The Size of the Assimilatory Apparatus and Its Relationship with Selected Taxation and Increment Traits in Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Stands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General remarks of the reviewer

1. The abstract needs to be expanded with information about the research site, number of trees, and results.
2. In the introduction and in the discussion, very old literature items are cited, the latest publication is from 2015. It is advisable to supplement with the latest articles on the analyzed issue and determination of wood biomass. The introduction should end with a clearly defined purpose and scope of the research.
3. The methodology does not describe the examined features with their designations, which are used in tables 1-10 and in the figures, and in the description under Table 1 and other tables, they are incomplete. It is advisable to supplement.
4. Were the 8 selected research area of the same habitat, water, soil and climatic conditions? How many trees were tested from each area? Were the trees on a given area the same age, that is, 25 years, 33, 44, 56, 65, 75, 85, 95 years?
5. The methodology should be supplemented with information on the applied statistical methods (parametric or non-parametric) and tests. Was the distribution of results for each of the examined characteristics examined in order to justify the selection of the appropriate test?
6. If regression equations are given in the results, their statistical characteristics should be given.
7. The discussion requires considerable rewriting. It presents the results of three publications; there is no reference to them in the discussion and no comparison with one's own research results. You should also refer to newer publications, which has already been described in point 2.

Technical Notes

1. The sentence from lines 15-16 needs to be corrected.
2. The reference in one sentence (lines 45-46) to 15 items of the literature is not recommended. The issues in these publications should be analyzed in more detail.
3. The methodology described in lines 94-95 requires more detail.
4. Which samples are covered in lines 107-108? The description needs to be supplemented.
5. The methodology described in lines 112-113 is unclear and needs to be completed.
6. Figures 2 and 3 should follow Table 5 and should be discussed in the text.
7. How many tree measurements have actually been taken? In the methodology (line 83 and others) a different number of trees (200) is given than in the results (line 171 - 256 trees).
8. The text from lines 181-188 should be after table 9 and before table 10.
9. Some references (e.g. 1-3 and others) require titles in English. Many items require that you specify access to them and the date of access.
10. The description of the literature item needs to be corrected as required by the publisher: articles, books and other sources - italics of journal titles, year in bold, correct pages of journals and the access link and date of access. According to MDPI standard.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer of Forests,

Thank you for taking the time to review our work and for giving us such thoughtful comments .

We have considered all Your comments and provide response to them in this font and colour.

All changes made to the attached manuscript are marked in red.

Our manuscript is better due to Your input, thank you.

Best regards,

The Authors

 

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

General remarks of the reviewer

1.The abstract needs to be expanded with information about the research site, number of trees, and results.

The abstract has been redrafted and the relevant information has been supplemented (see Abstract).

2.In the introduction and in the discussion, very old literature items are cited, the latest publication is from 2015. It is advisable to supplement with the latest articles on the analyzed issue and determination of wood biomass. The introduction should end with a clearly defined purpose and scope of the research.

References [46, 47, 55] were added. The end of the introduction was supplemented with the purpose and scope of the research as well as the research hypothesis.

3.The methodology does not describe the examined features with their designations, which are used in tables 1-10 and in the figures, and in the description under Table 1 and other tables, they are incomplete. It is advisable to supplement.

In the box at the end of the article, a description of all examined features with their symbols has been added (see Nomenclature).

4.Were the 8 selected research area of the same habitat, water, soil and climatic conditions? How many trees were tested from each area? Were the trees on a given area the same age, that is, 25 years, 33, 44, 56, 65, 75, 85, 95 years?

All 8 selected research areas had the same habitat conditions, 25 trees from each area were tested. The trees were of the same age in the area (see Material and methods). Have been added: Table 1. Structural characteristics of stands (see Results).

5.The methodology should be supplemented with information on the applied statistical methods (parametric or non-parametric) and tests. Was the distribution of results for each of the examined characteristics examined in order to justify the selection of the appropriate test?

The methodology was supplemented with information on the applied statistical methods (see Material and methods). The functions best suited to the given empirical material were selected (see Results).

6.If regression equations are given in the results, their statistical characteristics should be given.

The statistical characteristics of the regression equations are given (see Results: Figure 1-3 and description under the charts).

