Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on November 29th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 29th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 23rd, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on May 14th, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on June 3rd, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 26th, 2024.

Version 0.4 (accepted)

· Jul 26, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

The revision of the manuscript has significantly improved its quality. The results of the study presented in the manuscript are substantiated and relevant. The manuscript is written in high-quality English and in accordance with the requirements of PeerJ.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Additional comments

No comments

Version 0.3

· May 31, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The submitted manuscript corresponds to the direction of the journal and may become a positive contribution to science in the future. However, after the second review, the reviewer still has comments on the quality of the manuscript, which requires some more revision. Please pay special attention to Section 4.4. and the comments that the reviewers have indicated now and have been stated in previous reviews.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

As already emphasized, there are quite a number of studies on coastal defences incorporating the use of coastal vegetations and manmade infrastructures (embankments). Section 4.4 needs to be thoroughly discussed in comparison to other relevant studies, for more meaningful conclusions.

Version 0.2

· May 10, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The quality of the resubmitted manuscript is significantly better and contains sound research results. One of the reviewers still has minor comments on the manuscript, which I ask you to respond to.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

There is too many mention of T. austromongolica in your discussion. you should compare your findings to other vegetation or wetland plants like spartina alterniflora, phragmites australis, S. Salsa etc. There are quite a number of studies on these and other vegetative plants with respect to coastal embankment. without such comparisons, your conclusions would just be lopsided. So do revise your introduction, discussion & conclusions. (since you said "Tamarix austromongolica play the most important roles in this area", then how does it compare to spartina alterniflora and P. Australis for example in east China or other parts of the world.)

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I have no special comments.

Experimental design

I have no special comments.

Validity of the findings

I have no special comments.

Additional comments

I have no special comments.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 29, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The problem of determining the effectiveness of dams in order to minimize the threats of catastrophic water-related hazards is important and relevant. The paper investigates their impact on natural forests and identifies the qualitative features of the dam-shrub system. The spatial and age structure of vegetation in the study area was determined. The research was conducted on dams south of Laizhou bay China.

The manuscript is in line with the direction of the journal and deepens the knowledge of regional research in the field. During the review process, experts identified shortcomings in the study results. In order to improve the quality of the manuscript, please consider the recommendations of the reviewers. The English translation also requires professional improvement.

**Language Note:** We note that PeerJ had already provided language editing services but you submitted the original, unedited manuscript. Please ensure that you make your revisions in the copyedited manuscript file, not the one you submitted. – PeerJ Staff

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. there are some serious grammatical errors within the text that need be addresses. for instance lines 50-51, 85-86. the overall grammar of the manuscript needs revision, especially introduction. authors should seek professional services of fluent English speakers.
2. study background should be improved. the synergistic role of embankment dams and coastal plants/ shrubs should be reviewed.

Experimental design

1. why did the investigators choose the months June and august for survey/sampling?. perhaps they should have considered spatio-temporal (seasonal) variations for the whole year.
2. why did authors adopt Ripley's K and K1,2 functions for analysis and not other functions?
3.all equations should be numbered and variables properly defined.

Validity of the findings

1. in dammed coastal ecosystems, vegetation naturally tends to flourish better on the inland side compared to the riparian side. as such, the novelty of the research seems to be challenged. perhaps authors should have compared embanked and unembanked sections of the ecosystem for a more meaningful validations.
2. "The dominant native plants around the Laizhou bay are Tamarix austromongolica, Phragmites australis and Suaeda salsa". why did the authors choose Tamarix austromongolica, and leave out the other native plants?. don't they have roles in controlling storm surges?
3. conclusions are rather bleak. what are the global implications of your findings? and what are your recommendations to stakeholders and ecosystem managers?

Additional comments

1.maintain the use of "embankment dams" throughout the manuscript since there are different kind of dams.
2. keywords are rather misplaced. do revise!

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

In the title, coastal shrubs should be Tamarix austromongolica because Tamarix austromongolica is only one shrub species to be studied in our sites.

Experimental design

1. The quadrats were selected randomly in the survey one. Please explain more about random selection method.
2. One of the study purposes is to investigate into the effects of embankment dams on T. austromongolica populations. But the explanations of the dams such as structures and design were deficient. Please add the explanations on dams more.

Validity of the findings

1. At the eighth page, the Ripley's K was shown lower than the 97.5% line in Fig. 31. But the authors seems to describe conversely. Please check this again.

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.