Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your review manuscript. The topic is relevant and timely, but I found several areas that require revision before it can be considered further. My comments are organized into major and minor issues.

Major Comments

1. Language and Grammar

   • The manuscript suffers from many grammatical errors, awkward sentence constructions, and typos (e.g., “coordintion” instead of “coordination,” “beleave” instead of “believe”). A thorough English language editing is necessary to improve clarity and readability.

2. Structure and Flow

   • The manuscript is lengthy and contains repetition, especially in the Introduction and Growth/Photosynthesis sections. Consider shortening repetitive parts and ensuring a logical flow of ideas.

   • Headings are sometimes too general (e.g., “Resistance for the Stress Factors and Genomic Adaptations”). Please make them more precise and informative.

3. Figures and Captions

   • Some figures are mentioned (Figures 1–4) but the captions are brief and lack proper scientific explanation. Each figure should have a self-explanatory caption describing what is shown, the location, and the significance.

   • The figures included appear more descriptive than analytical. Adding schematic diagrams, conceptual models, or summary tables could increase the scientific value.

4. References and Citations

   • There are inconsistencies in the reference style (e.g., “[97,99,102,125]” vs. “97”). Please unify them according to journal guidelines.

   • Some references are outdated (from the 1970s–1990s). While historical context is useful, the review would benefit from integrating more recent literature (last 5–10 years).

   • A number of statements are broad but not supported with adequate references (e.g., “plants in tundra and polar deserts have developed a high lability in the choice of ways of pollination”). Please back these with recent data.

5. Critical Analysis vs. Listing

   • The current draft often reads like a list of adaptations and historical notes rather than a critical review. More synthesis is needed: compare findings across studies, highlight contradictions, and identify knowledge gaps.

6. Conclusions Section

   • The conclusions are spread across the manuscript. A clear, separate conclusion summarizing key insights and future research directions is missing. Please add a concise conclusion.

Minor Comments

1. Abstract

   • The abstract is too general. It should clearly highlight the scope of the review, the main findings, and the novelty.

2. Terminology

   • Use consistent terminology: sometimes “polar species,” sometimes “Arctic plants.” Define and stick to one.

   • Avoid colloquial phrases such as “Thank to this polar species are survive.”

3. Formatting

   • Line spacing and paragraph organization are uneven. Please format consistently.

   • Some section numbers and subheadings appear misplaced.

4. Data Presentation

   • Where possible, quantitative comparisons (temperature ranges, chlorophyll levels, reproduction rates) should be summarized in a table to improve readability.

5. Typographical Issues

   • “beleave” → “believe”

   • “envirinment” → “environment”

   • “realize their growth potential less than photosynthetic” → rephrase for clarity.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of my review, comments, and suggestions.

I am responding to your comments.

Major Comments:

1. The English text of the article has been completely edited.
2. Duplications have been removed. The structure of the article has been changed, and headings have been corrected.
3. The figure captions have been expanded. It is possible that this information is still insufficient. I would be grateful if you could indicate which ones.
4. The references in the text have been changed. I have removed some references to articles from the 1960s-1990s and added a significant amount of information from modern articles of the last 5-10 years. This has increased the length of the article and the number of references. I have also tried to confirm a several of general points with references to modern sources.
5. I have tried to address your comment about the review's insufficiently critical nature. I have attempted to compare data where possible.
6. A new section "Future Perspectives" has been introduced as the final part of the article.

Minor Comments:

1. Unfortunately, I've only made minor changes to the article abstract so far, but I'll do so. Since the review is quite large, it's quite difficult for me to select the key points to reflect in the abstract.
2. Terminology has been edited.
3. Paragraph titles have been changed, and everything has been formatted.
4. I've added a table with optimal temperature ranges for photosynthesis.
5. Grammatical errors have been corrected.

Sincerely yours, the author.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my reading, the main strength of this manuscript is its breadth. The way the sections are organized makes sense and allows the authors to move from organisms to ecosystems in a coherent way. I also found the bibliography impressive: it combines older, classic ecological studies with very recent work, which shows that the authors took the time to survey the field properly. I liked the way historical perspectives are placed alongside modern results; this gives readers a clear sense of continuity in Arctic plant ecology. The figures are also a nice addition—simple, but they help the reader. Overall, I think the paper has the potential to be cited as a reference piece in this area.

That being said, I did notice a few issues. The English still needs attention. For example, in the Introduction the phrase “Arctic plants are living in cold climate and exposed for the influence of abiotic stress factors...” should really be “Arctic plants live in a cold climate and are exposed to various abiotic stress factors.” There is also a more serious problem with the CO₂ statement: saying that “the content of CO₂ in the atmosphere was 15%” after the Younger Dryas is not realistic. Perhaps the authors meant a 15% increase or a value closer to 0.015%. This needs to be clarified, otherwise it could mislead readers.

Conceptually the paper is solid, but some numbers and generalizations should be double-checked. For instance, the claim that the most common plant response to warming was “no change” is consistent with the literature, but the authors should briefly explain the context—e.g., differences between short- and long-term responses, or how shrubs differ from grasses. Another improvement would be to add a short “Conclusions” or “Future Perspectives” section at the end. At the moment the manuscript stops rather abruptly. A final section could highlight the main findings and also point to open questions, such as understudied abiotic stressors, biotic interactions, or the role of genomics in understanding cold adaptation.

