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 Authors,
I support the reviewer's opinion and believe that your work can be published in PeerJ in its current version. Congratulations!
With best regards!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This version of the manuscript is better than the first two. The language is coherent and the ambiguity has been cleared. The references are sufficient. Tables and figures are cleared labelled.
The experimental section read better and the description is sufficient.
The results and all findings have been discussed well. Conclusions are well stated
The authors answered the questions raised in the previous versions. I compliment them for all the corrections and rebuttals. This version is well clarified, and the use of journal's editing service has tremendously improved the readability of the manuscript.
Good luck on future research.
Dear Authors,
One of the reviewers suggests some minor changes to your manuscript. Please review these notes and make the appropriate corrections.
With best regards,
This version of the manuscript is better, with professional English used throughout. However, minor comprehension issues may need a second read from a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter. For example, a sentence on line 101 about fertilizer application uses the conjunction “or,” which suggests that each seedling and sapling received five or ten grams OR seedlings received five, and saplings received ten. Did the Authors mean that five and ten grams of compound fertilizer for yews were applied to each seedling and sapling, respectively? I suggest that Authors use journal services (if available) to improve comprehension, which will help international audiences clearly understand the text.
Also, please take a look at the abstract; the first sentence has two chlorophyll.
The authors answered the question regarding the experimental design. I commend the authors for their rebuttal point by point and for making changes or providing clarification on sections pointed out in the first submission. I also congratulate the Authors for giving the additional explanation about figure 1A. I had not seen the labels in my previous review because they were tiny. In the revised version, the labels are more prominent and visible, but the tiny ones are still there. The final version should have the bigger ones only.
The findings are valid as they compared the effect of high light conditions on the physiology of two life history stages, seedlings, and saplings.
No additional comments
Dear Authors,
Two independent experts assessed your work. They both agreed that it could be published in PeerJ, but should be amended beforehand. Please read the comments of the reviewers carefully and respond to them all.
With best regards,
The sample sizes per group/experiment are not clearly stated.
The design of the experiment is not revealed.
The authors did not explicitly explain the study design and the number of subjects and groups.
I suggest that the Authors revise the manuscript by providing a straightforward experimental design.
Line 94: Nutrients and water were supplied throughout the study to avoid compounding nutrient and drought stress. What nutrients were applied? Was there a specific nutrient target or just a commercially available source? These details are essential for researchers who may be working on similar topics and want to understand your findings. Moreover, it is also essential to make clear whether the plant samples were planted specifically for this experiment or not, given that they are several years old and these measurements took a few hours to days. Plants in figure 1, for example, seem to be outside a residential area and not arranged in an experimental design fashion.
Line 81: In this paper, the authors wanted to explore WHY Japanese yew seedlings cannot tolerate high irradiance. There is a series of figures and results in the article, but it is unclear whether this objective was achieved or not. If achieved, the results of achieving this objective are not revealed.
Statistical Analysis: There is no information on statistical analysis apart from the software used and the type of analysis. For the sake of this very important section, I would suggest that the authors provide more details. Specifically stressing the kind of data collected, their distributions for normality, the parameters used in their analysis, etc.
Line 149 - 152: Minor grammar issue. Consider revising.
Figure 1 is not clearly labeled. A and B letters appear on the caption but not on the figure. The saplings on the right photo appear to be on the side of the building. How was the effect of the building handled in the experimental design?
Table 1. Make clear whether the sample size is for each treatment of total.
Minor: In some cases, e.g., Line 245 and 233, species names are not italicized.
Several species in the family Taxaceae are deemed locally endangered in different parts of the world, such as the English yew (Taxus baccata L., Taxaceae). However, I can’t find the sources suggesting that Taxus cuspidate L (the study species in this work) is endangered, as suggested on Line 52. Would the Authors provide relevant citations specific to their study species on its conservation status?
The article addressed an interesting question regarding an intolerance to high light of Japanese yew, an important forest tree, at seedling stage.
The literature review was concise and provided an adequate background of the research questions.
The objectives were clearly stated.
In general, the article structure, figures, table etc. were acceptable.
The article compared the response to high light of seedling vs sapling leaves without mentioning the experimental design.
The parameters investigated were relevant to the research questions i.e. they focused on photosynthetic attributes, pigments, xanthophyll cycle and wax covering leaf surface.
However, the authors should provide some information for clearer understanding as follows;
1. The growth stage 'seedling' and 'sapling', should be defined in more details, Morphological characters and plant growth conditions should be given in more details.
2. In what season did the experiment was conducted? It was found by Robakowski (2009) in Taxus that the degree of photoinhibition and the ability to recover under high light stress varied with environments in different seasons.
3. According to Fig. 1 some twigs contained mostly light green young eaves, some with mixture of light green and darker green old leaves, which type of leaves were used for pigment extraction? Which type of twigs were used for gas exchange measurement?
4. The authors should provide the reason why using 1,200 umol/m2/s as 'high light' condition, and 30 degree-Celcius for measuring gas exchange. How does this light intensity (and temperature) relate to the conditions and seasonal variations in natural forest environments.
The results on photosynthetic attributes were meaningful, all parameters (gas exchange, chl fluorescence, pigments and wax content) inferred that seedling leaves were less protected from high-light stress, most probably due to lower xanthophyll cycle activity and thinner wax covering leaf surface.
Some minor corrections:
1. Legend of Fig. 6 should be revised.
2. Description of Y-axis in Fig. 6 A and B should be revised.
Conclusions were well-stated.
It would be interesting if the authors investigated both high-light and low-light conditions for comparisons, and to perform curve fitting of the light response curve to obtain useful values such as dark respiration rate, light compensation point, quantum efficiency, maximum photosynthesis rate etc..
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.