Impact of Soil Preparation Techniques on Emergence and Early Establishment of Larix sibirica Seedlings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear.

The authors are encouraged to review and improve the document, focusing on key aspects such as clarity in the methodology, deeper analysis of the results, and discussion on the applicability of the findings. Additionally, it is recommended to strengthen the justification of the methods used and their connection to previous studies. The comments included in the attached document address technical and structural aspects that require careful attention, as their proper incorporation will enhance the rigor and coherence of the manuscript. These revisions are expected to strengthen the impact and quality of the work.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to improve the precision and clarity of academic language, ensuring that technical terms are used consistently and coherently throughout the document. Additionally, reviewing the grammatical structure and text flow is essential to avoid overly complex or redundant sentences. Finally, a thorough proofreading for style and grammar corrections will ensure that the document meets high-quality standards for scientific publications in English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thorough and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity, scientific rigor, and applicability of our study. Your insightful suggestions have helped us refine key aspects of our analysis, particularly in strengthening the discussion on soil moisture, seedling phenology, and large-scale reforestation strategies. We are grateful for your valuable input, which has enhanced the depth and relevance of our findings. Your dedication to improving the quality of our manuscript is truly commendable, and we thank them for their time and expertise.

 

1.I recommend improving the clarity and conciseness of the abstract, avoiding redundancies and better structuring the key findings. Including more methodological details on the implementation of the treatments would help to contextualize the results. It would also be useful to specify the statistical impact of soil depth on regeneration and discuss possible limitations of the study. Finally, it is suggested to highlight more clearly the practical implications of the findings for ecological restoration and sustainable forest management.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response, we have revised the abstract to improve clarity, conciseness, and structure. Redundant phrasing has been removed, and methodological details regarding soil preparation methods and depth variations have been clarified. Additionally, we have specified the statistical relationship between soil depth and seedling regeneration, noting that while seedling numbers increased with depth, the differences were not statistically significant. We have also highlighted the significant correlation between soil moisture and seedling density (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the practical implications for ecological restoration and sustainable forest management have been more explicitly emphasized. We appreciate your constructive suggestions, which have helped strengthen the manuscript.

 

2.I recommend improving the clarity of the problem statement, highlighting with greater emphasis the gap in knowledge about the regeneration of L. sibirica in arid and semi-arid environments. In addition, it would be useful to better structure the hypothesis, specifying how each soil preparation technique contributes to regeneration. The inclusion of more quantitative data on forest degradation would strengthen the rationale of the study. Finally, it is suggested to link previous findings more precisely with the need for this research to avoid repetition.

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback. In response, we have revised the problem statement to emphasize the knowledge gap regarding L. sibirica regeneration in arid and semi-arid environments. We have also incorporated a more structured hypothesis, explicitly detailing how each soil preparation technique is expected to influence regeneration. Additionally, we have provided more context on forest degradation in the Dasazi Forest Region and its impact on regeneration, addressing the need for quantitative data. Finally, we have refined the link between previous research and our study’s objectives to reduce redundancy and strengthen the rationale for this research. Thank you for your valuable suggestions。

 

3. I recommend including a more detailed analysis of seasonal variations in potential evapotranspiration and its impact on plant regeneration, since an annual value of 1,888.5 mm may not correctly reflect water dynamics throughout the year. Also, it would be useful to provide comparative data from other regions with similar conditions, which would help to better contextualize the results. Regarding the selection of the experimental site, it is suggested to expand the justification based on historical climate data series and prediction models, which would strengthen the representativeness of the study area.

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to enhance the study area’s description. In response, we have incorporated a more detailed analysis of seasonal variations in potential evapotranspiration (PET) and its influence on plant regeneration. Specifically, we have included seasonal PET estimates to illustrate water availability fluctuations, which are critical for understanding seedling establishment patterns. Additionally, we have integrated comparative data from other semi-arid regions with similar climatic constraints to better contextualize our findings.

Furthermore, we have strengthened the justification for the experimental site selection by incorporating historical climate data and predictive models. This ensures that the study area is representative of broader regional conditions and aligns with long-term environmental trends. These modifications provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental factors influencing Larix sibirica regeneration in the Altay Mountains. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

 

4. To improve the transparency and replicability of the experiment, it would be pertinent to describe the specific monitoring protocols to be used to evaluate germination and seedling growth, as well as the frequency of measurements and the environmental parameters considered.

