Adaptive Strategies Employed by Clonal Plants in Heterogeneous Patches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have been assigned to review the article entitled as "A review of adaptive strategies to heterogeneous patches in 2 clonal plants"
First of all I would like to appreciate the amount of reviews conducted for this article. References are well cited, up-to the date and related to the field.
The main focus of this review is the phenotypic plasticity in clonal plants that has been addressed adequately, however, I am also concerned with the shade avoidance syndrome or shad adaptation in clonal plants. What can be the effects of the vegetative related shade regime on the clonal plants' physiology and responses?
I have been assigned to review the article entitled as "A review of adaptive strategies to heterogeneous patches in 2 clonal plants"
English language has been used properly. I did not find major issue related to the English presentation of this article.
Author Response
We would first like to thank the reviewer for your review of our manuscript. Very appreciate it for your approve.
In our research, it is true that clonal plants could adapt to some adverse environmental conditions, such as water stress, infertile soil, and also perform shade avoidance or shade adaptation as you said, through their phenotypic plasticity and physiological integration. It must be very interesting to study clonal plants' responses to light and shade regimes. In this paper, however we primarily focused on water stress and waterlogging. It can be in-depth discussed about clonal plants' shade adaptation maybe in next study. Thank you for your good idea. Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Regarding to the manuscript Forests-2427384
Title: A review of adaptive strategies to heterogeneous patches in clonal plants
- The manuscript is well organized and comprehensively described
- English language is correct and readable no issues detected
- The references are appropriate and adequate but it is need to complete the missing to rewrite according to the journal format.
- Kindly, have a look to the attached revised manuscript and concern to the provided comments
- The manuscript will be suitable for publication after concerning to the required comments
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would first like to thank the reviewer for your review of our manuscript. Very appreciate it for your approve.
We have double checked and rewrite the references according to the journal format, as requested. Thank you for your good suggestion.
We have carefully read the attached revised manuscript and your comments. We feel that the comments were important for the improvement of our paper. We have revised the manuscript with red font, as requested accordingly. Thank you for your good suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript reviews some aspects of clonal plant species strategies to deal with water supply heterogeneity (water stress or waterlogging) in the environment.
The title needs to reflect the context of the review and should mention that the study is limited to clonal plant strategies to cope with the heterogeneity of water supply.
The subject is relevant and current. The authors have done the work and tried to deliver the information while listing effects and responses lengthily.
I have read the review carefully, and I have significant concerns regarding the command of the English language throughout the manuscript and the general writing style that does not sieve through all the published data and fails to give adequate information acuteness and detail. The speech needs to be corrected to improve the readability and impact of the text and to bring the manuscript up to par with the journal's quality. Also, the review needs reflection, critical evaluation, and in-depth discussion of the literature content. The reference list is 97 entries long, but the authors still need to go the extra mile to complete the abridgement work required for a meaningful review, one that gives digested state-of-the-art information while advancing knowledge and the understanding of its subject.
As such, I cannot endorse the acceptance of the present manuscript.
I have significant concerns regarding the command of the English language throughout the manuscript. The speech needs to be corrected to improve the readability and impact of the text and to bring the manuscript up to par with the journal's quality.
Author Response
We would first like to thank the reviewer for your review of our manuscript. Appreciate it for your comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript and include more information in discussion and conclusions accordingly. Thank you.
We have double-checked and revised the English language all through the manuscript by a colleague fluent in English writing. Thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
The review was carried out carefully, the adaptation of cloned plants is well shown. The conclusions are interestingly structured and give an idea of the mechanisms of interaction between the mother plant (ortet) and clones (ramets). The adaptation scheme is clear
Author Response
We would first like to thank the reviewer for your review of our manuscript.
Very appreciate it for your approve.
Thank you!
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors!
1) Delete the word "A review" from the Title.
2) I didn`t find the word vinyl in the article 55. Mao et al., 2009. How it connected with ABA? Check the sentence carefully and rephrase it (line 109).
