Growth Models for Even-Aged Stands of Hesperocyparis macrocarpa and Hesperocyparis lusitanica
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this research seems exciting and appropriate for publication in Forests (ISSN 1999-4907). The manuscript, titled "Growth models for even-aged stands of Cupressus macrocarpa and Cupressus lusitanica" (forests-2140085), presented stand-level growth models for even-aged New Zealand-grown Cupressus lusitanica and C. macrocarpa using measurements from 521 permanent sample plots. The authors reported that each model consists of several component sub-models, including a height/age model, a diameter/age model, a mortality function, and a stand-level volume function, with different parameter estimates used for each species. Moreover, the authors reported that the mean top height is predicted from age and site index using modified common-asymptote Richards models, which were common-asymptote Korf functions and are used to predict mean diameter as a function of age, stand density, and a diameter index. In general, it is a well-presented study; however, it has some issues that need to be addressed before considering it for acceptance. The following are my primary concerns:
1. Lines 8–9: Lines about research background and research gaps should be added there. This study begins with research objectives, which lack two basic components (research background and research gaps).
2. Lines 20–21: Replace the matching keyword with the title (Cupressus macrocarpa; Cupressus lusitanica).
3. Lines 56–57: "SI" elaborates completely at first use within the main body of the manuscript. The abstract is not considered in the main body.
4. Lines 155–156: "PSPs" elaborate completely at first use within the figure and table captions of the manuscript. The figure and table captions are not considered same part of the main body. Due to its low sharpness and lack of coordinates along the x and y axes, Figure 1 does not meet the publication requirements.
5. Lines 157–158: In order to provide a better comparison view to the readers, is it possible to include growth details from the earlier reference literature in Table 1?
6. Lines 185–188: Provide the reference literature supporting these models and equations in Table 2.
7. Lines 362–365: Revision: Figure 2 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
8. Lines 384–387: Revision: Figure 3 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
9. Lines 441–444: Revision: Figure 4 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
10. Lines 476–483: Due to its low sharpness, Figure 5 does not meet the publication requirements.
11. Lines 613–620: Revision: Figure 7 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
12. Lines 653–654: Information about the limitations of this study is missing. The authors may add clear limitations to this study.
13. Lines 655–661: The authors may add more results in the conclusion section.
14. Lines 676–771: Most of the literature is not updated. The authors may consider the latest literature to be more appealing to readers.
Author Response
The topic of this research seems exciting and appropriate for publication in Forests (ISSN 1999-4907). The manuscript, titled "Growth models for even-aged stands of Cupressus macrocarpa and Cupressus lusitanica" (forests-2140085), presented stand-level growth models for even-aged New Zealand-grown Cupressus lusitanica and C. macrocarpa using measurements from 521 permanent sample plots. The authors reported that each model consists of several component sub-models, including a height/age model, a diameter/age model, a mortality function, and a stand-level volume function, with different parameter estimates used for each species. Moreover, the authors reported that the mean top height is predicted from age and site index using modified common-asymptote Richards models, which were common-asymptote Korf functions and are used to predict mean diameter as a function of age, stand density, and a diameter index. In general, it is a well-presented study; however, it has some issues that need to be addressed before considering it for acceptance. The following are my primary concerns:
- Lines 8–9: Lines about research background and research gaps should be added there. This study begins with research objectives, which lack two basic components (research background and research gaps).
We have added a sentence regarding previous research and research gaps to the beginning of the Abstract. We have also added a description of the earlier New Zealand cypress growth model and its limitations and the need for new improved models to the final paragraph of the Introduction section.
- Lines 20–21: Replace the matching keyword with the title (Cupressus macrocarpa; Cupressus lusitanica).
Don’t understand this comment – the title and keywords both include Cupressus macrocarpa and Cupressus lusitanica
- Lines 56–57: "SI" elaborates completely at first use within the main body of the manuscript. The abstract is not considered in the main body.
We have removed “SI” from the Abstract and now first define it in the main body of the manuscript
- Lines 155–156: "PSPs" elaborate completely at first use within the figure and table captions of the manuscript. The figure and table captions are not considered same part of the main body. Due to its low sharpness and lack of coordinates along the x and y axes, Figure 1 does not meet the publication requirements.
We have removed “PSP” from the Figure 1 caption
- Lines 157–158: In order to provide a better comparison view to the readers, is it possible to include growth details from the earlier reference literature in Table 1?
We now summarise growth rates reported from Brazil and Ethiopia in the 3rd paragraph of the Methods section
- Lines 185–188: Provide the reference literature supporting these models and equations in Table 2.
