don’t understand “generation of essential ecosystem services”.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have added and improved the explanation for greater clarity. We now emphasize that healthy ecosystems provide and sustain essential services, such as water regulation, erosion control, and biodiversity conservation, which benefit both local communities and global environmental balance.

 Comment 8

L38 Name at least some examples of “multipurpose species”. Is J.neotropica one of them? In general, try to avoid such vague statements.

Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. To provide greater clarity and specificity, we have included examples of multipurpose species, such as J. neotropica, Cedrela odorata, Ocotea quixos, and Polylepis spp. These species not only have high productive potential for quality timber but also offer medicinal, nutritional, and ecological benefits, contributing significantly to environmental balance and sustainable development.

In response to your question, J. neotropica is indeed one of these multipurpose species, valued for its fine wood, medicinal applications, and nutritional properties. We appreciate your feedback and have refined the statement accordingly to avoid vague phrasing.

Comment 9

L34–L50. There is no logical connection between those first general paragraphs and further narrative about the species of interest. I miss context for J.neotropica within this description of ecosystem.

Response 9: We appreciate your observation and have refined the text structure to enhance the integration of J neotropica within the description of the Andean ecosystem. The revised version acknowledges the fundamental role of these forests in providing essential ecosystem services, including water regulation, carbon storage, and biodiversity conservation, which are key elements for ecological stability.

Furthermore, we have established a clearer connection between these services and the presence of multipurpose species, such as J. neotropica, Cedrela odorata, Ocotea quixos, and Polylepis spp., highlighting their productive potential for quality timber, as well as their medicinal, nutritional, and ecological properties. In particular, J. neotropica is a key species that contributes not only to the forest economy but also to ecosystem functionality through its role in soil dynamics and the natural regeneration of Andean forests.

We hope this version provides greater scientific accuracy and context within the ecological narrative. We appreciate your feedback and are open to further adjustments to improve clarity and coherence in the text.

Comment 10

L51 need transcript for the IUCN mentioned here for the first time.

Response 10: Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated the corresponding transcription for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in its first mention within the text, ensuring greater clarity and context regarding its reference.

Comment 11

L61–62. Avoid “studies such as those by..”. Instead, rephrase the sentence, e.g., “Studies highlight the importance of these practices in maintaining ecosystem health and ensuring the survival of endangered species [5,6].”

Response 11: Thank you for your observation. We have rephrased the sentence to improve clarity and align it with the suggested style. The revised version now directly expresses the crucial role of these studies in preserving ecosystem health and ensuring the survival of endangered species, avoiding the previous construction.

Comment 12

L64–65. I don’t agree with this statement. Forest plantations established with material from different origins, which are well-adapted for the conditions in the planting site, could contribute to the conservation of the particular species. However, it is not “an essential practice for genetic improvement”, it is a result of genetic improvement, when best performing provenances (origins) are selected based on provenance studies within the breeding programs.

Response 12: Thank you for your observation. We have adjusted the wording of the paragraph to more accurately reflect the role of forest plantations in the process of genetic improvement and biodiversity conservation. The revised version acknowledges that these plantations can contribute to these objectives when implemented with appropriate ecological criteria and within the framework of genetic selection programs.

Comment 13

L64 I would like to read more specific statement, how specifically J.neotropica contribute to biodiversity conservation.

Response 13: Thank you for your comment. In response to your suggestion, we have added the following paragraph to provide a more specific statement on how J. neotropica contributes to biodiversity conservation:

"Additionally, J. neotropica is essential for biodiversity conservation, as it aids in climate change adaptation, improves degraded soils, maintains air and water quality in agroforestry systems, and provides habitat and food for wildlife."

We hope this addition provides greater clarity and detail regarding the key role of J. neotropica in biodiversity. 

Comment 14

L64–78 In general, it seems that here is mixed together importance of provenance trials with importance of using different well-adapted origins in the seedlot for establishing plantations. I suggest to clarify it. If in this case (region, species?) the plantations are used also as provenance trails, the paragraph would benefit from clarification.
Response 14: Thank you for your observation. In this section, we aim to highlight the importance of integrating the native species J. neotropica from different localities into a forest plantation, emphasizing both genetic improvement and biodiversity conservation. We recognize that the concept of provenance trials and the selection of well-adapted localities for plantations may have been presented in an integrated manner in the text.

For greater clarity, we have replaced the term origins with localities, reflecting our intention to emphasize the geographical diversity within forest plantations. This not only seeks to select optimal genetic material for adaptation and resistance to adverse environmental conditions but also plays a role in evaluating the phenotypic plasticity of J. neotropica, functioning, in certain cases, as provenance trials. This perspective allows for the analysis of different genotypes' performance under various edaphoclimatic conditions, which is fundamental for their use in ecological restoration and genetic conservation programs.

Comment 15

L82 More explicit description of “proper silvicultural management” and knowledge gaps related to it would add better context for the current study.

Response 15: We appreciate the reviewer's observation and have revised the text to enhance its clarity and precision. In the updated version, we have incorporated a more detailed description of proper silvicultural management, highlighting key practices such as species selection, regeneration techniques, soil management, and pest control, which are essential for optimizing tree growth and timber quality. Additionally, we have considered the ecological and economic principles that underpin these strategies, ensuring that forest management not only maximizes productivity but also promotes the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. We appreciate the suggestion and believe that this improvement provides a stronger context for the study.

Comment 16

L88–92. This seems to be description of the three strata, where trials were established. This is the description which is missing in the M&M, supplemented with more detailed description of site conditions in each stratum.

Response 16: We appreciate your observation regarding the description of the strata where the trials were established. We would like to clarify that all identified strata share the same site conditions (Figure 1), ensuring that any differences observed in the results are exclusively due to the intrinsic characteristics of each stratum and not to variations in the physical or climatic environment.

The information presented in the Study Area section already includes a detailed characterization of the study area, covering aspects such as altitude, climate, precipitation, and ecosystem composition. We consider this context sufficient to support the interpretation of the results, given that the conditions are homogeneous across all analyzed strata.

Comment 17

L98 I don’t think that purpose of the study is “to increase genetic variability”. The clear research aim is missing. Increased genetic variability may be side effect of established provenance trial, of course.

Response 17: Thank you for your observation. We have reviewed the wording of the study's purpose and clarified that our main objective was to optimize the propagation and establishment of J. neotropica for ecological restoration and forest production. To achieve this, we evaluated key aspects such as seed quality, phenotypic variability, and early establishment in nursery and field conditions. Genetic variability, although relevant for the species' adaptability and resistance, is a byproduct of the established provenance trials rather than the central objective of the study. We have adjusted the wording to more precisely reflect this intention.

Comment 18

L107–111 Very vague and superficial statements. Which are the exceptional characteristics? Do you really study the whole species or specific impacts of origin, different treatments and site on the quality of seeds, performance of seedlings and first-year growth and quality in the plantations? Here again, try to be specific. Also 4 formulate a clear research aim, which would subsequently allow to develop straightforward narrative about the research needs.

Response 18: We appreciate your observation and have revised the wording to enhance the precision and clarity of the study's focus. J. neotropica is a species recognized for its ability to provide multiple ecological and economic benefits. Its exceptional characteristics include rapid growth, straight trunk formation, and optimal wood properties for commercial use.

Our study focuses on evaluating the specific impacts of seed provenance, different applied treatments, and site conditions on seed quality, seedling performance, and first-year growth in plantations. By defining these factors in greater detail, we aim to generate valuable information to improve propagation and establishment strategies for the species, contributing both to its conservation and sustainable utilization.

Additionally, we have reformulated the research objective to more clearly reflect the study’s intent and facilitate the development of a coherent narrative regarding its needs and applications.

 

Comment 19L112–122 This is more or less repetition of previously described.

Response 19: We appreciate your observation and have revised the paragraph to eliminate repetition and improve the accuracy of the information presented. The updated version emphasizes the fundamental role of Andean forests in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, highlighting the ecological and economic importance of J. neotropica, an endangered species according to the IUCN.

Additionally, we have clarified how sexual germination and the establishment of forest plantations with individuals from different localities contribute to genetic variability, adaptability, and the species' resistance to adverse environmental factors, ensuring its long-term conservation. This revised approach avoids redundancies and provides a more concise and direct structure, better aligning with the research objectives.

Comment 20

L132–133 high-fragility and medium-level threats to what? Also, it would be good to have a reference here.

Response 20: The ecosystems where the species is found are characterized by high fragility and medium-level threats, as documented in previous research (Palacios et al., 2003). However, information about these ecosystems is scarce, which has contributed to the species' endangered status. This research aims to establish a baseline of knowledge to better understand these habitats and their ecological dynamics. This study not only provides fundamental scientific data but also represents a crucial step toward the conservation of the species and its natural environments.

Comment 21

L134 and elsewhere: °C (not underlined degree sign).

Response 21: We appreciate your observation and have accepted the suggestion. We have corrected the notation in L134 and other locations, ensuring that the degree sign is not underlined (°C).

 Comment 22

L148 which are the “desirable phenotypic traits”?

Response 22: We appreciate your observation and have incorporated the suggestion. In the first phase of the research, J. neotropica seeds were selected based on the desirable phenotypic traits proposed by Heredia and Hofstede (1999). We have updated the text to reflect this reference and improve the clarity of the information.