3) Could the words organization be changed to organ (lines 202-203), arbor - to tree (Table 2)?
4) Usually the mild water stress at the initial stage of its influence stimulates the root growth. Write more information in the sentence "For instance... [36]" (line 204). Does the shoot stimulation under stress concern only invasive species? Does the physiological integration contribute to this process and how?
5) You should write more information in part 3. Physiological integration, describe details of Figure 3.
Recommendations for article design:
1) Write in small letters after ; (lines 71, 73, 75, 76), the word Karst (line 162).
2) Change "... [21]. Which are..." to "...[21], which are..." (line 72), "...plants. Such as..." to "...plants, such as..." (line 79).
3) Write in capital letter calamagrostis (line 150).
4) Decipher for the first time CAT and MDA (Table 1), ROS, SOD, etc. (Figure 3).
5) Insert a space in words Calamagrostis epigejos, photosystem II (Table 1), survival was (line 213), response (..) (line 215).
6) The sentence "The chlorophyll ... photosynthesis." (lines 219-224) is too long, rephrase it.
7) The captions to the tables must be uniform.
8) You should describe the references according instructions for authors. Check the references № 76, 88.
Author Response
We would first like to thank the reviewer for your review of our manuscript. We feel that the comments were important for the improvement of our paper.
Here are our responses to reviewer.
- We have deleted the word "A review" from the Title, as requested.Thank you for your suggestion.
- We have double read the article 55. Mao et al., 2009. It was true that no vinyl group was referred in this paper. We have checked the sentence carefully and rephrase it, as requested (line 111-113).Thank you for noticing.
- We have changed the words organization to organ (line 210, 211), arbor - to tree (Table 2), as requested.Thank you for noticing.
- We agreed that the mild water stress at the initial stage of its influence stimulates the root growth. Root production decreased whileaboveground biomass increased,which was found under long-term water stress. We have rewrite the sentence "For instance... "(line 211-215). Thank you for your suggestion.
- We have added more informationabout physiological integrationand described details of Figure 3 in Conclusions part, as requested. Thank you for your suggestion.
Recommendations for article design:
- We have revised the word Karst in small letters(line 169), as requested.Thank you for noticing.
- We have Changed"... [21]. Which are..." to "...[21], which are..." (line 74), "...plants. Such as..." to "...plants, such as..." (line 80), as requested.Thank you for noticing.
- We have revised“calamagrostis”in capital letter (line 156), as requested. Thank you for noticing.
- We have decipheredfor the first time CAT and MDA (Table 1), ROS, SOD, etc. (Figure 3under the legend), as requested. Thank you for noticing.
- We have inserteda space in words Calamagrostis epigejos, photosystem II (Table 1), survival was (line 224), response (..) (line 226), as requested.Thank you for noticing.
- We have rephrased the sentence "The chlorophyll ... photosynthesis." (lines 230-236), as requested.It is more readable now. Thank you for noticing.
- We have revised the captions ofthe two tablesto be uniform. Thank you for noticing.
- We have double checked the references and revised them according to instructions for authors.Revised the references № 76, 88 as requested.Thank you for noticing.
Thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
In my view, the manuscript has not undergone enough improvements to
be suitable for publication in Forests. I had already shared with
the editor that the review needed a more thorough analysis and
discussion of the literature, and unfortunately, the revised version
has not addressed those concerns. As a result, I cannot support its
publication.
The authors replied they had a colleague review the English language.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have to say that all authors have very carefully revised the manuscript, and added more information in discussion and conclusion parts. We have reponsed to reviewer one by one about their concerns. Authors and all other reviewers approved that the revised manuscript has been much improved. Unfortunately, it did not meet your taste. Anyway, we thank you for your review on this paper.
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors!
The article is improved. There is one remark: replace the word body (page 8) by plant organism.
Author Response
We have replaced the word body by plant organism with blue colour font (page 8), as requested. Thank you for your good suggestion.
Thank you.
