Growth Dynamics of Nassella tenuis (Phil.) Barkworth, a Palatable Perennial Tussock Grass of Central Argentina: Effects of Water Regime and Grazing History
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research paper presents Growth Dynamics of Nassella tenuis (Phil.) Barkworth, a Palatable Perennial Tussock Grass of Central Argentina: Effects of Water Regime and Grazing History. This study examines the growth dynamics of Nassella tenuis (Phil.) Barkworth, a palatable perennial tussock grass, abundant in the natural grasslands of Central Argentina, focusing on the effects of water regimes and grazing history. I really appreciate the way authors described the results well. I believe the authors addressed an important topic but it still needs further details and comprehension, which can be provided with incorporating minor revisions.
- Line 364-365, please change the — into-.
- Keywords should be alphabetically order
- Please be consistent about bold and not bold in the Table. For example, Table 3.
- The table title should be concisen and clear. In the manuscript, the table title is too long. Authors can put some information in the table title as “note” in the Table below.
- “[22] observed a similar trend toward miniaturization in perennial grasses under intense grazing linking smaller plant sizes to grazing resistance.”. Authors should check again the authors guidelines. As I know, it should be “ Diaz et al, [22] observed a similar trend toward miniaturization in perennial grasses under intense grazing linking smaller plant sizes to grazing resistance”. Please check again.
- Nassella tenuis for the second mentioned should be written N. tenuis. Please check line 259, 263, and so on.
- For citation, authors just need to use maximum 3 references in one statement.
- line 175-180, please add the references
- 19th should be 19th
- Authors need to show us the documentation or figure representing the actual appearance of Nassella tenuis in this study.
- The references is not ordered well. Please check again the reference section
- The doi is not consistent. Please follow the authors guidelines
- The introduction need to be reduced. 3-4 paragraph is enough but need to representing the study background well.
Author Response
Reviewers' comments © are included in normal bolds, followed by our response (A) in italic.
Reviewer # 1 comments:
C: Line 364-365, please change the — into-.
A: Change implemented.
C: Keywords should be alphabetically order
A: The keywords have been arranged in alphabetical order.
C: Please be consistent about bold and not bold in the Table. For example, Table 3.
A: The format of Table 2 has been adjusted, and the use of bold type has been reviewed for consistency
C: The table title should be concisen and clear. In the manuscript, the table title is too long. Authors can put some information in the table title as “note” in the Table below.
A: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The title of all of the Tables have been revised to make it more concise, and the additional information has been moved to a footnote below the tables, as recommended.
C: “[22] observed a similar trend toward miniaturization in perennial grasses under intense grazing linking smaller plant sizes to grazing resistance.”. Authors should check again the authors guidelines. As I know, it should be “ Diaz et al, [22] observed a similar trend toward miniaturization in perennial grasses under intense grazing linking smaller plant sizes to grazing resistance”. Please check again.
A: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In accordance with the journal's guidelines and the reviewer's suggestion, we have revised the in-text citations throughout the manuscript to ensure that they follow the journal’s formatting requirements.
C: Nassella tenuis for the second mentioned should be written N. tenuis. Please check line 259, 263, and so on.
A: Change implemented an all manuscript revised.
C: For citation, authors just need to use maximum 3 references in one statement.
A: Change implemented
C: line 175-180, please add the references
A: Reference added
C: 19th should be 19th
A: Change implemented
C: Authors need to show us the documentation or figure representing the actual appearance of Nassella tenuis in this study.
A: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, an image representing the actual appearance of Nassella tenuis used in this study has been incorporated as Figure 1B in the Materials and Methods section. This figure shows the pots with N. tenuis individuals that were cultivated in the greenhouse during the study.
C: The references is not ordered well. Please check again the reference section. The doi is not consistent. Please follow the authors guidelines
A: We have carefully reviewed and corrected the reference list to ensure proper ordering. Additionally, the DOIs were checked and formatted according to the journal’s editorial guidelines.
C: The introduction need to be reduced. 3-4 paragraph is enough.