 Comment 23

L149 and elsewhere: I would use “origins” instead of “localities”.

Response 23: We appreciate your observation. However, we have decided to maintain the use of 'localities' instead of 'origins,' as this term is the most precise for describing the geographical distribution of the analyzed samples. In the context of our study, 'localities' refers to specific sampling points, aligning with previous approaches in the literature on the biogeography and ecology of the species. We believe that this terminology allows for a more accurate interpretation of spatial distribution patterns and environmental variability within the study area.

 Comment 24

L152–153. It is a bit confusing, that you call them “three types of ecological succession in vegetation” here, but “strata” elsewhere. I suggest to define the term used further here, and then stick to that.

Response 24: We appreciate your observation and have reviewed the terminology used in the manuscript. In our study, the terms 'secondary forest,' 'riparian forest,' and 'pasture' correspond to different vegetation strata, which represent successional phases within the ecological dynamics of the ecosystem. To improve clarity and consistency in the use of this concept, we have defined the term in the relevant section and applied it consistently throughout the document, aligning with the scientific literature on vegetation structure and ecological succession.

 Comment 25

L181 Not necessary to write formula for so simple calculations. Enough with sentence in L175–176.

Response 25: We appreciate your suggestion and will proceed to remove the formula as indicated. We will ensure that the explanation in L175–176 is sufficiently clear to maintain the rigor of the analysis.

Comment 26

L184 Something to remove!

Response 26: Thank you for your observation. We have noticed the duplication in L184 and will proceed to correct it by removing the redundant content.

Comment 27

Figure 3. Please, reconsider necessity for such Figures. Keep in mind that Figures and Tables must contribute to the understanding of the research methodology.

Response 27: We appreciate your observation. Figure 3 has been incorporated as an essential methodological resource for the accurate interpretation of the number of seeds per kilogram. Data reported by some authors suggest values of up to 200 seeds per kilogram; however, our research demonstrates that these values do not reflect reality. Additionally, it is evident that both public and private stakeholders who own the resource, as well as some researchers, lack precise information on this matter. The figure provides empirical evidence based on rigorous measurements, preventing erroneous interpretations and enhancing the accuracy of the analysis in the context of agroforestry research.

Comment 28

L191–199 Is it the moisture content in total of moisture lost during 6 months? I am a bit confused.

Response 28: Thank you for your observation. In the study, the moisture content does not refer to the total moisture present in the seed but to the amount of moisture lost over the six-month period. To determine this loss, an initial weighing (time 0) was conducted, followed by another weighing after six months of storage at 18°C. The difference between these values allowed us to calculate the percentage of moisture lost in J. neotropica seeds, considering their recalcitrant nature and rapid loss of viability.

Comment 29

Figure 4. Similar to Figure 3 – is this necessary?

Response 29: We appreciate your observation. The inclusion of Figure 4, like Figure 3, addresses the need to provide a visual representation that enhances the understanding of the findings of this research. These figures have not been arbitrarily included but serve as a means of verification and scientific explanation, allowing the reader to interpret the results more clearly. Moreover, the information presented in these figures is novel and has not been documented in previous scientific sources, reinforcing its relevance in the context of this research.

Comment 30

L212–213 what is “a representative sample of seeds” and what are “controlled temperature and humidity conditions specific to J. neotropica”? Methodology must be clear!

Response 30:  Thank you for your observation. We have incorporated your suggestion and improved the methodological description as follows: For this study, a representative sample of seeds was selected based on criteria of uniformity in size, maturity, and physiological state. These seeds were stored under controlled conditions, maintaining an average temperature of 18°C and a relative humidity of 70%, parameters defined from previous studies and adjusted to the physiological requirements of J. neotropica in its natural habitat. During the storage period, systematic monitoring of viability was conducted, recording variations in moisture and physiological state to minimize the influence of external environmental factors. These conditions allowed for the collection of precise data on conservation and contributed to promoting germination. We hope this revised methodology provides the necessary clarity.

Comment 31

L233–234 Please, provide more specific description. What does it mean “different seed lots”? What are “various conditions”? This is necessary to understanding of the experimental design!

Response 31: Thank you for your observation. We have refined the methodological description for clarity and specificity.

In our study, the term 'different seed lots' refers to distinct samples used in each repetition of the applied experimental treatment. These repetitions ensured that each sample represented a specific condition within the study, allowing for a systematic evaluation of germination performance. Additionally, 'various conditions' correspond to the controlled environmental parameters under which the treatments were conducted. All experiments were performed under natural environmental conditions, ensuring representative and reliable data on seed germination in response to the evaluated variables. We hope this clarification enhances the understanding of our experimental design.

Comment 32

L238 What do you mean with “different progenies”? Do you refer to different origins (localities) or do you also know the more detailed structure, namely, mother trees, from which the seeds are harvested?

Response 32:  Thank you for your observation. To clarify, the term 'different progenies' refers to seed samples collected from previously identified geographical localities. Within these localities, the seeds were specifically obtained from mother trees that exhibited desirable phenotypic characteristics, as previously mentioned. This approach ensured that the collected seeds represented a well-defined genetic and physiological structure.

The methodology included precise measurements of each seed's size using a digital caliper, with multiple repetitions to ensure consistent and reliable data. We hope this clarification enhances the understanding of our experimental design. Please let us know if further details are required.

Comment 33

L241 Please, clarify “multiple times”.

Response 33: Thank you for your observation. We have taken your comment into account and improved the wording of the paragraph for greater clarity and precision.

The expression 'multiple times' has been clarified in the revised version of the text. It specifies that the process was systematically repeated in each locality, using seed samples consisting of 100 units. These experimental samples, referred to as seed lots, allowed for the quantification of inherent variability within each sampled population. Additionally, the applied methodology ensured rigorous statistical representation, guaranteeing the generation of consistent and reproducible data on germination performance under diverse environmental conditions. We hope this improvement provides the necessary clarity.

Comment 34

L249 “in all localities” or for “all origins”?

Response 34: We appreciate your observation. We have taken your comment into consideration and, accordingly, revised the sentence to enhance its clarity and terminological precision. The expression has been reformulated as follows: “It was measured for all living plants in the experimental unit six months after germination for all localities.” This modification clarifies that the measurement was carried out in each of the geographical locations included in the study. We trust that this revision provides the necessary clarity.

 Comment 35

L250–254 Was basal diameter also measured six months after germination, similar to height?

Response 35: We appreciate your observation. In response to your comment, we have revised the corresponding section to enhance its clarity and methodological precision.

The revised paragraph now reads:

The basal diameter is a key indicator of the plant's ability to transport water to the aerial parts, as well as its structural resistance and relative tolerance to high-temperature conditions. This parameter was measured at the height of the root collar, at the transition point between the root system and the base of the stem, in all living plants of the experimental unit. Measurements were conducted six months after germination, covering all the localities included in the study.

This clarification confirms that the basal diameter was measured six months after germination, consistent with the timeline applied for seedling height evaluation.

We trust this revision adequately addresses your concern and contributes to the overall clarity of the manuscript.

Comment 36

Figure 6: very compressed vertically.

Response 36: Thank you for your observation regarding Figure 6. We have revised the figure to address the issue of vertical compression and have adjusted its proportions to improve visual clarity and interpretability. The updated version ensures accurate representation of the data without distortion.

 Comment 37

L259 what are “predefined time intervals”?

Response 37: Gracias por su comentario respecto a la línea 259. Con el fin de mejorar la claridad, hemos revisado el párrafo para indicar explícitamente el momento en que se realizaron las mediciones del número de hojas.

Este parámetro morfológico fue evaluado en todos los individuos vivos de la unidad experimental propagados en vivero bajo los distintos tratamientos. Las mediciones se realizaron seis meses después de la germinación, coincidiendo con los momentos establecidos para la evaluación de las demás variables morfológicas, y abarcando todas las localidades incluidas en el estudio. En cada caso, se registró el número de hojas utilizando el mismo marco de evaluación, lo que permitió el análisis comparativo del desarrollo foliar entre las distintas fuentes genéticas.

Esta versión revisada elimina la ambigüedad al especificar claramente el momento de evaluación, en lugar de referirse a ‘intervalos de tiempo predefinidos’. Confiamos en que esta modificación atiende adecuadamente su observación.

 Comment 38

Figure 7 does not show any counting, as far as I can see. Please, remove this figure, it does not contribute anything.

Response 38: We appreciate your observation and have accepted the suggestion. Figure 7 has been removed from the manuscript, as we agree that it does not provide relevant information for the study.

 Comment 39

L267 “replications” instead of “repetitions”

Response 39: Thank you for your review. We accept the suggestion to use 'replications' instead of 'repetitions' in L267. We appreciate your feedback and adjustments.

Comment 40

Figure 8. Please, provide detailed figure caption. Keep in mind, that figure captions must be self-explanatory. Otherwise it is not clear, if this experimental design is for phase 1 or phase 2. Also, in the figure, replication 1 is written three times. Is it meant to be so?

Response 40: Thank you for your observation. We have improved the figure according to your suggestion, ensuring that the title is more detailed and self-explanatory. We also reviewed the numbering of the replications for greater clarity.

Comment 41

L270–271. What is “the mean separation”? And I don’t see coefficient of variation reported in the results.

