The Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br.), a High-Value Economic Wood in Thailand
, Yannawut Uttaruk 2, Satith Sangpradid 3, Chetphong Butthep 4 and Smith Leammanee 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
This experimental work work and the text has new information to provide and and seems to become quite usefull to the readership of this journal. However there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before publication. In line 102, please check the "biome". You should correct the superscripts and remove spaces that are not needed in the whole text. In line 62, there is a grammatical error (scientists should be the subject). In table 6, it is not clear what the values in parentheses represent. In 2.6 chapter, please provide the standard used for this equation. In 133 line, the "age range of 2 years" needs improvement. In 184 line, check again the "find root", do you mean "fine root"? I am not sure about the term "dryness", do you mean drying process" or "dry state"? In line 68, please add the relevant study of https://doi.org/10.3390/f13060879 to strengthen this statement of yours. If possible, please provide a figure of the specimens of this research work/experimental process.
Some points of text need to be significantly improved, in order to be more clear and comprehensible to the readership. Some type errors, and grammatical/syntax ones were detected as well.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silky oak (Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br.); High Value Economic Wood in Thailand”.
We have studied your comments carefully which we hope meet with your approval. We answer your questions or comments in details in the following texts. Detailed answer to review:
1.We noticed that you are citing 6 references from Forests. We would like to ask if these papers can be replaced or deleted, and we look forward to your opinion.
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions:
Moradi, F.; Darvishsefat, A.A.; Pourrahmati, M.R.; Deljouei, A.; Borz, S.A. Estimating Aboveground Biomass in Dense Hyrcanian Forests by the Use of Sentinel-2 Data. Forests 2022, 13, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010104
Corrected to:
Byun, C., Lee, SH., Kang, H. Estimation of carbon storage in coastal wetlands and comparison of different management schemes in South Korea. Journal of Ecology and Environment. 2019, 43, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-019-0106-7
Wu, J.; Wang, J.; Hui, W.; Zhao, F.; Wang, P.; Su, C.; Gong, W. Physiology of Plant Responses to Water Stress and Related Genes: A Review. Forests 2022, 13, 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020324
Corrected to:
Repo, A.; Rajala, T.; Henttonen, H.M.; Lehtonen, A.; Peltoniemi, M.; Heikkinen, J. Age-Dependence of Stand Biomass in Managed Boreal Forests Based on the Finnish National Forest Inventory Data. Forest Ecology and Management.
2021, 498, 119507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119507
Mayrinck, R.C.; Laroque, C.P.; Amichev, B.Y.; Van Rees, K. Above- and Below-Ground Carbon Sequestration in Shelterbelt Trees in Canada: A Review. Forests. 2019, 10, 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100922
Corrected to:
He, G.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, W.; Peng, W.; Cai, Y. Estimating Carbon Sequestration Potential of Forest and Its Influencing Factors at Fine Spatial-Scales: A Case Study of Lushan City in Southern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9184. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159184
Streeter, J.R.; Bhattacharjee, J.; Kandel, B. Aboveground Carbon Stock in a Bottomland Hardwood Forest in the Southeastern United States. Forests. 2023, 14, 974. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050974
Corrected to:
Xi, F.; Lin, G.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, Z.; Cao, C. Land Use Optimization and Carbon Storage Estimation in the Yellow River Basin, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411278
2.We found that many of the references are papers published by authors, the proportion is 19%, we suggest replacing some references:
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions:
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Community Forest for global warming mitigation: the technique for estimation of biomass and above ground carbon storage using remote sensing method. Agriculture and Forestry. 2018, 64, 47–57. https:// doi.org /10.17707/AgricultForest.64.3.04
Corrected to:
World Resources Institute: World GHG Emissions Flow Chart. Available online: http://pdf.wri.org/world_greenhouse_gas_emissions_flowchart.pdf
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Methods of Estımatıon for Above Ground Carbon Stock in Nongbua-nonmee Communıty Forest, Maha Sarakham Provınce, Thailand. Agriculture & Forestry. 2020, 66, 183–195. https:// doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.66.3.15
Corrected to:
Manabe, S. Role of greenhouse gas in climate change**. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography. 2019, 71, 1-13. https:// doi.org /10.1080/16000870.2019.1620078
Laosuwan, T.; Uttaruk, P. Estimating Tree Biomass via Remote Sensing, MSAVI 2, and Fractional Cover Model, IETE Technical Review. 2014, 31, 362–368, https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.2014.959081
Corrected to:
Duncanson, L., Rourke, O., Dubayah, R. Small sample sizes yield biased allometric equations in temperate forests. Scientific Reports. 2015, 5, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17153
Laosuwan, T.; Uttaruk, P. Estimating Above Ground Carbon Capture using Remote Sensing Technology in Small Scale Agroforestry Areas. Agriculture & Forestry. 2016, 62, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.62.2.22
Corrected to:
Lu, D.; Chen, Q.; Wang, G.; Liu, L.; Li, G.; Moran, E. A survey of remote sensing-based aboveground biomass estimation methods in forest ecosystems. International Journal of Digital Earth. 2016, 9, 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2014.990526
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Remote Sensing based Vegetation Indices for Estimating Above Ground Carbon Sequestration in Orchards. Agriculture and Forestry. 2016, 62, 193–201. https://doi.org/10.17707/Agricult Forest.62.4.21
Corrected to:
Pascarella, A.E.; Giacco, G.; Rigiroli, M.; Marrone, S.; Sansone, C. ReUse: REgressive Unet for Carbon Storage and Above-Ground Biomass Estimation. Journal of Imaging. 2023, 9, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9030061
Laosuwan, T.; Uttaruk, Y. Carbon Sequestration Assessment of the Orchards using Satellite Data. Journal of Ecological Engineering. 2017, 18, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/66257.
