All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript is improved tremendously and accepted for publication. One thing little confusing for me is what the authors mean by crop trees (explain). I understand trees are individual big plants, but a crop is a community of plants in field condition. Need clarification, thanks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
The authors completed extensive revision as per my comments and those of the other reviewer. I'm satisfied with the revision and encourage publication.
Its Ok.
The authors completed extensive revision as per my comments and those of the other reviewer. I'm satisfied with the revision and encourage publication.
The authors completed extensive revision as per my comments and those of the other reviewer. I'm satisfied with the revision and encourage publication.
Dear authors
Revise your paper while replying to each comment of both reviewers. Also, try to improve the English, and add some updated literature for the last five years.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This manuscripts describes the current status of Pinus massoniana plantations and to provide future direction to achieve sustainable forest management. Author studied a 36-year-old P. massoniana plantation in Huaying city of Sichuan Province. They investigated the changes in undergrowth plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties under three different crop tree densities (100, 150, and 200 N/ha) and concluded that crop tree management significantly increased the undergrowth plant diversity and that the shrub layer diversity was more delicate than the herb layer diversity to the treatments. Further, the contents of available phosphorus, organic matter and hydrolysable nitrogen in the topsoil increased significantly after crop tree management, while the content of available potassium decreased. This study revealed that treatments, 200 N/ha had the best effect on improving the undergrowth environment of the P. massoniana plantation in the initial stage of crop tree management as compared with the other different treatments as used in this study.
I would like to express appreciation to the authors for this study, which aims providing the suggestion for the improvement of Forest cop trees and ultimately to maintain the ecosystem and livelihood. I found the manuscript very interesting to read, but also came across few issues that will deserve some careful attention.
1. The article need to be revised fully, precisely focusing on the results presentation, discussion and conclusion.
2. Abstract should be revised carefully and adopt the scientific style …..
3. In title, add the authority with botanical name and as well in first place in MS.
4. Line 16-17…This statement is ambiguous….please revise it…………
5. Line 51….Please add here reference to support your statement……….
6. Line 55….revise these sentences….
7. Similarly…..as mentioned above few lines….there are many sentences which need to be revised….
8. The article should be revised logically to improve the results and discussion section particularly, conclusion is not good, should be revised.
9. This study revealed that treatments, 200 N/ha had the best effect on improving the undergrowth environment of the P. massoniana plantation in the initial stage of crop tree management as compared with the other different treatments as used in this study. This statement also indicate that the more amount of treatment is beneficial for crop growth, so would be suggested if author has used other different treatment should include, so clearly can draw the conclusion regarding treatment amount.
10. Overall, I recommend the article should be published after major revision of the papers results and English improvement.
1. The article need to be revised fully, precisely focusing on the results presentation, discussion and conclusion.
2. Abstract should be revised carefully and adopt the scientific style …..
3. In title, add the authority with botanical name and as well in first place in MS.
4. Line 16-17…This statement is ambiguous….please revise it…………
5. Line 51….Please add here reference to support your statement……….
6. Line 55….revise these sentences….
7. Similarly…..as mentioned above few lines….there are many sentences which need to be revised….
8. The article should be revised logically to improve the results and discussion section particularly, conclusion is not good, should be revised.
9. This study revealed that treatments, 200 N/ha had the best effect on improving the undergrowth environment of the P. massoniana plantation in the initial stage of crop tree management as compared with the other different treatments as used in this study. This statement also indicate that the more amount of treatment is beneficial for crop growth, so would be suggested if author has used other different treatment should include, so clearly can draw the conclusion regarding treatment amount.
10. Overall, I recommend the article should be published after major revision of the papers results and English improvement.
I would like to express appreciation to the authors for this study, which aims providing the suggestion for the improvement of Forest cop trees and ultimately to maintain the ecosystem and livelihood. I found the manuscript very interesting to read, but also came across few issues that will deserve some careful attention.
This manuscript "Early effects of crop tree management on undergrowth plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties in a Pinus massoniana plantation" is fairly well written and worth publishing in PeerJ but it needs revisions before it is published. The comments and suggestions are annotated in the manuscript. Authors are advised to get a native English speaker to correct English before re-submit.
Generally experimental design is fine.
The findings are valid and interesting.
This manuscript "Early effects of crop tree management on undergrowth plant diversity and soil physicochemical properties in a Pinus massoniana plantation" is fairly well written and worth publishing in PeerJ but it needs revisions before it is published. The comments and suggestions are annotated in the manuscript. Authors should get a native English speaker to correct English before re-submit.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.