与编辑审稿意见不一样，怎么办呀？？？？

　　与编辑审稿意见不一样，怎么办呀？？？？。最近投了篇文章在《newforests》，两个月后，文章的审稿意见出来了，大修，但是编辑有段话看不懂呀，麻烦各位大仙给看看。
Furthermore, the authors need to reconsider the organization of their results to improve the paper. The data of this paper can presented in only one Table and in a Figure. Most variables aren`t affected by the interaction between main factors (WS and AMF), so only results of main effects should be presented and not separated into the six treatments. This is the case of shoot and root dry weight, plant height, root length, water use efficiency, Chlorophyll concentration, all gas-exchange variables and qP. All these variables can be moved to a Table where variables must be rows and the columns must be the levels of the main factors (2 + 3 columns). At the right side of the table you can add your statistical analysis. Results on root colonization can be described in the text. Finally, RWC and results of the three reminder fluorescence variables can be presented in a figure made with four subfigures. In each subfigure, the six treatments should be presented separately. This would emphasize the interaction.
有两点不懂之处：
1、so only results of main effects should be presented and not separated into the six treatments.
2、the columns must be the levels of the main factors (2 + 3 columns).
如果我还是自己原来的可以吗，或者有没必要给编辑部写封信讨论下这个问题。

所指表格见附图：

===有问必答===
1. WS和AMF的处理对water use efficiency和Chlorophyll concentration两个指标所实施的交互作用不显著，因此不要报道交互作用的结果；
2. 和上一条一样，就是不要报道交互作用，只分别报道WS和AMF的主效应因素就好了。