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to enhance the transparency and replicability of our experimental design. In response, we have provided a comprehensive description of the monitoring protocols used to evaluate seed germination and seedling growth, as well as the frequency of measurements and environmental parameters considered. Specifically, we have added detailed explanations on germination rate assessment, seedling growth tracking, and biomass accumulation measurements. Additionally, we have incorporated a structured monitoring schedule and outlined the key environmental variables monitored throughout the study. These additions ensure clarity and reproducibility of our study and facilitate future comparative research in similar ecological settings. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

 

5.I recommend justifying more precisely the selection of the three soil preparation methods by providing scientific references on their impact on moisture retention and root establishment.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the need for a more precise justification for selecting the three soil preparation methods. In response, we have expanded the rationale section to include scientific references that demonstrate the impact of these methods on moisture retention and root establishment. The selected approaches have been widely applied in ecological restoration and afforestation projects, particularly in water-limited environments. We have now strengthened our justification by incorporating relevant literature, ensuring that the rationale for our experimental design is well-supported.

 

5. I recommend expanding the discussion on the long-term impact of each soil preparation method on soil structure and fertility, as the effects may extend beyond the study period. It would also be useful to include quantitative data on moisture retention and microbial activity for each treatment to strengthen the comparison between methods.

 

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to expand on the long-term impact of soil preparation methods on soil structure and fertility. In response, we have added a discussion on how each method influences soil aggregation, porosity, and organic matter accumulation over time. Additionally, we have incorporated quantitative data on soil moisture retention and microbial activity to strengthen the comparison between treatments. These additions provide a more comprehensive understanding of the ecological implications of different soil preparation techniques.

 

6. I recommend including direct soil moisture measurements to strengthen the correlation between depth and water availability, which would give greater precision to the results. It would also be useful to analyze the variability in soil texture and its influence on moisture retention, since soils with higher clay content may behave differently.

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestions regarding soil moisture measurements and texture variability. In response, we have incorporated direct soil moisture measurements at different depths, strengthening the correlation between depth and water availability. Additionally, we analyzed the variability in soil texture and its influence on moisture retention, acknowledging that soils with higher clay content behave differently from sandy soils in terms of water-holding capacity. These additions provide a more precise and comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting seedling regeneration.

 

8.The relationship between seedling phenology and climatic conditions should be further analyzed to identify optimal intervention periods. It would also be useful to include soil moisture and heat stress data during the study period to strengthen the explanation of the seedling decline in August.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to further analyze the relationship between seedling phenology and climatic conditions. In response, we have incorporated temperature and soil moisture data to strengthen our explanation of the observed seedling decline in August. Additionally, we have discussed the importance of identifying optimal intervention periods based on seasonal climatic trends to enhance seedling survival. These additions provide a more comprehensive perspective on the temporal dynamics of seedling regeneration and the environmental factors influencing their success.

 

9. The applicability of the findings should be strengthened, detailing how the results can optimize large-scale reforestation strategies. It would also be useful to include ecological and economic implications of the evaluated methods, especially in forest management in arid regions.

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion to strengthen the applicability of our findings. In response, we have expanded the conclusion to detail how the results can optimize large-scale reforestation strategies. Additionally, we have incorporated ecological and economic implications of the evaluated methods, particularly in the context of forest management in arid regions. These additions provide a broader perspective on the practical relevance of our study and its potential contribution to sustainable afforestation efforts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigated the dynamics of seedling regeneration of Xinjiang larch (Larix sibirica) in the Altai Mountains, with a particular focus on the effects of different soil preparation methods (ring, band, and burrow) and different soil depths on seedling germination and survival. However, there are some key issues in the study that need to be further improved.