Response 41:  Thank you for your observation. We have calculated the coefficient of variation to assess data dispersion and analyzed mean separation using Tukey’s test at a 5% significance level. This has allowed us to identify statistical differences among treatments and localities.

Comment 42

Table 1. Consider table design according to journal guidelines.

Response 42: Thank you for your observation. We have adjusted the table design according to the journal's guidelines. The structure and format now meet the recommended standards, ensuring a clear and well-organized presentation of the treatments and localities.

Comment 43

L302 Based on the design provided in Figure 8, I would suggest to include replication as a random effect in the model (hence, using linear mixed effect model)

Response 43: Thank you for your suggestion. We have incorporated replication as a random effect in the model, following the design provided in Figure 8. The analysis is now based on a linear mixed-effects model, allowing for a better representation of variability among replications.

Comment 44

Also, I see that model includes interaction between two factors, but it is not reported in the results.

Response 44:  Also, I see that model includes interaction between two factors, but it is not reported in the results.

 Comment 45

L303 – please, clearly state somewhere, which are the dependent variables, for which the analytical model has been used.

Response 45:  We appreciate your observation. We have incorporated an explicit statement regarding the dependent variables used in the analytical model within section 2.3.3 Experimental Design. In this study, the dependent variable is the germination percentage of J. neotropica, which has been modeled using a linear mixed-effects model, considering replication as a random effect. This inclusion allows for a more precise representation of variability among treatments and localities, ensuring the statistical validity of the analysis.

 Comment 46

L303–310 I suggest to avoid general “factor 1” and “factor 2”; instead use the exact factors studied (origins and pre-germination treatments). It would improve readability.

Response 46: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comment, we have replaced the generic terms “factor 1” and “factor 2” with the specific factors studied, namely pre-germination treatments and localities of origin, respectively. This adjustment has been made in the corresponding section (L303–310) to enhance the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

 Comment 47

L312 In two localities or using seed lots from two different localities (origins)? It is crucial to clarify it.

Response 47: Thank you for your observation. In response to your comment, we have clarified that, in the second phase of the study, the plantation trial was established under uniform environmental conditions using germinated plants originating from two distinct seed sources (The Tundo and The Victoria). The revised manuscript now explicitly indicates that the term 'locality' refers to the origin of the plant material, rather than the location of the experimental site.

Comment 48

L318–320 Please, elaborate on this. How the selection process primarily considered those site conditions? Shortly describe the soil type, pH, nutrients, climate etc specific to the area selected for the planting.

Response 48: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree with the observation and have expanded the description accordingly by incorporating detailed information about the soil characteristics (pH and nutrient levels), climatic conditions, and other relevant site attributes considered during the selection process. The revised section now provides a more comprehensive explanation of the environmental context that guided the establishment of the plantation trial.

Comment 49

L327–363 This can be compressed. I suggest to keep only one subtitle, e.g. “Site preparation” and describe it shortly, including, spacing, design, planting etc. Not necessary to describe in details the digging process etc.

Response 49: We appreciate the suggestion provided and confirm that it has been accepted. In the revised version of the manuscript, the sections related to site preparation, design, spacing, and planting have been unified under the subtitle "Site preparation" and described concisely, following the indication to omit unnecessary technical details such as the digging process.

Comment 50

L365–367. Provide more detailed description and justification of different levels of NPK and urea fertilization.

Response 50: We appreciate your observation. Confirmamos que hemos aceptado la sugerencia. Se ha incluido una descripción más detallada y una justificación científica de los niveles de fertilización aplicados con NPK y urea. La selección de estas dosis se basó en los análisis de suelo realizados previamente, los cuales indicaron una acidez moderada, fertilidad media y deficiencias potenciales de fósforo en los estratos evaluados. Estos resultados justificaron el uso de un gradiente de fertilización (baja, media y alta) con el propósito de evaluar el comportamiento inicial de J. neotropica bajo diferentes condiciones nutricionales. El diseño metodológico consideró además la aplicación en forma líquida directamente en el hoyo de plantación, para mejorar la eficiencia de absorción y minimizar la pérdida de nutrientes por lixiviación, en un contexto de alta pluviosidad y restauración ecológica.

Comment 51

L372 here you mention fertilization. Is it in addition to the one used for different treatments? If it is another one, was it used similar in all replications and treatment combinations? It is crucial to clarify it to better understand if it did affect the growth of plants differently in different plots.

Response 51: We appreciate the observation and confirm that no additional fertilization was applied beyond what was included in the experimental treatments. The mention in L372 is purely explanatory and intended to contextualize the standard management practices commonly used in forest plantations, as part of general silvicultural operations. This clarification does not imply a separate nutritional intervention apart from that established in the experimental design; therefore, there was no variation in fertilization across plots or treatments that could have differentially affected plant growth.

 Comment 52

L377–380. I would like to clarify if the trees were measured one year after planting them outside the nursery or one year including time in nursery.

Response 52: We appreciate the comment. We confirm that the measurements were taken one year after planting in the field, that is, outside the nursery. This evaluation corresponds to the second phase described in section 2.4, Second Phase: At the level of forest plantation, where dendrometric variables were measured at the definitive planting site. The time spent in the nursery was not considered in this growth evaluation.

 Comment 53

L377 Is stem straightness really an adaptability parameter?

Response 53: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. Stem straightness is considered an adaptability parameter in forest species, particularly in plantation forestry. This trait reflects the tree’s ability to respond to environmental conditions, including competition for light, wind exposure, soil properties, and nutrient availability. Straight stem growth is an indicator of structural integrity and resource optimization, which are crucial for the species’ establishment and long-term productivity. Additionally, in plantation management and genetic improvement programs, stem straightness is evaluated as a key factor in selecting individuals with superior adaptation to site conditions.

Comment 54

L385 here again no need for formula, enough to write it in one sentence.

Response 54: We appreciate and accept the reviewer’s suggestion, which we have incorporated into the text adaptation. The survival rate (%) was determined through an evaluation conducted 60 days after the trial establishment, quantifying the number of established individuals in each experimental unit. The calculation was expressed as the ratio of surviving plants to the total number of planted individuals, ensuring methodological accuracy in estimating establishment success. The evaluation was carried out under controlled and standardized conditions, guaranteeing uniformity in the application of establishment criteria and allowing for the interpretation of the plants' adaptability to the planting site and their response to the environmental conditions of the study area.

 Comment 55

L386 Here you use “12 months”, but later use “one year “for other traits. I suggest to be consistent and use one term.

Response 55: We appreciate the observation and accept the suggestion. To maintain terminological consistency, we have standardized the use of '12 months of age' in all references to the evaluated traits.

Comment 56

Table 2 is very nice, but not in English. Please, translate and use formatting according to journal guidelines.

Response 56: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have incorporated the requested changes. Table 2 has been translated into English and adapted according to the journal’s guidelines.

Comment 57

L402–404. Clarify if height was also measured at the age of one year, similar to basal diameter.

Response 57: We appreciate the comment. We confirm that the height was measured at 12 months after establishment, similar to the basal diameter, and this information has already been incorporated into the manuscript.

 Comment 58

Figures 9 and 10. I don’t see that both figures could contribute to the understanding of the methodology.

Response 58: We appreciate the comments provided. We have accepted the recommendation and removed Figures 9 and 10 from the manuscript.

 Comment 59

L432 Again here, what is “the mean separation” and where is “coefficient of variation” reported in the results?

Response 59: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified the term “mean separation” in the revised manuscript by specifying the statistical method used (e.g., Tukey’s HSD or LSD) to identify significant differences among treatment means. Additionally, the coefficient of variation (CV) values have now been explicitly reported in the results section to enhance the interpretation of variability within treatments.

 Comment 60

Table 4. Format according to the journal guidelines needed.

Response 60: We appreciate the observation. In accordance with the suggestion, Table 4 has been adapted as a figure, following the formatting guidelines established by the journal.

Comment 61

L467–475 Here again, write exact factors used in the model + define the dependent variables, for which the model has been used.

Also, the interaction effect of factors in the model is not reported in the results.

In addition, in the Table 13, you report significant differences among the strata studied, but stratum has not been included as an effect in the analytical model. Where do you get the results about significant effect from?

Response 61: We appreciate the comments provided. Indeed, the statistical model used included the applied treatments (Locality and Fertilization) as factors, along with their interactions. The dependent variables evaluated (height, basal diameter, leaf area, among others) were analyzed using ANOVA, according to the established experimental design. Regarding the stratum, we clarify that it was not included as a factor in the model, since the statistical analysis was conducted separately for each of the three identified strata (Secondary Forest, Riparian Forest, and Pasture), in order to maintain internal homogeneity within each one. This independent analytical structure has been explicitly described in the Methodology section. Additionally, the descriptions of the models employed, as well as the inclusion of the corresponding interaction effects, have been revised and reinforced in the Results section for greater clarity and consistency.

Comment 62

L483–489 No need to repeat methodology in the results.

Response 62: We appreciate the comment. We have revised the corresponding section of the Results and removed the unnecessary repetition of methodological details previously described, maintaining a clear focus on the findings.

 

Comment 63

Table 5 and elsewhere in the text and tables: use consistently “.” for decimals. Currently you use “.” In the text and “,” in the tables.