Corrected to:
Othman, M.; Zakaria, R.; Fernando, W. Strategic Planning on Carbon Capture from Coal Fired Plants in Malaysia and Indonesia: A Review. Energy Policy. 2009, 37, 1718–1735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.034
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Comparison of Carbon Storage Measurement Methods on Agroforestry Systems in Sakon Nakhon Province, Northeast Thailand. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University. 2020, 21, 95–99. https://doi.org/10.37575/b/sci/2382
Corrected to:
Jorat, M.E.; Aziz, M.A.; Marto, A.; Zaini, N.; Jusoh, S.N.; Manning, D.A.C. Sequestering Atmospheric CO2 Inorganically: A Solution for Malaysia’s CO2 Emission. Geosciences. 2018, 8, 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8120483
We really hope theses modification can meet with your approval. Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Teerawong Laosuwan
Faculty of Science
Mahasarakham University
Maha Sarakham, 44150, THAILAND
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear Authors,
Thank you for making changes to the article also taking into account my suggestions expressed in my first review. The introduced additions and changes concern practically all chapters. It is advantageous to have a separate Conclusions chapter here. This was followed by a significant addition to the literature. I believe that the changes introduced are well thought out and accurate.
I have no substantive suggestions to consider now.
Editing comments:
I think that in the editorial correction, the spacing between figures and text as well as between tables and text will be corrected and unified.
The font size in the graphs in Figure 3 is very small and should be enlarged.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silky oak (Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br.); High Value Economic Wood in Thailand”.
We have studied your comments carefully which we hope meet with your approval. We answer your questions or comments in details in the following texts. Detailed answer to review:
1.We noticed that you are citing 6 references from Forests. We would like to ask if these papers can be replaced or deleted, and we look forward to your opinion.
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions:
Moradi, F.; Darvishsefat, A.A.; Pourrahmati, M.R.; Deljouei, A.; Borz, S.A. Estimating Aboveground Biomass in Dense Hyrcanian Forests by the Use of Sentinel-2 Data. Forests 2022, 13, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010104
Corrected to:
Byun, C., Lee, SH., Kang, H. Estimation of carbon storage in coastal wetlands and comparison of different management schemes in South Korea. Journal of Ecology and Environment. 2019, 43, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-019-0106-7
Wu, J.; Wang, J.; Hui, W.; Zhao, F.; Wang, P.; Su, C.; Gong, W. Physiology of Plant Responses to Water Stress and Related Genes: A Review. Forests 2022, 13, 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020324
Corrected to:
Repo, A.; Rajala, T.; Henttonen, H.M.; Lehtonen, A.; Peltoniemi, M.; Heikkinen, J. Age-Dependence of Stand Biomass in Managed Boreal Forests Based on the Finnish National Forest Inventory Data. Forest Ecology and Management.