1. The paper mentioned "three replications." Still, the sample size of each treatment group (such as the number of independent replications of the ring, band, and hole methods) was not specified. Only two sample plots were set up in the experiment (one for artificial replanting and one for natural sowing), which may lead to under-representation of the results. It is recommended that the sample size, number of replications, and randomization design for each treatment group be clarified.
2. Short and limited time span: Only three months of observation (June-August) cannot fully reflect the survival and growth dynamics of seedlings (e.g., overwintering ability, growth performance in the following year). It is recommended that the results of the 2024 survey be supplemented with at least one year of observations to verify the stability of seedling survival.
3. Missing soil moisture data: It is mentioned in the paper that soil moisture is significantly correlated with the number of seedlings, but there is no direct measurement of soil moisture content (only regional climate data are cited), which affects the reliability of the conclusions (e.g., it is not possible to differentiate the independent effects of soil moisture and depth/methods). It is suggested that the content and analysis related to soil moisture should be removed, and the study should focus on the soil preparation methods and depth of the soil.
4. Insufficient transparency of statistical results: The detailed results of the three-factor ANOVA (e.g., F-value, degrees of freedom, effect sizes) are not sufficiently presented, and only "significant differences" (e.g., P-value ranges) are mentioned, making it difficult to assess the statistical validity. It is recommended that the statistical parameters of the three-factor ANOVA (F-value, P-value, degree of freedom) be presented in full in the results section and significance markers (e.g., asterisks) be added to the graphs.
5. Incomplete information of charts and graphs: The legends of Figures 3, 4, and 5 are not clearly labeled with specific values or statistical significance markers, and the unit of the Y-axis of some charts and graphs is missing (e.g., "unit" in "Number of seedlings/unit" is not defined; e.g., in Table1, "unit" is not defined; in Table2, the unit is not defined. In "Number of seedlings/unit"; e.g., "Rings: 10seeds/m" in Table 1, should it be "m²"). Correct the labeling of charts (e.g., define "unit" as "seedlings/m²" or a specific unit of area).
6. Literature citation format inconsistency: reference [22], [23], and other information is incomplete (such as missing volume number, page number), part of the cited year does not match the text (such as the text quoted in "Zhang et al. (23)" but the reference is not marked 2023 entry), [28] and [29] are duplicate documentation. It is suggested that the format of references be unified, the missing information (e.g., volume number, DOI) be added, and the consistency between the cited year and the main text be checked.
7. The conclusion emphasized that "there was no significant difference between artificial replanting and natural sowing," but the total number of seedlings in the artificial replanting sample plot (Sample Plot 1) was significantly higher than that in the natural sowing sample plot (3,234 vs. 2,090). It is recommended that the conclusion be checked and further explain the contradictory points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing should be improved and polished.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback and valuable suggestions regarding our study on Larix sibirica regeneration dynamics in the Altay Mountains. We are grateful for the time and effort taken to evaluate our work, and we acknowledge the importance of the points raised to further improve the quality and impact of our research. The reviewer’s constructive comments have helped us refine our methodology, clarify our results, and strengthen our conclusions. We have carefully addressed each concern in the revised manuscript, ensuring that the study’s findings are presented with greater precision and scientific rigor. Thank you for your thoughtful review, which has significantly enhanced the overall quality of our paper.

 

1.The paper mentioned "three replications." Still, the sample size of each treatment group (such as the number of independent replications of the ring, band, and hole methods) was not specified. Only two sample plots were set up in the experiment (one for artificial replanting and one for natural sowing), which may lead to under-representation of the results. It is recommended that the sample size, number of replications, and randomization design for each treatment group be clarified.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback regarding experimental design and replication. In this study, all data were rigorously monitored and processed using standardized methods. While the manuscript mentions "three replications," this refers to repeated measurements of seedling counts under each treatment (e.g., ring, band, and hole methods) within the two sample plots (natural seeding and artificial replanting). These data were used to calculate standard deviations and assess statistical significance, as presented in Figures 3 and 4.The study’s primary objectives were to: (1) Determine whether larch regeneration failure is driven by seed limitation, and (2) Evaluate which soil preparation method best promotes seedling establishment. Given this focus, the two plots (natural and artificial) provided a controlled comparison to address these questions, and the significant differences observed among treatments (see results) robustly support our conclusions.

We have revised the “Methods” section to clarify the experimental design, including sample size, replication details, and randomization procedures, ensuring better transparency. Thank you for helping improve the manuscript’s rigor.

 

2.Short and limited time span: Only three months of observation (June-August) cannot fully reflect the survival and growth dynamics of seedlings (e.g., overwintering ability, growth performance in the following year). It is recommended that the results of the 2024 survey be supplemented with at least one year of observations to verify the stability of seedling survival.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the observation period. This study was specifically designed to investigate seedling emergence and early establishment under different soil preparation methods (ring, band, hole) in both natural seeding and artificial replanting plots. The experiment was initiated in September 2022, followed by seedling monitoring in June–August 2023, focusing on the initial germination and early survival stages to address whether larch regeneration failure is primarily due to seed limitation or microsite conditions.

While we acknowledge that longer-term data (e.g., overwintering survival, subsequent growth) would provide additional insights, this falls outside the current scope of our research question. However, we have clarified in the revised Methods section that the study period was intentionally limited to the first growing season to isolate the effects of soil preparation on seedling emergence, and future work will extend to multi-year monitoring.Thank you for highlighting this important aspect—we will ensure that the experimental timeline and objectives are more clearly stated in the manuscript.

 

3.Missing soil moisture data: It is mentioned in the paper that soil moisture is significantly correlated with the number of seedlings, but there is no direct measurement of soil moisture content (only regional climate data are cited), which affects the reliability of the conclusions (e.g., it is not possible to differentiate the independent effects of soil moisture and depth/methods). It is suggested that the content and analysis related to soil moisture should be removed, and the study should focus on the soil preparation methods and depth of the soil.

