投了journal of soils and sediments。一个月后给了major revise，但是要求补充重复（由于经费问题没有做重复），现在可以补充3个重复，但是实验周期很长，还得处理数据，文章整体也都得修改。改完了还得润色。预计天天不停的做也起码得一个月时间啊。28号截止，要怎么做？或怎么给主编写信？求大神帮助，鄙人英文一般，最好用帮我写一封申请延迟的letter，然后这个申请信是什么时候发给主编比较好一些？谢过！还有第二位专家质疑我的结果，可我做出来结果就是那样的，怎么办呢？

Reviewer #1:   This paper describes the use of X-ray Computed Tomography to analyse soil macropore of forest communities.  I believe that the data collected and the X-ray CT method used are both appropriate and insightful, however I have some questions concerning the post processing and the analytical methods used. I have outlined some of my concerns for the methods below, most of which stems from a lack of detail in the methods section. The result section is very thorough, but in some cases laborious and the discussion is somewhat lacking.  

General
1. Please follow the journal guideline to format the paper.  
2. Please revise the abstract and rewrite some sentences. Treatments, control, sampling procedure are not clear.
3. Please define treatments, replication, and sampling clearly.  Use the same treatment names throughout the manuscript.
4. Additional information on samples: sample depth, # of replicates should be included.
5. Please include scanning method details, volume rendering, and estimation of pore parameters.  It was not clear about pore volume/area estimation methods.
6. Include a Statistical Method Section to compare differences between treatments as well as procedures.

Materials and method
The materials and method provided adequate environmental data but were notably scant on detail pertaining to the extraction of cores, CT scanning parameters and the methods used to measure
and image process soil data. With inclusion of the details necessary for repeating the experiment
this section will be considerably improved. There are some methodological flaws in the image
processing steps and the lack of statistical analysis but these can be easily resolved.  

Results
The results section represented a thorough review of the data with many observations being made. Often these observations repeated data that was presented in the tables which may be distracting.
Sometimes represented data was reported to greater precision (e.g. more decimal places) than that in tables. The results would benefit from reducing the comparisons to functionally relevant
contrasts, making greater reference to tables and notably the inclusion of statistical measures of significance in tables and figures. Some specific suggestions follow.

Tables and Figures
Tables and figures were presented admirably, however it is necessary to include statistical measures where relevant.

Discussion
The discussion was brief and unfortunately did not well reflect the obvious effort invested in the
thorough results section. I believe the discussion would greatly benefit from exploration of the
function of the altered pore space on water and gas transport. Greater discussion of the possible
limitations of the technique to determine pore space below the detection limit of the imaging
method would also greatly enrich the interpretation.  Greater explanation of the porespace with
depth figures might also be warranted. Some additional small suggestions are outlined below.



Reviewer #2: General comments:

The manuscript scanned six undisturbed soil columns using the industrial CT techniques, and obtained many interesting indices, which could reflect the characteristics of rock fragment and macropores. A probe of physical attributes of forest soils using the CT scanning is interesting, and deserves to be encouraged.
But there are so many scientific problems. The authors did not describe the soils and parent rocks in the study areas in detail. We don't know whether the soils and parent materials of the studied six plots are the same. Moreover, how many years have the studied artificial forests been cultivated? The time of forest growth highly affects its root effects on soil physical attributes.
The authors scanned six soil columns with the CT in total. This means they only studied one sample at each forest type without replications. Such field work has a serious shortcoming. How do you conduct the analysis of variance without plot replications? How do you know the differences of characteristics of soil macropores among the different forest types attain a significant level? One forest type should include three plots at least.
The explanation on the relationship between rock fragment and macropore is problematic. If a soil contains higher contents of rock fragment, it is coarser in grain size and contains more macropores. But they gave an opposite conclusion. They may not clearly know the relationship between soil grain sizes and macropores.
The roots of multiple-typed forests may have stronger forces to disintegrate rocks than those of one-typed forests. The authors need study the mechanism of this. For example, the types and growth of plants and their effects on rock weathering.
The English writing is very poor, with so much mistaken grammar and punctuation. Therefore, the current version is not encouraged for publication in the JSS.

Special comments:

Line 91-92: Are the soils derived from granite and gneiss? But granite and gneiss are different rocks. Add "and" before "the soils". What are the soil types? "brown"? The soil types should be clearly defined according to the international soil classification, such as Soil Taxonomy.

Line 94-95: How many years have the artificial forests been cultivated?

Line 93: Replace comma with full stop before "Plantation". The authors don't understand how to use punctuation correctly.

Line 96-101: The expression is not good.

Line 100: Replace comma with full stop before "All".

Line 102: Only six soil columns?

Line 106: It should be "make", instead of "making". Delete "and" before "two iron plates"

Line 124-125: What does it mean? Firstly, the authors should tell us what the 3D images are. Do the 3D images of macropores include a series of indexes?

Line 158: Delete "networks".

Line 160-165: Please tell us whether the parent materials of the soils under mixed and pure forest communities are the same. Replace "destroy" with "disintegrate".

Line 165-166: The expression here is not good. You mean the root force of the mixed forest is stronger than that of the pure forest. You must provide more evidence, and explain the mechanism of this.

Line 189-190: Delete "the correlation analyses".

Line 191: Does the correlation attain a significant level?

Line 192-193: The sentence should be rewritten. It should be "in a decreasing order of ----"

Line 197: It should be "Tortuosity and angle of macropores".

Line 209: It should be "Correlations between rock fragment and macropore characteristics".

Line 210-211: Delete this sentence.

Line 212: Delete "The correlation analysis showed that".

Line 214: Why? It is impossible. The soils with more rock fragment are coarser in grain size, and contain more macropores.

Line 216: Replace comma with full stop before "It also".

Line 221: Revised as "Influences of forest communities on the characteristics of macropores". Many contents here are the same as the aboves.

Line 243: The authors should define "rock fragment". As far as I know, the more rock fragment, the coarser the soils are in grain size.

Line 268-269: "provid " is spelling mistake. What means "The results provid the effects of forest community on rock fragment and macropore"? It should be "prove", instead of "provid".

Line 269-272: I don't believe that the forest community could affect the content of rock fragment in soil significantly. The content of rock fragment in soil may be majorly determined by parent rocks. 返回小木虫查看更多