The 3 base growth functions in Table 2 are all referenced. We now include derivations of the different model forms of these functions as supplementary material
- Lines 362–365: Revision: Figure 2 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
We have redrawn Figure 2 using color
- Lines 384–387: Revision: Figure 3 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
We have redrawn Figure 3 using color
- Lines 441–444: Revision: Figure 4 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
We have redrawn Figure 4 using color
- Lines 476–483: Due to its low sharpness, Figure 5 does not meet the publication requirements.
We have redrawn Figure 5 with higher resolution
- Lines 613–620: Revision: Figure 7 should be revised with a color combination that is suitable, as shown in Figure 5.
We have redrawn Figure 7 using color
- Lines 653–654: Information about the limitations of this study is missing. The authors may add clear limitations to this study.
We have added a paragraph (9th paragraph of the Discussion) covering the limitations of the study
- Lines 655–661: The authors may add more results in the conclusion section.
We have added more detailed results to the Conclusions
- Lines 676–771: Most of the literature is not updated. The authors may consider the latest literature to be more appealing to readers.
We have added more references including a number of recent papers
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is the review of the manuscript
Journal: MDPI Forests
Special Issue: -
Manuscript ID: forests-2140085
Authors: Mark Owen Kimberley, Michael S Watt
Title: Growth models for even-aged stands of Cupressus macrocarpa and Cupressus lusitanica
A very interesting article presents new growth models for two species of trees grown in New Zealand, predicting DBH depending on the starting DBH value, age and stand density. The models very well reflect the actual growth of trees.
I have few comments and suggestions to authors.
Below I list specific comments:
line 133 - that that that - unnecessary repetitions
line 136-137 - it's worth describing these numbers more clearly (they don't add up to 334 sites), replace five with 5
Figure 1 - Convert kilometers to km
Table 1 in the first column, add abbreviations used in the text, this will make it easier to read and understand the text
Table 2 - describe what e means
line 305 and 324 - what does niid error mean?
Table 4 - explain in the caption what usi, a and c mean
Table 5 - explain in the caption what a, c, d, f, g1, g2 and D30 mean
Table 10 and 11 explain in the caption the meaning of the abbreviations used: u, v, w, r and s
figure 4 describe each line, e.g. M30 or L 30
figure 5 there are abbreviations in the drawings, e.g. DBH and MTH, and they are missing in the caption, there are whole names, unify it
Figure 6 as for Figure 5 unify BA
figure 7 a and b (years)
Discussion: there are too few references to other authors' research here (it's worth adding some), more in a further discussion of your results.
Author Response
A very interesting article presents new growth models for two species of trees grown in New Zealand, predicting DBH depending on the starting DBH value, age and stand density. The models very well reflect the actual growth of trees.
I have few comments and suggestions to authors.
Below I list specific comments:
line 133 - that that that - unnecessary repetitions
Corrected
line 136-137 - it's worth describing these numbers more clearly (they don't add up to 334 sites), replace five with 5
Number of sites corrected
Figure 1 - Convert kilometers to km
Corrected
Table 1 in the first column, add abbreviations used in the text, this will make it easier to read and understand the text
We have added abbreviations to the table
Table 2 - describe what e means
We have rewritten these equations using the exp() notation in place of e
line 305 and 324 - what does niid error mean?
This abbreviation is defined in a previous sentence
Table 4 - explain in the caption what usi, a and c mean
These parameters are defined in the description of Equation (1). We have added a note explaining this to the table caption.
Table 5 - explain in the caption what a, c, d, f, g1, g2 and D30 mean
We presume this comment refers to Table 6. The parameters in this table are defined in the description of Equation (3). We have added a note explaining this to the table caption.
Table 10 and 11 explain in the caption the meaning of the abbreviations used: u, v, w, r and s
These parameters are defined in the descriptions of the relevant equations
figure 4 describe each line, e.g. M30 or L 30
Figure redrawn with colors and better description of lines in the caption
figure 5 there are abbreviations in the drawings, e.g. DBH and MTH, and they are missing in the
caption, there are whole names, unify it
We now define DBH and MTH in the caption
Figure 6 as for Figure 5 unify BA
Have replaced ‘BA’ with ‘basal area’ in the caption
figure 7 a and b (years)
Figure redrawn with colors and better explanation in the caption and corrected the (years) typo
Discussion: there are too few references to other authors' research here (it's worth adding some), more in a further discussion of your results.
We have added many more references mainly to the Discussion section
In response to commetns from the accademic editor, we have added significance tests to Tables 4, 6, 7 and 9. Also, in response to the editor, note that coeffiicients of determination are not available for many of our models because they are nonlinear mixed models rather than simple regression models.
Finally, we have reworded the text in some places and removed redudant text, which has improved readability and reduced some repetition with a previous paper we published in Forests.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been significantly revised and is suitable for publication.