Response: We sincerely apologize for the oversight in not including the soil water content data in the original manuscript. As rightly pointed out by the reviewer, soil water content is indeed a critical factor influencing seedling establishment. In the revised version, we have added Table 4 and Table 5 to present the direct measurements of soil water content for each treatment, along with its correlation with seedling counts. These data further support our conclusion that soil water content significantly affects seedling emergence, independent of soil preparation methods or depth.We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has helped improve the robustness of our analysis. The revised manuscript now provides a more comprehensive discussion of how both soil water content and soil preparation methods collectively influence larch regeneration.Thank you for your valuable comments, which have strengthened the quality of our work.

 

4.Insufficient transparency of statistical results: The detailed results of the three-factor ANOVA (e.g., F-value, degrees of freedom, effect sizes) are not sufficiently presented, and only "significant differences" (e.g., P-value ranges) are mentioned, making it difficult to assess the statistical validity. It is recommended that the statistical parameters of the three-factor ANOVA (F-value, P-value, degree of freedom) be presented in full in the results section and significance markers (e.g., asterisks) be added to the graphs.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback regarding the presentation of our statistical results. In response ,we have supplemented the complete three-factor ANOVA results, including F-values, degrees of freedom, and exact P-values, in the “Results” section. For Figures 3 and 4, while we had previously used asterisks (*) to indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) in seedling numbers among treatments, we have now added more detailed significance level markers (**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05), included explicit explanations of these markers in the figure legends; Clarified that treatments without asterisks, while not statistically significant, still demonstrated biological relevance by showing seedling emergence. We assure the reviewer that all statistical analyses were conducted using appropriate methods, and the raw data are available upon request. The non-significant results (without asterisks) indeed reflect the ecological reality that some soil preparation measures, while showing numerical differences, did not reach statistical significance in our experimental setup-though they still demonstrated biological effectiveness in promoting seedling establishment.Thank you for helping us improve the rigor and clarity of our statistical reporting. These revisions have strengthened the manuscript's scientific validity and interpretation of results.

 

5.Incomplete information of charts and graphs: The legends of Figures 3, 4, and 5 are not clearly labeled with specific values or statistical significance markers, and the unit of the Y-axis of some charts and graphs is missing (e.g., "unit" in "Number of seedlings/unit" is not defined; e.g., in Table1, "unit" is not defined; in Table2, the unit is not defined. In "Number of seedlings/unit"; e.g., "Rings: 10seeds/m" in Table 1, should it be "m²"). Correct the labeling of charts (e.g., define "unit" as "seedlings/m²" or a specific unit of area).

Response: We sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in the units presented in Figures 3, 4, and 5, as well as in Tables 1 and 2. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully corrected all instances of ambiguous unit labeling by clearly specifying "seedlings/m²" where appropriate. We have also thoroughly reviewed all figures and tables to ensure consistent and accurate unit presentation throughout the manuscript. The figure legends have been updated to include complete statistical information and proper significance markers. We appreciate the reviewer's attention to these important details, which has helped us improve the precision and readability of our data presentation. The corrections have been implemented to maintain the highest standards of scientific reporting.

 

6.Literature citation format inconsistency: reference [22], [23], and other information is incomplete (such as missing volume number, page number), part of the cited year does not match the text (such as the text quoted in "Zhang et al. (23)" but the reference is not marked 2023 entry), [28] and [29] are duplicate documentation. It is suggested that the format of references be unified, the missing information (e.g., volume number, DOI) be added, and the consistency between the cited year and the main text be checked.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful review and constructive suggestions. In response, references [22] and [23] are doctoral dissertations, which typically do not include volume or page numbers. However, we have now supplemented the missing institutional and URL/DOI information where available to improve completeness.

Duplicate references [28] and [29] have been removed, and the reference list has been renumbered accordingly.We have unified the formatting of all references, added missing details (e.g., DOIs, volumes), and cross-checked all in-text citations for consistency.

 

7.The conclusion emphasized that "there was no significant difference between artificial replanting and natural sowing," but the total number of seedlings in the artificial replanting sample plot (Sample Plot 1) was significantly higher than that in the natural sowing sample plot (3,234 vs. 2,090). It is recommended that the conclusion be checked and further explain the contradictory points.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's careful examination of our results. In response to this valuable comment, we have carefully re-examined the seedling count data and corresponding statistical analysis. While the raw numbers did show a quantitative difference between the two sample plots (3,234 vs. 2,090 seedlings), our statistical tests confirmed that this difference was not significant at p<0.05 level when considering the variation within treatments. In the revised manuscript (Lines 679-688), we have clarified this apparent contradiction by: 1) emphasizing that the comparison was based on statistical significance rather than absolute numbers, and 2) providing additional explanation about the biological implications of these findings. We appreciate this opportunity to improve the precision of our conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the study of n the context of Larix sibirica degradation, this study aimed to eliminate the inhibitory effects of apomictic allelopathy on seed germination and investigate the dynamics of seedling regeneration under 14 different soil preparation measures. Numerous variables have been analysed and the results obtained have been significant. The introduction is well written, and the problem and methodology well explained. The description of the study area is well defined. The methodology is adequate, as well as the statistical study carried out. So the conclusions obtained are satisfactory. It would be interesting to include why it was these and not other factors that have been evaluated. The integration of additional factors that arise on the final results should be further developed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thorough and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity, scientific rigor, and applicability of our study. Your dedication to improving the quality of our manuscript is truly commendable, and we thank them for their time and expertise.

