Effect of Seasonal Variation on Leaf Cuticular Waxes’ Composition in the Mediterranean Cork Oak (Quercus suber L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of the present manuscript entitled "Seasonal variation of cuticular waxes composition in cork oak (Quercus suber) leaves in Mediterranean climate" analyzed the chemical composition of cuticular waxes variation of a Mediterranean oak species (Quercus suber L.) occurring on sites with similar climate and elevation. It is clear that this study was performed in very interesting. Notwithstanding, I do not consider that this manuscript as it is can be published. Thus, I am sending a group of comments (check pdf) that may contribute to a revised version of the paper and thus, following the other reviewers and editor agreement, may be re-submitted.
1. General review of the English by a native speaker is necessary
2. Title- The authors should consider a modification in the title in order to clarify the message. Something like "Effect of seasonal variation on leaf cuticular waxes composition in a Mediterranean cork oak species (Quercus suber L.)"
3. The hypothesis that is part of the basic structure of any manuscript is missing
4. I consider adding some aims so that it does not seem to be only a descriptive manuscript.
5. In general, I think that abiotic factors would describe better this study (lines 31,84, 253). Likewise, you must add a discussion section on the effect of abiotic factors and compare it with their results.
6. Lines 328-341: Conclusions are so general that do not clarify the reader to the significant differences that were found
7. Introduction
In general, the separation of the paragraphs is confusing and do not help the reading.
It is suggested to change this structure and only do a paragraph when the topic is changing. Moreover, the description of these particular species should be included in the M&M. Some basic information on morphological traits and relations with abiotic factors in other types of Mediterranean ecosystems (in the absence of any study in these forests) is missing. In particular, it is necessary to justify the interest of the studied morphological traits.
8. The authors only used a total number of 2 leaves per site (line 90). Nevertheless, consider that there were few samples per site.
9. I really have difficulties following the Methods description in the Results. Moreover, the statistical analysis requires two perspectives, the differences among sites (that is always absent, I do believe) and along an altitude gradient. It is somehow confusing and really not clear.
10. Discussion and Conclusions. First of all, the authors should clarify if the initial hypothesis was verified or not.
11. They must meticulously review the format of the citations.
12. The quality of the figures must be improved
13. I recommend adding a new figure showing the study sites, the species, and a closer look at the leaf morphology.
14. I recommend adding an image showing what was measured and how it was measured.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestions that were followed in the present manuscript revision. The response to the specific comments is detailed beneath.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interestingly written and well connected with references
There is a period in the title, delete it.
The authors' addresses are not well written and aligned with the instructions for writing the article.
The fonts are not consistent, for example, lines 227, 256-261, 268-271, 311, 301
In Table 1, the symbols α and β should be written in italics, which also applies to the results.
Author contributions - not indicated.
The references are not compiled according to the rules of the journal: 29, 30, 31, 38.
I also checked the plagiarisms, they are attached. Please revise the article to reduce plagiarism
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions that were followed
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article “Seasonal variation of cuticular waxes composition in cork oak (Quercus suber) leaves in Mediterranean climate” deals with waxes composition on oak leaves during the season. I found the work interesting in general and well written, though it has a problem of not showing statistics at all. Scientific studies must present statistical analyses to support any claims of differences between treatments or dates. In addition, I found several smaller issues, as presented below.
L44- “t the role of the different cuticular wax components”- remove the extra “t”
L77 “The leaf duration is approximately 14 months”- did you mean “leaf life duration”?
L 103 “to a constant mass”- you probably mean till no change in mass was detected?
L 105- the word “sclerophyllous” is in different font and italics for no reason. There are more places in the text with different font.
I do not fully understand the experimental outline. There were 5 locations with 2 trees each, so 10 trees? Is this correct? And each tree was sampled several times during the year?
L 107- Wax extraction method- could you please elaborate or give a reference?
Statistical analysis- why there was no analysis made? Please add statistics (e.g. ANOVA)
Fig. 1- Please add leaf area (you show only SLA). You are discussing those later, and it’s difficult to understand without seeing the data. And please add standard deviation and statistics
Fig. 3- please add standard deviation and statistics
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer and followed his suggestion for the manuscript revision, as follows
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for responding adequately to all suggestions
Author Response
Thanks
Reviewer 2 Report
After the review, the article is well written and suitable for publication
Author Response
Thanks
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is very much improved. However, the statistics are still not included- except in M&M section. Please add letters/asterisks in all the graphs.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is very much improved. However, the statistics are still not included- except in M&M section. Please add letters/asterisks in all the graphs.
Done: The statistical results are improved in the results section.
Line: 146-147; 150-151; 161-162