7.The discussion requires considerable rewriting. It presents the results of three publications; there is no reference to them in the discussion and no comparison with one's own research results. You should also refer to newer publications, which has already been described in point 2.

The discussion has been redrafted, and fragments regarding the assessment of the current state of research and the possibility of using them in the future have been added. However, apart from those already discussed [2,3,48,56], no other works were found in the literature for direct confrontation of own results (species, habitat, quantity and quality of empirical material).

Technical Notes

1.The sentence from lines 15-16 needs to be corrected.

The sentence in lines 15-16 has been corrected.

2.The reference in one sentence (lines 45-46) to 15 items of the literature is not recommended. The issues in these publications should be analyzed in more detail.

The reference to 15 literature items was thematically specified (lines 45-46).

3.The methodology described in lines 94-95 requires more detail.

The methodology described in more detail Draudt method (lines 94-95).

4.Which samples are covered in lines 107-108? The description needs to be supplemented.

The description of samples of empirical material was supplemented (lines 107-108).

5.The methodology described in lines 112-113 is unclear and needs to be completed.

For clarification, the entry in lines 112-113 has been supplemented.

6.Figures 2 and 3 should follow Table 5 and should be discussed in the text.

The proposed layout was used and figures 2 and 3 are discussed in the text (see [6] - General remarks) .

7.How many tree measurements have actually been taken? In the methodology (line 83 and others) a different number of trees (200) is given than in the results (line 171 - 256 trees).

Exactly 200 trees were used in all measurements, the number 256 (line 171 in the results) concerns all cases the relationship between the size of the assimilatory apparatus and traits increment.

8.The text from lines 181-188 should be after table 9 and before table 10.

The proposed layout was used.

9.Some references (e.g. 1-3 and others) require titles in English. Many items require that you specify access to them and the date of access.

References from Central and Eastern Europe have been translated into English. Access dates have been added.

10.The description of the literature item needs to be corrected as required by the publisher: articles, books and other sources - italics of journal titles, year in bold, correct pages of journals and the access link and date of access. According to MDPI standard.

The literature is compiled according to the MDPI standard.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is interesting but there are several major concerns highlighted in details in the attached pdf file... Trying to summarize:

All the text: I have some concerns regarding the scientific nomenclature used by authors

Abstract: confusing mostly in the initial part

Introduction: lack of clear statement of the innovative aspect of the study and of a clear definition of the research hypothesis

M & M: all the acronyms should be described and mostly you have to describe better how you calculated the various parameters

Discussions: to be strongly improved

Conclusions: fine, good section

References: try to use more recent literature, many of the cited references are very dated

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer of Forests,

Thank you for taking the time to review our work and for giving us such thoughtful comments and suggestions.

We have considered all Your comments and will provide detailed answers in the attached manuscript.

Our manuscript is better due to Your input, thank you.

Best regards,

The Authors

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting but there are several major concerns highlighted in details in the attached pdf file... Trying to summarize:

All the text: I have some concerns regarding the scientific nomenclature used by authors

All comments regarding dendrometric parameters were taken into account. The terminology was standardized throughout the text (changes: strikethrough, red font).

Abstract: confusing mostly in the initial part

The abstract has been redrafted and the relevant information has been supplemented.

Introduction: lack of clear statement of the innovative aspect of the study and of a clear definition of the research hypothesis

The introduction was supplemented with the purpose and scope of the research as well as the research hypothesis and the possibilities of using the research results.

M & M: all the acronyms should be described and mostly you have to describe better how you calculated the various parameters

Agree, explanation of the all traits is located in the Nomenclature box on page 11 and in chapter 2. Material and methods.

Discussions: to be strongly improved

Agree that this chapter in the presented form referred only to the confrontation of the results with comparable studies (species, habitat, quantity and quality of empirical material). Therefore, in line with Your suggestions, the discussion has been redrafted, and fragments regarding the assessment of the current state of research and the possibility of using them in the future have been added.

Conclusions: fine, good section

Thank you very much.

References: try to use more recent literature, many of the cited references are very dated

Thank you for this suggestion, however, while browsing the bibliographic databases, no other works were found in the literature that could be directly related to the subject of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors carried out a great job and addressed almost all of my comments, I think that now the manuscript can be published...