Effects of Drought, Phosphorus Fertilization and Provenance on the Growth of Common Beech and Sessile Oak
, Željko Škvorc 1, Saša Bogdan 1, Daniel Krstonošić 1, Ida Katičić Bogdan 1, Tomislav Karažija 2, Marko Bačurin 1, Magdalena Brener 1 and Krunoslav Sever 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Effects of drought and phosphorus fertilization on the growth of common beech and sessile oak provenances” reported the effects of drought, P, and provenances on common beech and sessile oak.
1/ The experiment factors included water, P, provenances, and species, each had two levels. Therefore, the title name should be revised as “Effects of drought, phosphorus fertilization, and provenances on the growth of common beech and sessile oak”.
2/ The results showed that drought and P had negative effects on growth of both trees. My concern is why P had negative effect on growth of both species? How P fertilization help these two species cope with drought stress? Can the authors provided some other evidences?
3/ Were the species from two provenances the same genotypes? If the answer was no, the phenotypic variance may be related with genotypes to some extent.
4/ All the traits should be described in co manner, because such exceptional trait names are very strange to readers. For instance, in the sentence “The root collar diameter (D) in mm and the stem height (H) in cm…”, named the root collar diameter as D is very confusing.
5/ For Table 2-4, just compared single environmental factors on growth traits. For example, table 2, drought; table 3 P; table 4 provenances. In fact, all the data expression should be like figure 2. At least the typical growth data (significantly different traits) should be expressed as figure2, which can provide whole information of the effects the three factors on growth traits.
6/ For the result part, the effects of drought, P, and provenances on plant growth should be reported like figure 2 instead of single factor without the interaction factors.
7/ In Figure 2, the significant level should be added. The reason of the P level should be described. For instance, why Normal, high, very high is described?
8/ Grammar
The English needs improvement to make the sentences more concise and clear. Some sentences are too long to understand. For instance, L110-112, L122-126. L161-162.
L117 provide or provided?
L483 sap-lings should be saplings.
In Table A1, p3- should be PO43-?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript entitled “Effects of drought and phosphorus fertilization on the growth of common beech and sessile oak provenances” reported the effects of drought, P, and provenances on common beech and sessile oak.
1/ The experiment factors included water, P, provenances, and species, each had two levels. Therefore, the title name should be revised as “Effects of drought, phosphorus fertilization, and provenances on the growth of common beech and sessile oak”.
2/ The results showed that drought and P had negative effects on growth of both trees. My concern is why P had negative effect on growth of both species? How P fertilization help these two species cope with drought stress? Can the authors provided some other evidences?
3/ Were the species from two provenances the same genotypes? If the answer was no, the phenotypic variance may be related with genotypes to some extent.
4/ All the traits should be described in co manner, because such exceptional trait names are very strange to readers. For instance, in the sentence “The root collar diameter (D) in mm and the stem height (H) in cm…”, named the root collar diameter as D is very confusing.
5/ For Table 2-4, just compared single environmental factors on growth traits. For example, table 2, drought; table 3 P; table 4 provenances. In fact, all the data expression should be like figure 2. At least the typical growth data (significantly different traits) should be expressed as figure2, which can provide whole information of the effects the three factors on growth traits.
6/ For the result part, the effects of drought, P, and provenances on plant growth should be reported like figure 2 instead of single factor without the interaction factors.
7/ In Figure 2, the significant level should be added. The reason of the P level should be described. For instance, why Normal, high, very high is described?
8/ Grammar
The English needs improvement to make the sentences more concise and clear. Some sentences are too long to understand. For instance, L110-112, L122-126. L161-162.
L117 provide or provided?
L483 sap-lings should be saplings.
In Table A1, p3- should be PO43-?
Author Response
Dear,
Our responses to your comments are attached below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the present study, the authors evaluated the effects of drought and phosphorus fertilization on the growth of two forest tree species common beech and sessile oak that form mixed forest stands across Europe. The work was big and valuable.
However, it is needed to explain why comparing these two species is important.? Additionally, the discussion should address how the results of the present study can help in managing the challenges posed by drought.
What is the obvious difference between their current study and their previous studies that cited them?
Other minor comments are as follows:
In the abstract section, it is better to present the results in the form of quantitative not only as descriptive.
What type of experimental design was used? How many replications did you use in the experimental design?
In the material and methods, please provide some pictures to explain the growth condition.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear,
Our responses to your comments are attached bellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the work entitled "Effects of drought and phosphorus fertilization on the growth of common beech and sessile oak provenances", raised a very important topic regarding the development of trees (two species) in drought conditions. Nowadays, with the changing climate, this is an extremely important topic. Additionally, the authors of the paper presented their research in a clear form of tables and charts, which allows for easy verification of the results obtained. The work makes a major contribution in relation to plants, especially in a changing climate. It is universal because research can also be carried out on other plants.
It was not possible to avoid errors that do not affect the value of the work.
1. In line 131, the unit m3 is written without a superscript and this notation will be used throughout the work.
2. On lines 133, 134, 143, 237, 238, 291, 293, 305, 306, 315 and 316 there is a space before the % symbol that shouldn't be there. We write the percentage in conjunction with the value.
3. On line 202, there is a space before the Celsius degree that should not be there. We write degrees Celsius in conjunction with the value.
Author Response
Dear,
Our responses to your comments are attached below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, the work seems quite good to me, however I would try to present it in a more elegant and clean way. I therefore consider it important to rephrase various sentences to make them clearer (See comments on English) and in general I consider it necessary to correct some small things that I note here.
2.1
Insert a map of the provenance sites and at least two climatograph 1949-2019 2016-2020
Table 2, 3, 4
Add percentage variations instead of up and down arrows.
Figure 2, 3, 4
The SD bar is both positive and negative, in these picture I see only a positive SD bar, add the negative one.
ADD:
List of all acronyms at the end
In general, many sentences in English can be rephrased into clearer and more precise English, I will only cite a few examples, the correction and editing work must still be carried out for the entire paper.
TITLE
Impact of drought and phosphorus fertilization on the growth of common beech and sessile oak of different provenances.
LINE 57
Based on previous experience and knowledge, samplings of higher quality exhibit improved survival and growth when transplanted into natural habitats affected by drought compared to those of lower quality.
LINE 73
Abrupt exposure to elevated phosphorus availability negatively impacts the growth of species adapted to relatively low phosphorus concentrations in the soils of their natural habitats.
Author Response
Dear,
Our responses to your comments are attached below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made significant improvements, which make this manuscript more readable. There are still some spelling mistakes should be revised. I suggest W and D should be taken place with drought and watered in Table 2.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The authors have made significant improvements, which make this manuscript more readable. There are still some spelling mistakes should be revised. I suggest W and D should be taken place with drought and watered in Table 2.
