Variation of Selected Macrostructure Features and Density Wood of the European Spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) in the Cross-Section of Trees over 90-Years-Old in Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a sound scientific basis but in the present stage it does not bring any novelty to the general trend of macrostucture and density features variation along the cross-section of a tree's trunk.
In the introduction reference is made to the influence of environmental growing conditions on wood quality parameters. The paper seems to address that by collecting samples from trees in three different provenances (figure 1). However no deep information about the sites are mentioned besides the information provided in table 1 and in the text that follows figure 1.
Looking at the number of sections collected it can be estimated that trunks as much as 24 cm and 44 cm of diameter were studied. The authors should discussed in more detail and clearly what is the reason for this differences (site, stand, type of soil, altitude, ...) and in what respect this differences of growth explain the results obtained.
What is the meaning of the symbol RDSF used in table 1?
The legend of table 2 is difficult to understand:
- "sections with the same letter designation differ significantly" - does it mean that for the number of sections 4 all sections differ significantly from each other? even sections III and IV given the variability observed in the results (CV around 51 and 43%).
- "but successive sections with the same letter designation are compared to the first section with the same such designation" - This sentence is not understandable in my opinion.
The correlation models obtained should be more discussed and more information provided (namely p-value obtained; model information - this information is essential for comparison purposes with other models already available.
In conclusions please revise the sentence "...this is justified by the fact that as the tree grows in thickness, and the rings overlap within the trunk of an increasingly larger diameter" - tree growth larger in diameter and not thickness - and, moreover this is not possible to be used as justification/cause for the increase width of the annual growth rings from the outer circumference towards the pith.
General comment: Remove all personal pronouns (example: we) from the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for the quick and detailed reviews.
I took into account all comments of the Honorable Reviewer, and I tried to explain the doubts of the Reviewer. I also submitted the article for linguistic proofreading.
Responses to review
“The paper presents a sound scientific basis but in the present stage it does not bring any novelty to the general trend of macrostucture and density features variation along the cross-section of a tree's trunk”. - I agree with the Honorable Reviewer that the work confirms known trends, but no one has conducted such research in Poland. The research was carried out throughout the country using the same methodology. Until now, research has been conducted in small areas and using various methods.
“In the introduction reference is made to the influence of environmental growing conditions on wood quality parameters. The paper seems to address that by collecting samples from trees in three different provenances (figure 1). However no deep information about the sites are mentioned besides the information provided in table 1 and in the text that follows figure 1.” - An additional description of stands in the text has been added.
“Looking at the number of sections collected it can be estimated that trunks as much as 24 cm and 44 cm of diameter were studied. The authors should discussed in more detail and clearly what is the reason for this differences (site, stand, type of soil, altitude, ...) and in what respect this differences of growth explain the results obtained”. - An explanation has been added in the text.
“What is the meaning of the symbol RDSF used in table 1?” - Regional Directorate of the State Forests - changed to the full name in the table.
“The legend of table 2 is difficult to understand:
- "sections with the same letter designation differ significantly" - does it mean that for the number of sections 4 all sections differ significantly from each other? even sections III and IV given the variability observed in the results (CV around 51 and 43%).
- "but successive sections with the same letter designation are compared to the first section with the same such designation" - This sentence is not understandable in my opinion”. - Additional explanation added in the legend.
“The correlation models obtained should be more discussed and more information provided (namely p-value obtained; model information - this information is essential for comparison purposes with other models already available”. - An additional table with the results of the correlation test is included in the text.
“In conclusions please revise the sentence "...this is justified by the fact that as the tree grows in thickness, and the rings overlap within the trunk of an increasingly larger diameter" - tree growth larger in diameter and not thickness - and, moreover this is not possible to be used as justification/cause for the increase width of the annual growth rings from the outer circumference towards the pith”. - I agree with the Honorable Reviewer and this part of the sentence has been removed.
“General comment: Remove all personal pronouns (example: we) from the text.” - The sentences have been corrected and the text has been included in addition to the linguistic proofreading.
