- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 On “Water availability is the decisive factor for the growth of two tree species in the occurrence of consecutive heat waves”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 375–376
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 On “Water availability is the decisive factor for the growth of two tree species in the occurrence of consecutive heat waves”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision
2. Comments to Author: Title: This is a minor point, but I have never been a proponent of starting any title with the phrase “The effect of. . .” Perhaps the authors could propose a more provocative title Keywords: All appropriate. Abstract: * First sentence could be expanded to include “The frequency and intensity of heat waves are predicted to increase as a consequence of climate warming, yet no experimental evidence exists for the potential magnitude of these affects. Therefore, we investigated. . .” * The Abstract, as currently written, has a considerable amount of methodology described. There is nothing wrong with that; however, it seems disproportionate to the results provided. If the authors feel that some of the methods described can be deleted, then that might allow for more presentation of results and implications. * The phrase “. . .both species’ seedlings” seems awkward. Please reword sentence along the lines of “In ambient [CO2}, seedlings of both oak and pine had. . .” * I appreciate the authors attempt at quantifying the water treatment as just above the wilting point, and then later mentioning that soil water content had a greater effect than [CO2] on stem height. It would be great if pre-dawn or leaf water potentials were measured and could be inserted here for the two species. Highlights: * First bullet could read “Frequency and intensity of heat waves were experimentally imposed to study impacts of temperature on seedling growth of two tree species.” Introduction: * Sentence on line 51 seems to convey little information. Why not just start with this section with sentence on line 52?
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.001. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.141
* It would be helpful if the authors could make a distinction between results from observational studies and those form experiments (e.g., lines 65 thru 77). * Readers will appreciate the statement of hypotheses. Methods: * Good description of chamber construction (Boyette and Biderback 1996) and treatment design (Wertin et al., 2010). * It must be described, but I missed the length of time each of the heat wave treatments was applied. One of these treatments was an elevation of temperature by 6 C every other week and then a 12 C treatment every 4 weeks. How long did the temperatures remain elevated? * Nice to devise a system whereby the control of soil water content was automated. If those data are presented in the remainder of the manuscript, great. If not, then perhaps some temporal patterns of soil water content could be provided as supplemental material. Results: * Section 3.1 does not present a lot of detail on treatments, nor their temporal progression throughout the experiment. Readers will want to see this information so authors should present either a multi-panel figure here to characterize those in more detail, or develop that graphic and include as supplemental material. * Were initial heights and stem diameters prior to the experiment used as covariates in the statistical analysis of treatment effects? If so, please let the reader know. If not, then provide some confidence that there was not a height or stem diameter at the beginning of the experiment. * Good presentation of results via Table 1. * Since carbon allocation is mentioned in Section 3.4 the authors should make sure that the approach used to characterize allocation (i.e., slope of the. . .) is described and justified using suitable references in the Methods section of the manuscript. Discussion: * Two things strike me in the first paragraph; first, are the authors using the term “mitigating” correctly? I suppose they are, but personally I dislike the term when applied to plant response to stress. Secondly, since photosynthesis is mentioned did the authors measure leaf gas exchange in this study? They certainly did not mention it, but if data (either published or unpublished) are available, it would be great to have those data mentioned. It looks as though several of the references in this paragraph or from this same study. Authors should make that clear by stating that “Ameye et al. (2013) and Bauweraerts et al. (2012) in reporting results from this same study, observed. . .”
376
Peer Review Report / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 375–376
* Any leaf or needle water potentials to characterize drought treatment? * In general the Discussion section is long given the results of this study. At time, the authors go into some pretty specific mechanisms and speculation. i.e., photosynthesis, PSII, wood density, etc. This
paper is not strengthened by inclusion of that level of discussion. My sense in this case is that shorter is better. Anonymous Available online 6 August 2015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 2 On “Water availability is the decisive factor for the growth of two tree species in the occurrence of consecutive heat waves”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision
2. Comments to Author: Title: This is a minor point, but I have never been a proponent of starting any title with the phrase “The effect of. . .” Perhaps the authors could propose a more provocative title Keywords: All appropriate. Abstract: * First sentence could be expanded to include “The frequency and intensity of heat waves are predicted to increase as a consequence of climate warming, yet no experimental evidence exists for the potential magnitude of these affects. Therefore, we investigated. . .” * The Abstract, as currently written, has a considerable amount of methodology described. There is nothing wrong with that; however, it seems disproportionate to the results provided. If the authors feel that some of the methods described can be deleted, then that might allow for more presentation of results and implications. * The phrase “. . .both species’ seedlings” seems awkward. Please reword sentence along the lines of “In ambient [CO2}, seedlings of both oak and pine had. . .” * I appreciate the authors attempt at quantifying the water treatment as just above the wilting point, and then later mentioning that soil water content had a greater effect than [CO2] on stem height. It would be great if pre-dawn or leaf water potentials were measured and could be inserted here for the two species. Highlights: * First bullet could read “Frequency and intensity of heat waves were experimentally imposed to study impacts of temperature on seedling growth of two tree species.” Introduction: * Sentence on line 51 seems to convey little information. Why not just start with this section with sentence on line 52?
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.001. 0168-1923/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.141
* It would be helpful if the authors could make a distinction between results from observational studies and those form experiments (e.g., lines 65 thru 77). * Readers will appreciate the statement of hypotheses. Methods: * Good description of chamber construction (Boyette and Biderback 1996) and treatment design (Wertin et al., 2010). * It must be described, but I missed the length of time each of the heat wave treatments was applied. One of these treatments was an elevation of temperature by 6 C every other week and then a 12 C treatment every 4 weeks. How long did the temperatures remain elevated? * Nice to devise a system whereby the control of soil water content was automated. If those data are presented in the remainder of the manuscript, great. If not, then perhaps some temporal patterns of soil water content could be provided as supplemental material. Results: * Section 3.1 does not present a lot of detail on treatments, nor their temporal progression throughout the experiment. Readers will want to see this information so authors should present either a multi-panel figure here to characterize those in more detail, or develop that graphic and include as supplemental material. * Were initial heights and stem diameters prior to the experiment used as covariates in the statistical analysis of treatment effects? If so, please let the reader know. If not, then provide some confidence that there was not a height or stem diameter at the beginning of the experiment. * Good presentation of results via Table 1. * Since carbon allocation is mentioned in Section 3.4 the authors should make sure that the approach used to characterize allocation (i.e., slope of the. . .) is described and justified using suitable references in the Methods section of the manuscript. Discussion: * Two things strike me in the first paragraph; first, are the authors using the term “mitigating” correctly? I suppose they are, but personally I dislike the term when applied to plant response to stress. Secondly, since photosynthesis is mentioned did the authors measure leaf gas exchange in this study? They certainly did not mention it, but if data (either published or unpublished) are available, it would be great to have those data mentioned. It looks as though several of the references in this paragraph or from this same study. Authors should make that clear by stating that “Ameye et al. (2013) and Bauweraerts et al. (2012) in reporting results from this same study, observed. . .”
376
Peer Review Report / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 201S (2015) 375–376
* Any leaf or needle water potentials to characterize drought treatment? * In general the Discussion section is long given the results of this study. At time, the authors go into some pretty specific mechanisms and speculation. i.e., photosynthesis, PSII, wood density, etc. This
paper is not strengthened by inclusion of that level of discussion. My sense in this case is that shorter is better. Anonymous Available online 6 August 2015