2021, 498, 119507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119507
Mayrinck, R.C.; Laroque, C.P.; Amichev, B.Y.; Van Rees, K. Above- and Below-Ground Carbon Sequestration in Shelterbelt Trees in Canada: A Review. Forests. 2019, 10, 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100922
Corrected to:
He, G.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, W.; Peng, W.; Cai, Y. Estimating Carbon Sequestration Potential of Forest and Its Influencing Factors at Fine Spatial-Scales: A Case Study of Lushan City in Southern China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9184. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159184
Streeter, J.R.; Bhattacharjee, J.; Kandel, B. Aboveground Carbon Stock in a Bottomland Hardwood Forest in the Southeastern United States. Forests. 2023, 14, 974. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050974
Corrected to:
Xi, F.; Lin, G.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, Z.; Cao, C. Land Use Optimization and Carbon Storage Estimation in the Yellow River Basin, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411278
2.We found that many of the references are papers published by authors, the proportion is 19%, we suggest replacing some references:
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions:
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Community Forest for global warming mitigation: the technique for estimation of biomass and above ground carbon storage using remote sensing method. Agriculture and Forestry. 2018, 64, 47–57. https:// doi.org /10.17707/AgricultForest.64.3.04
Corrected to:
World Resources Institute: World GHG Emissions Flow Chart. Available online: http://pdf.wri.org/world_greenhouse_gas_emissions_flowchart.pdf
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Methods of Estımatıon for Above Ground Carbon Stock in Nongbua-nonmee Communıty Forest, Maha Sarakham Provınce, Thailand. Agriculture & Forestry. 2020, 66, 183–195. https:// doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.66.3.15
Corrected to:
Manabe, S. Role of greenhouse gas in climate change**. Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography. 2019, 71, 1-13. https:// doi.org /10.1080/16000870.2019.1620078
Laosuwan, T.; Uttaruk, P. Estimating Tree Biomass via Remote Sensing, MSAVI 2, and Fractional Cover Model, IETE Technical Review. 2014, 31, 362–368, https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.2014.959081
Corrected to:
Duncanson, L., Rourke, O., Dubayah, R. Small sample sizes yield biased allometric equations in temperate forests. Scientific Reports. 2015, 5, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17153
Laosuwan, T.; Uttaruk, P. Estimating Above Ground Carbon Capture using Remote Sensing Technology in Small Scale Agroforestry Areas. Agriculture & Forestry. 2016, 62, 253–262. https://doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.62.2.22
Corrected to:
Lu, D.; Chen, Q.; Wang, G.; Liu, L.; Li, G.; Moran, E. A survey of remote sensing-based aboveground biomass estimation methods in forest ecosystems. International Journal of Digital Earth. 2016, 9, 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2014.990526
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Remote Sensing based Vegetation Indices for Estimating Above Ground Carbon Sequestration in Orchards. Agriculture and Forestry. 2016, 62, 193–201. https://doi.org/10.17707/Agricult Forest.62.4.21
Corrected to:
Pascarella, A.E.; Giacco, G.; Rigiroli, M.; Marrone, S.; Sansone, C. ReUse: REgressive Unet for Carbon Storage and Above-Ground Biomass Estimation. Journal of Imaging. 2023, 9, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9030061
Laosuwan, T.; Uttaruk, Y. Carbon Sequestration Assessment of the Orchards using Satellite Data. Journal of Ecological Engineering. 2017, 18, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/66257.
Corrected to:
Othman, M.; Zakaria, R.; Fernando, W. Strategic Planning on Carbon Capture from Coal Fired Plants in Malaysia and Indonesia: A Review. Energy Policy. 2009, 37, 1718–1735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.034
Uttaruk, Y.; Laosuwan, T. Comparison of Carbon Storage Measurement Methods on Agroforestry Systems in Sakon Nakhon Province, Northeast Thailand. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University. 2020, 21, 95–99. https://doi.org/10.37575/b/sci/2382
Corrected to:
Jorat, M.E.; Aziz, M.A.; Marto, A.; Zaini, N.; Jusoh, S.N.; Manning, D.A.C. Sequestering Atmospheric CO2 Inorganically: A Solution for Malaysia’s CO2 Emission. Geosciences. 2018, 8, 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8120483
We really hope theses modification can meet with your approval. Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Teerawong Laosuwan
Faculty of Science
Mahasarakham University
Maha Sarakham, 44150, THAILAND
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal.
The English language has been improved significantly. The text is comprehensible and adequately detailed.
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
Dear Authors,
It is an interesting manuscript expanding the knowledge of carbon sequestration by trees. It is a well-prepared manuscript too, however, some minor editing details should be corrected in my opinion. I present my comments in synthetic form.
Editing corrections:
Fig. 6, 7, and 8 contain several photographs and they should be described a), b) ... and a caption should be added under the drawing what these photographs show a), b) ... (lines 182, 216, 228).
I have some substantive suggestions to consider.
The full Latin name of the test species should be given in Abstract: Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R. Br (in line 16 as stated on line 107 in chapter Materials and Methods). In other places, the repetition of the Latin name next to the English name seems superfluous.
The more familiar English name is Silky oak rather than Silver oak but it depends on the region. Please consider changing the name from Silver oak to Silky oak throughout the article.
When describing the methodology, I propose to refer to the existing standards for calculating the carbon content, eg. EN 16449:2014 Wood and wood-based products - the biogenic carbon content of wood and conversion to carbon dioxide.