Sincerely,
Autor
Reviewer 2 Report
Suggestions to define the topic:
- Variation of selected macrostructure features and density of European spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) wood in the cross-section of the trunk in Poland
- As only trees over 90 years of age had been selected for the study, it should also be reflected in the title and objectives of the study.
Line 62: The objectives of the study should be described more clearly and in more detail in the Introduction chapter. In this paragraph, it is only said what was done.
Line 74: explain forestation index
Table 1:
- Explain RDSF and stocking index
- Explain in text, how the stocking index was determined
- Add units when possible (Age, stocking index)
Line 90: Meaning of tree cover index. Is it the same than the stocking index?
This sentence from line 90 in indefinite: “In the case of stands with a species composition other than 100% share of spruce, the research plot was designated in such a way that there would be spruce within its boundaries.” How much spruce? Criteria?
Line 106: Probably this sentence is related only to relative wood density (not to average width of the annual growth ring or the average share of latewood).
Line 108, 110: I suggest defining density as “relative basic density”.
Line 122: The significance level symbol could be α and p values are those obtained from the statistical analyses.
Tables 2, 3, 4: I suggest reducing the horizontal border lines. Separate only the sections by border line.
Line 185: It would be more convincing if you could add a correlation table to the article.
Lines 186-189: Reword the sentences to reduce “we” expressions. It is okay to a small extent, but now it repeats even within the same sentence.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for the quick and detailed reviews.
I took into account all comments of the Honorable Reviewer, and I tried to explain the doubts of the Reviewer. I also submitted the article for linguistic proofreading.
Responses to review
“Suggestions to define the topic:
Variation of selected macrostructure features and density of European spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) wood in the cross-section of the trunk in Poland” - The title of the work was changed.
“As only trees over 90 years of age had been selected for the study, it should also be reflected in the title and objectives of the study”. - The attention of the Honorable Reviewer was included in the title and purpose of the work.
“Line 62: The objectives of the study should be described more clearly and in more detail in the Introduction chapter. In this paragraph, it is only said what was done”. - The description of the research objective has been changed
“Line 74: explain forestation index” - There was a mistake because it was about the stocking index. The definition of the stocking index is included in the text.
“Table 1:
- Explain RDSF and stocking index” - Regional Directorate of the State Forests - changed to the full name in the table. The definition of the stocking index is included in the text.
“Explain in text, how the stocking index was determined” - The stocking index and other evaluation features of stands come from publicly available websites describing Polish forests - https://bdl.lasy.gov.pl/portal/mapy.html
“Add units when possible (Age, stocking index)” - Units have been added in the table, but the stocking index has no units.
“Line 90: Meaning of tree cover index. Is it the same than the stocking index?” - The tree cover index is explained in the text. This is different from the stocking index.
“This sentence from line 90 in indefinite: “In the case of stands with a species composition other than 100% share of spruce, the research plot was designated in such a way that there would be spruce within its boundaries.” How much spruce? Criteria?” - This has been corrected in the text.
“Line 106: Probably this sentence is related only to relative wood density (not to average width of the annual growth ring or the average share of latewood)”. - This has been corrected in the text.
“Line 108, 110: I suggest defining density as “relative basic density”. - This has been corrected in the text.
“Line 122: The significance level symbol could be α and p values are those obtained from the statistical analyses.” - This has been corrected in the text.
“Tables 2, 3, 4: I suggest reducing the horizontal border lines. Separate only the sections by border line.” - This has been included.
“Line 185: It would be more convincing if you could add a correlation table to the article.” - An additional table with the results of the correlation test is included in the text.
“Lines 186-189: Reword the sentences to reduce “we” expressions. It is okay to a small extent, but now it repeats even within the same sentence.” - The sentences have been corrected and the text has been included in addition to the linguistic proofreading.
Sincerely,
Autor
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was improved and all comments were taken into consideration. However one important information (to allow comparison with other works) is missing: Please include the regression models equations in point 3.4.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks a lot for the quick and detailed reviews.
I introduced the proposed amendment. I have included the patterns of regression models in Table 5 with the correlation results.
Sincerely,
Autor
