Structure and Ecosystem Services of Three Common Urban Tree Species in an Arid Climate City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “ Structure and Ecosystem Services of Three Common Urban Tree Species in an Arid Climate City” explores the relationships between easy-to-measure tree size parameters (dbh, age) and other tree dimensions (canopy size, density) in an area with still little information on the urban tree composition, the arid cities. The authors also calculate ecosystem services (carbon stock and shading potential) of the three study species and compare both the tree dimensions and ecosystem services across the species, tree growth sites and age groups. Based on a large number of measured individuals across a large area of the study city, the results help to understand some of the allometric relationships of the study species and quantify their potential ecosystem services.

I found the concentration of the study on the relatively unexplored areas (the arid cities) very important and was particularly interested in the tree grouping that allowed comparing tree attributes between different types of growth environments (street, public space, parking..). The sampling between the types of growth sites was not balanced, but this is often an underlying difficulty in urban forests – not all species are found in all kinds of sites. The manuscript was overall easy to follow, except for parts of the methods (detailed below) that would need to be reworked to assure that the reader can fully follow what was done. The tables and figures were also mainly very clear and included the necessary details.

Below, I raise my main concerns within the manuscript that would in my opinion need to be addressed in order for the manuscript to be publishable. Below the three main points, there is a list of more specific suggestions and questions with corresponding line numbers of the manuscript. I make many points but some are just small details.

1.      The ecosystem services discussed in the manuscript are to my understanding calculated based on the measured tree size parameters, including, for example, dbh, tree height, and some canopy parameters. This is how it is often done and there is no problem with it. However, after that, the manuscript explores the relations between the tree size parameters and the calculated ecosystem services, which does not give any valuable information since the estimate of the ecosystem services is inherently not independent from the explanatory variables. I’m not fully against building the models per se, as simplified allometric equations for the practitioner (as alluded to in lines 552-553). BUT this analysis cannot be used to study the actual relations between the tree size parameters and the ecosystem services (as seems to be done on lines 624-628) because it is like explaining the taste of a banana smoothie with the taste of a banana that was the main ingredient.

2.     There was an effort to tie the clearly stated and separated hypotheses to the methods and statistical methods used, but there were still a lot of inconsistencies. For example, the methods section refers to hypothesis H5 which was not introduced in the introduction. In addition, the hypothesis, the statistical analysis that was described in the methods section and the actual results did not correspond to each other in content. Consider really clarifying which question is answered in which statistical test, and making sure that the explanations in the methods correspond to the results presented.

3.      On top of the hypotheses – methods – results inconsistencies, the manuscript seemed unfinished in formatting (e.g. how equations were given varied between table legends, subscript was used in abbreviation sometimes but not always) and was inconsistent with the terms used for one thing, which made it harder to follow. Pay attention to always using the same exact (and the most descriptive, so when talking about the size of the tree pit, say “tree pit size” or “tree pit surface area” rather than “tree pit”).  

Abstract:

Generally, it would be nice for the reader if you include some words on the motivation for the study in the first lines of the abstract.

Line 30, and elsewhere: Carbon fixation is generally understood as a flux, so a function of time (kg C tree^-1 year^-1) . What you present is rather the carbon stock in the trees (kg C tree^-1).

Introduction:

General comment: Cut the text into paragraphs! It seems like a potential formatting error when transferring the text to the pdf format. One page should be divided to ~ 3-5 paragraphs and not be a wall of text (see eg. page 2)

The introduction is thorough about tree in cities, which is good and useful information. However, you could consider concentrating more on the parts that directly lead to study questions (the tree size and allometry parts) and shortening a bit the parts that are not directly linked to the study questions (for example, where you discuss the climate change effects on urban tree growth (e.g. lines 69-80)).

Line 40-41: a myriad of benefits

Lines 47-49: this is a bit of repetition on things that have already been brought up (aesthetic value, cooling by evaporation and transpiration)

Line 51: 2-4 C compared to surrounding rural areas or compared to what?

Line 53-55: repetition of the beginning of introduction

Line 57-60: verb seems to be missing in this sentence

Line 95: “acclimate” rather than “adapt”. Adaptation happens through evolution or epigenetics that normally don’t play a role in urban setting where the trees are planted

Lines 127-130: I think this is a super interesting and new question that you bring up here, and potentially important for making exactly the allometric models and ecosystem services assessments that you mention earlier.

Hypothesis H1 and H2: in the way these hypotheses are formatted here, I don’t quite understand why they are two questions, rather than one big question or three questions. They both examine the correlations between tree attributes, and in the analysis, you seem to compare the other attributes to either DBH, age or LAI. Maybe format the presentation of these hypotheses either to show more clearly how the H1 and H2 are two separate ones, or by putting them all together or by separating them into three?

H3: In this hypothesis you mention age again, which was already looked at in the H2? What specifically the age is used for in this hypothesis?

 

Methods:

Line 150: I think it would be interesting to know how these transects were chosen (to give a city edge - city centre urbanisation gradient?), and how the sampling sites along the transects were chosen. Not necessarily a long explanation, just a phrase or two.

Fig 1. In the PDF version that I got the image quality is not good enough to read the legends.

Line 160: Does this mean that the trees were first selected and sampled and then classified into site categories? This partly explains why there is such uneven distribution of sampled tree per site category (Table 1).

Line 164-166: Did you have any limits or guidelines in the tree selection as to their size or age?

Line 170: this is an impressive number of trees and a big work - congrats!

Lines 181-182: Would you have numbers on the share of these tree species on the total tree number of the city?

Line 188: what do you mean with “distinctive species”?

Line 196: Out of curiosity, why was the palm chosen as a study species (just asking because it seems a bit tricky to compare it with the trees)? It’s local importance?  

Section 2.4. Especially here make sure you always use the same words for the same things

Line 206-208: this sentence is not entirely clear – did you measure something else than DBH by measuring tape?

Line 210: crown extension = crown radii (towards the 8 directions)? Tree pit = the surface area of the tree pit opening?

Line 220: the reduction factor was used to calculate crown volume?

Line 237: this equation seems to assume that the result is the mass of carbon in the tree, but are the bma and bmb calculated in terms of carbon mass or in terms of biomass? At least the stem calculation (eq on line 247) seems to calculate the stem biomass and not the carbon mass in stem. Then in the calculations for P. dactylifera it seems that the units were swapped into Kg C in the end.  Make sure that it is clear from the beginning which units you are using, for example by adding the units with the parameters of each equation.

Line 238: aboveground biomass and belowground biomass, I suppose?

Line 246 & 250: do these parameters come from the ref 80, or how did you obtain them?

Lines 260-281: I see that there has been an effort to make this part clear with all the steps written out. However, it is still hard to follow through. It would help to add the units for each variable, and consistently using subscript to annotate for example fresh weight or the tree part in question.

Lines 284-285: How was the shading area for a given hour calculated from cl and cd?

Line 295: this calculation overestimates the tree’s current increment (the diameter increment is generally higher when the tree is young and slows down with maturity), so comparing these values between trees of different age classes is not ideal.

Lines 299-316: it would be helpful for the reader if you could shortly restate the hypothesis that you are testing with each statistical analysis, so that they don’t need to go all the way up to remind themselves

Line 304-305: why the equations were different for these hypotheses? Was eq 17 actually used in some analysis presented in the results? In table 3, which, if I understand, should answer hypothesis H1, the equation is Eq 18.

Lines 309-311: I don’t think you used Tukey’s test to analyse the tree pit effects on tree dimensions or ecosystem services?

Line 312: This is the first time you mention hypothesis H5, it was not listed with the others in the beginning

Line 316: As stated above in the main points, the usefulness of this analysis is unclear to me.   

 

Results

Table 2: I would also add the explanations for abbreviations h, cd and cv in the table legend (also in the other tables). Is the unit for CPA m² or m³?

Line 340: Normally it is easier for the reader if the references to tables and subfigures are directly after the mention in the text.

Figure 2: the bottom right figure is not the right figure, but a repetition of the bottom middle. Also, add in the legend where the lines come from (your OLS regression fits?). In the hypothesis, you mention testing the relationship between crown projection area, crown volume and dbh, but in the text, table 2 and in this figure you show the crown diameter and no crown projection area.

Line 363: The first phrase seems out of place here

Lines 367-368: move the “R2=0.61” after “age to dbh” because that’s the relation it is connected to

Table 4: Use the same annotation for the equation thought the paper (this differs from the one in table 3).

Line 380: In H2 you also mentioned testing age – LAI relationship, was this not tested in the end or did I just miss it?

Table 6: I think this in itself is an interesting comparison and result about the site type effects on the structural parameters! A few notes from these results regarding the analysis and discussion in the next parts of the manuscript: 1. because the tree ages and tree sizes clearly vary between the sites for D. regia, in the further, you won’t be able to separate the tree age / size effect from the site effect when looking for example at the ecosystem services (see Table 12). 2. it does not seem very useful to compare the ecosystem services between the species (see fig 4), especially the two others to P. dactylifera, because the trees are not in corresponding age and size brackets, so you won’t be able to separate that effect.

Table 7: Could you give the mean and SE for the tree pit sizes per species, or even per species per growth site? This would be interesting information and comparison for others that are looking at the tree pit size or tree pit opening size effects on urban trees. You could also consider adding a scatter plot (like Fig 2) at least on the significant relations between the tree pit size and tree size and structural parameters. If you don’t want to add it in the main text, maybe in the supplementary material.

Line 451: this is the first time a “plot” is mentioned, it should have been included in the explanation in methods section

Line 501: “was not significantly different between age categories” rather than “was not significant among age categories”

Table 11: This is an interesting result that P. datylifera shade area would be smaller for older trees – do you have any explanation for this? Also in Table 2 the cd, CPA and cv is smaller for older trees. Are trees of this species at > 80 years already starting to senescence and loose canopy? I am not familiar with this species and just find this curious and interesting.

Line 522-523: “the main effects of plant growth site for D. regia on carbon fixation were significant” because the trees in public space were significantly larger (and a bit older) as seen in table 6

 Line 524-526: something is missing from this sentence

 

Discussion:

General comment: Like in introduction, the paragraphs are often too long. For example, section 4.1. needs to be separated into 2-3 paragraphs

Line 551-552: in which way the results of this study inform on the tree ability to acclimate (not adapt) ? Could you elaborate more on that because just from the results it’s not clear.

Line 572-574: could you quickly summarise why is that?

Line 581-583: yes this is a really good point – allometries probably have limited ability to predict the crown volume if the tree canopies are regularly altered

Lines 599-600: is this contrasting with the results of Coombes et al. mentioned a few lines above?

I liked your analysis on the differences between site types and was expecting a bit of discussion on why you saw the specific differences in the structural parameters and in the ecosystem services that you saw. Could you elaborate on that just a little? For example, for F. nitida there were important differences in canopy diameter and volume between parking lot and street trees, so that they were larger in the street. Is that because overall the trees were a bit larger? Or for whatever reason the conditions were more suitable for bigger canopy on the street?