A couple of sections also feel thin. Section 2.3 on genomic adaptations could use more detail, especially given how fast this area is moving. Even a few sentences on recent gene-level findings (e.g., cold tolerance genes, adaptive duplications) would help. Likewise, the part on pollination could underline the particularities of high-latitude systems, where insect pollinators are scarce and many species rely on selfing or wind pollination. These are already in the literature cited, but spelling them out would make the discussion richer.

The references are extensive and up to date, which is one of the strengths of the review. However, I did notice that references 174 and 175 are identical. This is an easy fix, but it should be corrected. Also, a few formatting issues (such as “et all.” instead of “et al.”) should be standardized.

To sum up: this is a very solid review, with strong potential as a reference for the field. The issues I raise are not fundamental but do need to be addressed —especially the language, the numerical accuracy, and the lack of a closing section. With these revisions, the paper will be in good shape for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains several issues with the writing that should be addressed before publication. While the overall meaning is clear, the English still shows signs that the author is not fully fluent, and this affects the flow of the text in places. A few examples illustrate the problem. In section 2.1, the sentence “Thank to this polar species are survive not only in winter...” is awkward and should be rephrased as “Thanks to this, polar species are able to survive not only in winter...”. Another case is “it is a lot of rosette and semi-rosette forms”, which would read more naturally as “there are many rosette and semi-rosette forms.” In addition, there are repeated slips with verb tenses and articles—for instance, “N. Shmakova and E. Markovskaya have study pigments…”, which should be “have studied pigments.” These kinds of mistakes occur in different parts of the paper and sometimes interrupt the clarity of the argument. For this reason, a thorough language review is needed. Ideally, the author should go through the entire text carefully or ask someone experienced in scientific English to do so. Grammar and spelling (for example, “studyed” → “studied”) must be corrected, and some sentences would benefit from being rewritten for smoother readability. It is worth stressing, however, that the content itself remains understandable. The problems are mostly stylistic and do not prevent comprehension of the science. With the right corrections, the presentation will improve a great deal and the author’s arguments will come across more clearly and professionally.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your careful analysis of my review, kind words, and critical comments.

I have completely edited the English text of the article. Regarding your comments on the CO₂ content in the Younger Dryas atmosphere, you are correct; this is an error. I have completely re-checked this data. I have also tried to expand the context on the impact of warming on different plant life forms in the Low and High Arctic. A new section, "Future Perspectives" has been added as a conclusion to the article. Based on your comments, the sections on Arctic plant genomics and pollination have been significantly expanded to reflect current research.

Sincerely yours, the author.

20.10.2025

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Line 33: 'Lichens and mosses are more tolerant for extreme climatic conditions [12,13]. ' --> There is an error in the numbering of the cited references. [11] should appear first. Please review and correct the numbering in the text.

- Figure 1: Please indicate A, B, C, and D after each plant name in the figure title.

- Lines 56-58: 'The absence of annuals is explained by the fact that there is not enough time and warmth for a full life cycle of development. ' --> Are there no annual plants in polar regions? And what about biennial plants?

- Line 62: 'The reason for dwarf sizes' --> Please double-check the spacing between words.

- lines 76-79: "Decreasing growth intensity of polar plants B.A. Yurtsev [31] identified as one of the leading forms of increasing plant resistance in their adaptation to the conditions of the Arctic." --> Review and correct English grammar.

- line 114: 'r Salix glauca' --> Italicize all scientific names in the text.

- line 134: (0⁰–15 °C) --> (0 –15 °C),

- line 135: (5⁰–40°C) --> Correct.

- sections 2–4: Similar sentences are repeated, and too much information is simply presented in sentences. This section should be presented in tables or figures to improve readability rather than simply listing sentences. This is important.

- Figure 3: This figure should also be labeled A, B, C, D, etc., and the figure title should be labeled accordingly. Consistency is essential. Also, "sp." in the scientific names of plants is not italicized. Please review and revise other sections as well.

- At the end, please include a brief summary of future research directions, such as "Future Perspectives."

- Cited References: Please review and revise the spacing, etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. You have a truly significant issue regarding annuals and biennials in the Arctic. Yes, of course they are present in the flora, and I have made corrections to the text. Latin names are in italics, and temperature ranges have been adjusted. Repeated text has been removed. A table with optimal temperature ranges for photosynthesis has been added. I understand that diagrams are needed here, but I'm not entirely sure what kind of diagrams they could be or what information they could display. I would be very grateful for your advice. The bibliography has been revised and expanded, and the in-text citations have also been changed. As per your suggestion, the article ends with a "Future Perspectives" section.

Sincerely yours, the author.

20.10.2025

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks much for addressing the previous comments,  please pay attention to the English language writing style. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs additional polishing and editing. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer's comments have been well-addressed.

The current version of the manuscript represents a significant improvement over the previous version, and I believe it is ready for publication.