A: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the Introduction. We have thoroughly revised this section to comply with your recommendation of limiting it to a maximum of four paragraphs. The revised Introduction maintains all essential content and references while presenting the information in a more concise and organized manner.
Reviewers' comments © are included in normal bolds, followed by our response (A) in italic.
Reviewer # 1 comments:
C: Line 364-365, please change the — into-.
A: Change implemented.
C: Keywords should be alphabetically order
A: The keywords have been arranged in alphabetical order.
C: Please be consistent about bold and not bold in the Table. For example, Table 3.
A: The format of Table 2 has been adjusted, and the use of bold type has been reviewed for consistency
C: The table title should be concisen and clear. In the manuscript, the table title is too long. Authors can put some information in the table title as “note” in the Table below.
A: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The title of all of the Tables have been revised to make it more concise, and the additional information has been moved to a footnote below the tables, as recommended.
C: “[22] observed a similar trend toward miniaturization in perennial grasses under intense grazing linking smaller plant sizes to grazing resistance.”. Authors should check again the authors guidelines. As I know, it should be “ Diaz et al, [22] observed a similar trend toward miniaturization in perennial grasses under intense grazing linking smaller plant sizes to grazing resistance”. Please check again.
A: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In accordance with the journal's guidelines and the reviewer's suggestion, we have revised the in-text citations throughout the manuscript to ensure that they follow the journal’s formatting requirements.
C: Nassella tenuis for the second mentioned should be written N. tenuis. Please check line 259, 263, and so on.
A: Change implemented an all manuscript revised.
C: For citation, authors just need to use maximum 3 references in one statement.
A: Change implemented
C: line 175-180, please add the references
A: Reference added
C: 19th should be 19th
A: Change implemented
C: Authors need to show us the documentation or figure representing the actual appearance of Nassella tenuis in this study.
A: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, an image representing the actual appearance of Nassella tenuis used in this study has been incorporated as Figure 1B in the Materials and Methods section. This figure shows the pots with N. tenuis individuals that were cultivated in the greenhouse during the study.
C: The references is not ordered well. Please check again the reference section. The doi is not consistent. Please follow the authors guidelines
A: We have carefully reviewed and corrected the reference list to ensure proper ordering. Additionally, the DOIs were checked and formatted according to the journal’s editorial guidelines.
C: The introduction need to be reduced. 3-4 paragraph is enough.
A: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the Introduction. We have thoroughly revised this section to comply with your recommendation of limiting it to a maximum of four paragraphs. The revised Introduction maintains all essential content and references while presenting the information in a more concise and organized manner.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall
This study employed a greenhouse-controlled experiment to systematically analyze the effects of water regimes (semi-humid/semiarid) and grazing history (grazed/ungrazed) on the growth dynamics of Nassella tenuis, a key forage grass in Central Argentina. By integrating morphological indicators (tiller number, plant height, diameter) and physiological parameters (Leaf Elongation Rate/LER, Leaf Senescence Rate/LSR, net Leaf Growth Rate/LGR), the authors revealed critical interactions between environmental adaptation and management strategies. The research holds significant practical value for optimizing grazing management and enhancing grassland resilience.
Comments
- In Section 2.1, it’s necessary to specify maintenance method for "ungrazed" sites (e.g., fencing/natural barriers) over the 10-year period.
- In Tables 1–2, it’s better to replace the P value of "0.000" with "<0.001".
- In Table 3, it’s necessary to adjust column widths or split tables to resolve formatting issues with correlation coefficients (e.g., Diameter row in "Semiarid-Grazed").
- In Figures 2–4, it should add missing y-axis labels and ensure all text/legends are readable. Please replace with high-resolution figures featuring clear panel labels and statistical annotations.
- In Discussion, it’s better to add subheadings to improve readability, e.g., "4.1 Long-Term Adaptation to Water Regimes," "4.2 Grazing History Effects on Resource Allocation," "4.3 Seasonal Dynamics"). Furthermore, it’s better to strengthen comparisons with similar studies and explicitly discuss the species-level generalizability of this research strategy.
- Grammar Correction (Page 3): "defoliation events is characterized" should be "defoliation events are characterized".
Author Response
Reviewers' comments are included in normal bolds, followed by our response in italic.
Reviewer # 2 comments:
In Section 2.1, it’s necessary to specify maintenance method for "ungrazed" sites (e.g., fencing/natural barriers) over the 10-year period.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have clarified the maintenance method of the "ungrazed" sites in Section 2.1. Specifically, we now indicate that these sites were excluded from grazing through the use of permanent fencing combined with an electric wire, which effectively prevented livestock access throughout the 10-year period.
In Tables 1–2, it’s better to replace the P value of "0.000" with "<0.001".
Thank you for your observation. As suggested, we have replaced all instances of "0.000" in the P value columns with "<0.001" in Tables 1 and 2.
In Table 3, it’s necessary to adjust column widths or split tables to resolve formatting issues with correlation coefficients (e.g., Diameter row in "Semiarid-Grazed").
Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the column widths in Table 3 to resolve the formatting issues with the correlation coefficients.
In Figures 2–4, it should add missing y-axis labels and ensure all text/legends are readable. Please replace with high-resolution figures featuring clear panel labels and statistical annotations.
The y-axis labels in all figures have been revised as requested. In addition, high-resolution versions of the figures—with clear panel labels and statistical annotations—will be provided as separate files.
In Discussion, it’s better to add subheadings to improve readability, e.g., "4.1 Long-Term Adaptation to Water Regimes," "4.2 Grazing History Effects on Resource Allocation," "4.3 Seasonal Dynamics"). Furthermore, it’s better to strengthen comparisons with similar studies and explicitly discuss the species-level generalizability of this research strategy.
Subheadings have been added to the Discussion section to improve clarity and readability, as suggested.
We appreciate this valuable suggestion. One of the distinctive aspects of our study is precisely the limited availability of comparable research on closely related species. As such, beyond the references already included and the comparisons discussed in the manuscript, we found no additional studies within the same genus that could provide relevant or novel insights to further contextualize our findings. This highlights the originality of our work and the need for further research on related species to enhance generalizability.
Grammar Correction (Page 3): "defoliation events is characterized" should be "defoliation events are characterized".
Correction implemented.
Reviewers' comments are included in normal bolds, followed by our response in italic.
Reviewer # 2 comments:
In Section 2.1, it’s necessary to specify maintenance method for "ungrazed" sites (e.g., fencing/natural barriers) over the 10-year period.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have clarified the maintenance method of the "ungrazed" sites in Section 2.1. Specifically, we now indicate that these sites were excluded from grazing through the use of permanent fencing combined with an electric wire, which effectively prevented livestock access throughout the 10-year period.
In Tables 1–2, it’s better to replace the P value of "0.000" with "<0.001".
Thank you for your observation. As suggested, we have replaced all instances of "0.000" in the P value columns with "<0.001" in Tables 1 and 2.
In Table 3, it’s necessary to adjust column widths or split tables to resolve formatting issues with correlation coefficients (e.g., Diameter row in "Semiarid-Grazed").
Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the column widths in Table 3 to resolve the formatting issues with the correlation coefficients.
In Figures 2–4, it should add missing y-axis labels and ensure all text/legends are readable. Please replace with high-resolution figures featuring clear panel labels and statistical annotations.
The y-axis labels in all figures have been revised as requested. In addition, high-resolution versions of the figures—with clear panel labels and statistical annotations—will be provided as separate files.
In Discussion, it’s better to add subheadings to improve readability, e.g., "4.1 Long-Term Adaptation to Water Regimes," "4.2 Grazing History Effects on Resource Allocation," "4.3 Seasonal Dynamics"). Furthermore, it’s better to strengthen comparisons with similar studies and explicitly discuss the species-level generalizability of this research strategy.
Subheadings have been added to the Discussion section to improve clarity and readability, as suggested.
We appreciate this valuable suggestion. One of the distinctive aspects of our study is precisely the limited availability of comparable research on closely related species. As such, beyond the references already included and the comparisons discussed in the manuscript, we found no additional studies within the same genus that could provide relevant or novel insights to further contextualize our findings. This highlights the originality of our work and the need for further research on related species to enhance generalizability.