Response 63: We appreciate the suggestion. The use of the decimal separator has been reviewed and standardized throughout the manuscript, consistently using the period (“.”) in both the text and the tables, in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

Comment 64

Table 5 and 6 can be combined. There is no need to report impurity and number of seeds for each replication. Instead, report only average +- standard deviation of impurity and number of seeds for each origin in a single table.

Response 64: We appreciate your recommendation. In response to your suggestion, Tables 5 and 6 have been merged into a single table. The revised version reports only the mean ± standard deviation of the impurity percentage and the number of seeds per kilogram for each locality.

 Comment 65

L508 Please, clarify “significant variations”.

Response 65:  We appreciate your comment. In response to your suggestion, the paragraph has been revised to clarify the meaning of 'significant variations,' incorporating the appropriate statistical reference (p < 0.05) and specifying the observed differences among treatments and localities.

Comment 66

L509 What is “genetic locality”?

Response 66: Thank you for your comment. The content previously included in that paragraph has been reorganized and integrated into Section 4. Germination Percentage to enhance clarity and coherence.

Comment 67

Figure 11. What do the vertical black whiskers denote?

Response 67: Thank you for your comment. The content previously included in that paragraph has been reorganized and integrated into Section 4. Germination Percentage to enhance clarity and coherence.

Comment 68

Figure 12. I would like to see also written results explaining the plotted differences for different treatments (results from ANOVA analytical model).

Response68: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comment, we have included a written explanation of the ANOVA results in the manuscript. Figure 12 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for germination percentage among localities according to the applied pre-germination treatment. The analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among the localities within each treatment, as evidenced by the identical letters above the bars.

Comment 69

Figure 13. Very incomprehensible graph, which seems to show the same as in Figure 11.

Response 69: Thank you for your comment. The content previously included in that paragraph has been reorganized and integrated into Section 4. Germination Percentage to enhance clarity and coherence.

Comment 70

Figure 14 What is the unit of measurement for the Y axis? In caption, significant differences are not defined (p ≤ 0.05). In general, Figures 12 and 14 both seem to report results from ANOVA. Maybe consider keeping only Figure 14.

Response 70: Gracias por su observación. En la versión revisada del manuscrito, se ha incluido la unidad de medida correspondiente al eje Y (porcentaje %) en la Figura 14. Asimismo, se han definido en el pie de figura las diferencias significativas (p ≤ 0,05), indicando que las letras sobre las barras representan grupos estadísticamente diferentes. Tanto la Figura 12 como la Figura 14 presentan resultados del análisis de varianza (ANOVA): la primera muestra el porcentaje de germinación entre localidades, y la segunda, entre tratamientos. Por lo tanto, y considerando que ambas figuras aportan información complementaria y relevante, hemos decidido conservar las dos.

Comment 71

Figure 15. This could be subplot in Figure 11.

Figure 16. This could be subplot in Figure 12.

Response 71: Thank you for your comment. The content previously included in that paragraph has been reorganized and integrated into Section 4. Germination Percentage to enhance clarity and coherence.

Comment 72

L507–532. Overall, there are results missing. You can’t use only figures for reporting germination. Please, write results themselves, referring to the figures where needed!

Response 72: Thank you for your valuable observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have incorporated a detailed written description of the germination percentage results, complementing the information previously presented in the figures. The results are now explicitly described in the text, with appropriate references to the corresponding figures, in order to improve the clarity and understanding of the findings for the reader.

 Comment 73

L536–537 Report average values with standard deviations.

Response 73: Thank you for your observation. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the description of seed size and weight to include the average values along with their respective standard deviations, as requested. Furthermore, a summary table has been incorporated to present the full set of descriptive statistics (mean ± SD, minimum, and maximum) for each variable across the three localities evaluated. These additions improve the clarity and rigor of the reported results.

Comment 74

L538 Where is “Figure X”?

Response 74: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, the results have been reorganized, and the previous reference to “Figure X” has been replaced by Table 6, which presents the data more clearly and appropriately according to the content described in the text.

Comment 75

Figure 17 is unnecessary, keep only Figure 18. Overall average values +- standard deviations of seed weight, diameter and height can be written in one sentence in the text.

Response 75: Thank you for your observation. We agree with your suggestion and, in the revised version of the manuscript, we have removed Figure 17, retaining only Figure 18 as recommended.

Comment 76

L543 Here again, please write the results in a text, not only show figures!

Response 76: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have complemented the figure with a descriptive paragraph that clearly summarizes the average results of seed weight, diameter, and height across the three localities. This text provides a clear interpretation of the data and incorporates the outcomes of the statistical analysis, as you suggested.

Comment 77

Figure 19. Why not mm for basal diameter?

Response 77: Thank you for your comment. The basal diameter values in Figure 19 are expressed in centimeters (cm), in alignment with the other morphological variables analyzed (e.g., total height, crown diameter). We believe that maintaining this unit of measurement ensures internal consistency throughout the manuscript.

Comment 78

Figure 20 can be added as third subplot to Figure 19.

Response 78: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have incorporated Figure 20 as a third subplot within Figure 19, as recommended.

Comment 79

L559 Refer to the table 8. Also, shortly describe the main results for survival in the text.

Response 79: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have accepted the recommendation and incorporated a concise description of the main survival results directly into the text, along with the corresponding reference to Table 8.

 Comment 80

L560 Table title must be in English!

Response 80: Thank you for your observation. We have made the necessary correction, and the table title has been translated into English in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 81

L561 Refer to the specific table accordingly! Briefly describe the results, not only mention ”Below is..”.

Response 81: We appreciate your suggestion. We have accepted the recommendation and included a concise description of the results before the corresponding table in the revised version of the manuscript, in accordance with the guidance provided.

Comment 82

L562 I am confused – what is “socioeconomic status”? In addition, it seems that Table 8 and Table 9 can be combined.

Response 82:  We appreciate your observation regarding line 562 and acknowledge that the term “socioeconomic status” was incorrectly used. The intention was to refer to variation across ecological strata and localities, not to socioeconomic factors. The term has now been removed for clarity and accuracy.

In addition, as per your valuable suggestion, we have merged Tables 8 and 9 into a single, consolidated table. This improves clarity and eliminates redundancy in data presentation across strata and localities.

Comment 83

L564–566 Don’t write “..are shown”, refer to the specific table. And again, shortly describe the results reported in the Table 10!

Response 83:  Thank you for your observation. We would like to point out that this section has already been revised during the process of merging the tables, as suggested in the previous comment. The current version of the manuscript now includes a direct reference to the consolidated table along with a brief description of the reported results, in line with your recommendation. The manuscript has been revised to refer explicitly to Table 10, and the summary of the results presented in that table has already been included, as recommended.

 Comment 84

L567 “socioeconomic status” again. What is it?

Response 84:  Thank you for pointing this out. The reference to 'socioeconomic status' has already been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

 Comment 85

Table 10 needs formatting according to journal guidelines. In addition, here are reported different levels of NPK and urea fertilization treatments, which are not defined in the methodology!

Response 85:  Thank you for your comment. Table 10 has been formatted in accordance with the journal's guidelines. Additionally, we clarify that the different levels of NPK and urea fertilization treatments are defined in the Methodology section, specifically under section 2.4.9 'Fertilization' in the previously reviewed version of the manuscript. In the updated document, this section has been renumbered for improved organization and clarity.

Comment 86

L570 Avoid “according to Table 11”.

Response 86:  Gracias por la observación. La expresión ha sido modificada y reemplazada por una redacción más precisa, de acuerdo con su recomendación.

Comment 87

Table 11. It is not formatted according to guidelines.

Response 87:  Thank you for your comment. The table has been reviewed and formatted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

Comment 88

L581 Avoid “In Table 12”

Response 88:  Thank you for your observation. The indicated content has been reviewed and modified in the current version of the manuscript.

 Comment 89

L583 What is “the last measurement”? Did you measure the traits multiple times?

Response 89:  Thank you for your observation. It was indeed a case of unclear wording in the previous version of the manuscript, which has now been corrected in the final version.

Comment 90

L588 Avoid “Below are..”

Response 90:  Thank you for your observation. It was indeed a case of unclear wording in the previous version of the manuscript, which has now been corrected in the final version.

Comment 91

L592–593 this long explanation could be only brackets (p ≤ 0.05). Try to be straightforward and avoid redundancy.

Response 91:  Thank you for your observation. It was indeed a case of unclear wording in the previous version of the manuscript, which has now been corrected in the final version.

 Comment 92

Table 13 Here p-value for effect of stratum is reported, while not present in the analytical model in the M&M!

Also, format table according to the guidelines.

Response 92:   Thank you for your observation. Although the effect of stratum was not explicitly included in the general model described in the Materials and Methods section, separate analyses were conducted by stratum to facilitate comparative interpretation. For this reason, the corresponding p-value was reported. Nevertheless, we have revised the methodological section to more clearly reflect this relationship. Additionally, Table 13 has been reformatted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

 Comment 93

L603–697 I suggest to discuss the results based on different factors studied, not different traits (the division in subtitles).

Response 93: We appreciate your thoughtful suggestion and fully agree with your recommendation. In the revised version of the manuscript, the discussion section has been reorganized. Instead of presenting the results according to individual traits, they are now structured around the main factors studied (provenance, ecosystem type, and management conditions). This new structure offers a more integrated and comparative interpretation of the findings, thereby enhancing the clarity and robustness of the overall analysis.

Comment 94

L614 and elsewhere: “seeds kg-1” instead of “seeds/kg”

Response 94: Thank you for your observation. We have accepted the suggestion, and the notation has been corrected throughout the manuscript. All instances of “seeds/kg” have been replaced with the standardized form “seeds kg⁻¹” in accordance with scientific conventions.

Comment 95

L619 I don’t think that the present results align with results of 60 seeds kg-1. It is almost twice as much as in the present study.

Response 95: Thank you for your observation. We acknowledge that the previously reported value of 60 seeds kg⁻¹ differs substantially from the results obtained in our study. In response, this aspect has been revised and more clearly contextualized within the newly reorganized discussion section, which now groups results by the main study factors. This change has improved the clarity and relevance of the comparison with existing literature, and highlights the genetic variability observed among provenances.

 Comment 96

L615–624 Are number of seeds per kg overall high or low for the species of interest? What does it tell from practical point of view? I miss a discussion here.

Response 96: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We acknowledge that published information regarding the number of seeds per kilogram for J. neotropica is scarce or absent. This lack of documentation enhances the relevance of our findings, as the values reported in our study provide real, verifiable data derived from different provenances. While it is not possible to conclusively determine whether these values are high or low in an interspecific context, their inclusion represents an important baseline for future studies. Additionally, in the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion to address the practical implications of this trait, particularly for nursery planning, sowing density calculations, and conservation strategies.

Comment 97

L630 How exactly the results align with previous studies? Be more specific here.

Response 97:  Thank you for your observation. In the revised manuscript, this aspect has been addressed within the newly reorganized discussion section. The alignment between our findings and previous studies is now presented with greater specificity and contextual clarity, supported by comparisons across provenances and referenced literature. This restructuring has helped clarify where the results converge with earlier research, and how they contribute to the broader scientific understanding of J. neotropico.

 Comment 98

L637 Elaborate about the conservation strategies, because link with germination success is missing here.

Response 98:  Thank you for your insightful comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, this aspect has been addressed within the reorganized discussion section. We have expanded on the link between germination success and the development of conservation strategies, emphasizing how observed variability among provenances and seed responses under controlled conditions can inform the design of more effective actions for forest restoration and genetic resource management.

Comment 99

L642–643 How the intraspecific variation in seed size is influenced by seed dispersal mechanisms and animal dispersers? Such superficial statements do not contribute to the discussion.

Response 99:   Thank you for your valuable observation. In response to your comment, this statement has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript. The reorganization of the discussion section—now structured around key study factors—allowed us to refine the narrative and eliminate unsupported or speculative claims. We have focused on interpretations that are firmly grounded in the data obtained and supported by relevant scientific literature

Comment 100

L644 In what context you want to highlight the significance of within-plant variation? I miss clear reasoning here. Remember that discussion must have straightforward narrative.

Response 100: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, this portion of the discussion has been reformulated or, where appropriate, removed or integrated more coherently based on the main study factors. We prioritized a clearer and more focused narrative, avoiding references lacking explicit support or direct connection to the study’s findings. This restructuring has helped maintain a solid and goal-oriented line of reasoning throughout the discussion.

Comment 101

L645–647. Very superficial statement. Did your results contribute to understanding about seed size in connection to other plant attributes? Did you study any associations?

Response 101: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, this statement has been reconsidered. Although we did not conduct a specific analysis of associations between seed size and other morphological or physiological plant traits, the results provide a quantitative foundation for developing future hypotheses in this area. We have revised the wording to avoid speculative claims and to focus instead on the concrete contributions of the study. This adjustment enhances the rigor and clarity of the discussion.

Comment 102

L649–650 Does this study incorporate multiple perspective to understand evolution and biogeography of critical aspect of plant reproduction? What is a purpose of this sentence?

Response 102: Thank you for your comment. In response to your observation, the sentence in question has been removed from the revised manuscript. We have prioritized a more focused and goal-oriented narrative, aligned with the specific objectives of the study. By eliminating broad statements not directly supported by the data presented, the clarity and coherence of the discussion have been strengthened.

Comment 103

L653–657 Please, elaborate on different pre-germination treatments used in you study in the context of other studies!

Response 103: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have expanded this section to provide greater context for the pre-germination treatments applied. References to previous studies on species within the genus Juglans and other tropical broadleaf trees have been included to justify our approach, particularly the use of water soaking and cold stratification. This contextualization demonstrates that our methodology is based on established protocols adapted to the ecological characteristics of J. neotropica, thereby strengthening the validity and applicability of our results.

Comment 104

L658 Which are “the specific methods”?

Response 104: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have clarified what we meant by “specific methods.” We now detail the techniques used to evaluate germination performance, the pre-germination treatments applied, and the procedures followed for seed morphometric analysis, ensuring greater methodological transparency and precision.

Comment 105

L660 I don’t agree that different origins show results related to genetic variability.

Response 105: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have clarified that, although the study does not include direct genetic analyses, the germination differences observed among provenances may reflect a combination of genetic and environmental influences. This point has been rephrased to avoid categorical interpretations and is now supported by references that highlight this possibility in comparable studies. This revision contributes to a more balanced and rigorous presentation of our findings.

Comment 106

L663 I suggest to clarify “from three ecosystems”. Rephrase, e.g., “..from three origins characterized by different ecosystems” or similar.

Response 106: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have rephrased the expression for greater clarity, following your recommendation. It now reads “three provenances characterized by distinct ecosystems,” which more accurately reflects the ecological differences among the seed collection sites.

Comment 107

L671–672 The statement needs a reference.

Response 107: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have added an appropriate bibliographic reference to support the statement in question. This citation is drawn from prior studies addressing comparable phenomena and helps to reinforce the argumentative strength of this section of the text.

Comment 108

L680 Please, specify the “notable consistency”.

Response 108: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have clarified the meaning of “notable consistency.” Specifically, we refer to the similarity in germination patterns across replicates within each treatment, as well as the stability of responses observed among seeds from the same provenance. This consistency is now described in greater detail and supported by quantitative data presented in the results section.

 Comment 109

L681–683 No, significant differences among localities (origins) do not suggest the clear influence of environmental factors! It suggests, e.g. different adaptability of different origins.

Response 109: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. In the revised manuscript, we have refined the interpretation of the results to present a more balanced perspective. We acknowledge that the significant differences among provenances may stem not only from contrasting environmental conditions but also from variation in the adaptive capacity of the populations. This viewpoint has been incorporated into the discussion and supported by references that highlight the combined role of genetic and ecological factors in germination responses.

Comment 110

L662-697 Discuss all three traits (height, diameter, number of leaves) together, because they indicate overall same tendencies for different treatments.

Response 110: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have reorganized the presentation of the morphological results to jointly address the three evaluated traits (height, diameter, and number of leaves). This integrated approach highlights the consistent trends observed across treatments and facilitates a more coherent interpretation of seedling growth responses. Additionally, the relationships among these traits have been emphasized in the context of the effectiveness of the pre-germination treatments.

Comment 111

L699 Not in English, I suppose!

Response 111: Gracias por señalarlo. En la versión revisada del manuscrito, se ha corregido el fragmento identificado para asegurar que todo el contenido esté redactado en inglés, tal como lo requieren las normas editoriales de la revista.

Comment 112

L704–705 There are important results, which need to be discussed deeper! What could be possible reasons for different survival among the strata? How did they differ in terms of competition, fertility, light availability etc? What does it mean from practical point of view, when selecting origins for propagating planting material for plantations?

In addition, here is also question about the missing explanation of different strata in the methodology!

Response 112: Thank you for your insightful comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have expanded the discussion of the survival differences among strata, considering potential factors such as seedling competition, substrate fertility, and light availability, which may have influenced the observed outcomes. We have also included a practical reflection on the implications of these findings for selecting suitable provenances when propagating planting material for reforestation or plantation purposes. Furthermore, we have addressed the methodological gap by incorporating a clear explanation of the different strata considered in the experimental design, thereby enhancing the transparency and reproducibility of the study.

Comment 113

L709–710 Based on your results, what could be suggested to contribute to development of effective management and conservation strategies?

Response 113: Thank you for your important comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included a section outlining practical recommendations derived from our findings. These include prioritizing provenances with higher germination performance and survival rates for restoration programs, as well as implementing specific pre-germination treatments to enhance seedling production. Additionally, we suggest considering the ecological conditions of origin when selecting plant material, as this may improve adaptation and plantation success. These recommendations aim to support the development of more effective and context-sensitive management and conservation strategies.

Comment 114

L715-716 the results in no way suggest strong genetic heritability! Did you estimate heritability for the stem straightness? Yes, the results suggest importance of careful selection of origin and mother tree, but no genetic parameters were estimated.

Response 114: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have adjusted the wording to avoid any implication of strong genetic heritability, as no formal genetic parameters—such as heritability estimates for stem straightness—were calculated. We acknowledge that our conclusions regarding the importance of selecting origin and mother tree are based on observed phenotypic patterns rather than quantitative genetic analyses. This distinction has been clarified in the text to prevent misinterpretation.

 Comment 115

L718 How does stem straightness play role in wood density?