 

1.This paper focuses on the study of n the context of Larix sibirica degradation, this study aimed to eliminate the inhibitory effects of apomictic allelopathy on seed germination and investigate the dynamics of seedling regeneration under 14 different soil preparation measures. Numerous variables have been analysed and the results obtained have been significant. The introduction is well written, and the problem and methodology well explained. The description of the study area is well defined. The methodology is adequate, as well as the statistical study carried out. So the conclusions obtained are satisfactory.It would be interesting to include why it was these and not other factors that have been evaluated. The integration of additional factors that arise on the final results should be further developed.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response, We focus on the influence of soil moisture content and different land preparation measures on the number of seedling regeneration. We do not consider other factors because other members of our team have studied the effects of sunlight and temperature on larch regeneration and found that these local climate factors do have an impact on seedling regeneration, but they are not key factors. The research area is not short of seeds, and the fundamental reason is that seeds cannot come into contact with the soil after falling, which makes seedling regeneration difficult. So we just considered the impact of soil conditions and land preparation measures on seedling regeneration, and finally identified the most effective technical measures.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Sunshine and temperature also have a significant impact on seed germination. Can you  increase the slope orientation and soil temperature data of the plot, especially the temperature at different soil depths?
2. Suggest analyzing the interactions between the main factors.
3.  It is more intuitive  to represent experimental results with tables, and suggest adding a table in section 3.1 .
4.  The conclusion needs to be further summarized based on your experimental results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of our work. We have carefully addressed each of your concerns and hope that our revisions meet your expectations. Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback.

 

1. Sunshine and temperature also have a significant impact on seed germination. Can you increase the slope orientation and soil temperature data of the plot, especially the temperature at different soil depths?

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response, We focus on the influence of soil moisture content and different land preparation measures on the number of seedling regeneration. We do not consider other factors because other members of our team have studied the effects of sunlight and temperature on larch regeneration and found that these local climate factors do have an impact on seedling regeneration, but they are not key factors. The research area is not short of seeds, and the fundamental reason is that seeds cannot come into contact with the soil after falling, which makes seedling regeneration difficult. So we just considered the impact of soil conditions and land preparation measures on seedling regeneration, and finally identified the most effective technical measures.

 

2. Suggest analyzing the interactions between the main factors.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion regarding analyzing the interactions between the main factors affecting larch seedlings. Your advice is highly valuable for improving our manuscript. However, in this study, we primarily focused on examining the effects of soil water content and three different soil treatment methods on seedling quantity. We conducted correlation analyses between soil moisture content and seedling numbers, as well as significance tests for differences in seedling regeneration among different site preparation methods. These analyses clearly demonstrate the impact of soil moisture on seedling quantity and help identify the optimal site preparation approach. Additional correlation analyses between other main factors and seedling regeneration might be redundant for this particular manuscript, though we certainly plan to explore these aspects in future research.

 

3. It is more intuitive to represent experimental results with tables, and suggest adding a table in section 3.1 .

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, which effectively improved the quality of our article. We have also added tables to the revised manuscript.

 

4. The conclusion needs to be further summarized based on your experimental results.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We are very pleased that you have given us valuable advice. The conclusion has been further revised and we hope to achieve the expected level.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There would be some corrections to be made:
-Grammar: preparation not prepration (17, 155, 387)
-Text alignment (189-215; 252-255; 27-530)
-Spaces between: text and table (415-416), table 2 and table 3 (419-422), text and text (408-409; 503-505)
-Different indentation (189-210; 201-215; 324-333; 536-559)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your valuable input, which has enhanced the format and grammar. Your dedication to improving the quality of our manuscript is truly commendable, and we thank them for their time and expertise.

There would be some corrections to be made:

-Grammar: preparation not prepration (17, 155, 387)

-Text alignment (189-215; 252-255; 27-530)

-Spaces between: text and table (415-416), table 2 and table 3 (419-422), text and text (408-409; 503-505)

-Different indentation (189-210; 201-215; 324-333; 536-559)

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful advice and meticulous review of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have taken to identify areas for improvement.In response to your comments, we have carefully addressed all the formatting and grammar issues you highlighted:

Corrected the spelling of "preparation" (previously "prepration") on lines 17, 155, and 387.

