Fine Root Traits of Pinus koraiensis Varied with Soil Cation Exchange Capacity in Natural Forests
, Xingpeng Li 1,*, Wensheng Sun 3, Qian Wang 2, Hongwen Liu 2, Chunyan Zhou 4, Weina Zhang 4 and Feng Li 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors collected root sample form different forest types and analysed difference in root traits. I thought it has some value as a case study. However, I hesitate to accept the current manuscript in this journal. I thought your dataset is very difficult to evaluate.
At first, your figure is very difficult to understand. Was Figure1 drawn using all root data? And was Figure 2 drawn using data of P. koraiensis?
Secondly, I think Figure1 makes your paper difficult to understand. As shown in the comment below, it is difficult to understand which species you focused on. All species root? Or P. koraiensis root? I suggest Figure 1 should be deleted or move to appendix.
Thirdly, you don’t discuss effects of difference in stand density among forest types on root traits. Is it a significant factor for root trait?
I hope that my comments will help Authors to improve their manuscript.
P 83 Phellodendron Amurense → Phellodendron amurense
L85-90 The areas of each forest should be showed. And you should change the abbreviation of the site to make it easier for the reader (e.g. KA→BPM(broad leaved P. koraiensis mixed forest), KP→MP, KS→CM).
P 95-96 Because root trait vary depending on stand age, authors have to show the approximate age of stands near the soil collection point.
P 100-103 You explain that “Diameter (mm), length 100 (cm), surface area (cm2) and volume (cm3) of roots from all species were determined by scanning roots and data were analyzed with WinRhizo Pro software”
→ I have some question about how to analyze root sample.
- You picked up all fine roots in the soil sample block (20 x 20 x 10cm)?
- What’s diameter meaning? Average diameter of each scanning root?
P 103 Please show drying time.
P 113-125 What’s available P, K and N ? Please explain on what grounds you explain it. Please explain differences in the extraction methods.
Figure 1
“Root biomass” and “Root volume density” mean root biomass and root volume density of P. koraiensis? or all tree species? Also for Figure 2.
>Figure 2
Fine root tissue density means g/cm-3 soil? or g/cm-3 root?
You have to revise vertical axis labels.
>Figure 3
Fine root valume density (mm・cm-3)→Fine root valume density (mm-3・cm-3)?
>Table 1 “Forest type” should be KA(BPM), KS(CM) and KP(MP), following the expression in the manuscript.
Slope angle that may affect root morphology should be showed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Manuscript Number: land-1134653
Fine root traits of Pinus koraiensis varied with soil cation exchange capacity in natural forests
March 9, 2021
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript, we appreciate for all the comments to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according the comments. These are detailed below.
Best wishes
Shuxia Jia, Xingpeng Li
Point 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors collected root sample form different forest types and analysed difference in root traits. I thought it has some value as a case study. However, I hesitate to accept the current manuscript in this journal. I thought your dataset is very difficult to evaluate.
Response 1: Thanks for the comment, we showed the new figures according the suggestion of reviewers and academic Editor, then we rewritten the section of introduction, results, and discussion to link the data and conclusion in the new manuscript.
Point 2: At first, your figure is very difficult to understand. Was Figure1 drawn using all root data? And was Figure 2 drawn using data of P. koraiensis?
Response 2: We are so sorry the confusing figures. Yes, we showed all species root data in figure 1 of original manuscript, and the data in figure 2 were fine root traits of P. koraiensis. We focused on the fine root of P. koraiensis in the revision.
Point 3: Secondly, I think Figure1 makes your paper difficult to understand. As shown in the comment below, it is difficult to understand which species you focused on. All species root? Or P. koraiensis root? I suggest Figure 1 should be deleted or move to appendix.
Response 3: Thank you for the suggestions, we tried to find the effect of tree root volume (all root in the sampled soil) on soil physical structure in the original manuscript, but the data do not support our thoughts. We focused on fine root traits of P. koraiensis in the revision. We deleted the content of Figure 1 in the revision.
Point 4: Thirdly, you don’t discuss effects of difference in stand density among forest types on root traits. Is it a significant factor for root trait?
Response 4: Yes, stand density influences root traits, thank you for the good suggestion. We try to combine stand density, species, and understory vegetation together as stand type, we added the explanation of stand density in the section of discussion.
Point 5: I hope that my comments will help Authors to improve their manuscript.
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. These comments make the manuscript more logical and clarity.
Point 6: P 83 Phellodendron Amurense → Phellodendron amurense
Response 6: Change made in line 93, we also checked other species names in the whole manuscript.
Point 7: L85-90 The areas of each forest should be showed. And you should change the abbreviation of the site to make it easier for the reader (e.g. KA→BPM (broad leaved P. koraiensis mixed forest), KP→MP, KS→CM).
Response 7: We added the latitude and longitude coordinates for each sampled forest. We changed the abbreviation of the site according to the suggestion. BP for broad leaved P. koraiensis mixed forest, MP for monospecific P. koraiensis forest, and CP for coniferous P. koraiensis mixed forest in lines 97-100.
Point 8: P 95-96 Because root trait vary depending on stand age, authors have to show the approximate age of stands near the soil collection point.