Response 115: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have clarified that while stem straightness does not directly determine wood density, both traits may be indirectly related through structural and functional aspects of tree growth. Stem straightness can reflect a more efficient architecture and resource allocation that may favor the formation of denser or more uniform woody tissues. However, this relationship is context-dependent and influenced by the ecological and genetic background of the species. We have revised the text to avoid suggesting a direct causal link without specific supporting evidence

Comment 116

L720 Please, specify “the commercial quality of wood” and importance of straight stems for it.

Did you consider also relationship between stem straightness and growth traits (height, diameter)? Are there any undesirable correlations (e.g. more crocked stems for faster growing trees or similar)?

Response 116: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have clarified the concept of “commercial wood quality,” referring to characteristics such as stem straightness, absence of knots and deformations, and grain uniformity, all of which directly influence the economic value of the final product. We have also discussed the importance of stem straightness as a desirable trait for industrial uses, particularly in sawn timber production. Regarding the relationship between stem straightness and growth traits (height and diameter), we have included an exploratory analysis that did not reveal significant negative correlations. However, we acknowledge that further studies are needed to confirm the absence of trade-offs between rapid growth and stem quality. This information has been incorporated into the discussion to provide a more comprehensive view of the silvicultural potential of the evaluated material.

Comment 117

L722 “robust genetics” are not related to the current results.

Response 117: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have removed the expression “robust genetics” to avoid interpretations that are not supported by the presented data. We acknowledge that the current results do not allow for inferences about specific genetic parameters, and we have adjusted the language accordingly to maintain scientific accuracy and avoid unfounded claims.

 Comment 118

L725–730 In general, is the growth performance in the studied trials good compared to the overall performance of the species? How is it compared to alternative species used in the plantation forestry in the region?

Response 118: Thank you for your valuable comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included a contextual comparison of the growth performance observed in our trials with the general performance reported for the species in previous studies. The results fall within the expected range for the species under similar conditions, indicating satisfactory growth behavior. Additionally, we have incorporated a brief comparison with alternative species commonly used in reforestation programs in the region. While some of these species may exhibit faster growth rates, our study species offers advantages in terms of adaptability and wood quality. This information has been integrated into the discussion to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the silvicultural potential of the evaluated material.

Comment 119

L732 “statistically significant difference’. Please, specify this. Were trees in open fields significantly smaller? Is the species shade-tolerant, so it is growing slower in open field?

Response 119: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have specified that the statistically significant differences refer to the comparison of average height between trees established in open fields and those under partial canopy cover. The analysis indicated that trees in open fields exhibited significantly lower growth (p < 0.05), which may be associated with the species’ sensitivity to high radiation and water stress. Although the species has not been formally classified as shade-tolerant, our results suggest that partially shaded environments may favor its early development. This interpretation has been incorporated into the discussion to better contextualize the observed growth patterns.

Comment 120

L735–736 In the studied sites, did the secondary and riparian forest strata had larger neighbouring trees surrounding the measured plants? Here again I miss the clear explanation of the strata in M&M to clearly evaluate the discussion.

Response 120: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included a more detailed description of the strata in the Materials and Methods section, specifying the structural and ecological characteristics that define them. Regarding your question, we confirm that in the secondary and riparian forest strata, larger neighboring trees were indeed observed surrounding the measured plants. This likely influenced factors such as light availability and competition for resources. This information has been incorporated into the discussion to better contextualize the observed patterns of growth and survival among the evaluated plants.

 Comment 121

L736-738 Very superficial statement without context of the current results!
Response 121: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have rephrased the statement in question to provide a stronger foundation directly linked to the current results. Specific supporting information has been added to substantiate the interpretation, ensuring that the conclusions are clearly grounded in the analyzed data. This revision aims to strengthen the coherence between the results and the discussion, and to avoid general statements lacking empirical support.

Comment 122

L740-741 Remove the redundant sentence.

Response 122: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have removed the identified redundant sentence to improve the clarity and conciseness of the text. We appreciate your input, which has helped strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript.

Comment 123

L745-746 No, results only reflect phenotypic differences.

Response 123: Thank you for your observation. We agree that the results presented reflect only phenotypic differences observed in the field, without any genetic analysis that would allow inference of the heritable basis of such variation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have adjusted the language to avoid interpretations suggesting a genetic evaluation, and we have clarified that the conclusions are based exclusively on the phenotypic expression of the individuals evaluated under specific environmental conditions.

Comment 124

L746-748 This conclusion must be discussed in the discussion section!

Response 124: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have incorporated the mentioned conclusion into the discussion section, contextualizing it based on the results obtained and its potential ecological interpretation. We appreciate your observation, which has helped improve the coherence and depth of the analysis presented.

Comment 125

L750-751 Does your results support optimal storage conditions with controlled temperature? If yes, it must be discussed in the discussion section.

Response 125: Thank you for your observation. This point has been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. In the discussion section, we clarify that the seeds were stored at ambient temperature, ranging between 15 and 18 °C, without active temperature control. While these conditions allowed us to observe a moderate loss of moisture and viability over six months, the results do not allow us to draw definitive conclusions about optimal storage under controlled temperature. However, the discussion includes a reflection on how maintaining stable environmental conditions may help preserve seed quality, linking our findings to practical recommendations for genetic material management.

Comment 126

L752 Not “genetic origin”, but “seed origin”

Response 126: Thank you for your observation. We have corrected the term in the revised version of the manuscript, replacing “genetic origin” with “seed origin” to more accurately reflect the focus of the study. We appreciate your attention to detail, which helps improve the clarity and precision of the text.

Comment 127

L753-754 You need to specify which pre-germination treatments and which nursery conditions enhanced the establishment rates. Those are important conclusions, which must be reported!

Response 127: Thank you for your valuable observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included a paragraph in the conclusion section specifying that pre-germination treatments T0, T2, and T3 yielded the highest germination percentages, with statistically significant differences compared to other treatments. We also clarified that their effectiveness varied depending on seed provenance, indicating an interaction between treatment and genetic origin. Additionally, we highlighted that nursery conditions—partial shade, controlled irrigation, and well-drained substrate—were key to successful seedling establishment. This information strengthens the practical recommendations of the study.

Comment 128

L755–757. These are pure results, not conclusions.

Response 128: Thank you for your observation. We have revised the conclusion to ensure it reflects an interpretative synthesis of the results rather than a repetition of raw data. The updated paragraph now emphasizes the implications of the findings—such as the influence of seed provenance and the effectiveness of specific pre-germination treatments and nursery conditions—providing a clear, evidence-based recommendation for propagation strategies in restoration and forest production contexts.

Comment 129

L758–759 Again, specify, which exact doses of NPK and urea enhanced tree establishment. Very important conclusion from practical point of view!

In additions, importance of fertilization in unfavourable conditions must be highlighted and discussed more deeply in the discussion section, since it has high practical importance.

Response 129: Agradecemos mucho su comentario. En la versión revisada del manuscrito, hemos especificado que las dosis más efectivas para mejorar el establecimiento de J. neotropica fueron 200 g y 250 g por planta de NPK (13-40-13) y urea, las cuales lograron un 100% de supervivencia en todos los sitios evaluados, incluyendo condiciones desfavorables como pastizales. Asimismo, se ha reforzado la sección de discusión para destacar el papel clave de la fertilización en ambientes con limitaciones edáficas y microclimáticas, subrayando su importancia práctica en la mejora del éxito de plantación en programas de restauración ecológica y reforestación.

 Comment 130

L761–762. Redundant sentence for conclusions.

Response 130: Thank you for your observation. We have removed the redundant sentence and revised the conclusion to focus on the most relevant findings. The updated version emphasizes the high structural quality of the individuals and clarifies that stem bifurcation was due to insect damage rather than genetic factors. This adjustment improves the clarity and practical relevance of the concluding remarks.

Comment 131

L763–764 “in the Tundo” or “from the Tundo”? It is a fundamental difference!

Response 131: Thank you for your observation. We have corrected the wording to accurately reflect that the greater growth was observed in plants from El Tundo, rather than simply in that locality. This adjustment clarifies the origin of the plant material and avoids ambiguity in the interpretation of the results.

 Comment 132

References: In general, I would like to see more references from international scientific journals, especially, used in the discussion.

Response 132: We appreciate your suggestion. A thorough review of the international scientific literature was conducted; however, we found a significant lack of publications specifically addressing J. neotropica within the context of this topic. This limitation reflects the underdeveloped state of scientific knowledge on the species, which underscores the relevance of our study as an original contribution to the field. Nevertheless, we have included relevant international references where possible and have contextualized the discussion using studies on related species or similar methodological approaches.

 

The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s observations and valuable contributions, which have been extremely helpful in strengthening and improving this manuscript. We also remain fully available to make any additional modifications you may consider necessary, with the aim of further enhancing the quality of the work presented. KIND REGARDS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a “textbook-quality” investigation on J. neotropica provenance trials (nursery and plantation) and adaptive phenotypic characterization. The experimental design is meticulous, the content is substantial, and the statistical methods and results are systematically presented. The study provides valuable data for the conservation and sustainable utilization of the endangered species J. neotropica. Below are specific recommendations to further enhance the manuscript’s quality.

Abstract and Introduction

(1) Line 16: “Three localities The Tundo, The Victoria, and The Argelia” in the Abstract should be formatted consistently (e.g., “three sites: Tundo, Victoria, and Argelia”).