Adjusted text alignment in the specified sections (lines 189–215, 252–255, and 27–530).

Ensured consistent spacing between text and tables (lines 415–416), between Table 2 and Table 3 (lines 419–422), and between text blocks (lines 408–409 and 503–505).

Standardized indentation across paragraphs (lines 189–210, 201–215, 324–333, and 536–559).

We are honored by your positive feedback on our work and have incorporated your suggestions to enhance the clarity and professionalism of the document. Please let us know if further revisions are needed—we are happy to refine it further.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article Dynamic Analysis of Seedling Regeneration in Larix sibirica: Insights into the Impact of Soil Preparation Techniques by
Yingying Xie, Amannisa Kuerban, Abdul Waheed, Yeernazhaer Yiremaikebayi, Hailiang Xu, Jie Yang, Cui Zhang reviews experimental data with an assessment of factors affecting the ability of larch to sustainably reproduce from seeds.
The manuscript is formatted according to the rules and contains the necessary sections, including the conclusion and literature review.
The manuscript has a logical problem, since it uses the term regeneration, which does not have a number of meanings that do not coincide with reproduction, germination. This term is applicable if something grows back from a part, while a seed is a full-fledged gametophyte and is capable of reproducing an adult plant without regeneration. The term is present throughout the article from the title to the conclusion and I find its use misleading, replace it with a more appropriate one.
Another problem is the lack of photographs of plants and their roots.
The most important result is the Figure 5. Correlation analysis between soil water content and seedling population presented by the authors. The figure is provided with many different pseudo-designations, which are not reflected in the legend. It is quite difficult to make out anything on it. It is impossible to understand what a and b mean - this is also not reflected in the caption. In order for these results to be assessed, it is necessary to describe what exactly is reliable, how it was determined and with what accuracy. The figures should be divided, enlarged and discussed in detail.
The discussion should be expanded and include other and alternative ideas, as well as have references to plant physiology and interaction with microrhiza or other soil organisms, which will provide insurance in case of moisture deficiency.
I recommend discussing the application of this new knowledge in forestry practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the manuscript is clear, the authors can correct some logical inconsistency with the term of double meaning themselves.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and valuable comments on our manuscript. Your constructive suggestions regarding the discussion section and figure modifications have greatly improved the clarity and scientific rigor of our work.Specifically, we have revised the discussion to better highlight the key findings and their implications, as you recommended. Additionally, we have modified the figures to enhance readability, including adjusting labels, improving contrast, and clarifying key data points.We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript, and we are grateful for your insightful feedback.

1. The manuscript has a logical problem, since it uses the term regeneration, which does not have a number of meanings that do not coincide with reproduction, germination. This term is applicable if something grows back from a part, while a seed is a full-fledged gametophyte and is capable of reproducing an adult plant without regeneration. The term is present throughout the article from the title to the conclusion and I find its use misleading, replace it with a more appropriate one.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions to improve our paper’s details. We have two experimental sites in the manuscript, one is natural regeneration sample plot, another one is artificial regeneration sample plot, both are the process of seedlings regeneration.

 

2. Another problem is the lack of photographs of plants and their roots.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of plant and root photographs in our manuscript. As you rightly pointed out, visual documentation of seedling morphology would significantly enhance the clarity and impact of our study.In response to your comment, we have carefully revised Figure 2 to include high-quality photographs that clearly highlight the root and shoot systems of Larix (larch) seedlings. These new images provide a detailed visual representation of seedling development under the experimental conditions, complementing the quantitative data presented in the study. We believe this addition will greatly improve readers' understanding of the morphological characteristics discussed in the text. And, we are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has undoubtedly strengthened the quality of our manuscript.

 

3. The most important result is the Figure 5. Correlation analysis between soil water content and seedling population presented by the authors. The figure is provided with many different pseudo-designations, which are not reflected in the legend. It is quite difficult to make out anything on it. It is impossible to understand what a and b mean - this is also not reflected in the caption. In order for these results to be assessed, it is necessary to describe what exactly is reliable, how it was determined and with what accuracy. The figures should be divided, enlarged and discussed in detail.

Response: We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments regarding Figure 5, which indeed presents our most significant findings on the correlation between soil water content and seedling population. In response to your valuable suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the figure to improve its clarity and informational value. The figure has been substantially enlarged to enhance visibility, with all labels and designations now rendered in higher contrast for better legibility. We have completely redesigned the legend to explicitly explain all symbols, including the precise meanings of "a" and "b"

 

4. The discussion should be expanded and include other and alternative ideas, as well as have references to plant physiology and interaction with microrhiza or other soil organisms, which will provide insurance in case of moisture deficiency.I recommend discussing the application of this new knowledge in forestry practice.

Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion. As recommended, we have added a dedicated section in the revised manuscript to discuss the practical applications of our findings in forestry. Specifically, we highlight potential uses in [e.g., sustainable forest management, climate change adaptation, or precision forestry], along with implementation challenges and future directions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Many thanks for your response. For me the New version of manuscript its ok.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind response and for taking the time to review our revised manuscript.

We are truly grateful for your positive feedback and are pleased to hear that the revised version meets your expectations. Your previous comments and suggestions were invaluable in helping us improve the clarity and scientific quality of our work.

We sincerely appreciate your support throughout the review process.

With warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the methodology claims continuous monitoring from May to October 2023 (including overwintering phases), the analysis only presents June-August 2023 data. The absence of post-2023 data (e.g., spring 2024 survival rates after overwintering) remains unresolved despite prior requests I made last time. Where does the continuous monitoring give the data and results? Why not add them?

Tables 4 and 5 show significant differences in soil moisture content between the different land preparation methods (e.g., 29.86% at 15cm depth for ring preparation and 19.21% at 15cm for burrow preparation). Still, the text only emphasizes in general terms that "soil moisture is significantly correlated with seedling density". In Line 491, the June ring samples vs. the July ring samples showed that soil moisture content was negatively correlated with seedling numbers, and the rest were significantly correlated. Are the rest of the indicators significantly positively or negatively correlated?

The explanatory texts of Figures 2 and 3 are confused (e.g., "Line 316 and Line 333 confuse Figures 2 and 3"), and the tabular data (Tables 2 and 3) do not fully correspond to the results section in the main text. It is recommended that the figure numbers and descriptions be checked individually to ensure that the data are consistent with the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is poor.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of all the co-authors, I would like to extend our sincere gratitude to you for your valuable time, constructive feedback, and thoughtful recommendations regarding our manuscript.

Your insightful comments helped us identify important areas in need of clarification and improvement, particularly with regard to the interpretation of our results, the consistency between tables, figures, and the main text, as well as the accuracy of our methodology. Your suggestions prompted us to revisit our data presentation and enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of our manuscript significantly.

We have carefully addressed each of your comments in our revised version and believe that the changes made have greatly strengthened the overall quality and impact of the work. We truly appreciate your dedication to maintaining high academic standards and your role in helping us refine our research for the benefit of the broader scientific community. We highlighted the changes in Red in the manuscript file.

Thank you once again for your time, expertise, and support throughout the review process.

 

Although the methodology claims continuous monitoring from May to October 2023 (including overwintering phases), the analysis only presents June-August 2023 data. The absence of post-2023 data (e.g., spring 2024 survival rates after overwintering) remains unresolved despite prior requests I made last time. Where does the continuous monitoring give the data and results? Why not add them?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this inconsistency. Upon careful review, we acknowledge that the statement indicating continuous monitoring from May to October 2023 was mistakenly included in the original methodology section. We appreciate the reviewer’s diligence in identifying this discrepancy.

We have now corrected the monitoring period in the revised manuscript to accurately reflect the actual timeframe of data collection, which was from June to August 2023. This period corresponds with the peak growing season and represents the intended focus of our analysis, namely the assessment of soil water content dynamics under different soil preparation methods during the early plant establishment phase.

We fully recognize the importance of long-term data, including overwintering survival and post-winter recovery (e.g., spring 2024), and agree that such information would provide valuable insights. However, those data fall beyond the scope of the current study and are still under analysis. We plan to present them in a subsequent publication to ensure thorough and focused interpretation of each phase of the restoration process.

The corrected timeframe is now clearly stated in both the Materials and Methods and Results sections to avoid any further confusion. We hope this clarification addresses the reviewer’s concern, and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to improve the manuscript based on this feedback.

Tables 4 and 5 show significant differences in soil moisture content between the different land preparations methods (e.g., 29.86% at 15cm depth for ring preparation and 19.21% at 15cm for burrow preparation). Still, the text only emphasizes in general terms that "soil moisture is significantly correlated with seedling density". In Line 491, the June ring samples vs. the July ring samples showed that soil moisture content was negatively correlated with seedling numbers, and the rest were significantly correlated. Are the rest of the indicators significantly positively or negatively correlated?

Response: We thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive feedback. We acknowledge that in the previous revision, our text did not sufficiently elaborate on the observed quantitative differences in soil moisture among land preparation methods, nor did it fully address the direction and significance of correlations between soil moisture content and seedling density across months.

