Exponential Fertilization Regimes Improved Growth and Nutrient Status of Quercus nuttallii Container Seedlings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to meet the manuscript entitled: "Exponential fertilization regimes improved growth and nutrient status of Quercus nuttallii container seedlings". The choice of a suitable fertilizer regime for plants is crucial in relation to proper nutrition and nutrient utilization, as well as the environmental burden on the landscape. Therefore, I evaluate the focus of the experiment positively. Overall, the manuscript is written at a good level, although I have a few comments that are highlighted in the text (see appendix).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

我们非常感谢您的科学评论！我们已经一一修改，请看附件。

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper the Authors  analyse the effects of two regimes (average and exponential fertilization) and different amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on the growth and nutrient status of Quercus nuttallii container seedlings.

I am afraid that the Authors are not aware that the size is only one of many characteristics that indicate the quality of the seedlings. From the point of view of seedling survival after transplanting, more important characteristics are the proportions of the plant structure (the ratio of above- to belowground parts) and the presence of mycorrhizae. Seedlings with a large aboveground part and poorly developed root system are less likely to survive. A high NPK content in the leaves results in a quantitative and qualitative reduction of mycorrhizal fungi on the roots.

The paper is written quite well. I have some comments.

In the whole text, there should be a space between the text and the square brackets with the number of the quoted paper.

L 173 Explain  how you counted  „mass fraction”

Figure 2 you should analyze one more important feature obtained from WinRHIZO - branching of the roots

Author Response

We really appreciate your scientific comments! We have revised them one by one and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I find a significant improvement in the quality of the text. It is fine now.