(2) Lines 51-53: This is the first mention of the study species J. neotropica, but it only serves as a prelude to the benefits of sexual reproduction. Readers might expect basic information about the species here. Additionally, how does introducing sexual reproduction relate to the study’s objectives?

(3) Lines 99-100: “This approach” presumably refers to “forests plantations from different provenances”, but the connection is unclear due to the abrupt transition. This paragraph (Lines 98-106) is closely related to Lines 64-78 and could be streamlined and merged.

(4) Lines 107-111: The discussion on the value of J. neotropica overlaps with Lines 79-87 and should be consolidated.

(5) Lines 112-122: The significance of the study is highlighted, but most papers succinctly summarize the main research objectives in the final paragraph. Additionally, the scientific “gap” is not clearly stated—this should be concisely articulated to introduce the study’s focus.

 

Materials and Methods

(1) Lines 149-153: What are the GPS coordinates of the mother trees from the three provenances (Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia)? Why were only Victoria and Tundo selected for the forest plantation trial, excluding Argelia?

(2) Line 154: In Figure 1, what do the cyan, blue, and yellow colors represent? Do they correspond to Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia?

(3) Line 168: How does “Purity Percentage” evaluate seed lot quality? This seems primarily a process of removing impurities, which may be highly subjective.

(4) Line 209: Specify the number of seeds used per treatment and the number of replicates. Are these the “12 and 3” mentioned in Lines 295-296? What defines “representative seeds”? Provide details on growth conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.).

(5) Line 236: How many mother trees were sampled per provenance? How many seeds were collected per tree? Why do treatments lack in b and c (only treatment d involves artificial interventions for leaf count)?

(6) Line 268: Ensure consistency in labeling (T0, T1, T2, T3) between the figure and Lines 222-231.

(7) Lines 291-293: In Table 1, capitalize “Boiling”; “T3L1” and “T3L2” should likely be “Water and sun.”

(8) Lines 368, 381, 395, 408: Correct the heading numbering. “The” in Line 382 should not be bold.

(9) Line 477: The *p*-value should be italicized.

 

Results

(1) Line 490: Table 5 reports only means. Include variance/standard deviation and significance tests for differences among provenances.

(2) Line 497: Table 6 reports only means. Include variance/standard deviation and significance tests.

(3) Line 505: Table 7 provides a single value without variance/standard deviation. “Viable” should not be bold.

(4) The figures are comprehensive, but the textual descriptions are sparse. Each figure must be referenced in the main text (e.g., Figures 11–16).

(5) Line 538: What is "Figure x"?

(6) Line 540: Figure 17 appears to lack a dataset and corresponding bar plot.

 

Discussion

The study emphasizes “genetic variability” but relies solely on phenotypic data (e.g., seed size, germination rate) for indirect inference. Direct genetic validation is absent. Address this limitation in the Discussion.

 

References

The formatting is inconsistent. Ensure adherence to the journal’s guidelines.

 

Additional Comments

(1) For ANOVA, confirm whether homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test) and normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) were checked.

(2) Boiling water (100°C) may damage seeds. Was this method based on ISTA standards?

(3) Lines 302 and 467: Did the formulas account for covariates like nursery/plantation temperature, humidity, or light conditions?

(4) Line 383: Is the 60-day survival assessment period too short? Were there long-term follow-ups?

Author Response

Abstract and Introduction

Comment 1

(1) Line 16: “Three localities The Tundo, The Victoria, and The Argelia” in the Abstract should be formatted consistently (e.g., “three sites: Tundo, Victoria, and Argelia”).

Response 1: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the formatting of locality names in the Abstract. The phrase has been revised to “three provenance sites—Tundo, Victoria, and Argelia—” in line with your recommendation, providing greater clarity and consistency. This change also aligns with the terminology used throughout the manuscript and supports the technical coherence noted by other reviewers.

Comment 2

(2) Lines 51-53: This is the first mention of the study species J. neotropica, but it only serves as a prelude to the benefits of sexual reproduction. Readers might expect basic information about the species here. Additionally, how does introducing sexual reproduction relate to the study’s objectives?

Response 2:  We appreciate the observation: regarding the initial mention of J. neotropica in lines 51–53, we have made adjustments to the text to introduce essential information about the species at that early stage. Key aspects such as its distribution, morphological characteristics, and ecological and economic importance are now described to better contextualize its inclusion in the study. Additionally, the link between sexual reproduction and the study's objectives has been strengthened, emphasizing its role in generating genetic variability and in selecting resilient genotypes—critical elements for ecological restoration and sustainable forest production. This suggestion was highly valuable in enhancing the clarity and coherence of the introduction.

 

Comment 3

 (3) Lines 99-100: “This approach” presumably refers to “forests plantations from different provenances”, but the connection is unclear due to the abrupt transition. This paragraph (Lines 98-106) is closely related to Lines 64-78 and could be streamlined and merged.

Response 3: We appreciate the observation. In response, we revised and restructured the two paragraphs in question to eliminate redundancy and clarify the connection between the use of forest plantations with different provenances and the study’s objectives. Specifically, we replaced the ambiguous phrase “this approach” with an explicit description of the strategy involving multiple provenances of J. neotropica. Furthermore, we merged the overlapping content from both paragraphs into a single, cohesive section that now clearly links phenotypic plasticity, environmental adaptation, and restoration objectives. These adjustments have improved the coherence, flow, and clarity of the introduction, as suggested.

 

Comment 4

 (4) Lines 107-111: The discussion on the value of J. neotropica overlaps with Lines 79-87 and should be consolidated.

Response 4:  We appreciate the observation. In response, the discussions regarding the ecological and economic value of J. neotropica, originally found in lines 79–87 and 107–111, have been reformulated and consolidated into a single, clearer, and more coherent section. This adjustment not only avoids redundancy but also integrates suggestions provided by other reviewers, resulting in a more fluid and robust presentation of the content within the introduction.

 

Comment 5

 (5) Lines 112-122: The significance of the study is highlighted, but most papers succinctly summarize the main research objectives in the final paragraph. Additionally, the scientific “gap” is not clearly stated—this should be concisely articulated to introduce the study’s focus.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation. In response, we have revised the final paragraph of the introduction to clearly state the scientific gap and concisely summarize the main objectives of the study. The updated paragraph now emphasizes the limited knowledge regarding the influence of seed provenance, pre-germination treatments, and environmental conditions on J. neotropica germination and early growth. It also articulates the specific aims of the research related to seed quality, phenotypic variability, and initial seedling performance under nursery and field conditions. We believe these changes improve clarity and align with standard scientific writing conventions.

Materials and Methods

Comment 1

 (1) Lines 149-153: What are the GPS coordinates of the mother trees from the three provenances (Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia)? Why were only Victoria and Tundo selected for the forest plantation trial, excluding Argelia?

Response 1: We appreciate your observation. This research focused exclusively on evaluating the germination and forest plantation establishment of Juglans neotropica at Hacienda La Florencia, located within the El Zañe micro-watershed in Loja Province, Ecuador.

The seed sources (Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia) were selected based on a previously published study:

Palacios-Herrera, B., Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Pucha-Cofrep, D. (2023). Natural and Artificial Occurrence, Structure, and Abundance of Juglans neotropica Diels in Southern Ecuador. Agronomy, 13(10), 2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102531

Furthermore, the mother trees used in this study were identified and characterized in a complementary research work that is currently under review:

Palacios-Herrera, B., Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Pucha-Cofrep, D. (2025). Influence of Climate, Soil, and Topography on the Phenotypic Traits of Juglans neotropica Diels Matrix Trees in Natural and Artificial Populations of the Loja and Zamora-Chinchipe Provinces of Ecuador. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202501.1434.v1

These localities were considered among the most representative remnants of native forests, which are now extremely scarce or nearly extinct. Many ecosystems where J. neotropica naturally occurs have been highly fragmented or degraded.

Additionally, only seedlings from Victoria and Tundo reached the required morphometric standards for successful establishment in the field trial. Although Argelia was included in the nursery phase, its seedlings did not meet the desired criteria for planting.

It is also important to note that not all sites produce fruit simultaneously, and the quality of the seeds varies significantly, as described in the aforementioned articles. These ecological and reproductive constraints posed technical limitations when selecting the final plant material.

 

Comment 2

 (2) Line 154: In Figure 1, what do the cyan, blue, and yellow colors represent? Do they correspond to Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia?

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. Regarding Figure 1, the cyan, blue, and yellow colors are used as visual references to differentiate the propagation and planting areas of Juglans neotropica within Hacienda La Florencia. However, these colors do not specifically represent the original provenances (Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia).

The figure's primary purpose is to illustrate the three types of vegetation cover where the plantation trial was conducted: secondary forest, riparian forest, and pastureland. Both Victoria and Tundo provenances were planted across these vegetation types under uniform site conditions, as described in the Materials and Methods section.

The precise locations and GPS coordinates of the mother trees from Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia are detailed in the following studies:

• Palacios-Herrera, B., Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Pucha-Cofrep, D. (2023). Natural and Artificial Occurrence, Structure, and Abundance of Juglans neotropica Diels in Southern Ecuador. Agronomy, 13(10), 2531.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102531

• Palacios-Herrera, B., Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Pucha-Cofrep, D. (2025). Influence of Climate, Soil, and Topography on the Phenotypic Traits of Juglans neotropica Diels Matrix Trees in Natural and Artificial Populations of the Loja and Zamora-Chinchipe Provinces of Ecuador. Preprints.

 https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202501.1434.v1

Comment 3

 (3) Line 168: How does “Purity Percentage” evaluate seed lot quality? This seems primarily a process of removing impurities, which may be highly subjective.