Response 8: The average stand age was about 200-year-old, the age of P. koraiensis is 170, for broad leaved P. koraiensis mixed forest, 175 for monospecific P. koraiensis forest, and 165 for coniferous P. koraiensis mixed forest. The relevant content in lines 101- 104.
Point 9: P 100-103 You explain that “Diameter (mm), length 100 (cm), surface area (cm2) and volume (cm3) of roots from all species were determined by scanning roots and data were analyzed with WinRhizo Pro software”
I have some question about how to analyze root sample.
You picked up all fine roots in the soil sample block (20 x 20 x 10cm)?
What’s diameter meaning? Average diameter of each scanning root?
Response 9: As mentioned above point 3, we picked up all roots from the 20 x 20 x 10 cm samples as possible as we can. It is average diameter of each scanning root.
Point 10: P 103 Please show drying time.
Response 10: Changed made in lines 114-115.
Point 11: P 113-125 What’s available P, K and N ? Please explain on what grounds you explain it. Please explain differences in the extraction methods.
Response 11: Soil available N is soil hydrolytic nitrogen includes inorganic nitrogen and easily hydrolysable organic nitrogen; Soil available P is the general term of phosphorus which can be absorbed and utilized by plants; Soil available K is easily absorbed and utilized by plants in soil, it includes the potassium content in soil solution and soil exchangeable potassium. We choose these soil nutrients variables to learn the relationship between root traits and soil nutrients content. We added the details about the extraction methods in lines 126.129.
Point 12: Figure 1
“Root biomass” and “Root volume density” mean root biomass and root volume density of P. koraiensis? or all tree species? Also for Figure 2.
Response 12:“Root biomass” and “Root volume density” are the data from all tree species in figure 1, and fine root traits is the data from P. koraiensis in figure 2. We deleted the content about all species root in the manuscript.
Point 13: Figure 2
Fine root tissue density means g/cm-3 soil? or g/cm-3 root?
You have to revise vertical axis labels.
Response 13: Thanks for the comment, “fine root tissue density” is g∙cm-3 root, we showed the new figure in the revision.
Point 14: Figure 3
Fine root volume density (mm・cm-3)→Fine root volume density (mm-3・cm-3)?
Response 14: We are so sorry for the typo, fine root volume density is mm3∙cm-3, we revised them in the revision.
Point 15: Table 1 “Forest type” should be KA(BPM), KS(CM) and KP(MP), following the expression in the manuscript.
Response 15: Change made in lines 96-99.
Point 16: Slope angle that may affect root morphology should be showed.
Response 16: The slope is same for the three forest types (8︒ at the same direction), we added the relevant information in lines 102-103 in the revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a carefully done study of fine roots in a pine forest. the analysis using structural equations is particularly helpful in interpreting the results.
Overall the writing is understandable, but there are a great many small grammatical errors that I do not have time to correct. I suggest that the authors use software such as Grammarly to review the ms. and then try to find a native English speaker to do a final check.
Section 3.3 is very dense and hard to follow. Perhaps you should break it up into two or more paragraphs, each with a topic sentence.
Line 200. Table 2 has 27 F-tests. If alpha is 0.05 then one of those tests going to have P<0.05 by chance. Therefore I would not attribute much significance to the effects of forest type on RLD and RAD.
The first paragraph of Discussion Section 4.1 doesn't seem to fit is a general discussion of mycorrhizae and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the results. I suggest you get rid of most of it and move the most relevant parts to paragraph 2.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Manuscript Number: land-1134653
Fine root traits of Pinus koraiensis varied with soil cation exchange capacity in natural forests
March 9, 2021
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript, we appreciate for all the comments to improve the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according the comments. These are detailed below.
Best wishes
Shuxia Jia, Xingpeng Li
Point 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a carefully done study of fine roots in a pine forest. the analysis using structural equations is particularly helpful in interpreting the results.
Response 1: Thank you for the approval.
Point 2: Overall the writing is understandable, but there are a great many small grammatical errors that I do not have time to correct. I suggest that the authors use software such as Grammarly to review the ms. and then try to find a native English speaker to do a final check.
Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion, we sent the manuscript to Freescience for the English editing.
Point 3: Section 3.3 is very dense and hard to follow. Perhaps you should break it up into two or more paragraphs, each with a topic sentence.
Response 3: Thanks, we break this paragraph into two part.
Point 4: Line 200. Table 2 has 27 F-tests. If alpha is 0.05 then one of those tests going to have P<0.05 by chance. Therefore I would not attribute much significance to the effects of forest type on RLD and RAD.
Response 4: We deleted the content of all species root, focused on the fine root of Pinus koraiensis, so we analyzed the data again and showed a new table. Some data do not fit the “Tests of Normality” or “Test of Homogeneity of Variance”, we normalized the data using logarithmic transformation first.
Point 5: The first paragraph of Discussion Section 4.1 doesn't seem to fit is a general discussion of mycorrhizae and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the results. I suggest you get rid of most of it and move the most relevant parts to paragraph 2.
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion, we deleted the irrelevant content in the section of discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
L124-125: the concentration of HCl/H2SO4 and Ch3COONH4 should be showed.
There are no comments regarding other matters.