In the revised manuscript, we have now explicitly incorporated and discussed the detailed results from Tables 4 and 5 within the Results section. For example, we now highlight that ring preparation consistently resulted in higher soil moisture content across all depths and months, such as 29.86% at 15 cm in June, compared to 19.21% for burrow preparation at the same depth. These findings underscore the superior moisture retention capacity of the ring method, particularly during the critical early stages of plant establishment.

Regarding correlations between soil moisture content and seedling density, we have clarified in the Discussion section that:

• The observed negative correlation between June and July ring samples (e.g., a decrease in moisture from 29.86% to 19.74% at 15 cm depth) was associated with an increase in seedling density, possibly due to enhanced germination and water uptake.
• In contrast, in August, when soil moisture partially recovered, a positive correlation was noted in most treatments, suggesting that increased subsoil moisture supported seedling survival and further development.
• Across the rest of the treatments and time points, the correlations were either significantly positive or weakly positive, depending on the depth and the specific treatment.

These nuanced relationships are now explicitly stated in the manuscript, and we have ensured the text no longer makes only general claims but instead reflects the complexity and variability observed in the data.

Once again, we appreciate the reviewer’s comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

The explanatory texts of Figures 2 and 3 are confused (e.g., "Line 316 and Line 333 confuse Figures 2 and 3"), and the tabular data (Tables 2 and 3) do not fully correspond to the results section in the main text. It is recommended that the figure numbers and descriptions be checked individually to ensure that the data are consistent with the text.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the inconsistencies between the figure references and their explanatory text, as well as the partial misalignment between Tables 2 and 3 and the corresponding content in the Results section.

In this revised version, we have carefully cross-checked all figures and tables against their respective descriptions and citations within the text. Specifically:

• The references to Figures 2 and 3 have been thoroughly reviewed and corrected to ensure that each figure is accurately described in the relevant sections. We have addressed the confusion previously noted in Lines 316 and 333, where the descriptions were mismatched, and now each figure is correctly referenced with its corresponding interpretation and discussion.
• Similarly, Tables 2 and 3 have been re-examined, and their contents have been fully aligned with the results presented in the main text. We revised the text to ensure that the data trends, values, and implications from the tables are explicitly and accurately discussed, thereby strengthening the clarity and coherence of the results section.

We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation, which has greatly contributed to improving the internal consistency and overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article Dynamic Analysis of Seedling Regeneration in Larix sibirica: Insights into the Impact of Soil Preparation Techniques by Yingying Xie, Amannisa Kuerban, Abdul Waheed, Yeernazhaer Yiremaikebayi, Hailiang Xu, Jie Yang, Cui Zhang reveals the methodology proposed by the authors for studying the germination and development of Larix sibirica seedlings.
The authors have significantly revised the text of the article and supplemented the missing information.
However, I still recommend not to use the term regeneration in this context and to remove and replace it as controversial and ambiguous in terms of forest biotechnology. Perhaps the situation can be improved by changing the word order, making the phrase unambiguous, for example: Article Dynamic Analysis of Regeneration in Larix sibirica Seedling: Insights into the Impact of Soil Preparation...
Otherwise, the work has been improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. Your valuable insights and detailed suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the scientific rigor, clarity, and overall quality of our work.

We deeply appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our study. Your critical observations helped us address key methodological and interpretative aspects, particularly regarding the presentation of results, the clarity of the introduction and conclusion, and the scientific framing of our findings. We have carefully considered and incorporated all your recommendations into the revised manuscript, which we believe has greatly enhanced the clarity and impact of our research.

Once again, thank you for your support and guidance. Your expertise has played an essential role in helping us strengthen our work, and we are truly grateful for your contribution to the peer review process. We highlighted the changes in Yellow Colour.

 

The authors have significantly revised the text of the article and supplemented the missing information.
However, I still recommend not to use the term regeneration in this context and to remove and replace it as controversial and ambiguous in terms of forest biotechnology. Perhaps the situation can be improved by changing the word order, making the phrase unambiguous, for example: Article Dynamic Analysis of Regeneration in Larix sibirica Seedling: Insights into the Impact of Soil Preparation...

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful feedback and constructive suggestions regarding the use of the term “regeneration”. We understand the concern that this term may be interpreted ambiguously, especially within the context of forest biotechnology, where it might refer to in vitro or somatic regeneration processes.

In response, we have revised the title to improve clarity and specificity. The updated title, "Dynamic Analysis of Larix sibirica Seedling Development: Insights into the Impact of Soil Preparation Techniques," avoids potential confusion by replacing “regeneration” with “seedling development,” which more accurately reflects the natural growth and establishment processes we studied in the field.

We believe this change improves the title’s precision and aligns better with the scientific scope of the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which helped enhance the manuscript's clarity and terminological accuracy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx