Adaptation Strategies of Populus euphratica to Arid Environments Based on Leaf Trait Network Analysis in the Mainstream of the Tarim River

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript (Forests - 2866025). First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. The title „Adaptation strategies of Populus euphratica to arid environments based on leaf trait network analysis in the mainstream of the Tarim River” written by Shiyu Yao et. al., is sugestive and siutable for the content of this work.

The work seems to have been carefully planned and performed, and the manuscript is, in general, well written. The experiments appear to be correctly designed, presented and discussed, there is a thorough statistical treatment of the data, and the conclusions are sound. Therefore, there are no serious criticisms to the scientific content and formal aspects of the paper. Yet the manuscript can be improved introducing some changes in a revised version, following the suggestions below:

-           In the abstract, I think the aim of the work (purpose) is not very clearly identified. It could be specified more clearly in my opinion.

-           The introduction is well described, on lines 82 I recommend Populus euphratica - written in italics

-           The figures and tables need to be improved, their clarity is very poor

-           The conclusions section is too long and I recommend the authors to short some paragraphs.

-           The authors must respect the journal style regarding the citation in text. All the errors must be corrected.

The work as a whole is complex and quite well organized. This fact shows and demonstrates the correct and detailed documentation of the authors on the chosen topic.

I also recommend to make a shorth linguistic check.

The bibliography is also complex.

Congratulations for the work!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I also recommend to make a shorth linguistic check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The  presented study of  Shiyu Yao and co-authors entitled "Adaptation strategies of Populus euphratica to arid environments based on leaf trait network analysis in the mainstream of the Tarim River" is relevant and provides valluable information about the adaptation strategies of Populus euphratica leaves to drought conditions. The authors did a very good job, and the paper has the potential to be published in Forests journal.

But, before publication, the following are the comments that need to be addressed:

Abstract. It is necessary to reflect more clearly the specific results obtained (without discussion and assumptions).

Introduction. Lines 93-98. The sentence must be rephrased (currently, there are four times mentioned Populus euphratica).

Materials and Methods.

2.1. Indicate the number of trees  that were analyzed  at each sampling point.

Figure 1. It is not clear from the figure which sampling points were assigned to the upstream,

midstream, and downstream regions of the Tarim River? Which region is arid, and which region is hyper-arid?

Results.

Figures 2-10. Provide a higher quality drawing. In the current forms, the inscriptions are difficult to read.

Figure 4. For a better comparison and perception of the data, it would be better to use the same measurement ranges on the scales. I.e., for a, d, g  scale from 0 to 16 everywhere; for b, e, h scale from 0 to 0.08 everywhere; for c, f, i  from 0 to 60 everywhere. The same comment for Fig. 9.

Figures 6, 8. In the descriptions of the pictures, it should be specified what the different letters above the columns mean.

Conclusion. Must be deeply reconsidered and shortened. Provide the main results obtained.

 

In lines 569-573, it mentioned photosynthesis, transpiration, and gas exchange, but this parameters were not analyzed in the presented study (so this part may be moved to the Discussion section).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary amendments and provided an improved version of the manuscript.