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. Xiaolong, I congratulate you on the acceptance of your article for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, 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 editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
For instance:
line 50 "characteristics govern" --> "characteristics that govern"
Thank you for addressing the previous comments thoroughly. I am pleased to see this new version of the manuscript. The authors have improved the content, particularly in the introduction. The revisions to the introduction and the incorporation of a clearer theoretical framework significantly strengthen the manuscript. The manuscript reads more clearly and presents its arguments more convincingly. The authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the previous round.
.
.
.
Intraspecific covariation of traits in plants is caused by both genetic factors and environmental influences (phenotypic variability). Intraspecific variability determines the boundaries of a plant's economic spectrum. Adaptation to environmental conditions through trait variability allows plants to colonize new ecological niches. The greater the intraspecific variability, the broader the plant's economic spectrum. Cultivating a particular plant species under diverse conditions is economically valuable for forestry and agriculture. The topic of the article under review is highly relevant and interesting for general ecologists and has important practical implications. The study examines patterns of coordination between traits in leaves, stems, and roots of Quercus rehderiana Hand.-Mazz., 1925 under various environmental conditions. The results provide a foundation for understanding plant adaptive strategies in diverse habitats.
The authors conducted a significant amount of research. The paper is well structured and formatted according to requirements. There are only a few minor technical comments. The research questions and hypotheses in the manuscript are clearly defined. The methods are described in detail. The substantial "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections demonstrate the authors' thorough knowledge of the relevant scientific literature.
The results and discussion are well-reasoned, demonstrating the scientific value of the manuscript. The authors' findings and conclusions are supported by statistical analysis. I believe this manuscript can be recommended for publication.
No comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
.
.
.
This manuscript addresses an important and underexplored area in functional plant ecology: the coordination of leaf, stem, and root traits within a single species (Q. rehderiana) across contrasting habitat types. The intraspecific focus and the comparison between karst (rocky desertification) and non-karst environments make this work particularly relevant for understanding species-level adaptation to environmental stress.
Comments:
Title
Line 2-4: Insert location or country name in the title, such as “in China”.
Abstract
Line 25: Mentioning 28 functional traits is informative; however, briefly summarize how these traits were selected or measured.
Introduction
Line 123-131: Consider trimming or consolidating paragraphs where multiple references reinforce a single point. For instance, the distinctions among hypotheses about leaf stem-root coordination could be framed more succinctly using a table or conceptual diagram.
Mention the research gap clearly and precisely in the introduction.
Clearly mention your objectives and hypotheses at the end of the paragraph so that it will be easy to track down.
Materials and methods:
Lines 160-169: Consider including a map or coordinates reference figure to better contextualize the study location.
Lines 176-178: The rationale behind choosing five plots per condition could be briefly explained.
Line 180-190: Sampling could be shortened.
Lines 250-251: Please include the R packages (e.g., stats, ggplot2, vegan) would be helpful for replication.
Line 209: typo “images”?
Results:
Lines 254-259: The summary of trait covariation is concise, but referencing effect sizes or correlation ranges (even briefly) would better illustrate the strength of observed patterns.
Lines 260-274: The PCA results are detailed, but repetitive phrasing (“first axis…..accounted for”) could be streamlined.
Lines 275-279: Mention if there are any R-squared values for the correlations.
Lines 293-312: Still, there is some repetition in stating the decoupling of leaf, branch, and root traits. Streamlining these points would improve focus.
Lines 338-349: The root trait discussion is clear, but some redundancy could be reduced by condensing references to specific traits and statistical patterns.
Lines 350-358: Adding one or two sentences on the implications for ecosystem function or species resilience under environmental stress would strengthen the takeaway.
Conclusion:
Lines 364-366: Add a brief statement about the ecological significance of this decoupling enhances relevance.
The article does not provide a clear, solid, and actualized background. Authors do not give enough theoretical background around the physiological mechanisms that might or might not operate behind the plant organ coordination. Sometimes, authors give the impression that trade-off and statistical correlation are the same. There is no clear rationale for why it is important to explore the trade-offs at the intra-specific level; the arguments used to justify this point can also be given to the interspecific level. Figures and tables are not properly labeled; legends do not contain sufficient details. Additionally, the trait-by-trait correlation figures (Figure 4) have a different number of “samples”. At the correlation analysis table (Table S1), there are values with different colors of font which is not stated in the table legend. Also, it is not clear why some correlations with a low “determinant” value are statistically significant and sometimes not. The raw data archive is provided; however, it does not have the 28 traits authors quantified.
The work is original, and it is within the aims of the journal. However, authors do not state a clear hypothesis or questions of research questions. In the text, it is only mentioned that the work is going to explore “all the above hypotheses.” I suggest generating a solid hypothesis based on the mechanisms behind the coordination between organs. The lack of a formal hypothesis is reflected in the statistical analysis section, which does not provide a proper justification of the approach followed by the authors. The methods do not have sufficient information about the sample size within populations and details about the sample to quantify each trait.
The statistical analysis sections do not contain sufficient information, ie, do authors use the mean value per tree? Additionally, if the general idea was to explore coordination between organs, it is not clear why the authors did the analysis within organs and populations. The discussion and conclusion are not well linked to the initial proposal, the exploration of the plant organ coordination among populations.
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.