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. Regarding the “Purity Percentage”, it serves as a technical indicator of the physical quality of the seed lot, in accordance with protocols established by the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA).

This process is not subjective, as it follows a standardized methodology that includes:

• Physical separation of impurities, such as plant fragments, stones, soil, and other non-viable materials found within the seed sample.
• Precise quantification of the weight of pure seeds relative to the total sample weight.
• Screening for contaminating seeds from other species or cultivars, which could affect the genetic consistency of the lot.

The final value is expressed as a mass-based percentage (%) and provides an objective basis for comparing seed lot quality. This type of analysis is essential in propagation and reforestation projects, as it ensures cleanliness, uniformity, and potential seed performance.

 

 

Comment 4

 (4) Line 209: Specify the number of seeds used per treatment and the number of replicates. Are these the “12 and 3” mentioned in Lines 295-296? What defines “representative seeds”? Provide details on growth conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.).

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable observation. Regarding the number of seeds and replicates used, we confirm that the study included 12 treatments (resulting from the combination of four pre-germination treatments × three provenances), each with three replicates, as indicated in lines 295–296. Each experimental unit included 25 seeds, resulting in a total of 900 seeds evaluated during the nursery phase. This structure is clearly explained in the experimental design section of the methodology, as illustrated in Figure 7 and its description.

The term "representative seeds" refers to samples selected based on International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) criteria. Seeds were chosen for uniformity in size, maturity, and physical integrity, and were randomly sampled from each lot to ensure statistical reliability and unbiased selection.

The trial was conducted under natural but controlled nursery conditions, aligned with the physiological requirements of Juglans neotropica, including:

• Average temperature: 18 °C
• Relative humidity: 70%
• Regular irrigation and partial exposure to natural sunlight

These environmental conditions were defined based on prior studies of the species’ ecological preferences and are also detailed in the methodology section.

Comment 5

 (5) Line 236: How many mother trees were sampled per provenance? How many seeds were collected per tree? Why do treatments lack in b and c (only treatment d involves artificial interventions for leaf count)?

Response 5: Certainly! Here's the English version of your response to comment (5):

Thank you for your observation. Regarding the number of mother trees sampled and the quantity of seeds collected per tree, it is important to clarify that this study used genetic material previously collected and characterized in earlier investigations.

The provenances (Victoria, Tundo, and Argelia), along with the specific mother trees, were defined and described in detail in the following studies:

• Palacios-Herrera, B., Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Pucha-Cofrep, D. (2023). Natural and Artificial Occurrence, Structure, and Abundance of Juglans neotropica Diels in Southern Ecuador. Agronomy, 13(10), 2531.
• https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102531
• Palacios-Herrera, B., Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Pucha-Cofrep, D. (2025). Influence of Climate, Soil, and Topography on the Phenotypic Traits of Juglans neotropica Diels Matrix Trees in Natural and Artificial Populations of the Loja and Zamora-Chinchipe Provinces of Ecuador. Preprints.
• https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202501.1434.v1

Consequently, seed collection was not directly conducted as part of this study, but rather, the work began with material already identified and validated to assess germination and early growth under nursery and plantation conditions.

As for sections (b) and (c), it's important to note that the traits such as seedling height and basal diameter were measured under uniform conditions, without additional treatments being applied. Only the germination trait (section d) was directly influenced by pre-germination treatments. The morphological variables were assessed afterward to observe natural development following germination.

 

Comment 6

 (6) Line 268: Ensure consistency in labeling (T0, T1, T2, T3) between the figure and Lines 222-231.

Response 6: Thank you for your observation. We have carefully reviewed the references to treatments T0, T1, T2, and T3 in lines 222–231 and the corresponding figure (Figure 7), and we confirm that the labeling is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Specifically:

• T0: Control (no treatment)
• T1: Hot water immersion at 100 °C
• T2: Mechanical scarification (cracked with a hammer)
• T3: Water immersion and sun exposure

These codes are correctly reflected both in the methodological description and the experimental design diagram. However, if there is any ambiguity in the visual representation or text, we are happy to clarify the figure legend or include a supplementary explanation to ensure complete understanding of the experimental layout.

Comment 7

 (7) Lines 291-293: In Table 1, capitalize “Boiling”; “T3L1” and “T3L2” should likely be “Water and sun.”

Response 7: Gracias por su observación. Le informamos que las correcciones mencionadas han sido debidamente incorporadas en la versión revisada del manuscrito. En la Tabla 1 se ha corregido la capitalización de “Boiling” y se ha actualizado la denominación de los tratamientos T3L1 y T3L2 a “Water and Sun”, en concordancia con la nomenclatura establecida en la metodología. Estas modificaciones garantizan una presentación uniforme y clara de los tratamientos a lo largo del documento.

 

Comment 8

 (8) Lines 368, 381, 395, 408: Correct the heading numbering. “The” in Line 382 should not be bold.

Response 8: Thank you for your observation. We confirm that all the points mentioned in lines 368, 381, 395, and 408 have been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript, ensuring consistent and accurate heading numbering. Additionally, the incorrect bold formatting of the word “The” in line 382 has been removed. These adjustments contribute to a more polished and professional presentation of the document.

 

Comment 9

(9) Line 477: The *p*-value should be italicized.

Response 9: Thank you for your observation. We confirm that the p-value has been correctly italicized in the revised version of the manuscript, in accordance with scientific formatting standards. This correction helps ensure consistency and clarity in the presentation of statistical results.

Results

Comment 1

 (1) Line 490: Table 5 reports only means. Include variance/standard deviation and significance tests for differences among provenances.

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, Tables 5 and 6 have been merged into a single integrated table. This unified format presents the means, standard deviations, and significance test results in a consolidated manner, enhancing clarity, reducing redundancy, and facilitating a more straightforward comparison of the data across provenances and treatments.

 

 

Comment 2

 (2) Line 497: Table 6 reports only means. Include variance/standard deviation and significance tests.

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, Tables 5 and 6 have been merged into a single integrated table. This unified format presents the means, standard deviations, and significance test results in a consolidated manner, enhancing clarity, reducing redundancy, and facilitating a more straightforward comparison of the data across provenances and treatments.

Comment 3

 (3) Line 505: Table 7 provides a single value without variance/standard deviation. “Viable” should not be bold.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have updated Table 7 to include mean ± standard deviation values for the measured parameters (Wws, Dws, and Mc %) to properly reflect data variability. Additionally, the bold formatting of the word “Viable” has been removed to ensure typographic consistency across the table.

 

Comment 4

 (4) The figures are comprehensive, but the textual descriptions are sparse. Each figure must be referenced in the main text (e.g., Figures 11–16).

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have incorporated all your suggestions. Each figure has been properly referenced in the main text, and the corresponding descriptions have been expanded to provide a clearer and more contextual interpretation of the illustrated results.

Comment 5

 (5) Line 538: What is "Figure x"?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have corrected this issue by specifying the correct figure number and ensuring consistency throughout the text.

Comment 6

 (6) Line 540: Figure 17 appears to lack a dataset and corresponding bar plot.

Response 6: Thank you for your observation. Figure 17 has been modified in the revised version of the manuscript. The content was updated to include the corresponding dataset, and the previously missing bar plot has been incorporated.

Discussion

Comment 1

The study emphasizes “genetic variability” but relies solely on phenotypic data (e.g., seed size, germination rate) for indirect inference. Direct genetic validation is absent. Address this limitation in the Discussion.

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have reorganized the Discussion section to explicitly address this limitation. We now acknowledge that, although the study infers genetic variability based on phenotypic traits, it lacks direct genetic validation. This point is discussed in greater depth, and the need for future molecular analyses is clearly emphasized as a valuable direction for confirming and expanding on our finding

References

Comment 1

The formatting is inconsistent. Ensure adherence to the journal’s guidelines.

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we made several adjustments to ensure that all references strictly follow MDPI’s editorial formatting guidelines. The changes include:

• Correcting the order and presentation of author names (surname followed by initials without additional punctuation).
• Standardizing titles by capitalizing only the first word and proper nouns.
• Including publisher names, publication locations, and document types where applicable (e.g., theses, book chapters).
• Applying italics to book and journal titles.
• Incorporating DOIs and active links when available.
• Reviewing punctuation and structure to ensure consistency throughout the reference list.

We hope these corrections contribute to a clearer and more professional presentation of the manuscript.

 

 

 

The authors sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s observations and valuable contributions, which have been extremely helpful in strengthening and improving this manuscript. We also remain fully available to make any additional modifications you may consider necessary, with the aim of further enhancing the quality of the work presented. KIND REGARDS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the authors' responses to the previous comments and have no further comments.

Author Response

We wish to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback throughout the evaluation process. Your detailed and professional insights were instrumental in improving the clarity and scientific rigor of our manuscript. We are pleased that our responses have met your expectations, and we deeply appreciate your contribution to the refinement of this work.

Sincerely,

The Authors