Characterization of Anatomical and Non-Anatomical Properties for the Identification of Six Commercial Wood Species from Vietnamese Plantation Forests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Despite improving the text of the work and adding a goal, the article still needs to bring something new to the area of wood science. The tissue characterised does not differ significantly from the wood described in the publications you cited. Selected wood species seem common, and you have several publications about them in your bibliography. In addition, many of them concern wood obtained from Vietnam.

A fascinating work, well planned, and well described in the anatomy of wood. The changes made refrain from introducing new elements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments to improve the manuscript. We revised and reconstructed it very carefully according to your valuable comments. We attached our response in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I appreciate the effort that the authors put to answer the revision but unfortunately I still can’t recommend the paper for publication.

I understand that the authors stress that although dealing with species already described in other references, the origin of the samples differs from the one of the specimens already described in the available literature. However, the results show that the specimens they describe do not show a significant difference from the already available descriptions. Therefore, the paper doesn’t present any novelty in the field. In particular, the identification key that they present to tell apart the six described species doesn’t add anything to the existing knowledge, since their separation is already possible with the previous literature.

This study would represent a novel contribution if it would explore the possibility of distinguishing each of the described species from the other congeneric ones from Vietnam, so that if, for example, my laboratory receives an Acacia sample from Vietnam I can use the study to determine which species (or group of species) among the different Acacia spp. (sensu latu) growing in Vietnam the specimen belongs to.

I, therefore, suggest enhancing the research in this direction. For the six encompassed species, the study should contain a list of the congeneric species that grow (native, introduced, cultivated) in Vietnam, their description, and an identification key.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments to improve the manuscript. We revised and reconstructed it very carefully according to your valuable comments. We attached our response in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

orests-2206731

What is la information about no anatomical properties

L17 any information about non-anatomical characteristics

L32 the key words is not appropriate. The name of species can be removed and best words can be added.

below reference about acacia can be added.

 https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules17043639

Kiln drying of Acacia mangium wood: colour, shrinkage, warp, split and check in lumber before and after drying. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 24 (1): 125-139

L73 the objective is limited

 L76 what is la information about not anatomical characteristics

L84 More information about cross-section must be added. For example tr

Tree height

L94  “Specimens were prepared from four directions of the near bark of wood discs·” more specify information must be added.

L1409 in English

L436 What are the implications of results? Information about applicability must be added.

Conclusions

This section is not a summary of results and must be derived from objective, then lines L437-453 these lines can be removed.

L460-463 this is conclusion, then these lines can be explored.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments to improve the manuscript. We revised and reconstructed it very carefully according to your valuable comments. We attached our response in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Review manuscript forests-2206731

I am writing about the manuscript forests-2206731 “Characterization of Anatomical and Non-anatomical Properties for the Identification of Six Commercial Wood Species from Vietnamese Plantation Forests”.

The authors analysed wood species Acacia mangium, Acacia hybrid, Dillenia pentagyna, Anacardium occidentale, Hevea brasiliensis, and Melaleuca cajuputi according to International Association of Wood Anatomists (IAWA) list.

The study is well done and the manuscript requires small improvements concerning the bulk citation, that should be optimized by including keywords for each specific source.

At page 2, lines 46-53 the utilization of wood species should be displayed depending on importance, considering “fuel wood” as last option (if not, the authors should indicate it).

Therefore I recommend the publication of this manuscript after minor revision.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments to improve the manuscript. We revised and reconstructed it very carefully according to your valuable comments. We attached our response in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Thank you very much for considering the comments and making all the corrections.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors made slight changes to highlight the novelty of their work better, which in my opinion is still the weakness of the paper. On the other hand, the paper is well crafted both in structure and exposure. Therefore, my only concern is that the paper adds very little to the existing knowledge, but apart from this I don't have other remarks.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I would like to congratulate the authors for having responded to the observations of this reviewer, made the corresponding changes, and given the appropriate responses to the observations. Then the article can be published as it is presented.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work is a classic wood anatomy study that describes the anatomical and non-anatomical characters of six mostly non-native Vietnamese wood species of commercial importance. The study is mostly methodologically correct and well-executed.

However, as regards Dillenia, the described species are not stated. The term Dillenia spp. means that unknown species belonging to the genus Dillenia (which counts 60 different species) have been used for the description. This is not methodologically correct for this type of study.

Also, the novelty of the study is not clear in its current state. In fact, all six described species have been already described by one or more other studies, several of which are cited by the authors, and results are consistent with previous literature findings, with very few minor exceptions.

The context and impact of the study are not clear as well. Most of the described species are well-known non-native ones, widely planted throughout the world (information that is only partially provided). Consequently, it is debatable why precisely these 6 species should have been selected out of many other Vietnamese commercial timber species for which there is not as much (or not at all) literature and information. Moreover, with the exception of Acacia mangium and Acacia hybrid, which anyway are already covered by “Savero, A.M.; Kim, J.H.; Purusatama, B.D.; Prasetia, D.; Park, S.H.; Kim, N.H. A comparative study on the anatomical 519 characteristics of Acacia mangium and Acacia hybrid grown in Vietnam. Forests. 2022, 13, 1700”, their anatomical distinction doesn’t pose a problem since they are already known by the existing literature to be easily separable. This contrasts with the aim of the study stated in the introduction, i.e. “constructing their identification keys”, since the information to do so is already available.

This kind of study would be impactful if either focusing on difficult-to-separate species, or proposing a new technique for their identification, or encompassing Vietnamese commercial timber species not yet described.

Given all the previous considerations and the paper's conclusion “In conclusion, the six wood species from Vietnam exhibited distinctive differences in anatomical and non-anatomical characteristics”, unfortunately, the study in my opinion doesn’t add any new information to the previous knowledge and therefore I don’t think it worth publication on this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Fascinating article. The contribution of work and analysis is significant. However, why was it decided to deal with this topic? A good reason would be that these species need to be better understood and undescribed. However, in analysing the results, the obtained results referred to many literature items describing these wood species. In the analysis of the results, for example, the vessels' diameters or the fibres' lengths were compared with the results of other authors. So what is the aspect of innovation in this research?

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript ‘Characterization of Anatomical and Non-anatomical Properties  for the Identification of Six Vietnamese Commercial Wood Species’ was submitted for the probable publication in the journal Forests. Submitted research work deals with systematic anatomical features. A comprehensive anatomical study was performed with interesting results. However, the results are not sufficiently new to justify publication in an international journal like Forests. For instance, authors described the wood anatomy of six wood species, but anatomical characteristics of those species are already well documented in the wood anatomical literature. Could be interesting to see differences among different species in same genus grown in particular habitat or same species in different height location and so on.