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.
Dear Dr. Chen,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.
I am writing to inform you that your manuscript - Turf Performance and Physiological Responses of Native Poa Species to Summer Stress in Northeast China - has been Accepted for publication. Congratulations!
This is an editorial acceptance; publication is dependent on authors meeting all journal policies and guidelines.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Gearard also noted the following minor edits that you should make during the proofing process:
EDITS
LINE NO: / BEFORE / AFTER / [COMMENTS]
LINE 39: / molecular bases / molecular basis / [.]
LINE 45: / resistance to stresses, they / resistance to stresses; they / [.]
LINE 47: / 1980s, for example, ‘Midnight’, which has / 1980s; for example, ‘Midnight’ has / [.]
LINE 75: / not what we expected / not what was expected / [.]
LINE 76: / species to be assesses for / species to be assessed for / [.]
LINE 90: / (20172018) / (2017-2018) / [.]
LINE 209: / similarto / similar to / [.]
LINE 220: / years Table 3). / years (Table 3). / [.]
LINE 223: / trend in tillers / trend in tiller / [.]
LINE 225: / lowest tillers numbers / lowest tiller numbers / [.]
LINE 251: / autumn;similar / autumn; similar / [.]
LINE 255: / in ‘Hpsi’, so were in ‘Moo’ / in ‘Hpsi’, and so were in ‘Moo’ / [.]
LINE 257: / while increased with / while it increased with / [.]
LINE 259: / it was slightly low. / it was slightly lower. / [.]
LINE 275: / ‘Mid’, ‘Moo’, or ‘Hpp’ more / ‘Mid’, ‘Moo’, and ‘Hpp’ more / [.]
LINE 294: / ploidies / ploidy / [.]
LINE 358: / ACKNOMLEDGEMENTS / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS / [.]
Dear Authors,
Please, correct the manuscript according to Reviewer 3's suggestions. Please, correct also the language.
[# 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) #]
The article is well rewritten. It is now much easier to follow every part.
The discussion is much better, data-based and consistent with the findings.
The figures are now much more informative and the methods are properly rewritten.
The authors have satisfactorily responded to all my and especially to the other Reviewer's questions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript.
The authors wrote Turf Performance and Physiological Responses to Summer Stress for Native Poa Species in Northern China, in my opinion, this represents a very interesting topic, and the manuscript however shows some weaknesses which require a further review and a careful revision of the language through the text.
The design used is well suitable.
The results are vailed and may be published.
1) The cytogenetic analysis by FISH before this study indicated the differences in chromosomes and ploidy levels of three native Poa accessions (Fig. 2) - Please explain are these photos used originally or already published in other scientific paper?
2) There is no formulation of a research hypothesis by the authors in the Introduction.
3) Manuscript lacks of methods used to obtain photos of chromosome plates. Are these foreign cultivars also polyploids? Manuscript lacks of chromosome plates or cytogenetic information about used 3 commercial cultivars.
4) Research questions are not clearly presented, even if the problem raised in the paper is significant.
5) Not all literature citations in the text are reflected in References - lines 269, 300, 331.
6) From the References section, I would remove publications that have a rather loose connection with the topic of the work.
7) References
Standardize references
Dear Dr. Chen,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - Turf performance and physiological responses to summer stress for native Poa species in Northern China - that it requires a number of Major Revisions.
My suggested changes and reviewer comments are shown below and on your article 'Overview' screen.
Please address these changes and resubmit.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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/ #]
The methodic should be rewrite to be more clearer both to the reviewer and the reader.
Scientific background of the topic is well-provided.
In abstract Authors should change time of evaluated years - all experiments refers only to 2017 and 2018, not 2016.
The cytogenetic analysis by FISH before this study indicated the differences in chromosomes and ploidy levels of three native Poa accessions (Fig. 2) - Please explain are these photos used originally or already published in other scientific paper? Manuscript lacks of methods used to obtain photos of chromosome plates. Are these foreign cultivars also polyploids? Manuscript lacks of chromosome plates or cytogenetic information about used 3 commercial cultivars.
Titles of Fig. and 5 should be edited, there are some mistakes or they seem to be uncompleted.
Title of Fig. 4 if Authors are using Hpp abbreviation for Poa pratensis then all species should abbreviated in Fig. 3 to 5.
Impact and novelty in the manuscript is assessed.
Not all underlying data have been provided and should be completed.
Introduction, discussion and conclusions are well stated but should be rewritten. I suggest to expand information about how ploidy levels determine plant size and its potential response to environmental stress. All these information should be addressed to introduction and discussion part after completing the manuscript with cytogenetic information about foreign cultivars.
The manuscript should be completed of cytogenetic data and expanded of ploidy levels information in all proper sections.
The manuscript entitled "Turf Performance and Physiological Responses to Summer Stress for NativePoa Species in Northern China" is an exprtmental work in the field of stress physiology, and specifically in this case temperature stress is taken into account.
(1) However, since the authors conducted a microfield experiment in accordance with the assumed experimental system, I wonder on what basis they refer to a single stress factor in the manuscript presented for evaluation.
(2) The text contains a few linguistic disabilities, and as an example I will cite the second sentence of the Abstract, which probably does not start well and perhaps should better be: The objective of the study were to compare ....
(3) There is no formulation of a research hypothesis by the authors in the Introduction
(4) Not all literature citations in the text are reflected in References - lines 269, 300, 331
Moreover, the form of citation in the text is not standardized, e.g. lines 48 and 51 and so on
(5) Overall the structure of the manuscript is correct , but its content should be corrected.
Research questions are not clearly presented, even if the problem raised in the paper is significant
The experimental setup should be presented a bit more precisely. All the physiological methods used must be briefly described. It is not enough to provide a reference to the literature - the reader cannot be forced to look for information in the literature resources of other journals .
The results obtained by the authors are interesting and original. Their significance is local, but they may also be of interest to a wider audience. The problem lies in the difficulty of tracking the data contained in Figures 3, 4, 5. Can you perhaps use colored bars?
The discussion is definitely room for improvement. Discusiion is too long and not very specific.
From the References section, I would remove publications that have a rather loose connection with the topic of the work.
The work certainly has potential, but it should be refined, improved in the sense of clarifying the message. It will be possible if the research hypotheses are initially formulated and in the methodological part the authors specify the plan of the experimental system. I suggest a diagram. Then please shorten the discussion of the obtained results to the most important threads. The quality of the text and its message are important, not the number of pages saved.
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.