Line 611: negative and positive correlations between LAI and which variable(s) specifically?

669-671: this is repetition from earlier

Conclusion:

680 -681: this is the first time you mention a process-based growth model, and I’m not sure what you are referring to?

681-682: “that tree dimensions for F. nitida and D. regia can be predicted from stem tree dimensions”. Maybe be a bit more specific which tree dimensions could be predicted from the stem dimensions. Now if this is read quickly it sound like “tree dimensions can be predicted from tree dimensions” although surely this is not what you wish to communicate.

 683: “D. regia, F. nitida, and P. dactylifera have higher shading potential and carbon fixation respectively” consider rewording this, now it is not clear what you mean. Do you wish to say that this is the order in which these species have carbon stock and shading potential?

The very important point that they study makes is that it was done in an arid city where research is still missing. How would you describe the differences between your results and similar studies in other climates? How well the results from other climates could be applied in arid, and what are the most important differences?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

 

Dear Reviewer#1,

We thank you very much for your insightful suggestions and valuable guidance on our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. Below we describe how we have addressed your comments to improve the manuscript:

The manuscript “ Structure and Ecosystem Services of Three Common Urban Tree Species in an Arid Climate City” explores the relationships between easy-to-measure tree size parameters (dbh, age) and other tree dimensions (canopy size, density) in an area with still little information on the urban tree composition, the arid cities. The authors also calculate ecosystem services (carbon stock and shading potential) of the three study species and compare both the tree dimensions and ecosystem services across the species, tree growth sites and age groups. Based on a large number of measured individuals across a large area of the study city, the results help to understand some of the allometric relationships of the study species and quantify their potential ecosystem services. I found the concentration of the study on the relatively unexplored areas (the arid cities) very important and was particularly interested in the tree grouping that allowed comparing tree attributes between different types of growth environments (street, public space, parking..).

Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated. We have taken your helpful comments into consideration and made various changes, including rephrasing, deletion, and addition of content based on your recommendations and suggestions. As you mentioned, you can find the specific details in the separate comments provided.

The sampling between the types of growth sites was not balanced, but this is often an underlying difficulty in urban forests – not all species are found in all kinds of sites.

Thank you for your note it highlights one of the limitations of our sampled process.

The manuscript was overall easy to follow,  except for parts of the methods (detailed below) that would need to be reworked to assure that the reader can fully follow what was done.

Many thanks , based on your recommendation we reworked on all parts of the method  started from L 154 regarding transect, L162 ‘Categorization  of trees based on sites .add L164, L168-171, L174, L 201,  L ( 216 ) regarding subtitle 2.1-  measured tree variables L 218 ; L 222-L225, L 248  2.5.2- regarding to  Ecosystem services  calculation . All equations have been revised, and we have removed the reference to below ground carbon storage. We have introduced a new term "biomasses" and changed "carbon fixation" to "above ground carbon storage biomass" Lines  251-258,  and Lines  271-293 . Regarding the statistical analysis  we revised and restate the hypothesis to make it more helpful for the reader

See L315-338.

The tables and figures were also mainly very clear and included the necessary details

Thank for you , kindly let inform you that revised the table  2, Table 3 table 4, table 5, table 6 and table 7  and Figure 2  ,Figure 4 , based on your recommendation

 

Below, I raise my main concerns within the manuscript that would in my opinion need to be addressed in order for the manuscript to be publishable. Below the three main points, there is a list of more specific suggestions and questions with corresponding line numbers of the manuscript. I make many points but some are just small details.

We have taken your feedback into consideration and have reworked the hypotheses, methodology, and results sections to address these issues. We have made sure that each question is clearly answered by the appropriate statistical test and have provided more detailed explanations to ensure that the methods correspond to the results presented.We hope that the revisions we have made based on your suggestions and recommendations will address your concerns and improve the quality of our work.

The ecosystem services discussed in the manuscript are to my understanding calculated based on the measured tree size parameters, including, for example, dbh, tree height, and some canopy parameters. This is how it is often done and there is no problem with it. However, after that, the manuscript explores the relations between the tree size parameters and the calculated ecosystem services, which does not give any valuable information since the estimate of the ecosystem services is inherently not independent from the explanatory variables. I’m not fully against building the models per se, as simplified allometric equations for the practitioner (as alluded to in lines 552-553). BUT this analysis cannot be used to study the actual relations between the tree size parameters and the ecosystem services (as seems to be done on lines 624-628) because it is like explaining the taste of a banana smoothie with the taste of a banana that was the main ingredient.

We understand your confusion. Practitioners can estimate ecosystem services such as carbon storage by utilizing easily measured variables of the tree structure, i.e dbh  TH , which simplifies the  estimation process for them (e.g., carbon storage).’

There was an effort to tie the clearly stated and separated hypotheses to the methods and statistical methods used, but there were still a lot of inconsistencies. For example, the methods section refers to hypothesis H5 which was not introduced in the introduction. In addition, the hypothesis, the statistical analysis that was described in the methods section and the actual results did not correspond to each other in content. Consider really clarifying which question is answered in which statistical test, and making sure that the explanations in the methods correspond to the results presented.

Based on your suggestion we revised and rewrite the research hypothesis to

(H1) For each of the tree species Delonix regia, Ficus nitida and Phoenix dactylifera, significant different relationships exist in terms of

1. a) Tree height and crown dimensions with diameter at breast height (dbh, independent parameter)
2. b) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree age (independent parameter)
3. c) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with leaf area index (LAI, independent parameter))
4. d) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree pit surface area (independent parameter)

(H2) Tree plant urban location has a significant influence on tree structural (tree height, dbh , crown dimension), and ecosystem services. 

(H3) The ecosystem services of carbon storage and shading potential of the three tree species differ significantly from each other’

See L 131-145

 We have revised and added the following to make it easily readable.

‘To test (H1.a), Tree height and crown dimension are significantly dependent on dbh and (H1.b, c, d); dbh, tree height, and crown dimension are significantly de-pendent on leaf area index and tree age, correlation-regression analyses with ordinary least squares (OLS) were performed by using log-transformed data following Pretzsch et al., Stoffberg et al., and Peper et al.) [47,81,82]. Eq. 17 for H1.a, and Eq. 18 for H1.b, c, and d, respectively.’

See L 315, 321 and also

‘Through OLS regression, the response (y) is calculated from the predictor (x). When applying the models, we selected OLS instead of reduced major axis or moving average regression [85]. The second hypothesis (H2), the influences of different tree plant urban locations on tree structural and selected ecosystem services, was tested using a one-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey HSD test. In addition, it was used to test the third hypothesis (H3). The ecosystem services related to carbon storage and shade potential varied considerably among the three species. To visualize the structure variables, consider the impact on ecosystem services. A linear mixed model (LMM) with random effect was used by using the "lme4’ package in R. I.e., aboveground biomass carbon storage, shade area was used as the outcome variables, and the tree structure was used as the fixed effect, while tree pits and tree plant sites were considered random effects’

 see 325, 338

3. On top of the hypotheses – methods – results inconsistencies, the manuscript seemed unfinished in formatting (e.g. how equations were given varied between table legends, subscript was used in abbreviation sometimes but not always) and was inconsistent with the terms used for one thing, which made it harder to follow. Pay attention to always using the same exact (and the most descriptive, so when talking about the size of the tree pit, say “tree pit size” or “tree pit surface area” rather than “tree pit”).  

We also recognize the importance of using the most descriptive terminology to enhance clarity and comprehension. We have made an effort to use the most appropriate and descriptive terms, such as "tree pit surface area", to avoid any confusion or ambiguity in our manuscript. We acknowledge that there were inconsistencies in the formatting of equations and the use of abbreviations, which may have made it difficult to follow the manuscript. We have taken your feedback into consideration and have reworked the manuscript to ensure consistent formatting of equations and the use of the same abbreviations throughout the document.

 

Abstract :

Generally, it would be nice for the reader if you included some words on the motivation for the study in the first lines of the abstract. Line 30, and elsewhere: Carbon fixation is generally understood as a flux, so a function of time (kg C tree^-1 year^-1) . What you present is rather the carbon stock in the trees (kg C tree^-1).

We have  revised the Abstract and added the following study motivation in the abstract.

‘Urban forests play a critical role in improving the quality of life in cities, but in arid environments, little is known about the potential benefits and growth conditions of different tree species. Our study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the relationships between tree dimensions, biomass carbon storage, and shading potential in three common urban trees in the arid city of Jericho-Palestine.’

See L 21-25 We have changed ‘carbon fixation’ to ‘carbon storage (Kg C ).

See L 33 , and elsewhere  in the manuscript

 

Introduction

 

General comment: Cut the text into paragraphs! It seems like a potential formatting error when transferring the text to the pdf format. One page should be divided to ~ 3-5 paragraphs and not be a wall of text (see e.g. page 2)

Your feedback provided an opportunity to reconsider the introduction . As a result, we revised the sentences, added new ones, and removed unnecessary ones. Furthermore, we split the text into paragraphs for better organization and readability

.See L42- 144

The introduction is thorough about tree in cities, which is good and useful information. However, you could consider concentrating more on the parts that directly lead to study questions (the tree size and allometry parts) and shortening a bit the parts that are not directly linked to the study questions (for example, where you discuss the climate change effects on urban tree growth (e.g. lines 69-80))

In the revised version we have deleted the parts explaining the climate change link which is not strongly linked to our research questions. We have revised the sentences and made the following changes.

‘Urban streets, particularly in semi-arid regions, can experience a significant increase in temperature, ranging from 3-6° C compared to surrounding rural environment [10]. Semi -arid regions account for 42% of the total global land area and support approximately 38% of the global population, and are often located in developing countries [11]. The provision of tree benefits largely depends on tree growth, which can vary with a range of microenvironmental and other site-specific factors [12]. For instance, anthropogenic disturbances such as mechanical injury [13,14], low soil quality [15], sealed surfaces reducing water availability for tree roots [16], and limited rooting space [17], soil compaction [18], and reduced nutrient resources and soil aeration [19,20].

These disturbances are often location-dependent, and the risks they pose to tree vitality might can vary substantially over small areas—depending, for instance, on planting locations in parking lots, gardens, squares, or streets. Rötzer et al. [21] have found that streets, paved squares, rooftops, and  car parks limit the growth of trees, while larger gardens and public green spaces, such as parks and cemeteries, can provide ideal habitats for trees. Sanders et al. [22] demonstrate that planting space has a significant impact on tree growth, with trees planted in reduced space exhibiting reduced maximum size.’

See L 55-72

 

Line 40-41: a myriad of benefits

We have changed to ‘a myriad of benefits.’

See L 43

 

Lines 47-49: this is a bit of repetition on things that have already been brought up (aesthetic value, cooling by evaporation and transpiration)

We have revised the sentences as follows.

‘Furthermore, urban trees ameliorates the thermal environment of surroundings, and provide cooling effects through evapotranspiration and shading, thereby regulating local and regional climates [6–9].

.

See L50-53

 

Line 51: 2-4 C compared to surrounding rural areas or compared to what?

It’s compared to surrounding environment, which is added to the sentences.

Urban streets, particularly in semi-arid regions, can experience a significant increase in temperature, ranging from 3-6° C compared to surrounding rural environment [10]. Semi -arid.’

 

See L 55-57

 

Line 53-55: repetition of the beginning of introduction

We have revised the sentences as follows to make it more understandable. See below

‘The provision of tree benefits largely depends on tree growth, which can vary with a range of microenvironmental and other site-specific factors [12]. For instance, anthropogenic disturbances such as mechanical injury [13,14], low soil quality [15], sealed surfaces reducing water availability for tree roots [16], and limited rooting space [17], soil compaction [18], and reduced nutrient resources and soil aeration [19,20].

See L59-64

 

Line 57-60: verb seems to be missing in this sentence

We have revised the sentences as follows and added a verb to the sentences.

‘Example, numerous anthropogenic disturbances such as mechanical injury [12,13], low soil quality [14], sealed surfaces reducing water availability for tree roots [15]…’

 

See L62

 

Line 95: “acclimate” rather than “adapt”. Adaptation happens through evolution or epigenetics that normally don’t play a role in urban setting where the trees are planted

 

Thanks. We have changed ‘adapt’ to ‘acclimate’ based on your suggestion.

 

See L 95

 

Lines 127-130: I think this is a super interesting and new question that you bring up here, and potentially important for making exactly the allometric models and ecosystem services assessments that you mention earlier..

 

Thank you so much.

 

Hypothesis H1 and H2: in the way these hypotheses are formatted here, I don’t quite understand why they are two questions, rather than one big question or three questions. They both examine the correlations between tree attributes, and in the analysis, you seem to compare the other attributes to either DBH, age or LAI. Maybe format the presentation of these hypotheses either to show more clearly how the H1 and H2 are two separate ones, or by putting them all together or by separating them into three?

Based on your suggestion we revised and rewrite the research hypothesis to

 

(H1) For each of the tree species Delonix regia, Ficus nitida and Phoenix dactylifera, significant different relationships exist in terms of

1. a) Tree height and crown dimensions with diameter at breast height (dbh, independent parameter)
2. b) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree age (independent parameter)
3. c) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with leaf area index (LAI, independent parameter))
4. d) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree pit surface area (independent parameter)

(H2) Tree plant urban location has a significant influence on tree structural (tree height, dbh , crown dimension), and ecosystem services. 

 

(H3) The ecosystem services of carbon storage and shading potential of the three tree species differ significantly from each other’

See L 131-145

 

 

 

H3: In this hypothesis you mention age again, which was already looked at in the H2? What specifically the age is used for in this hypothesis?

Thanks for pointing out this. We have now rewritten the hypothesis as follows as mentioned above .

 

See L 131-145

 

Methods:

 

Line 150: I think it would be interesting to know how these transects were chosen (to give a city edge - city centre urbanization gradient?), and how the sampling sites along the transects were chosen. Not necessarily a long explanation, just a phrase or two.

We rephrase the sentence and add explanation of the transects and sampling sites as follows.

‘Trees were sampled by following urban transects (starting from the city Centre to the edge of the city boundary in all four cardinal directions (north, south, east, and west))’

 

See L 153-155

 

Fig 1. In the PDF version that I got the image quality is not good enough to read the legends.

The image is revised to make it clearer and understandable with high resolution.

 

See Fig. 1  line 153-154 p4

 

Line 160: Does this mean that the trees were first selected and sampled and then classified into site categories? This partly explains why there is such uneven distribution of sampled tree per site category (Table 1).

Yes, you are right. The trees were selected based on the distribution in the city, we tried to cover all parts of  the city, we faced several obstacles e.g. ,. some of the trees are under private ownership.

To make it clearer we have now added a sentence as follows.

‘…The selected trees were classified based on their site location and divided into four categories (due to their uneven distributions’.  In addition, subtitle ‘2.2 selection of measuring sites ‘ we have been changed it to  ‘Categorization of trees based on sites’

See L 163-168

We have add the following

We have added the following also ‘commonly available ‘

 

See L 147

 

Line 164-166: Did you have any limits or guidelines in the tree selection as to their size or age?

Thanks for your comments , we have followed  Moser 2015;Pretzsch 2015 to select the sites, trees, etc. as? Which has been explained already. By ‘and we added the following sentences ‘Young to old trees, and only healthy and vital trees were selected, as determined through visual inspection, and rated using a scale according to Roloff [58]. Trees that were heavily pruned or damaged, as well as those with low-forking branches, were excluded from the sample followed [42,57] ‘

 

See L 168-17

Line 170: this is an impressive number of trees and a big work - congrats!

Thanks.

 

Lines 181-182: Would you have numbers on the share of these tree species on the total tree number of the city?

No sorry. We were unable to find them. However, based on our survey 2020, we found that those species are the most common species in the city, especially in the street and other vital parts of the city. Which we have added to the sentence.

‘… resulting in a total of 212 commonly available trees being measured’.

 

See L 174

 

Line 188: what do you mean with “distinctive species”?

We tried to say D. regia is a unique and common tree species in arid cities as an ornamental plant.

We have changed ‘distinctive’ to ‘common’.

 

See L 1201

 

Line 196: Out of curiosity, why was the palm chosen as a study species (just asking because it seems a bit tricky to compare it with the trees)? It’s local importance?

Firstly, it is the most common species in arid cities. The palm trees have local importance, they can be an asset for arid cities, providing benefits for both the environment and the people who live there. Secondly, the species can withstand long-standing drought conditions

 

Section 2.4. Especially here make sure you always use the same words for the same things

To make it consistent we followed the same explanation and abbreviated forms. For example,  tree pit : tree pit surface area

Tree plant site: tree plant urban location  crown volume cv , etc.

 

See L 212, 213 etc.

 

Line 206-208: this sentence is not entirely clear – did you measure something else than DBH by measuring tape?

We have rewritten the sentence to make it more understandable

‘Diameter at breast height (dbh) were measured for all species using a measuring tape.’

 

See L 218-219

 

Line 210: crown extension = crown radii (towards the 8 directions)? Tree pit = the surface area of the tree pit opening?

We have revised the sentence to make it more understandable.

‘The crown radii were measured from the center of the tree trunk to the end of the longest branch, whereas the tree pit was measured starting from the center of the tree trunk up to the end of the unsealed area. Crown radii and tree pits were measured in eight intercardinal directions (N, NE,…, NW)….’

See L 222-225

 

Line 220: the reduction factor was used to calculate crown volume?

Yes, you are right.

We have added crown volume to the sentences to make it more understandable.

 ‘A crown reduction shape factor Fc = 0.5 was applied for parabola-shaped crowns of F. nitida and D. regia to calculate the crown volume.’

See line 234

 

Line 237: this equation seems to assume that the result is the mass of carbon in the tree, but are the bma and bmb calculated in terms of carbon mass or in terms of biomass?

Thanks for pointing out this.

We have added a term ‘biomass’ to the sentence to make it clearer that carbon storage was converted from biomass. For example,

‘Csa = above ground biomass carbon storage,

See L 248 and we changed for all manuscript.

 

At least the stem calculation (eq on line 247) seems to calculate the stem biomass and not the carbon mass in stem.

Yes, you are correct. It  is stem biomass carbon. Which is now changed as follows.

‘csfol = foliage biomass carbon, csbt = branches and twigs biomass  carbon, csstem = stem biomass carbon.’

 

See L252

 

Then in the calculations for P. dactylifera it seems that the units were swapped into Kg C in the end.  Make sure that it is clear from the beginning which units you are using, for example by adding the units with the parameters of each equation.

Thanks for pointing out this. We have now corrected the unit and made it uniform.

See L 271-293

 

In general, we revised all the equations based on your suggestion  please

See line 251-293

 

Line 238: aboveground biomass and belowground biomass, I suppose?

Yes, you are right. we have corrected it. And we removed the below ground biomass based on reviewer  comments

‘Csa = above ground biomass carbon storage

 

See  L 239-240

 

Line 246 & 250: do these parameters come from the ref 80, or how did you obtain them?

Yes. The parameter obtained from the  city tree model  Rötzer et al (2019)

 

See  L25

Lines 260-281: I see that there has been an effort to make this part clear with all the steps written out. However, it is still hard to follow through. It would help to add the units for each variable, and consistently using subscript to annotate for example fresh weight or the tree part in question.

Thanks. We have revised the sentences and made the necessary correction to make it more understandable.

 

See L 271-293

 

Lines 284-285: How was the shading area for a given hour calculated from cl and cd?

To make it more understandable  we have added the following sentences.

‘The City Tree model that took into consideration the crown shape was followed to calculate a tree's shade area, shade density, and shade index.. To determine the shade area, the average shade area between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on the 21st of June, the longest day in the northern hemisphere, was calculated. The shade area was calculated using the cspa formulas (crown shade projection area), with crown diameter and shade length (instead of crown length) applied. To calculate the shade length, crown length, and cotangent for the hour, the location of the sun's height was considered.’

 

See L298-305

 

Line 295: this calculation overestimates the tree’s current increment (the diameter increment is generally higher when the tree is young and slows down with maturity), so comparing these values between trees of different age classes is not ideal

We understand your confusion. We have removed the following sentences  from the manuscript

• ‘and annual dbh increment
• The annual dbh increment was calculated by dividing the mean dbh over the mean tree age
• ‘The mean annual increments of dbh for regia were 1.60 cm in one age category; those for F. nitida were 2.25 cm, 1.48 cm, and 1.56 cm in respective age categories; and those for P. dactylifera were 1.6 cm, 0.8 cm, and 0.6 cm in respective age categories. F. nitida has a markedly higher growth rate in the second age category compared to D. regia and P. dactylifera’.

 

Lines 299-316: it would be helpful for the reader if you could shortly restate the hypothesis that you are testing with each statistical analysis, so that they don’t need to go all the way up to remind themselves

We have revised and added the following  to make it easily readable.

 

‘To test (H1.a), Tree height and crown dimension are significantly dependent on dbh and (H1.b, c, d); dbh, tree height, and crown dimension are significantly de-pendent on leaf area index and tree age, correlation-regression analyses with ordinary least squares (OLS) were performed by using log-transformed data following Pretzsch et al., Stoffberg et al., and Peper et al.) [47,81,82]. Eq. 17 for H1.a, and Eq. 18 for H1.b, c, and d, respectively.’

 

See L 315, 321 and also

 

‘Through OLS regression, the response (y) is calculated from the predictor (x). When applying the models, we selected OLS instead of reduced major axis or moving average regression [85]. The second hypothesis (H2), the influences of different tree plant urban locations on tree structural and selected ecosystem services, was tested using a one-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey HSD test. In addition, it was used to test the third hypothesis (H3). The ecosystem services related to carbon storage and shade potential varied considerably among the three species. To visualize the structure variables, consider the impact on ecosystem services (e.g.,  biomass carbon storage carbon storage). A linear mixed model (LMM) with random effect was used by using the "lme4’ package in R, i.e., carbon storage, shade area was used as the outcome variables, and the tree structure was used as the fixed effect, while tree pits and tree plant sites were considered random effects (Eq. 15)’

 

 see 325, 338

 

Line 304-305: why the equations were different for these hypotheses? Was eq 17 used in some analysis presented in the results? In table 3, which, if I understand, should answer hypothesis H1, the equation is Eq 18.

Thanks for pointing out this. We have now revised the equations. Sorry it was unintentional mistakes.

  ln (y)= a+ b ×ln (x)                                    (13)

(y) = a + b × ln (x)                                        (14)

 

See L 323, 324 and caption of Table 2     

 Note We have renumber Table 3 to table 2

 

  See L 362   

                              

Lines 309-311: I don’t think you used Tukey’s test to analyse the tree pit effects on tree dimensions or ecosystem services?

Sorry for the confusion. We have now added a sentence explaining the results of post-hoc Tukey test. 

‘Letters indicate the results of post-hoc Tukey test. Different letters denote significant differences.’

 

See table 4, figure 4, table 6 , Table 7

 

Line 312: This is the first time you mention hypothesis H5, it was not listed with the others in the beginning

We have now revised the hypotheses as per your previous suggestions. 

See the above response

 

Line 316: As stated above in the main points, the usefulness of this analysis is unclear to me.   

Sorry for the confusion. We have added a sentence explaining why we used the linear mixed model.

‘Practitioners can estimate ecosystem services such as carbon storage by utilizing easily measured variables of the tree structure, i.e dbh  TH , which simplifies the  estimation process for them (e.g., carbon storage).’

 

See L339-34

Results

Table 2: I would also add the explanations for abbreviations h, cd and cv in the table legend (also in the other tables). Is the unit for CPA m² or m³?

We have added the abbreviated form with full form to make it more understandable.

‘Where n— number of samples, dbh— diameter at breast height, h-tree height cd-crown diameter, and cv-crown volume, respectively.’

 

Sorry for the mistakes. We removed the CPA parts from table 2.

 

See table 2. L362

 

 

Line 340: Normally it is easier for the reader if the references to tables and subfigures are directly after the mention in the text.

Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised the sentences now.

See L 352

 

Figure 2: the bottom right figure is not the right figure, but a repetition of the bottom middle. Also, add in the legend where the lines come from (your OLS regression fits?).

Thanks. We revised the figures and corrected them.

 

See Fig. 2i.   

 

In the hypothesis, you mention testing the relationship between crown projection area, crown volume and dbh, but in the text, table 2 and in this figure, you show the crown diameter and no crown projection area

We removed the crown projection area as we found some uncertainties

 

Line 363: The first phrase seems out of place here

We removed sentence from the text.

 

See L 369 start with ‘The relationship between dbh, tree‘

 

Lines 367-368: move the “R2=0.61” after “age to dbh” because that’s the relation it is connected to

We moved the ‘R2’ value to the end as follows.

‘…..particularly to dbh (R2 = 0.61).’

 

See L 373

 

Table 4: Use the same annotation for the equation thought the paper (this differs from the one in table 3).

Thanks. We changed ‘r2’ to ‘R2’ to make it uniform. Note that table 3  renamed to 2, table 4 renamed to table 3

 

See Table 3.  L 380

 

Line 380: In H2 you also mentioned testing age – LAI relationship, was this not tested in the end or did I just miss it?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. We revised our hypothesis now as follows which does not contain hypothesis related to ‘age vs LAI.

 

See  L 135- 138

 

Table 6: I think this is an interesting comparison and result about the site type effects on the structural parameters! A few notes from these results regarding the analysis and discussion in the next parts of the manuscript:

 

Thanks for your comments

 

1. because the tree ages and tree sizes clearly vary between the sites for D. regia, in the further, you won’t be able to separate the tree age / size effect from the site effect when looking for example at the ecosystem services (see Table 12).

For your first concern. We would like to say we wanted to generalize the effect size thus we hardly focused on the effect of tree age.

 

2. it does not seem very useful to compare the ecosystem services between the species (see fig 4), especially the two others to P. dactylifera, because the trees are not in corresponding age and size brackets, so you won’t be able to separate that effect.

Regarding your second concern, we mostly agree. However, we made comparisons to recommend potential ecosystem services species for urban plantations, which we found to be interesting for future management. Our goal is to demonstrate the environmental benefits of carbon storage and shade area based on the common species in the study area. However, we encountered several limitations. The selected species are the most common tree species in the city varied in age, size, and species type, which made it difficult to have more trees in the city due to these obstacles.

 

Table 7: Could you give the mean and SE for the tree pit sizes per species, or even per species per growth site? This would be interesting information and comparison for others that are looking at the tree pit size or tree pit opening size effects on urban trees.

Thanks for your suggestions. We have added a supplementary table .*S3*  in addition we have been added the following  sentences  ‘The mean tree pit surface of three species (F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera) in three different sites (a street, a parking lot, and a public place) along with the standard error. The statistical analyses show that the mean values of F. nitida and D. regia  are significantly different across  different sites, as indicated by the p-values of 3.93 e-06 and 0.00853, respectively. On the other hand, the mean values of P. dactylifera species do not show significant differences across the sites, as indicated by the p-value of 0.363.

 

See line 405-412

See table S3 in supplementary section ).

 

 

You could also consider adding a scatter plot (like Fig 2) at least on the significant relations between the tree pit size and tree size and structural parameters.  If you don’t want to add it in the main text, maybe in the supplementary material.

Thank  for you comment  we have  revised the result in Table 5 , it is presenting the summary results of regressions analysis tree pit surface area

 

Line 451: this is the first time a “plot” is mentioned, it should have been included in the explanation in methods section

Sorry for the confusion.

We have deleted the sentence.

 

See L 473

 

Line 501: “was not significantly different between age categories” rather than “was not significant among age categories”

We have revised and corrected based on your suggestions as follows.

‘The difference in shade density for F. nitida was not significant between age categories (p = 0.29). The above ground biomass carbon storage of P. dactylifera did not show significant differences between age categories (p = 0.11), with an average above ground biomass carbon storage ranging between 77.7 and 93 kg C. The average shade area for P. dactylifera showed a significant difference between age categories (p < 0.001), but shaded density was not significant (p = 0.33)’

 

See  L514-520.

 

Table 11: This is an interesting result that P. dactylifera shade area would be smaller for older trees – do you have any explanation for this? Also, in Table 2 the cd, CPA and cv are smaller for older trees. Are trees of this species at > 80 years already starting to senescence and loose canopy?

Thanks. We added the following potential reasons

‘ The most  potential reason could be the leaf senescence due to age.

With age, trees may lose some leaf area due to leaf senescence. Another reason could be leaf pruning each year  ‘ Which is added to the discussion.

 

See L709-712

 

I am not familiar with this species and just find this curious and interesting

Yes, you are quite right. See the above explanations.

Line 522-523: “the main effects of plant growth site for D. regia on carbon fixation were significant” because the trees in public space were significantly larger (and a bit older) as seen in table 6

We have revised the sentence

‘The main effects of plant growth site for D. regia on above ground biomass carbon storage were significant (p = 0.01) but were not significant for shaded area and shade density (p = 0.28 and p = 0.16), respectively, see table 7.’

 

See L 529-531

 

 Line 524-526: something is missing from this sentence

We have now revised the sentences as follows.

‘Similarly, the effects of plant growth site on the ecosystem services of P. dactylifera were not significant for above ground biomass carbon (p = 0.88), shaded area (p = 0.84), and shade density (p = 0.37), respectively, across different plant sites such as street trees, parking lot trees, and public place trees. Nevertheless, the effects of the plant growth site on above ground biomass carbon storage and shaded area were significant (p = 0.03) for F. nitida, but not on shade density (p = 0.76)’

 

See L 531-537

 

Discussion

 

General comment: Like in introduction, the paragraphs are often too long. For example, section 4.1. needs to be separated into 2-3 paragraphs

Thanks for your suggestions. We have now divided it into different paragraphs.

 

Line 551-552: in which way the results of this study inform on the tree ability to acclimate (not adapt) ? Could you elaborate more on that because just from the results it’s not clear.

We have added the following sentence to explain the acclimatation.

‘….ability to acclimate (by showing growth efficiency which is not native to this region for example F. nitida and D. regia).’

 

See L 572-573

 

Line 572-574: could you quickly summarize why is that?

We have added the following sentences for explaining.

‘Light availability is a critical factor that can influence the growth and development of trees. Light-demanding tree species, such as those that typically grow in open habitats, require high levels of sunlight to thrive. Specifically, these trees may allocate more resources to the production of leaves and branches, which can increase their ability to capture sunlight and produce energy. This may result in weaker stem diameter and crown volume relationships [3].’

 

See L 606-611

 

Line 581-583: yes this is a really good point – allometries probably have limited ability to predict the crown volume if the tree canopies are regularly altered

Thank you.

 

Lines 599-600: is this contrasting with the results of Coombes et al. mentioned a few lines above?

Thanks. Your comments gave us to rethink about the sentences. We therefore rephrased and add the following sentences.

‘But the results presented showed that ‘  L 645-646

 

I liked your analysis on the differences between site types and was expecting a bit of discussion on why you saw the specific differences in the structural parameters and in the ecosystem services that you saw.

 

Could you elaborate on that just a little? For example, for F. nitida there were important differences in canopy diameter and volume between parking lot and street trees, so that they were larger in the street. Is that because overall the trees were a bit larger? Or for whatever reason the conditions were more suitable for bigger canopy on the street?

Thanks. Your comments gave us to rethink about the sentences. We therefore rephrased and add the following sentences.

 

‘But the results presented showed that ‘  L 645-646

 

‘In addition, the results showed differences in F. nitida, in canopy diameter, and volume between parking lot and street trees due to tree size variations. For D. regia trees in public places, the trees vary in size as well. The trees in the public place (e.g., garden) are older than the trees in the street, but there were no significant differences in P. dactylifera at all, and the reasons behind that the overall mean of P. dactylifera tree ages in different urban locations of the city are not significantly different. Furthermore, the findings revealed of the relation between the tree pit surface area and tree structure for F. nitida and P.dactylifera  are weak but statistically significant but was  not significant in D.regia. the possible reason behind that uneven distribution  of tree samples selected e.g., 62 of D. regia are street trees were most of them has very small tree pit surface area were the story behind that even they irrigated by the above irrigation patterns the amount of  water reach the plant will be very small, especially in summertime with high evaporation rate .’

 

See L 649-6461

 

Line 611: negative and positive correlations between LAI and which variable(s) specifically?

Thanks for your comment we have rephrased the following text ‘in their research, studied the correlation between LAI values and tree variables, in Turkey, a negative correlation of black pine stand have been found e.g. (stand age, mean diameter) and positive correlation in red pin e.g. (stand age, mean diameter, top height, green tree height, and basal area). Özbayram et al. concluded that leaf area index (LAI) varies according to species [92]’

 

See line 668-672

 

669-671: this is repetition from earlier

Thanks. We have deleted the sentences.

 

Conclusion

680 -681: this is the first time you mention a process-based growth model, and I’m not sure what you are referring to?

Sorry for the confusion. We have changed it ‘process-based growth model’ to ‘city tree model’.

 

See L 744

 

681-682: “that tree dimensions for F. nitida and D. regia can be predicted from stem tree dimensions”. Maybe be a bit more specific which tree dimensions could be predicted from the stem dimensions. Now if this is read quickly it sound like “tree dimensions can be predicted from tree dimensions” although surely this is not what you wish to communicate.

We have added the variables as follows.

‘…..tree dimensions (height, crown volume, crown diameter, etc.)’.

 

See L 745-722

683: “D. regia, F. nitida, and P. dactylifera have higher shading potential and carbon fixation respectively” consider rewording this, now it is not clear what you mean. Do you wish to say that this is the order in which these species have carbon stock and shading potential?

Thanks. We have revised the sentence as follows.

 

 ‘D. regia has higher shading potential and above ground biomass carbon storage, compared to F. nitida and P. dactylifera respectively, as common urban trees in the city. The results may vary based on species and site conditions. Our results and similar research from other climates’

 

See L 756-758

 

The very important point that they study makes is that it was done in an arid city where research is still missing. How would you describe the differences between your results and similar studies in other climates? Thank you so much for your insightful comments. To add this, we have added the following explanation in the conclusions.

 

How well the results from other climates could be applied in arid.

‘Our results and similar research from other climates for example, Moser et al. 2015, did similar research in Germany (temperate region) and found strong relationships between crown and stem variables which is identical to our results except P.dactylifera . Although results can be varied based on species and sites condition. But overall patterns can be comparable. Which indicates that similar results are also applicable to other climate regions. But species functionality should be considered.’

 

See L 759-765

 

what are the most important differences?

‘The major difference we observed is a strong variation in species and site conditions which strongly influence the results ‘.

See the previous response.

 

Thank you

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Forests-2244058

 

General comments:

 

This article added an inside of urban trees in tropical environment. This is interesting and add valuable information’s for city developers. I have some general comments the authors should consider to improve the manuscript.

 

·      Age class were different for one tree species. I do not understand. Specially, when comparing the three tree species with the age class.

·      One tree species is a monocotyledon – this has to be treated in the discussion.

·      To many tables: several analyses did not reveal any interesting results – can they be removed from the manuscript? This should remove some tables.

·      The four locations of the trees (street, parc etc.) were not relevant. Suggestion: omit from the entire paper. This eliminates one table.

·      I am not convinced that the below ground biomass should be included into this analysis. This has not implication on the shading and carbon allocation in the above ground tree part. To many important measurements are missing for the below ground biomass.

·      Annual increment was calculated by dividing the diameter by age. This is in my opinion over-simplified. At least, discuss this imprecision.

 

 

Abstract

 

Several information’s are missing and on the other hand some detailed information’s are stated. Many comments are placed directly into the manuscript.

 

l.22: ecosystem services – add directly carbon fixation and shading potential

l.22: Jericho – add the country

l.24: (from young to old) – replace by the age range of your trees

l.24: replace location by urban location without enumeration

l25-26: replace this sentence by the model used in your analysis

l.27: R2=.28 – is this really a strong relationship???

l.28: R2-0.03-0.06 – I do not see a relationship here

l.28: Link between the two sentences is missing

l.34: add a statement about the tree age.

 

Introduction

 

This part is informative. The aim of the study is clearly stated.

Some comments are written directly into the manuscript.

 

Material and methods

 

l.145: add Country

l.151: figure 1 can be improved. See comments

l.160: Why not add trees in parcs or forest for comparison? Control tree are often used for comparison.

l.161 and following: As only 5 trees were taken in the square of only one tree species, I am not sure of your location. Why not regrouping public space, parking lots and square as one group and street trees as a second one?

l.168-169: I did not see this information was used in the analysis. Omit?!

l. 228 and following: To many abbreviations are used. Very difficult for the reader to follow the text.

l.249: For the belowground biomass - even by using the city tree model, information of soil and rooting depth are missing. I have difficulties to agree with this calculation.

l.295-296: I find it very disturbing the calculation of the annual dbh increment. First: what about bark thickness, second: this approach means a linear annual growth. I did not see anything about this simplification in the discussion. At a section of limitation of your analysis.

 

Results

 

l.321: finish 20 and 25 years (Table2). Omit the next sentence.

l.322-324: Why not added into table 2?

l.318-326: highlight what the reader should remember of table 2. Only the last sentence is informative.

l.327: Table 2: Why use another scale for P. dactylifera. How can you compare your values with the other two tree species?

l.335: add Figure 2 and Table 3 at the end of the sentence.

Figure 2: Use the same scale (x and y-axe) for the three tree species. It will help the reader to compare the species. Also, the figure can be improved (omit the repetition of tree height, crown diameter and crown volume for Ficus and Phoenix). The small tic-mark give no information = omit.

Table 3: Description is very long – should be shorten.

l.363 – omit sentence.

Table 4: I have difficulties with this analysis: as you used dbh and age to calculated the annual increment and this analysis clearly shows non relationship, how can you justify your premise?

l.379: Sentence should be eliminated and just table 5 added to the next sentence. Also, add a sentence of result.  what the reader show remembers of table 5. Otherwise: omit.

l.393: add: table 6 at the end of the sentence.

l.398: omit, the last part.

Table 6: Add what the abbreviation means: hcb etc.

l.411: omit last sentence and add table 7 after the first sentence.

Can you add some general information of the tree pit size?

Figure 3.1: change x-axes from 0 to 4 for the three graphs.

Figure 3.2: change x-axes from -1 to 4 for the two graphs. Omit tree height and crown diameter for b.

l.478-479: Omit. Second sentence is clearly method not result.

l.485-486: Omit.

l.488: Omit.

l.4065-496: Omit.

l.497: add Table 11.

Table 11: Why change the age class for one tree species?

l.519-521: Omit.

l.524: Add Table 12.

 

Discussion

 

l.551: their ability to adapt to resource availability - I do not see anything in regard to this in your results.

l.560: A paragraph should be added to the fact that P. dactylifera is a monocotyledon which mean no formation of a vascular cambium to have a regular secondary growth.

The missing relationship to DBH is clearly related to this fact.

l.562: I prefer to use your R2 values, because the reader is confused by moderate to strong. It is not a clear statement.

l.588-589: The other categories do not suffer from drought? You are sure?

l.592-595: Why not include the information of the irrigation system for each tree? At least, point out the limits of your study.

l.604-606: This should be removed to method part. Give the number of trees which were removed for this analysis.

l.613-617: Can you go further in your discussion. Not very interesting. For example: what does these values mean in regard to efficacity to stock carbon.

l.624-628: Sentence to long.

l.634: Is this annual value or a global one. If global, add age.

l.643: Start a new paragraph.

l.648: Ones again, can this be related to the monocotyledon status?

l.661: The type of leaves is different; can this be also a reason for the difference?

 

Conclusion

 

l.680: Change the word sites: you do not mean sites, more conditions (street trees, parc trees etc.)

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer#2,

We thank you very much for your insightful suggestions and valuable guidance on our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. Below we describe how we have addressed your comments to improve the manuscript:

 

This article added an inside of urban trees in tropical environment. This is interesting and add valuable information’s for city developers. I have some general comments the authors should consider to improve the manuscript.

 

Thank you so much for your positiveness.

 

Age class were different for one tree species. I do not understand. Specially, when comparing the three tree species with age class.

The trees were selected based on the distribution in the city, we tried to cover all parts of  the city, we faced several obstacles e.g. ,. some of the trees are under private ownership, We were unable to find them. However, based on our survey 2020, we found that those species are the most common species in the city, especially in the street and other vital parts of the city. Which we have added to the sentence.and also We tried to compare available species and size classes. However, availability of species strongly defined the size classes in our study we add the following text ‘. The limited age of trees in the city can be attributed to their recent planting and the fact that they constitute a significant proportion of the urban forest in the city ‘

See  L343-345

 

One tree species is a monocotyledon – this has to be treated in the discussion.

 

Thanks for pointing out this point.

 

To explain this, we have added the following explanation.  ‘As a monocotyledonous plant, the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) lacks the ability to form a vascular cambium, a meristem tissue that allows for secondary growth in dicotyledonous plants. The vascular cambium is responsible for the formation of new layers of xylem and phloem, which contribute to the increase in diameter of the plant's stem or trunk over time. Without the formation of a vascular cambium, the date palm does not undergo regular secondary growth and does not exhibit the characteristic increase in diameter.’

 

See L 623-629

 

To many tables: several analyses did not reveal any interesting results – can they be removed from the manuscript? This should remove some tables.

 

Thank you for your helpful comment. We have made several changes to the tables, including renumbering, and moving them as follows: Table 2 has been relocated to the supplementary section and renamed as S1, Table 3 has been renamed as Table 2, Table 4 has been renamed as Table 3, Table 6 has been renamed as Table 4, Table 7 has been renamed as Table 5. Please note that the original Table 5, which was included in the results section, has been moved to the supplementary section and renamed as S2. In addition, Table 11 has been renamed Table 6 and Table 12 has been renamed as Table 7. We have also included a new table in the supplementary section. The tables have been renumbered accordingly.

 

The four locations of the trees (street, parc etc.) were not relevant. Suggestion: omit the entire paper. This eliminates one table.

Thanks for your comments. Different locations strongly defend space availability and therefore plantations in cities. However, we wanted to show in which areas trees are performing better and therefore we would like to keep as they are. We believe this is interesting information for future references.

 

 I am not convinced that the below ground biomass should be included in this analysis. This has not implication on the shading and carbon allocation in the above ground tree part. To many important measurements are missing for the below ground biomass.

Thanks for your comment . the below ground carbon stock was omitted from the manuscript based on your  recommendation .

 

Annual increment was calculated by dividing the diameter by age. This is in my opinion over-simplified. At least, discuss this imprecision.

Thanks for your comment, we have removed the increment part in revised version to make it more understandable and clearer. It was a way to simplified the calculation for the reader.

 

Abstract 

Several information’s are missing and on the other hand some detailed information’s are stated. Many comments are placed directly into the manuscript.

Thanks.We have revised the abstract based on your recommendation and  the comments of other four reviewers as follows.

 We added the following Avstract ‘Urban forests play a critical role in improving the quality of life in cities, but in arid environments, little is known about the potential benefits and growth conditions of different tree species. Our study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the relationships between tree dimensions, biomass carbon storage, and shading potential in three common urban trees in the arid city of Jericho-Palestine, (i.e., Ficus nitida, Delonix regia, and Phoenix dactylifera). The trees were chosen according to their distribution in urban locations and tree vitality, with ages ranging from 20 to 90 years. Based on the results from tree structure measurements, the carbon storage and shading potential were calculated by City Tree Model. The results indicate a moderate to strong relationship between tree height, crown diameter, and crown volume for F. nitida and D. regia (R² = 0.28 - 0.66), but no relationship for P. dactylifera (R² = 0.03 - 0.06). The findings suggest that the analyzed tree species can considerably contribute to the potential benefits of trees in improving the climate of an arid city: D. regia shows a higher median of  above ground biomass carbon storage of 155 kg C tree^-1, while P. dactylifera 91 kg C and F. nitida 76 Kg C . D. regia and F. nitida  have a higher median  of shading potential, (31 m²- 41 m²), respectively. Information on the ecosystem services from urban trees and their relationships in terms of species, age and tree planting urban location are very important for city planners, in relation to sustainable urban green spaces in arid cities ‘.

See the abstract.

 See  L 21-37

l.22: ecosystem services – directly add carbon fixation and shading potential

 

We have changed  the ecosystem services to

 

‘carbon storage and shade potential’

 

See L 24 , L 33

 

l.22: Jericho – add the country

  thanks for your comments, we have added the country  to abstract

as the following

 ‘Jericho-Palestine ‘

 See L 25 ,  149 , 192

 

l.24: (from young to old) – replace by the age range

 of your trees

We have changed the  sentences from young to old to the following age range ‘range (20 - 90) years’

 

See L 27

 

l.24: replace location by urban location without enumeration,

 

We have removed the location enumeration, and we have added the word

‘ urban’

 We have changed to the whole manuscript as ‘ urban tree location ‘

See L  26

 

l25-26: replace this sentence by the model used in

your analysis

Thanks for your suggestion , we replaced the sentence

‘Based on the results from tree structure measurements, the carbon storage and shading potential were calculated by city tree model.’.

 

See L 27-28

 

l.27: R2=.28 – is this really a strong relationship???

we have changed the following word to the text  ‘moderate to strong ‘ to make it clearer and more understandable

 See L 29

28: R2-0.03-0.06 – I do not see a relationship here

Yes ,  you are right and sorry for that , we have  changed it to the following ‘no relationship’

 

See L 30

 

l.28: Link between the two sentences is missing

Thank you , we rephrase the sentences to make it more understandable as the following text :’ The findings suggest that the analyzed tree species can considerably contribute to the potential benefits of trees in improving the climate of an arid city’ 

please see L 31-32

 

l.34: Add a statement about the tree age.

 

Thanks for your comments, we have added the tree ages

‘ages ranging from 20 to 90 years’.

 

please see L 27

 

Introduction

This part is informative. The aim of the study is clearly stated.

Some comments are written directly into the manuscript.

I sincerely appreciate your positiveness. Revision has been made accordingly

 

See L 41-145

 

Material and methods

l.145: add Country

Thanks  , we have  added the following sentences

‘Jericho, located in the eastern part of the West Bank -Palestine’

see L 149

 

l.151: figure 1 can be improved. See comments

The figure is revised to make it clearer and understandable with high resolution.

 

See Figure 1 

l.160: Why not add trees in parcs or forest for comparison? Control trees are often used for comparison.

We agree that control trees are often used for comparison in studies, but in our case, we focused on selecting trees from all parts of the city to provide a comprehensive view of the urban tree population. Additionally, we did not have forests  within our study site, so we selected the best trees from all parts of the city to represent the urban tree population. We categorized the trees based on their location to ensure that our selection was representative of the city's diverse environmental conditions.

 

l.161 and following: As only 5 trees were taken in the square of only one tree species, I am not sure of your location. Why not regrouping public space, parking lots and square as one group and street trees as a second one?

We tried to cover all areas of the urban location in our study, by selecting trees based on the general tree vitality situation, availability then categorizing the trees according to their specific urban site. Our research was conducted on the main square, a crucial public site located at the center of the city. Public spaces such as gardens and parks are distinct from parking lots, making it challenging to classify them in the same category. For those reasons, we have uneven distributions of trees in different urban locations.

 

See sections 2.2.

 

l.168-169: I did not see this information was used in the analysis. Omit?!

Thanks for your comment, we have been removed the following sentences from the text.

‘Where tree vitality ranges from 0 (very good) to 3 (very poor).’

1. 228 and following: To many abbreviations are used. Very difficult for the reader to follow the text.

Thanks for your comment we changed from ‘LAI and ecosystem services’ to ‘leaf area index (LAI) and ecosystem services’. and other abbreviation was changed as well ,  based on your recommendation   and other  revewiers we reworked on all parts of the method  started from L 154 regarding transect, L162 ‘Categorization  of trees based on sites .add L164, L168-171, L174, L 201,  L ( 216 ) regarding subtitle 2.1-  measured tree variables L 218 ; L 222-L225, L 248  2.5.2- regarding to Ecosystem services  calculation . All equations have been revised, and we have removed the reference to below ground carbon storage. We have introduced a new term "biomasses" and changed "carbon fixation" to "above ground carbon storage biomass" Lines  251-258,  and Lines  271-293 . Regarding the statistical analysis  we revised and restate the hypothesis to make it more helpful for the reader

See L 237-338

 

l.249: For the belowground biomass - even by using the city tree model, information of soil and rooting depth are missing. I have difficulties to agree with this calculation.

Thanks.  Based on zour comment, the below ground biomass has been removed from the manuscript.

 

l.295-296: I find it very disturbing the calculation of the annual dbh increment. First: what about bark thickness, second: this approach means a linear annual growth. I did not see anything about this simplification in the discussion. At a section of limitation of your analysis.

We understand your confusion. We have removed the following sentences from the manuscript

‘and annual dbh increment’

 ‘The annual dbh increment was calculated by dividing the mean dbh over the mean tree age ‘

‘ The mean annual increments of dbh for D. regia were 1.60 cm in one age category; those for F. nitida were 2.25 cm, 1.48 cm, and 1.56 cm in respective age categories; and those for P. dactylifera were 1.6 cm, 0.8 cm, and 0.6 cm in respective age categories. F. nitida has a markedly higher growth rate in the second age category compared to D. regia and P. dactylifera’.

 

 

 

 

Results

 

l.321: finish 20 and 25 years (Table2). Omit the next sentence.

 

We have removed the stated sentence ; in addition we have  moved table 2 to suplimantry section and we renamed the table as  table S1. We added the following text in order to  be clearer and understandable  for the reader about the ages class ‘Table S1 provides valuable information on the characteristics of three tree species, including their age, dbh and crown dimension. The data highlights significant variations in these characteristics both between species and within age categories, providing useful insights for researchers and practitioners in forestry and related fields. The limited age of trees in the city can be attributed to their recent planting and the fact that they constitute a significant proportion of the urban forest in the city.’

 

See L 346-350

 

l.322-324: Why not added into table 2?

We removed the sentences from the manuscripts a according to reviewers suggestions. we have  moved table 2 to suplimantry section and we renamed the table as table S1 in sumplimantray section.

 

l.318-326: highlight what the reader should remember of table 2. Only the last sentence is informative.

 

 ‘ Table S1, provide valuable information on the characteristics of three tree species, including their age, dbh and crown dimensions. The data highlights significant variations in these characteristics both between species and within age categories, providing useful insights for researchers and practitioners in forestry and related fields.’

 

See L 346-350

 

l.327: Table 2: Why use another scale for P. dactylifera.  How can you compare your values with the other two tree species?

 

Thanks for your comment, we have changed the scale to make it clearer.

 

See Table S1  in the supplementary, table 6

l.335: add Figure 2 and Table 3 at the end of the sentence.

Thanks for your comments we have added Fig. 2 and Table2 as per your suggestions.

 

See L 352

 

Figure 2: Use the same scale (x and y-axe) for the three tree species. It will help the reader to compare the species. Also, the figure can be improved (omit the repetition of tree height, crown diameter and crown volume for Ficus and Phoenix). The small tic-mark gives no information = omit.

Thanks for your comments. we have changed the figure scales and we improved it by omitting the repetition of tree height, crown diameter and crown volume for Ficus and Phoenix and omit the small tic-mark.

See Figure 2

Table 3: Description is very long – should be shortened.

 

  Thank you very much, we have renamed table 3 to table 2, we  shortened the description as follows.

 ‘Table 2. Results of linear regression analyses using dbh as a predictor variable and h, cd, and cv as response variables. The equation used was ln(y) = a + b ln(x). The abbreviations used were, a and b for regression coefficients, T for T-test value, P for P-value (with levels of significance indicated by symbols such as ***, **, *), R² for coefficient of determination, F for F-test value, and df for degree of freedom and standard error (SE).’

 

See L 376-380

 

l.363 – omit sentence.

We removed the sentence from the text.

 

Table 4: I have difficulties with this analysis: as you used dbh and age to calculate the annual increment and this analysis clearly shows non relationship, how can you justify your premise?

Thanks for your valuable comments. We removed the calculation related to annual increment .

 

l.379: Sentence should be eliminated and just table 5 added to the next sentence. Also, add a sentence of result.  what the reader shows remembers table 5. Otherwise: omit.

Thanks , we have revised the text and included the table and rephrase with some sentences as the following

‘Linear regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between leaf area index (LAI) and the variables dbh, h, cv, and cd for three tree species (F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera). However, we found no significant relationships between LAI and any of the variables (see supplementary Table S2).The analysis showed that F. nitida and D. regia had significantly higher LAI values than P. dactylifera (p<.001***), with mean LAI values of 5.3 ± 0.22 and 5.8 ± 0.20, respectively, compared to P. dactylifera mean LAI value of 2.9 ± 0.15. The standard errors for the mean LAI values for F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera were 0.22, 0.20, and 0.15, respectively. LAI may be an important factor to consider when comparing these three species. The sample sizes were 72, 69, and 48 for F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera, respectively.’

 

See  L 384-394

 

l.393: add: table 6 at the end of the sentence.

Thanks, we have moved it as you recommended, with new table title Table 4

See L 400

 

l.398: omit, the last part.

Thanks . We have removed it .

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6: Add what the abbreviation means: hcb etc

Thanks, we have added the abbreviation, with new table title Table 4

Thanks, we have added the abbreviation

‘ Abbreviations: dbh, diameter at breast height, h tree height, cl crown length, cd crown diameter, cpa crown projection area, cv crown volume, hcb height of crown base, and SD standard deviation ‘ .

See L 402-403 , L 413-417

 

l.411: omit the last sentence an-*98d add table 7 after the first sentence.

 

We removed based on your recommendation.

 

Can you add some general information of the tree pit size?

First, we replaced all tree pit size to tree pit surface area . The method to calculate the tree pit was added to the method section, and we added the following sentences.

 ‘whereas the tree pit surface area was measured starting from the center of the tree trunk and up to the end of the unsealed area. The total unsealed (tree pit surface area) area was calculated based on city tree model [12] ‘

 

See L 223-226

Figure 3.1: change x-axes from 0 to 4 for the three graphs.

Sorry. In Fig. 3.1 a and b estimate values are higher than 4. So, we kept the scale as it. In addition we tr rebuilt the figures to be more clear and understandable.

 

Figure 3.2: change x-axes from -1 to 4 for the two graphs. Omit tree height and crown diameter for b.

Similar to the previous comments. We decided to keep it unchanged.

 

l.478-479: Omit. The second sentence is clearly method not result.

Thanks. We have removed the following sentences.

 

l.488: Omit Thanks. we have removed the following sentence.

l.495-496: Omit. Thanks. we have removed the following sentence.

 

l.497: add Table 11.

Thanks, we have renamed the table to be Tabke 6 and we have moved it to line 511

 

Table 11: Why change the age class for one tree species?

Similar to the previous comments table11 renamed to table 6 . We categorized age to show how the selected ecosystem services increased or decreased with age in our tree samples, especially since we observed in the study site that some species are the same age but vary in size, which could be due to resource variation.

l.519-521: Omit

Thanks, we have removed  the text

 

 

l.524: Add Table 12.

Thanks, sorry, we have renumbered table 12  to table7 and have added the following ‘see table 7 ‘

please see L 531

 

Discussion

 

l.551: their ability to adapt to resource availability - I do not see anything in regard to this in your results

Many thanks for your comment and sorry for that, we have removed the stated sentence to make it more understandable.

 

l.560: A paragraph should be added to the fact that P. dactylifera is a monocotyledon which mean no formation of a vascular cambium to have a regular secondary growth. The missing relationship to DBH is clearly related to this fact.

Thanks. We have added the following explanation.

‘As a monocotyledonous plant, the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) lacks the ability to form a vascular cambium, a meristem tissue that allows for secondary growth in dicotyledonous plants. The vascular cambium is responsible for the formation of new layers of xylem and phloem, which contribute to the increase in diameter of the plant's stem or trunk over time. Without the formation of a vascular cambium, the date palm does not undergo regular secondary growth and does not exhibit the characteristic increase in diameter.’

See L 624-630

 

l.562: I prefer to use your R2 values, because the reader is confused by moderate to strong. It is not a clear statement.

Thanks, for your comments, we have added the following to the text.

‘R² = (0.3-0.61 ),  R² ≤ 0.06‘ ,

kindly see L 590, and L593 respictively

 

l.588-589: The other categories do not suffer from drought? You are sure?

Thanks for you very much, Sorry for the misunderstanding, we have revised the sentences as following.

‘Generally, our samples were from different urban locations, are typically suffer from a scarcity of water due to the lack of a regular irrigation system. Our results show a significant difference in dbh in the tree planting site for F. nitida, and a significant difference in dbh and age in the tree planting site for D. regia.’

 

See L 633-636

 

l.604-606: This should be removed to method part. Give the number of trees which were removed for this analysis.

Thanks, we have moved and revised the following text ‘Some trees have been removed from the leaf area index (LAI) analysis due to factors such as loss of foliage during a long drought period in 2020, especially caused by the inconsistent irrigation system, and pruning ‘ , and  we have added the following text ‘Some trees have been removed from the leaf area index (LAI) analysis, for F. nitida one tree and for P. dactylifera 22 trees, due to factors such as foliage loss during a long drought period in 2020, especially caused by the inconsistent irrigation system, and pruning ‘.

 

 Please see L 242-246

 

613-617: Can you go further in your discussion. Not very interesting. For example: what does these values mean in regard to efficacity to stock carbon.

We have added the following lines.

 

‘Higher leaf area index means higher photosynthesis and efficiently use the light which indicates higher carbon capturing ability and stocks.’

See L 677-679

 In  addition We have added to discussion several lines also based on reviewer comments and reconmedation

  Kindly see lines 572-573, 606-611, 645-646, 649-661, 668-672, 709-712

 

l.624-628: Sentence to long

we have revised the following text

 

‘The study estimated aboveground biomass carbon storage and shading potential. Results showed that tree height, dbh, and crown diameter have a strong relationship with above ground biomass carbon storage in D. regia and F. nitida. Similarly, tree height, crown diameter, and age have a significant relationship with above ground biomass carbon storage in P. dactylifera, consistent with prior research ‘

 

See L 623-628

 

l.634: Is this annual value or a global one. If global, add age

 

Thanks for your comment, we have revised the text and we have added the following ‘found that P. dactylifera trees older than 20 years had a mean aboveground biomass carbon stock of 159.50 kg/plant, in a date palm farm in north-eastern Ethiopia ‘

 

See L 693-695

 

l.643: Start a new paragraph

 

Thank you, we have created a new paragraph,

 

See L 703

l.648: Ones again, can this be related to the monocotyledon status?

Yes, we have added a sentence to explain this.

 

‘It could be due to monocotyledon nature.’

See L 706

 

And we have add the following text to be mor clear and understandable

 

‘The results of P. dactylifera shade area shows a smaller for older trees where the most potential reason could be the leaf senescence due to age. With age, trees may lose some leaf area due to leaf senescence. Another reason could be leaf pruning each year’

 See  L  706-709

l.661: The type of leaves is different; can this also be a reason for the difference?

 Yes, agreed. See the previous response.

Conclusion

 

l.680: Change the word sites: you do not mean sites, more conditions (street trees, parc trees etc.)

Thanks for your recommendations,

 

we have changed the  word

‘sites ‘ to the following ‘urban location’

See L 737, In addition we have add the some lines to the text

See L  742-762

 

 Thank you

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Mr. Vatavu V Vlad Viorel
Assistant Editor,

Forests

I have recently review the manuscript entitled “Structure and Ecosystem Services of Three Common Urban Tree 2 Species in an Arid Climate City” written by Amer et al.

 

The manuscript presents an interesting study that combines tree structure and ecosystem services provided by urban trees in an arid city. As urban trees are being affected by climate change that can influence the benefits and play an important role in enhancing the well-being of city inhabitants, studies considering urban tree growth conditions on the ecosystem services that they provide are highly needed. The study of tree dimensions and the relationship with potential ecosystem services could help to improve the knowledge about the role of urban tree that is crucial for city planners.

The authors should re-write the hypothesis, as the four Hs are interrelated in only one or two; one structural and the second about how tree structure influence the ecosystem service that tree provide. Also, authors should explain why H1, H2, and H3 will be valid for all species regardless of the important taxonomic differences. Same happens with the ecosystem service that the species may provide.

The methodology is extensive with several equations that would be better if they stated in the appendix.

Result section is sometime repetitive and authors should rewrite in order to improve flow and clarity. Authors should decide to show figure or tables of the same result, and leave the other in the appendix section. This should contribute to clarify the section. I do not understand the aim of the authors to divide F. nitida and P. dactylifera into age groups in some analysis but not in others. In addition, I have doubts about the model for ecosystem service (shade), as authors use structural variables that is known that are highly determinant of the shaded area (as crown diameter). Moreover, I have concern about the comparison of tree species while they are very different. For example, authors say that in terms of shading significant difference was found among D. regia and F. nitida with P. dactylifera, but the first species are both broadleaf trees wile P. dactylifera is a palm.

The discussion is well written and attends to the objective. Authors discuss and highlight the difference in algometric relationship of P. dactylifera as a palm in comparison with the other two studied trees. This is important as influence the obtained results.

Line 312 Authors do not reference to five hypothesis

Line363 Is a subtitle?

Line 369 “with an (R2 ≤ 0.05).” check the end of the sentence

Line 384 results in table 5 could be along the text.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Revewier#3

We thank you very much for your insightful suggestions and valuable guidance on our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. Below we describe how we have addressed your comments to improve the manuscript:

 

The authors should re-write the hypothesis, as the four Hs are interrelated in only one or two; one structural and the second about how tree structure influences the ecosystem service that tree provide. Also, authors should explain why H1, H2, and H3 will be valid for all species regardless of the important taxonomic differences. Same happens with the ecosystem service that the species may provide.

Based on your suggestion we revised and rewrite the research hypothesis to

(H1) For each of the tree species Delonix regia, Ficus nitida and Phoenix dactylifera, significant different relationships exist in terms of

1. a) Tree height and crown dimensions with diameter at breast height (dbh, independent parameter)
2. b) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree age (independent parameter)
3. c) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with leaf area index (LAI, independent parameter))
4. d) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree pit surface area (independent parameter)

(H2) Tree plant urban location has a significant influence on tree structural (tree height, dbh , crown dimension), and ecosystem services. 

(H3) The ecosystem services of carbon storage and shading potential of the three tree species differ significantly from each other’

 

The methodology is extensive with several equations that would be better if they stated in the appendix.

Thank you for your feedback on our methodology. We appreciate your input and have taken your suggestion into consideration. After careful revision and following the suggestions of the other reviewers, we have made changes to our methodology section. We have reformatted the equations to be more uniform and have explained them more thoroughly to ensure clarity for our readers. However, we have decided to leave most of the equations in the main text as they are critical to understanding our methodology. We hope that these changes address your concerns and improve the overall quality of our paper.

See the following L 154 regarding transect, L162 ‘Categorization  of trees based on sites .added L164, L168-171, L174, L 201, L ( 216 ) regarding subtitle 2.1-  measured tree variables L 218 ; L 222-L225, L 248  2.5.2- regarding to  Ecosystem services  calculation.  All equations have been revised, and we have removed the reference to below ground carbon storage. We have introduced a new term "biomasses" and changed "carbon fixation" to "above ground carbon storage biomass" Lines  251-258,  and Lines  271-293.

Regarding the statistical analysis  we revised and restate the hypothesis to make it more helpful for the reader

See L315-338

 

 

 

Result section is sometime repetitive, and authors should rewrite in order to improve flow and clarity.

 

Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated. We have taken your helpful comments into consideration and made various changes, including rephrasing, deletion, and addition of content based on your recommendations and suggestions. We have made several changes to the tables, including renumbering, and moving them as follows: Table 2 has been relocated to the supplementary section and renamed as S1, Table 3 has been renamed as Table 2, Table 4 has been renamed as Table 3, Table 6 has been renamed as Table 4, Table 7 has been renamed as Table 5. Please note that the original Table 5, which was included in the results section, has been moved to the supplementary section and renamed as S2. In addition, Table 11 has been renamed Table 6 and Table 12 has been renamed as Table 7. We have also included a new table in the supplementary section. The tables have been renumbered accordingly. Regarding the figures also we check all the figure and we tried to make them more clear and better. ( Figure 1 try to make more clear, figure2  change the graph based on the reviwer recommendation, figure 3.1 and figure 3.2 ( we tried to make them more clear )

 In addition See the following L 43-49 , 53, 355-356,358-360, 361-366, 371-372, 383-393, 394, 396, 399, 401-402, 404-411, 419-423, 455-456, 477, 507, 513-519, 528-536.

 

Authors should decide to show figures or tables of the same result and leave the other in the appendix section. This should contribute to clarifying the section.

Thanks , We revised the figures and tables in the manuscript  , we omitted and moved some tables  to supplementary  and we renumbered the tables.

See  Figure 1,  Figure 2, table 2, table 3, figure 3.1,  figure 3.2,

 figure 4, table 6

 

 I do not understand the aim of the authors to divide F. nitida and P. dactylifera into age groups in some analysis but not in others.

Thanks for your comments.

We choose to divide F. nitida and P. dactylifera into age groups in our analyses to examine how they differ at different stages of their life cycle. e.g., tree dimensions and the selected ecosystem services. Unfortunately, the available data on tree ages was only in one age class for D. regia based on the data available for Delonix regia with regard to planting time.  The selected species are the most common species in the study area were we tried to cover all city parts.

 

I have doubts about the model for ecosystem service (shade), as authors use structural variables that is known that are highly determinant of the shaded area (as crown diameter)

  Thanks for your comment . (Rötzer et al., 2019), , City Tree Model, was validated using high spatial and temporal resolution measurements from four independent sites in Munich. The validation included comparing simulated and measured monthly transpiration rates and DBH growth of individual trees. The sites varied in terms of soil sealing percentage, tree characteristics, and meteorological conditions. The measured sap flow data was transformed to transpiration values for validation purposes. The meteorological data recorded at the sites formed the driving forces for the City Tree model validation. The validation results demonstrated the model's accuracy in simulating the transpiration and growth of individual trees. Further improvements could be made by comparing simulated and measured soil water contents.

  Researcher as (  Rötzer, T., et al. "Modelling urban tree growth and ecosystem services: review and perspectives." Progress in Botany Vol. 82 (2021): 405-46.

 

Zhang, Chi, et al. "How do Tilia cordata Greenspire trees cope with drought stress regarding their biomass allocation and ecosystem services?." Forests 10.8 (2019): 676.

Franceschi, Eleonora, et al. "Crown Shapes of Urban Trees-Their Dependences on Tree Species, Tree Age and Local Environment, and Effects on Ecosystem Services." Forests 13.5 (2022): 748. )  where the model has been used for calculations. In their research.

 

Moreover, I have concern about the comparison of tree species while they are very different, For example, authors say that in terms of shading significant difference was found among D. regia and F. nitida with P. dactylifera, but the first species are both broadleaf trees wile P. dactylifera is a palm.

Thanks For your comments. we made comparisons to recommend potential ecosystem services species for urban plantations, which we found to be interesting for future management. Our goal is to demonstrate the environmental benefits of carbon storage and shade area based on the common species in the study area. However, we encountered several limitations. The selected species are the most common tree species in the city varied in age, size, and species type, which made it difficult to have more trees in the city due to these obstacles.

 

The discussion is well written and attends to the objective. Authors discuss and highlight the difference in algometric relationship of P. dactylifera as a palm in comparison with the other two studied trees. This is important as influence the obtained results.

We thank you very much for your insightful suggestions and valuable guidance on our manuscript.

Line 312 Authors do not reference to five hypotheses

Thanks , and sorry for the mistake , Based on the reviwers suggestion we revised and rewrite the research hypothesis to:

(H1) For each of the tree species Delonix regia, Ficus nitida and Phoenix dactylifera, significant different relationships exist in terms of

1. a) Tree height and crown dimensions with diameter at breast height (dbh, independent parameter)
2. b) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree age (independent parameter)
3. c) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with leaf area index (LAI, independent parameter))
4. d) dbh, tree height, and crown dimensions with tree pit surface area (independent parameter)

(H2) Tree plant urban location has a significant influence on tree structural (tree height, dbh , crown dimension), and ecosystem services. 

(H3) The ecosystem services of carbon storage and shading potential of the three tree species differ significantly from each other’

 

Line363 Is a subtitle?

Thanks for your comment , we have removed ‘with an’

 Please see L 373

Line 384 results in table 5 could be along the text.

Thanks for your comments: we have revised the text and included the data in the table along the text. As the following ‘Linear regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between leaf area index (LAI) and the variables dbh, h, cv, and cd for three tree species (F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera). However, we found no significant relationships between LAI and any of the variables (see supplementary Table S2).The analysis showed that F. nitida and D. regia had significantly higher LAI values than P. dactylifera (p<.001***), with mean LAI values of 5.3 ± 0.22 and 5.8 ± 0.20, respectively, compared to P. dactylifera mean LAI value of 2.9 ± 0.15. The standard errors for the mean LAI values for F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera were 0.22, 0.20, and 0.15, respectively. LAI may be an important factor to consider when comparing these three species. The sample sizes were 72, 69, and 48 for F. nitida, D. regia, and P. dactylifera, respectively

 Please see 383-393

 

 

Thank you

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Detailed comments:

-          Pg.1, Abstract; It should be rewritten due to unbalanced structure (backround, methods, results, conclusions). A lot of attention was paid to the results but on the other hand, the backround and partially the methods is missing.

-          Pg.1, Keywords; Keywords should not match the title of the paper. I recommend omitting some keywords (those that are repeated with the title of the manuscript) or replacing them with others. They need to be changed.

-          Pg. 1-3, Ln 38-142, Introduction; I recommend shortening this part and/or focus only on citing articles that are directly related to the topic being addressed.

-          Results, Pg.8, Table 2. Explanations for "cd" and "cv" are missing.

-          Pg. 8, Table 2; Last line - is the given age for P. dactylifera (˃80) correct? So there was no data available for ages over 50 and under 80?

-          Pg. 16, Table 11; detto

-          Discussion or Conclusion; It would be requested to state whether the working hypotheses formulated at the end of the Introduction were confirmed or not.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Dear reviewer #4

 

We thank you very much for your insightful suggestions and valuable guidance on our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript. Below we describe how we have addressed your comments to improve the manuscript:

 

Pg.1, Abstract; It should be rewritten due to unbalanced structure (backround, methods, results, conclusions). A lot of attention was paid to the results but on the other hand, the backround and partially the methods is missing.

 

Thank you so much for your comments, we have revised the abstract based on the reviewers’ comments and your positive comments as stated in the Abstract.  We have added  sentences to improve the background, methods, results, and conclusion . As the following

‘Urban forests play a critical role in improving the quality of life in cities, but in arid environments, little is known about the potential benefits and growth conditions of different tree species. Our study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the relationships between tree dimensions, above ground biomass carbon storage, and shading potential in three common urban trees in the arid city of Jericho-Palestine, (i.e., Ficus nitida, Delonix regia, and Phoenix dactylifera). The trees were chosen according to their distribution in urban locations and tree vitality, with ages ranging from 20 to 90 years. Based on the results from tree structure measurements, the carbon storage and shading potential were calculated by City Tree Model. The results indicate a moderate to strong relationship between tree height, crown diameter, and crown volume for F. nitida and D. regia (R² = 0.28 - 0.66), but no relationship for P. dactylifera (R² = 0.03 - 0.06). The findings suggest that the analyzed tree species can considerably contribute to the potential benefits of trees in improving the climate of an arid city: D. regia shows a higher median of  above ground biomass carbon storage of 155 kg C tree^-1, while P. dactylifera 91 kg C and F. nitida 76 Kg C . D. regia and F. nitida  have a higher median  of shading potential, (31 m²- 41 m²), respectively. Information on the ecosystem services from urban trees and their relationships in terms of species, age and tree planting urban location are very important for city planners, in relation to sustainable urban green spaces in arid cities.’

 

See L 21-37

 

Pg.1, Keywords; Keywords should not match the title of the paper. I recommend omitting some keywords (those that are repeated with the title of the manuscript) or replacing them with others. They need to be changed.

Thanks. Your comments gave us to rethink about the  keywords: we have removed the following ‘keywords carbon fixation, ecosystem services’ and we have added the following ‘ Keywords: Crown dimension; arid city; Delonix regia; Ficus nitida; Phoenix dactylifera; urban trees, carbon storage, shade potential, tree pit surface area, leaf area index’.

 

See L 38-39

 

 

Pg. 1-3, Ln 38-142, Introduction; I recommend shortening this part and/or focus only on citing articles that are directly related to the topic being addressed

Thanks very much for your comments , we have revised the Introduction according to reviewer #1 and reviewer #2, reviewer # 3, and we follow your comments focusing on the articles directly related to topic and, we revised the hypotheses.

 

See L 41-145

 

 Results, Pg.8, Table 2. Explanations for "cd" and "cv" are missing.

Thanks, sorry for that, we have added them also according to reviewer # 1 comment , we have moved   we have moved it to supplemantry section as table S1

 

Pg. 8, Table 2; Last line - is the given age for P. dactylifera (˃80) correct? So there was no data available for ages over 50 and under

 

Thank you for drawing our attention to this. We changed the  D.regia ,P.dactylifera, F.nitida age categories note thate table 2 renumbered as table S1 in supplemantry section, were D.regia ‘ <25 ‘ changed to ≤25 , F.nitida  ‘<15  changed to  ≤15, <25 changed to  ’16-25 ‘ , >25 changed to ≥25 and for P.dactylifera  <29 changed to ’16-25 ‘changed to ≤29, <50 change to 30-79 and >80 changed to ≥80

 

  Pg. 16, Table 11; detto

We have made several changes to the tables, including renumbering, and moving them as follows: Table 2 has been relocated to the supplementary section and renamed as S1, Table 3 has been renamed as Table 2, Table 4 has been renamed as Table 3, Table 6 has been renamed as Table 4, Table 7 has been renamed as Table 5. Please note that the original Table 5, which was included in the results section, has been moved it to the supplementary section and renamed as S2. In addition, Table 11 has been renamed Table 6 and Table 12 has been renamed as Table 7. We have also included a new table in the supplementary section. The tables have been renumbered accordingly. Regarding the figures also we check all the figure and we tried to make them more clear and better. ( Figure 1 try to make more clear, figure2  change the graph based on the reviwer recommendation, figure 3.1 and figure 3.2 ( we tried to make them more clear )

 In addition See the following L 43-49 , 53, 355-356,358-360, 361-366, 371-372, 383-393, 394, 396, 399, 401-402, 404-411, 419-423, 455-456, 477, 507, 513-519, 528-536.

 

Discussion or Conclusion; It would be requested to state whether the working hypotheses formulated at the end of the Introduction were confirmed or not.

 

Thanks for your helpful comment. Based on revewers # 1,# 2,# 3 and yours comments we have revised the introduction, methodology, results, disuccsion, and conclusion. Please see the  following lines:

 

 Introductions

See L 50-56, 58-59, 61, 63-69, 75-77, 90-91, 92, 131-145

 

 

 

Methodology

See L 153-155, 164 , 168-171, 174, 201, 218-219, 222-226, 231-232, 234, 237, 242-246, 248, 251-258, 271-293, 298-305, 315-338,

 

 

Results 

 See L243-249, 251, 355-366, 271-272, 279, 383-393, 394, 396, 399, 401-402, 404-411, 419-423,455-456, 460-461, 468, 477, 507, 510, 513-519, 528-536

Disscusion

 See L 571-572, 589, 592-593, 605-610, 623-629, 632-635, 644-645, 648-660, 667-671, 682-687, 690-692, 706-709,

Conclusion

 

See L 741-762

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx