在过去的博文中,我曾多次展示过为Journal of Mountain Science审稿的审稿意见,今天读到一份给本刊的一篇关于根的形态、土壤形态、树木类型对根的锚固特性的影响一文的审稿意见，非常具体中肯，这对作者更好地提高文章质量，在将来的写作中应该注意哪些问题,均具有指导作用。同时，我觉得这份审稿意见对国内的科学家们在做同行外审方面也有借鉴作用。

 审稿切忌粗线条，大而化之，让编辑和作者都无所适从，而应该先做总体评价，再做详细解析,如,文章的数据是否充分，运用的方法是否得当，结果分析和解释是否清楚明白，讨论是否充分并抓住了关键，另外就是写作规范的问题，参考文献的引用是否与本文相关，重要的参考文献是否引用，参考文献的引用是否规范,图表是否清晰明了，与正文是否互相呼应，必须具体举例加以阐述。

————————————————————————

General Comments

This paper reports some interesting observations of variation in tree root morphology and biomass in the field and,using laboratory tests, assesses variation in root tensile strength in relation to root diameter and root anchorage as a function of soil bulk density and moisture content. The authors are probably correct to point out that this is an understudied topic and the data they have collected are useful. The data they have on belowground biomass and root morphology may have more importance than the authors think as they provide information on belowground carbon stocks.

Though the paper contains some useful data and the overall experimental design appears sound the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form for X key reasons:

1)     Statistical analysis methods and results are not described or reported fully or appropriately. I believe the statistical analysis of the data can be greatly improved. The authors should define key objectives for their analysis that should govern the empirical modelling they complete.

2)     The paper lacks organization as currently results are reported in the methods and discussion sections.

3)     The results section is poorly-written and really just points readers to tables and figures rather than describing patterns in the data.

4)     The discussion section frequently just re-states the results and there is limited effort made to explain the patterns the authors observe or to relate their observations to previous work.

5)     I am always hesitant to criticize the writing of those whose first language isn’t English, there is a need for significant improvement in the paper’s clarity.

I have provided some specific comments and suggestions below. The authors are welcome to follow my suggestions for improving phrasing but must address the specific comments and queries. Below P= page and L = Line. Line numbers quoted are authors’own.

Introduction

P1 L27 “reinforcing soil” Suggest “soil stabilization”

P2 L28 Change to “understanding the mechanisms…”

P2 L29 Change to “…and root-anchorage is important…”

P2 L30 Change to “slopes”

P2 L30-31 Change to “…attributed soil shear strength to vegetation through its…”

P2 L33 Change to “…roots’cross sectional area and…”

P2 L34 Change to “…was that it overestimated the…”

P2 L37 Change to “An FBM model…” Note that the convention is that use of a/an is based on the sound of the word not whether it is a vowel or constant. In this case the sentence sounds like “An eff bee em…”

P2 L39 Change to “…Waldron and Wu et al.models through load…”

P2 L41 Change to “…using parameters such as root…”

P2 L42-43 Change to “Recently, an RBM model…”

P2 L45 Change to “…the estimation of root reinforcement with these models is…”

P2 L47 Change to “In past studies, thee ffect of soil properties…”

P2 L48 Change to “…in lower shear-strength soil provide…”

P2 L48 Change to “…those in higher shear-strength soils…”

P2 L51 Change to “Root experienced breakage…”

P2 L54 COMMENT “The deformed shape…” This sentence needs clarifying

P2 L55 Change to “…root-reinforced soils increases…”

P2 L56 Change to “Different soil types…”

P3 L59 Delete “(clay soils…etc)”

P3 L60 Change to “conditions”

P3 L61-63 COMMENT The authors should define“winching”. Might not differences in resistance to winching be related to differences in root morphology between trees growing at the edge and interiorof forest stands? Wind shear stress on trees has previously been shown to influence their root growth. This sections needs careful re-phrasing as it’s difficult to follow.

P3 L63 Change to “Soil properties should…”

P3 L64 Change to “…effect of dry weight density and water content on the roots’anchorage properties has been less reported”

P3 L66 Change to “Researchers have done…”

P3 L67 Change to “…in past studies.”

P3 L67 Delete “Numerous…laboratory”

P3 L68 Change to “…tests using leaning…”

P3 L69 Change to “…field, and laboratory pullout tests have been conducted…”

P3 L76 Change to “…root anchorage…”

P3 L83 “The root anchorage…”

Methods

GENERAL COMMENTS

·        Sampling effort is not described for the assessment of root morphology. What species were sampled? Why were these species selected? How many trees were sampled per species? How old were the sampled trees? Why were these particular tree ages/sizes selected?Were the sampled trees all located in homogenous conditions (i.e. slope,aspect,soil type, elevation)?

·        The authors need to provide some justification for their pullout test methods. Do they feel their results will be more representative of field conditions than the previous studies theycite?

·        Sampling effort for the “pullouttest” experiment is not defined. How many species were tested? How many tests per species? What was the size of the root fragments tested? What were the soil properties used in the test?

P4 L91 QUERY “Beigou forestry field” I’m not sure what a “forestry field” is, do the authors perhaps mean a “field station”?

