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.
I would like to thank you for accepting the referees' suggestions and improving your article based on their suggestions. Your article is ready to publish. We look forward to your next article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Curtis Daehler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I would like to thank you for accepting the reviewers’ suggestions and improving your article accordingly. Your manuscript will be ready for publication after a minor revision. Below are some comments from our section editor regarding mainly the language. I recommend seeking assistance from a colleague or using our editing service to ensure the language is clear and professionally polished.
"Abstract conclusions need to be tempered as follows because this work was based on pots and no work was done in forest conditions:
L 18 "reduced" change to ""likely reduces"
L 19 "limited: change to "may limit"
L 20 "significantly limits" change to "may significantly limit"
Conclusion lines 246-247 -- This conclusion is not supported by this study. In fact, as shown in Fig 3, having some litter present is valuable for germination and removing the liter (suggestion to " effectively clean litter" from the forest floor) could have negative effects on recruitment. It is important to be sure that your recommendation to forest managers is specifically supported by your experimental data.
L 77 "are" change to "were"
L 86 "Fill the soil into a flowerpot, scatter 50 seeds evenly over the soil mountain, and cover with" change to "Soil was filled into a flowerpot, 50 seeds were scattered evenly over the soil and covered with"
L 89 "evenly then" change to "then evenly"
L 89-90 "Use drip irrigation to water" change to "Drip irrigation was used to water"
L 90 "uncovered litter" change to "soil without litter"
Tables 3 and 5 - Please specify in the captions that these tables are presenting the F-statistics from the ANOVA"
The suggestions made and the points that were not understood in the text were taken into consideration by the authors.
The suggestions made and the points that were not understood in the text were taken into consideration by the authors.
The suggestions made and the points that were not understood in the text were taken into consideration by the authors.
The suggestions made and the points that were not understood in the text were taken into consideration by the authors.
The requested corrections have been made in the article I previously reviewed.
The requested corrections have been made in the article I previously reviewed.
The requested corrections have been made in the article I previously reviewed.
The requested corrections have been made in the article I previously reviewed.
Rhododendron is a major genus in many of the forest ecosystems. Therefore, I believe your research will provide useful insights to help us better understand Rhododendron species in forest ecosystems. However, several technical details should be addressed to further enhance the article. I strongly recommend carefully reviewing the reviewers' ideas and thoughtfully considering each one. If you disagree with a suggestion, it would be helpful to provide clear, well-reasoned justifications for your viewpoint. Additionally, your article would benefit from linguistic refinement. I suggest seeking assistance from a colleague or utilizing our editing service to ensure the language is polished and professional.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
1. It is believed that the English language needs some improvement to ensure the article can be easily read and understood by an international audience. Restructuring some sentences, combining others and reviewing the entire text, as suggested below and given line numbers, will make the intended message more understandable.
2.1. In line 71, you state that you collected 10 ripe capsules from each plant. It might be easier for the reader to understand if you included the date you collected the capsules (I think July 2024) in the previous sentence.
2.2. Line 82: It might be"March 2025" instead of "March 2024"? It's recommended to review all dates.
2.3. Based on the rule "PeerJ, Review Criteria, 2. Experimental design, Methods described with sufficient detail and information to replicate. Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator," it is recommended that the "2.2 Sample setup and sampling" and "2.3 Experimental Design" sections be reviewed and rewritten in a more detailed and understandable manner. For example, were the experiments set up with "4 replicates, with 50 seeds in each replicate?" Although this statement is understandable from the text, the statement is unclear (Lines 85-86). It is thought that some expressions would be more appropriate to use within the same sentence for a clearer understanding by the reader.
No comment
4.1. Lines 51-52 state that "total litter thickness in Northwestern Guizhou Province (China), where Rhododendron communities predominate, varies between 2.5 and 5.0 cm." Do the 200, 400, and 600 g/m2 litter thicknesses used in the study meet the litter thicknesses specified above in the natural environment? An explanation on this topic would enhance the value of your research.
4.2. Rhododendron seed capsules become fully mature when they turn brown. These septicidal capsules should be removed at this stage, before they burst open and the seeds are dispersed, and the capsules should open on their own under controlled conditions. An examination of Figure 2B reveals that the seed capsules were collected much earlier, while the capsules were still green. Furthermore, the authors already stated in line 72 that the capsules were matured under controlled conditions, and that the seeds were removed by cutting the capsules. To shed light on future studies on this topic, it is recommended that the discussion section discuss why the capsules were removed at such an early stage and whether this affected the seed maturation process and, consequently, germination and emergence rates. It is also recommended that the number of months the seeds were stored and whether the storage period had any negative or positive effects on seed viability be discussed, based on literature comparisons.
4.3. The sentence in lines 122-124, "Under two types of litter treatments, including covering the seeds with litter (BL) and placing them above the litter (AL), the seedling emergence rates of four species of Rhododendron showed that low litter promoted the emergence of seedlings, while high litter inhibited their emergence," should be rewritten. Figure 4 shows that the highest emergence rate for R. irroratum was achieved with the 400 g/m2 application.
4.4. It's clear that environmental conditions such as humidity and temperature are crucial for seed germination. The explanation for the high emergence rates in covered seeds in the current study (lines 186-191) is quite satisfactory. However, there is a discrepancy between the findings of the study and the knowledge that Rhododendron seeds require light to germinate. Is the ambient humidity of shallowly sown seeds equivalent to that of seeds sown under litter? It's recommended that the materials and methods section include an explanation of how the seeds were irrigated after sowing.
4.5. The comments on the results obtained in the discussion section of the article and comparisons with other literature are invaluable. Additionally, it is recommended to briefly provide general information about the species in the introduction to inform the reader. Furthermore, presenting data from previous studies on germination and emergence rates, particularly those related to the four species studied, during seed propagation, and interpreting the results based on these rates would enrich the study. The data obtained from the study clearly demonstrate that the findings are also related to the genetic structure of the plants. For example, Rhododendron agastum is a natural hybrid of R. irroratum and R. delavayi (Zha et al., 2010) and therefore reflects the characteristics of its parent, R. delavayi, in terms of emergence rates (Figure 4).
Zha, H. G., Milne, R. I., & Sun, H. (2010). Asymmetric hybridization in Rhododendron agastum: a hybrid taxon comprising mainly F 1s in Yunnan, China. Annals of Botany, 105(1), 89-100.
4.6. The close proximity of the colors used in the graph in Figure 5 makes it difficult to read. It is recommended that these graphs be reviewed and a more understandable graphic style used or presented as a table.
The article uses academic language, and no spelling errors were detected in English.
The references provide sufficient field information. Appropriate references to relevant literature are made.
Figures and tables are appropriate.
The summary section should provide details on how the litter was extracted.
The conditions under which it was stored on lines 76-77 are not specified. Samples were taken not only from the litter section but also from the humus and soil. There are numerous microorganisms living in the soil. Do you think you've ensured their sustainability in your study? Could it exhibit the same properties as forest soil?
Line 82: Is the soil you use at 2/3 ratio taken from the forest? It should be explained.
Line 74: Litter and soil samples were collected in July 2024 and the trial was established in March 2024 (Line 81). Revisit your trial plan and adjust the dates.
It will be more understandable for readers if you mention that you set up two different experiments at the beginning of the Experimental Design section.
In the method section, you must cite studies related to the methods you use.
Do you think that cutting fallen leaves into 5x5 cm dimensions will allow you to achieve a process similar to field conditions? If there are any previous studies on this subject, you should strengthen this section by citing them.
It is difficult to interpret and follow up the results due to missing information in the material method section.
For example, in lines 146-148, there is a comment that the litter extract, humus, and soil extract were applied separately. However, no details about this are given in the method section. This part should be written in more detail in the method section.
In figure 6, "Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05)." is written, but the differences between the analysis results are indicated in lowercase letters.
Lines: 50-52 I recommend you cite it as unpublished data or observational commentary.
According to the information about litter extract in the abstract, you should also touch on this topic in the introduction and support this part of your study.
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.