Effect of Pre-Germinative Treatments on Eight Priority Native Species for Reforestation in the Tropical Deciduous Forest
, Hugo Luna-Soria and VÃctor Hugo Cambrón-Sandoval *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Conservation-2207606 is an extremely simple work. It provides the low information to the researchers and readers. Obviously, its workload cannot meet the publishing requirements of Conservation. Thus, I suggest that it be published in the form of a short communication after major modification.
1. Manuscript is an extremely simple work, its workload obviously cannot meet the publishing requirements of Conservation.
2. Manuscript must be through language editing.
3. The logic and neat of introduction need to be further improved.
4. Materials and methods are difficult to read and need to be detailed to the second level title.
5. 25 seeds per replicate is too small, and the representativeness and authenticity of the data is questionable.
6. The concentrations of treatment methods were not introduced. And what is the basis for their use of this methods? And what is the basis for their use of temperature and time (Table 1)? This is the biggest problem.
7. Figure 2: Footnote information of letter and error bar explanation should be added.
8. There are too many sections in the discussion and conclusion and they need to be combined.
9. Line 12: ‘(2)’ should be deleted. Please check the full text.
10. Line 221: ‘P’ should be italic. Please check the full text.
11. Line 242: ‘L. divaricatum, V. farnesiana and V. pennatula’ should be italic. Please check the full text.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, your observations and suggestions were all properly addressed (Please see the attached file).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that with due corrections the article will be of great relevance to science. Because countries that have a high diversity of native species, but whose forestry production base is subject to exotic species, tend to leave native forestry aside. For this reason, I am happy to read this work and be able to contribute to it, knowing that it will give greater value to research with native species both for the conservation area and forestry.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, your observations and suggestions were all properly addressed, our responses were writen in bold (Please see the attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Though the topic of the article is interesting, the way it is shown is disorganized, not clear and with mistakes (see file attached).
For instance, authors mentioned Fabaceae and Leguminosae as different plant families but it is the same; so, it is a conceptual mistake or a "finger" error: Fagaceae vs Leguminosae.
In addition, authors mention some seed characteristics but never linked them with the results obtained using three different scarification methods; however, the both things are extremely related.
The article have the potential to be improved.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, your observations and suggestions were all properly addressed (View attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is interesting but needs improvement.
Abstract: please complete the information about the place of study, country. Add results for TS and CS.
Keywords: use a different word than the one in the title of the article.
Introduction: detailed notes in the text in pdf. Formulate the purpose of the research.
Materials and Methods: This chapter needs improvement and completion. Please add drawings of plants (trees), seeds, containers with germinating seeds. Make a similar description of all plant species. - other comments in the text in the pdf file.
Results: minor comments in pdf file.
Discussion: This chapter needs to be supplemented, a more thorough analysis of the results, and a comparison of the studied species. - remarks in the text in the comments in the pdf file.
Conclusions - please rewrite the conclusions. The conclusions are too general. Please provide conclusions for three scarification methods or eight species.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, your observations and suggestions were all properly addressed (Please see the attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Many of my concerns have not been really solved, and I must reject it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we hope that your doubts were answered. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy to see that there has been an improvement in the writing quality of the work. I believe that this work has great value for anyone who intends to work with native species forestry, as well as recovery of degraded areas and nature conservation.
This work will be a source of inspiration for further research with these species, thus enhancing the Deciduous Tropical Forest.
P.S.: One last note the topic Materials and Methods appears twice, please delete one of them. In my point of view it would be the one that describes the species, after all I still think there is a literature review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, your observations and suggestions were all properly addressed (Please see the attached file).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors payed attention to all the suggestions and comments done to the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are thankful for your observations and the time dedicated to the review of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article was revised as recommended by the reviewers and significantly improved its quality. However, an issue that I consider important has not been clarified.
I disagree with the conclusion: Line 218: It is common for forest nurseries to use larger seeds. From our own observations, this selection of seeds gives better results when mass propagation is the goal.”
There are studies that describe that selecting larger seeds from a batch reduces their species diversity and genetic pool . This results in the elimination of individuals producing small seeds. Therefore, it is a mistake to select only large seeds for testing.
If the article will be printed, it should be noted in the results that only large seeds were selected for testing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we are thankful for your observations, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no comment.
Author Response
We are grateful for your comments