P4 L94-95 QUERY Not sure what you mean by“mus”

P4 L97 COMMENT Species list followed by“etc.” but the other species the authors refer to will only be apparent to readers familiar with the system. A more complete description of the forest’s composition and structure is needed

P4 L99 Change to “…sampled using the…” and“…excavation method…” Provide a reference for this method

P4 L102-103 Change to “…put into sealed bars, transported to the laboratory and stored in a refrigerator…”

P4 L106 COMMENT “…soil was fine sandy loam,dark brown with light particles…” This is a rather subjective description of the soil’s colour. Could the authors provide a colour classification using the Munsell system?

P4 L108 Change to “root morphology was measured…”

P4 L110 Change to “…dry bulk density…”

P4 L111 Change to “following oven drying…”

P4 L111-112 COMMENT How long were soil samples dried for? Dry weights and water contents do not have any measure of variability associated with them, was only a single sample taken? If so can the authors justify this? On what basis (dry- or wet-weight) is the soil moisture reported? Information on soil properties should probably be placed in previous paragraph after description of soil colour.

P5 L115 COMMENT Again, why are there no errors associated with cohesive force and friction angle? Place description ofsoil properties together.

Results

GENERAL COMMENTS

There is little in the results section that actually helps the reader understand what the authors observed. For example,simply stating “The mean root length of five tree species in different layers was calculated as shown in Table 2” does not actually tell the reader anything.The results section should seek to describe patterns in the data (e.g. how did root length vary with depth or between species). The discussion should then seek to explain and compare the patterns one observes.

With regards to data analysis the authors have fitted a large number of different regression equations to predict maximum bond force. For example,bond force is predicted based on root diameter with separate regressions for different soil bulk densities. In reality the authors only need to complete two analyses

·        Examining the effects of soil properties (bulk density and moisture content) and root diameter on bond force for Pinus. The authors should seek to identify the single best model to predict bond force using all three independent variables whilst accounting for colinearity in the predictors and simplifying the model as necessary.

·        Examining the effect of species and (fixed factor) and root diameter on bond force

Both the above models could be constructed using standard linear modelling approaches, should examine the importance of interactions and can use standard model simplification approaches.

P6 L133-138 COMMENT “To investigate the root…mean slope angle was 8°.” All of this information on sampling should be located in the methods section. The authors need to define what a “sunny” slope is. Is sunniness related to topography, aspect etc? The authors need to explain why they chose these sizes of tree. Note that species names can be shortened following first mention (e.g. U. pumila).Note that the authors “estimated” root length they didn’t “calculate” it.

P6 L134 Change to “…and diameter at breast height…”

P6 L140-143 COMMENT “The roots were divided…80-2500px (S5).” This description of the classification of roots intodifferent size groups should be in the methods.

P7 L153-156 COMMENT Most of this section describes the authors’ methods rather than results

P7 L157 COMMENT “The regression equation…”statistical methods should be described in the methods section. The authors should briefly justify their analytical approach on the basis of the objectives of their empirical modeling.

P7 L161 COMMENT “…regression equation was in good agreement with experimental results.” This is strange phrasing since the equation is based on the experimental results. It might be better to state that the regression model was able to describe a substantial proportion of the variance in the experimental dataset.

P7 L162 COMMENT “marked exponent relation”I’m not certain what this means

P8 L167-178 COMMENT Nothing in this section actually describes any of the patterns in the results

P8 L167-170 DELETE “In this study…method in Lab.” This should already be apparent from the methods

P8 L170-172 COMMENT “The water content…1.32g/cm³” This should be in the methods

P8 L179 DELETE the table legend is giventwice

Discussion

GENERAL COMMENT

The discussion is disappointing, in general the authors just re-state their results or even present information that should have been contained in the results section itself. Patterns in the data are not explored or interpreted and there is extremely limited comparison with previouspublished work. This section needs to be thoroughly revised

P12 L214-216 COMMENT I’m afraid I couldn't understand this section

P12 L218 “Fig. 3” elsewhere the word“Figure” has been given in full, check what style the journal requires

P12 L218-223 COMMENT This section does not seek to explain the patterns in the results instead, as previously, it just points the reader to figures without explaining or discussing them.

P13 L243-246 COMMENT These regression equations are results of the authors’ statistical analyses and should not be presented in the discussion

P13 L252 COMMENT “could be 10% - 30% higher…” Can the authors suggest what the implications of this finding are?

P13 L254-259 COMMENT Can the authors suggest why their results are different to those of Fan and Su?

P15 L302-306 COMMENT These regression equations are results of the authors’ statistical analyses and should not be presented in the discussion

P16 L327 COMMENT “There was a reasonable…”The authors need to define what they mean by reasonable

References

Check formatting, some references have missing spaces or include journal issue numbers.

Figures andTables

Table 3: Consideration of the informationin this table could be expanded as it provides useful data on below-ground carbon stocks in tree roots, something for which data is often lacking. The authors should seek to try and turn their estimates into an estimate of kg C m^-2held in the trees’ roots.

Table 4: Symbols should be explained in thetable legend rather than in a footnote

Table 5: The thinking behind the experimental design implicit in this table should be described in the methods.Note that you examined the effect of soil properties using Pinus roots but then also examined species effects using standard soil conditions. Justify why you selected those particular standard conditions

Figure 2 This figure does not provide any useful information and duplicates Table 5. Could the authors use this information to model (logistic regression) the probability of breakage failure based on soil properties and root diameter?

Figure 3 In the key what does “calculating”mean? Calculated using what and on the basis of what? Explain in the methods

Figure 4 Change “fitting” to “fit” Are the different lines here justified.