Evaluation of Wood Anatomical Properties from 18 Tree Species in the Subtropical Region of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for an interesting effort to categorize some wood species.

I have a few suggestions/concerns after my review.

Firstly, you must emphasize the scientific value of the paper. This is more of a screening of some wood species. The work is important, yes, but you draw to large conclusions from a small material. Sample size of 5 does not say much as the variation within species can be very large. This must be addressed more. Also, you draw some conclusion that are already well known. For example, what influences density (there are many factors affecting).

Going through the article:

15 What are valuable trees? I guess you are mainly talking about furniture/building? Wood is used for so much more. Please be clearer.

50-57 precious, precious, precious and precious… Use other words and be clear what you mean by “precious”. For whom?

59 ff: very depending on end use…

83-87 I do not really understand this.

90 What do you mean by set?

Results: Do you have any ideas if the obtained values are extreme?

229 Arrange pictures in a way that the related species are next to each other.

231 ff: Not many news, sorry

259: Explain how you can rank species. This must be done with a specific end-use in mind.

Discussion: Too many known conclusions. The material is to little to draw conclusions about the different species.

I am not sure about the statement on row 384.

I recommend major revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It needs to be clarified how vital the work is and how it adds to existing scientific knowledge. Authors need to highlight what is innovative about the work and why it should be published as a scientific article in a journal.

REVIEW OF PAPER: Evaluation of wood anatomical properties from 18 tree species in the subtropical region of China

MANUSCRIPT ID: forests-2682413

JOURNAL: Forests

ABSTRACT

It needs to be clear what the fundamental objective of the work is. The authors quickly introduce the summary of wood from China, which I see no need for. They must pay direct attention to the work's central theme – the anatomical characterization of timber.

INTRODUCTION

Of the three paragraphs that comprise the introduction, only one (the last one talks about wood anatomy). The first two talk about generalities that everyone already knows and have little influence on improving the quality of work. I suggest deleting the first two paragraphs and improving the focus given to anatomy in this item.

MATERIAL AND METHODOS

Why do the species studied have different ages? Age is a significant influencer of wood anatomy, especially the thickness of the cell wall. What is the point of comparing species with entirely different ages? Why the variation in the number of individuals evaluated? Could this not have a direct influence on your results?

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Merge Tables 2 and 3 into a single table. Why are anatomical images presented only in the transverse section – X (Figure 1)? Weren't images taken for the tangential (T) and radial (R) planes? If it has not been done, such information needs to be added to the work, given its unquestionable importance. The anatomical characterization of wood in its various senses is a practice of wood anatomists.

For anatomical images, separate an entire page so that the reader has greater clarity when analyzing the data. I did not understand the fundamental importance of Table 5 (correction analysis between the anatomical variables evaluated). These are different species with different ages and different numbers of individuals.

Furthermore, many of these parameters are already undeniably well correlated. For example, it is nothing new that the proportion of vessels and the proportion of fibers are inversely proportional, and their good correlation is nothing new (it would be bizarre if you did not find this result). This also applies to other parameters.

CONCLUSION

At the beginning of the conclusions, the authors repeat the work's objective, which is unnecessary (must deleted section). Directly present the findings observed in the work.

FINAL ANALYSIS

It needs to be clarified how vital the work is and how it adds to existing scientific knowledge. Authors need to highlight what is innovative about the work and why it should be published as a scientific article in a journal. The work does not bring any relevant news. This study describes the anatomical characterization of the wood of some forest species. It could be published as a "short communication" but not as a "scientific article."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made most of the requested corrections. The work is improved.