Review Reports - Testing the Production Potential of Paulownia Clon In Vitro 112® in the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a revision of a submission I reviewed previously. All of the minor changes I recommended previously have been made.

Author Response

Thank you, for the revisions.

The first reviewer did not have any remarks.

The second reviewer had a few remarks, for example:

He missed a theoretical hypothesis or scientific question

We tried to add it. (see down in the introduction)

He wanted to add section 2.2 to the section 1.

We did it. (see in the introduction)

The third reviewer had two remarks, for example:

He recommended to add the legislative restrictions

We tried to add it. (see in the introduction)

He asked if we measured all plants.

Yes, we did and we added to the methodology. (see in the material and methods)

The academic editor wrote about post-hoc analysis.

All time, we used and tried to write post-hoc analysis (in our case it was “p=…...” as results of Fisher LSD test) but, in the ratio and mortality, it was not possible used some analysis. Homogenous groups we added to the figure for better visibility stat. differences

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript still lacks a theoretical hypothesis or scientific question. Such a hypothesis or question should be of interests for a broad of fields, not for only the local. Testing the hypothesis or answering the question forms the motivation of the study and should appear in the section of Introduction. For example, the section of 2.2 is more suitable to be introduced in section 1 and to be set as a target to be tested. In addition, the parameters measured and the methods of analysis were too simple to match the standards of the journal of Forests.

Author Response

Thank you, for the revisions.

The first reviewer did not have any remarks.

The second reviewer had a few remarks, for example:

He missed a theoretical hypothesis or scientific question

We tried to add it. (see down in the introduction)

He wanted to add section 2.2 to the section 1.

We did it. (see in the introduction)

The third reviewer had two remarks, for example:

He recommended to add the legislative restrictions

We tried to add it. (see in the introduction)

He asked if we measured all plants.

Yes, we did and we added to the methodology. (see in the material and methods)

The academic editor wrote about post-hoc analysis.

All time, we used and tried to write post-hoc analysis (in our case it was “p=…...” as results of Fisher LSD test) but, in the ratio and mortality, it was not possible used some analysis. Homogenous groups we added to the figure for better visibility stat. differences

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, I recommend adding the legislative restrictions for establishing Paulownia Clon in vitro 112® stands.

The article compares plantations of different sizes. It is not clear from the methodology whether, especially in the case of the largest plantation, if all individuals were measured, or whether some sampling method was used.

Author Response

Thank you, for the revisions.

The first reviewer did not have any remarks.

The second reviewer had a few remarks, for example:

He missed a theoretical hypothesis or scientific question

We tried to add it. (see down in the introduction)

He wanted to add section 2.2 to the section 1.

We did it. (see in the introduction)

The third reviewer had two remarks, for example:

He recommended to add the legislative restrictions

We tried to add it. (see in the introduction)

He asked if we measured all plants.

Yes, we did and we added to the methodology. (see in the material and methods)

The academic editor wrote about post-hoc analysis.

All time, we used and tried to write post-hoc analysis (in our case it was “p=…...” as results of Fisher LSD test) but, in the ratio and mortality, it was not possible used some analysis. Homogenous groups we added to the figure for better visibility stat. differences

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This second revised manuscript made some improvements. My main concern is that the methods of analysis were simple and the results were weak in science.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

our method of statistical analysis (ANOVA with Fisher´s LSD test) is sufficient as you wrote in last review. We added explanation about "p values" how you required. Now, we hope that we corrected manuscript right. Can you see, now, it should be not confusing.

Best regards

J.K.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main problem of the paper is that the "weight of the paper" does not correspond to the "weight of the journal", i.e. the results of the paper provide only an insight into the basic information about the growth of Paulownia at 3 locations in the Czech Republic, with the applied methods (specific research and statistical ones) which are the simplest and with insufficient scientific "fundamentals" for a journal of importance and quality such as Forests. In addition, the results have limited local significance and they could be of interest only to a limited number of readers.

I suggest the authors to include in the paper some additional analyzes and methodological approaches, which would give "weight" to the paper, on the one hand, as well as to think about ways to overcome the problem of the local significance of the achieved results, which could give the paper the opportunity to be more seriously considered for publication in the journal as Forests one.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The small number of minor changes suggested below can be made without the need for further review:

The title is a little long and poorly worded. Instead of ‘Testing of production potential of Paulownia Clon in vitro 112® after a five-year growth on three plantations in the Czech Republic’, something like ‘Testing the productive potential of Paulownia Clon in vitro 112® in the Czech Republic’

Line 17-18, ‘well adapted’, not ‘well adaptive’

Line 35, Pawlonia… ‘is a genus’, not ‘is a species’

Line 38, ‘should reach a height of…’, not ‘should climb up to a height of…’ they are not climbing plants.

Line 41, use the past tense here, ie, was, not is

Line 46, I don’t think ‘spp.’ is needed here, just ‘Pawlonia species’

Line 49, ‘in’, not ‘on’

Line 85, ‘methods’ not ‘mesures’

Line 114, no need for brackets, ie. ‘Measurements were conducted from planting in spring 2016, to spring 2021.

Line 152, ‘reached a maximum of…’

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Introduction of new tree species and varieties for commercial plantation forestry in areas where not previously grown requires detailed testing of growth performance before broadscale planting. Paulownia has been promoted in some countries as a very fast-growing tree for sawn timber production. This submission presents results of a study of the growth of a Paulownia clone for five years after planting. The clone tested was bred for fast growth and tolerance of a wide range of environmental conditions. Growth measurements at three sites in the Czech Republic indicated Paulownia in general and particularly this clone will not achieve the very high growth rates observed in some other countries, due to lower-than-expected frost tolerance of young trees, below optimum rainfall in the growing season and a relatively short growing season. These results provide a very useful indicator of the productive potential of this clone in the Czech Republic and other areas with similar climates. The results highlight the importance of undertaking thorough testing of new tree varieties before establishing them for commercial forestry in any new location. The small number of minor changes suggested below can be made without the need for further review: The title is a little long and poorly worded. Instead of ‘Testing of production potential of Paulownia Clon in vitro 112® after a five-year growth on three plantations in the Czech Republic’, something like ‘Testing the productive potential of Paulownia Clon in vitro 112® in the Czech Republic’ Line 17-18, ‘well adapted’, not ‘well adaptive’ Line 35, Pawlonia… ‘is a genus’, not ‘is a species’ Line 38, ‘should reach a height of…’, not ‘should climb up to a height of…’ they are not climbing plants. Line 41, use the past tense here, ie, was, not is Line 46, I don’t think ‘spp. ’ is needed here, just ‘Pawlonia species’ Line 49, ‘in’, not ‘on’ Line 85, ‘methods’ not ‘mesures’ Line 114, no need for brackets, ie. ‘Measurements were conducted from planting in spring 2016, to spring 2021. Line 152, ‘reached a maximum of…’

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reported growth situation of cultivated Paulownia trees in three plantations. The parameters measured were basically trees’ height, stem thickness and mortality. The methods of investigation and the data were simple. Although he results were discussed with consideration of precipitation, temperature, frost and length of growing season, the manuscript lacked a theoretical hypothesis or scientific question to be studied.