Grammar Correction (Page 3): "defoliation events is characterized" should be "defoliation events are characterized".
Correction implemented.
Reviewers' comments are included in normal bolds, followed by our response in italic.
Reviewer # 2 comments:
In Section 2.1, it’s necessary to specify maintenance method for "ungrazed" sites (e.g., fencing/natural barriers) over the 10-year period.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have clarified the maintenance method of the "ungrazed" sites in Section 2.1. Specifically, we now indicate that these sites were excluded from grazing through the use of permanent fencing combined with an electric wire, which effectively prevented livestock access throughout the 10-year period.
In Tables 1–2, it’s better to replace the P value of "0.000" with "<0.001".
Thank you for your observation. As suggested, we have replaced all instances of "0.000" in the P value columns with "<0.001" in Tables 1 and 2.
In Table 3, it’s necessary to adjust column widths or split tables to resolve formatting issues with correlation coefficients (e.g., Diameter row in "Semiarid-Grazed").
Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the column widths in Table 3 to resolve the formatting issues with the correlation coefficients.
In Figures 2–4, it should add missing y-axis labels and ensure all text/legends are readable. Please replace with high-resolution figures featuring clear panel labels and statistical annotations.
The y-axis labels in all figures have been revised as requested. In addition, high-resolution versions of the figures—with clear panel labels and statistical annotations—will be provided as separate files.
In Discussion, it’s better to add subheadings to improve readability, e.g., "4.1 Long-Term Adaptation to Water Regimes," "4.2 Grazing History Effects on Resource Allocation," "4.3 Seasonal Dynamics"). Furthermore, it’s better to strengthen comparisons with similar studies and explicitly discuss the species-level generalizability of this research strategy.
Subheadings have been added to the Discussion section to improve clarity and readability, as suggested.
We appreciate this valuable suggestion. One of the distinctive aspects of our study is precisely the limited availability of comparable research on closely related species. As such, beyond the references already included and the comparisons discussed in the manuscript, we found no additional studies within the same genus that could provide relevant or novel insights to further contextualize our findings. This highlights the originality of our work and the need for further research on related species to enhance generalizability.
Grammar Correction (Page 3): "defoliation events is characterized" should be "defoliation events are characterized".
Correction implemented.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear, the work is of great relevance, but some corrections are necessary.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear, the work is of great relevance, but some corrections are necessary.
Author Response
Reviewers' comments are included in normal bolds, followed by our response in italic.
Reviewer #3 comments:
First Comment: Review grammar with focus on simplifying sentences especially in Introduction and Discussion.
We have simplified the grammatical structure of both the Introduction and the Discussion sections. However, no changes were made that could alter the meaning or coherence of the text, which remains fully consistent with the study objectives, the experimental design implemented, and the results obtained.
Second comment: Separate the main objective from the hypothesis.
Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that both the main objective and the hypothesis are presented in the same paragraph, separated by a period, as requested. To facilitate your review, we have indicated the specific line numbers where the objective (114-116) and hypothesis (120-124)can be found in the revised manuscript.
Third comment: Insert interpretative summary tables at the end of results, highlighting the significant effects for each factor with indicative arrow to facilitate visualization.
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The manuscript already includes detailed tables presenting the mean values and statistical comparisons, including significant interaction effects for all variables. However, to enhance clarity and facilitate interpretation, we have prepared summary tables highlighting the significant effects of water regime, grazing, and their interaction. These interpretative tables have been included as Supplementary Material, to avoid excessive length in the main text while still providing a helpful visual synthesis of the findings.
Forthy comment: Highlights the relevance of grasses in the context livestock farming. Suggest actions or directions for futures practices or research.
We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, we have included a specific statement in the Conclusions section addressing grazing management practices. This addition highlights the importance of considering environmental origin, growth stage, and appropriate grazing strategies—such as rotational grazing and adjustment of stocking rates—to ensure the persistence and forage potential of N. tenuis.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf