Growth, Xylem Vulnerability to Cavitation and Leaf Cell Response to Dehydration in Tree Seedlings of the Caribbean Dry Forest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper “Growth, xylem vulnerability to cavitation and leaf cell response to dehydration in tree seedlings of the Caribbean dry forest” describes a study on plant drought tolerance by monitoring the effects of experimentally-induced dehydration on plant fragments (stem, leaf) ex situ and in the laboratory.
The paper is well written and interesting to read and though based on simple assumptions and ordinary investigations provides good information to be applied in future forestation/afforestation programs in TDFs.
I am not a full expert in forestry, but the experiment seems well-planned and well-performed; Though that the Authors did not use or develop new tools, methods, approaches, or new types of analyses, the methodologies used where those commonly used in this kind or research and are supported by some references in the literature
I then have only made some very minor amendments in the text as indicated in the file attached.
Line 15 - and through all the manuscript. I would prefer to use the term “resistance” when referring to biotic related issues and “tolerance” when refers to abiotic stresses
Table 1 – Change M m-2 with n m-2
Line 175 – 15 seedlings
Line 175 – “during one” changes with “for”
Line 177 “during” changes with “for”
Line 186 – on the most recently fully-expanded and sun-exposed leaf
- Line 229 I don't understand why it takes six hours in the dark to balance the water potential of the leaf with that of the stem, maybe you meant 60 min?
Line 435 – albeit
Finally, I would ask for some more info on the dye used, if it is specific for some tissues or compounds that is in the cell wall and also how you managed to get the dye to penetrate the sapwood. Did the authors use the free transpiration method, or did they inject/pump the dye into plant tissue in some way? If yes, at what pressure? Did they just make a section of the stem and dip it in dye? How was the leaking solution prepared? I guess the dye has been diluted in water according to a certain proportion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please find my comments in the attached file
Regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewers for their valuables recommendations and relevant comments that allowed to improve the manuscript. The line numbers correspond to those of the modification-marked version of the manuscript.
Introduction: Please sharpen the research problem
The introduction was modified, also following the recommendations of the reviewer 3, sharpening the research problem. We hope it’s clearer now.
- 450 Please be more concrete
Precision were added l. 674 “We present here the first experimental study focusing on the link between whole plant performances and functional traits on Caribbean TDF seedlings. Our results provide valuable new information on the growth and drought response of three trees species at their establishment phase. Analysis of a set of functional traits rarely considered in literature for TDF highlighted original patterns.”
- 292 There is no figure 2
It was a bug in the file, corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “Growth, xylem vulnerability to cavitation and leaf cell response to dehydration in tree seedlings of the Caribbean dry forest” is interesting and under the scope of the journal ‘FORESTS.’ However, the MS needs major revisions.
Comments and suggestions about MS
Title
1- The title is good.
Abstract
1- The abstract should be a brief and complete picture of your study instead of a paragraph.
2- The abstract does not report the main findings of the study in a clear manner.
3- More specific information is required in the abstract instead of general expressions.
4- Key words must be re-write and arranged alphabetically to enhance the visibility of your article.
Introduction
1- The introduction lacks the following information:
a. What scientific questions have you addressed?
b. What will benefit the scientific community of your study?
c. What is the significance of your research?
1- Line 34: ‘(e.g. [5])’ should be ‘[5)’.
2- The authors are encouraged to consult and cite recent literature in the introduction.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13334, Physiologia Plantarum
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2022.153671, Journal of Plant Physiology
Materials and Methods
1- Line 143: When did you experiment? Which year?
2- Line 261-266: Statistical analysis should be detailed.
3- Please add the schematic diagram of the study to enhance your Article's visibility and easy understanding.
Results
The results are good. However, I have this comment for the improvement of MS.
1- Line 294, 298, 329, 341, 344: The ‘(p>0.05)’ should be in small letters and italicized as ‘p’. Also, check this throughout the MS.
Discussion
Discussion is fine.
Conclusions
Line 449-473: Conclusions must be written based on your study's key findings.
References
Line 513-742: There are too many references (99). Only review papers can have so many references. Reduce them up to ~50.
Hopefully, these suggestions will help you to improve your Article.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The Article improved and I am satisfied with the current version.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for its valuables recommendations and relevant comments that allowed to improve the manuscript.
