Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is meaningful because eutrophication has been a global issue for many years. The research on seasonal dynamics of N and P in wetland plants can be helpful to provide effective management strategies. A major revision is recommended. My comments are shown below.

1. Please draw a figure to show the nitrogen and phosphorus mobility and transformation in the wetland. What is the difference of the two elements in wetland with other water environments?
2. Part 6, is it possible for the authors to provide a table to include all the proposed strategies?
3. Do you have any suggestions on wetland algal control by controlling nitrogen and phosphorus?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the full text according to your comments and provided a point-by-point response. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the response letter for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper discusses the effects of wetland plant harvesting and nutrient removal on water eutrophication. Some minor suggestions are given here:

2.1. Seasonal growth rhythms and nutrient requirements: biomass can also be summarized in a table.

Figures 1 and 2 TN and TP removal rates: Is that the average? It is best to give the ranges and standard deviations.

Is there evidence in the discussion that wetland vegetation reduces water eutrophication? Such as a reduction in the trophic statu index.

Can the conclusions give specific recommendations about mixed planting of different wetland plant species?

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the full text according to your comments and provided a point-by-point response. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the response letter for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. “in situ” should be written in italics.
2. According to the journal requirements, the abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the abbreviation should be added in parentheses after the written-out form. Once defined there’s no need to define them again.
3. Please, use the full scientific names of all the chosen species throughout the text (Acorus calamus; Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L.; Duranta repens L. etc.). Once the full scientific name of the species is included in the text there’s no need to write it again and could use the short names of the species (A. calamus; H. rosa-sinensis; D. repens etc.).
4. The manuscript's quality will improve if the figures/tables are inserted into the main text close to their first citation. After that is the main text with the interpretation of the result, describing the respective figure/table.
5. What does it mean TN and TP? All figures/tables should have a short explanatory title and caption. Any special characters or icons in an image, need to have a corresponding explanation in the caption.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the full text according to your comments and provided a point-by-point response. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the response letter for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review classified the wetland plants into three categories based on their growth performance, as well as their nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) requirements: spring-summer growth plants (SSP), spring-summer-autumn growth plants (SSAP), and all-year-round growth plants (AP). It also highlighted the seasonal variations and absorption rates of N and P content, and underlying the proposed mechanisms of the N and P transfer in wetlands. They also proposed some management strategies to optimize nutrient removal and ensure sustainable wetland management. I recommend the manuscript to be accepted after this minor editing.

Just some minor comments:

• In the Abstract: "in situ" should be italic. Also, all the plant names should be in italic throughout the text.
• Strictly follow the journal format in writing the references.
• Add some recent references related to the research topic.
• The English language could be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the full text according to your comments and provided a point-by-point response. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the response letter for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors used a large number of articles as references, identified as relevant to the chosen topic, but without a clear methodological and systematic approach. The article does not follow a standard structure that would clarify the approach between the supporting information in the referenced articles and the substantiation of the scientific hypothesis, the methodological approach to clarify arguments capable of supporting results derived from the original research as a contribution of the authors. The conclusions are unclear, future research directions are presented before the conclusions. The results obtained by the authors following the assumed approach are not clearly presented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need more attention of english language formulation. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the full text according to your comments and provided a point-by-point response. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the response letter for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

my concerns have been well solved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your encouragement and recognition of our work.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors make mention of their personal contribution to the methodology, however, there is no differentiation of the methodology chapter from the results and discussion chapter, so it is difficult to differentiate between the information supported by bibliographic references, indirect research and the authors' contribution. The authors have made a distinction from the previous form regarding conclusions and future research opportunities, but nevertheless they must understand that without a clear differentiation of the methodological approach applied, it is not possible to differentiate their own contribution from the aggregated knowledge from other sources, significantly diminishing their own contribution.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have comprehensively revised the article again based on your comments. Specifically, we have mainly added content related to the methodology. For our responses to your comments and the added content, please refer to the section “Response to Reviewer #5” in the response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors don't make distinction about what is suport information from past research references and new knowledge from original approach. We understand the type of summary article but also you need to make distinction about universal understanding of the process and presenting the results of a new interpretation (knowledge development). Please take into account and put you chapters from 3 to 6 as subchapter in a Results and discussions to maintain the logic of the full presentation of the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have revised the entire paper again according to your suggestions. Please refer to the response letter and the revised manuscript for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf