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 am satisfied with the revision the authors made.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I agree with the reviewer that the manuscript have improved and suggest minor revision. In addition to the reviewer comments, I want the authors to consider the following changes:
Line 22: you state “we hypothesize” (singular) and then on line 24 “our hypotheses” (plural), please change this so you keep the same format. Is it one or many hypotheses you are stating?
L39-40: Here you should consider the recent paper by Anne Bjorkman in Nature. Bjorkman et al (2018) ”Plant functional trait change across a warming tundra biome”, which is a large scale synthesis. You should also consider it elsewhere in the manuscript too.
L61-62: I would very much see that you formulate your hypothesis by include “we”
L74: “we predict”
L78-79: Here to, state your hypothesis by including yourself, e.g. “we”
L83: Please delete “as we all know”
L115: Instead of citing the ITEX webpage cite the ITEX manual Molau and Mølgaard 1996
L144: There is no need to use the abbreviation LMM, please delete though out the text
L171: suggestion for change “… in the HG meadow, which support hypothesis I.”
L174: suggestion for change “… and HG meadows, respectively, which support hypothesis I.” Here is not 12, it is 11 species, since one species show response in both and with this formulation you will not have to explain this.
L187: “Novel” is a very strong statement here. Please consider if it is proper to use, if you decide to use it, this may be your most interesting results and should come first in the discussion.
L197: “…composition between sites”, which sites? The one you investigate? If, make it more precise.
The authors put a substantial effort into improving the manuscript. All reviewer’s comments have been taken into account and the authors responded in a satisfactory manner. The meaning of the manuscript is clear and deprived of distracting issues now. Fig. 2 has been corrected and meets the scientific standards. I hope it is legible after publishing.
The goal of the manuscript is clear and meaningful now. Methods are adequate and well described.
After including relevant corrections the manuscript constitutes a coherent report of reliable research. Methodological limitation is highlighted and discussed. Conclusions are clear and sufficiently grounded.
Making the manuscripts clearer disclosed few minor points to correct.
Lines 55-57 – species names in Italics;
Line 58 – ‘hirsuta’ not ‘hirsute’;
Line 83 – ‘as we all know’ – too informal, remove or replace with ‘To our knowledge, there is no…’
Line 155 – The ANOVA is important not only because the effect of warming is non-significant, but most of all, because the treatment × species INTERACTION IS significant. It proves that the effect of warming is species-specific and justifies analyses for separate species that follow. I suggest a stronger opening sentence, like: ‘We did not find a significant effect of warming on mean seed mass consistent across all species in both sites (Table 1), however, the significant treatment × species interaction indicates that the effect is species-specific.’
Table 1 – move ‘treatment×species’ one line up.
I have read through the revised manuscript and your rebuttal, and together with this and review 3 comments suggested that it still needs major revision. Since one of the reviewers (who also was very critical to your study) declined to review the revised version, I had to find a new review for your manuscript which unfortunately dragged out the review process a bit. There are no major flaws in your study, but you have to get the story straight in your manuscript. You need a clear opening of the introduction and then clearly identify the gaps you are trying to fill together with a better flow in your argumentation throughout the manuscript. The grazing history is just in there without filling and purpose, and only makes the reader confused. In the discussion you also, all of a sudden, include N and P availability without mention anything of this before. This analysis must be include in the material and method section, and if you considering it important for your results maybe it also should be touch upon in the introduction. Good luck with your revision and I am looking forward to reading the revised version.
I am happy to see that the authors addressed all my comments.
No comments
No comments
I am happy to see that the authors addressed all my comments.
Language is clear, although in a few cases too general. The details are in the attached PDF.
Literature is relevant (one cited item missing; see the PDF). The weakest point is placing the results in the ‘species abundance’ framework. This perspective is poorly explained and insufficiently grounded in the text. Moreover, none of the results regarding this is significant. I suggest to remove all parts referring to the effect of species abundance.
Figures and tables meet the standards except for fig 2 (A and B) in which sample sizes and error bars should be added. I suggest to move tables S4 and S5 from the supplement to the main manuscript. The tables refer directly to the predicted and discussed relationships.
Hypothesis III is irrelevant or at least insufficiently justified in the context of theoretical reasons and expected results.
The goal is clearly identified Research question is well defined except for the reference to species abundance.
Methods are well described.
The sites are not replicated within grazing treatments (one site per treatment). It’s worth to realize the weakness, although the results are convincing. Statistics is adequate.
Discussion could be more developed. Limitations of the methods used should be discussed. The manuscript would be more complete if the authors gave some suggestions on why certain species increase seed size while others reduce. What do these groups have in common? Some speculations on the direct mechanism by which grazing may affect the response of seed size to warming would be welcome. The phrase ‘trade-off between mechanisms’ sounds like a catchall term and it calls for a wider explanation.
The result that the shift in seed size in response to increased temperature is species specific is very interesting. It conveys also an important general ecological message that we should not expect a universal pattern of relationships, consistent across species. An analogous result is reported by Olejniczak, Czarnoleski et al. PLoS ONE (2018, 13(6): e0199224) The authors might find this article helpful in placing their results in a broader context of intra-specific seed size variation.
I would recommend to publish the manuscript after major improvements that I suggested here and in the text.
Reading the manuscript I agree with the two reviewers that this manuscript need substantial revisions. Nevertheless, I believe that the manuscript can be revised to an acceptable standard considering all good feedback from the reviewers, but the authors need to address all the concerns raised by the reviewers.
Please note the PDFs from both reviewers.
Please see the attached file "revision_peerj_31956.pdf"
Please see the attached file "revision_peerj_31956.pdf"
Please see the attached file "revision_peerj_31956.pdf"
Please see the attached file "revision_peerj_31956.pdf"
Dear Sir/Madam,
I read the Manuscript 31956v1, entitled "Long-term warming results in species-specific shifts in seed mass in alpine communities" submitted to PeerJ with great interest.
This long-term climate change study aimed to study the impact of warming and grazing on seed mass.
In general, I found the results interesting. As Im not a native English speaker (third language) I will not comment on the language, but I found it clear and easy to follow. However, I have some suggestions for improvement. My main concern is that it is unclear whether they studied effect on total seed or mean seed mass of the individual species (this need to be clarified throughout the text). Both are important. From my understanding, they are showing the results on mean seed mass, but as they counted the number of seeds, they could easily address both cases. In addition, the authors do not report the results on total seed number, this should be included as it was measured. In addition, I suggest that they analyze if the changes in abundance had any impact on total seed mass of the different species? Are species that are increasing also producing more seeds (in total number and total seed mass)? This could strongly influence vegetation dynamics under climate change.
I have also included some comments in the attached pdf.
no comments
see basic reporting and pdf
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.