Combining the discussion and conclusions into one chapter is not the best solution as it blurs the conclusions. I suggest separating the synthetic conclusions resulting from the conducted research in the form of a separate chapter. Their effects and value will then be fully visible.
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silky oak (Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br.); High Value Economic Wood in Thailand”.
We have studied your comments carefully which we hope meet with your approval. We answer your questions or comments in details in the following texts. Detailed answer to review (Please see the attachment).
We really hope theses modification can meet with your approval. Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Teerawong Laosuwan
Faculty of Science
Mahasarakham University
Maha Sarakham, 44150, THAILAND
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before publication.
In line 17, it is referred twice "it is also". In line 19, 20, 63, 242, 257, 336 etc. remove the double spaces inside the text. In line 30, different font applied. In the abstract it is not necessary to provide almost all the results, but only the most significant ones or a tendency. You did not highlight in the abstract the significance and practical meaning of these findings. Generally, the abstract should be shortened in my opinion. The common names of species are not presented in capital (for example silver oak). I would rather use simple words as key words and not phrases, since it would be easier to be detected by the interested readership. In line 50, correct the subscript. Land use and deforestation can not "emit", you rather use "result in" or "contribute to" etc. In line 62, please explain "rai". In line 65, the "'s" should be removed. In line 65, the "is highly interested by scientists" should be corrected grammatically. In line 76, please add the relevant reference of DOI 10.1117/12.2556378 . In line 79, you rather use "and" instead of "that", in order to improve the meaning. In lines 83-88, you could provide a reference. In line 89, the use of "since" changes the meaning, please check the syntax. It could be considered great opportunity to promote Silver Oak growth (for improving long-term potential on carbon dioxide absorption and sequestration sustainably) only in case that the wood produced by this species could be used as it is in wooden structures, furniture etc. (in order the CO2 to remain stored) and not used in bioenergy (biofuels production) where the release of CO2 would follow. Therefore, it is necesssary to take into consideration also the properties of this wood species, not only the fast growth. Please make a comment on that in the theoretical part of introduction. In line 99, what about the rest of the world? the international literature? In line 103, I would rather replace the first "in" with "coming from" in order to retain the meaning. In line 106, please improve the "20x20 square". The "age range" corresponds to 2 borders (from that level to that level, not just a number). You should use the cm for centimeters, g for grams and m for meters without explanations. "Allometric Equation", "Diameter", Breast Height" should not be presented in capitals. The term "bole" is not properly used, it is a little ackward, you could change it into trunk or stem. In figure 6, you rather use "felling" rather than "falling". LEave space between the value and the celsius unit. Which standard did you apply for the drying of wood? Why did you use steam in the oven? since the standard does not refer to steam, steaming is a different process. The details on the use of "Field Survey Record Form" are redundant, as well as 226 line. The term "sublimation" needs improvement. In 277 line, the word "represented" is not appropriate. Provide details on the equipment used (for example the elemental analyzer) and all the standards used for all the relevant processes appled in the research. It is more usual to insert a chapter of Results and Discussion, not Conclusions and discussion, since discussion comes before the conclusions. I would erase the word conclusions and just keep the Discussion, since you also use subsections which is ackward in conclusions. It would be very interesting if you could provide data on sapwwod-heartwood ratio or the mean growth ring width in each of the examined trunks (for example in breast height).
English language should be necessarily improved, please check the comments to the authors above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silky oak (Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br.); High Value Economic Wood in Thailand”.
We have studied your comments carefully which we hope meet with your approval. We answer your questions or comments in details in the following texts. Detailed answer to review (Please see the attachment).
We really hope theses modification can meet with your approval. Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Teerawong Laosuwan
Faculty of Science
Mahasarakham University
Maha Sarakham, 44150, THAILAND
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
As I have checked the authors have implemented most of the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Some important additions have been implemented in this direction and the manuscript is better organized in order to be accepted for publication in this journal (after some minor revision/editing etc.).
Be carefull with the scientific names of species to be in italics. In abstract, this "3 age ranges including: 2 years, 21 3-4 years, and 7 years" needs improvement since the 2 of the 3 are not ranges but "levels". In line 22, the "allometric equation was relationship" needs grammatical check. In line 29, you refer "contents" and provide only one value, and therefore the sentence needs to be rephrased in order to be clarified (that you talk about the total content value?). Please correct the subscript values. Since it is an international journal, the unit of rai has not any value, you can find in the "author's instructions" the requirement for SI units to be used in the articles. In line 59, the scientists are very interested in....not "biomass is very interested". A thorough check for syntactical/grammatical errors should be implemented. I believe that this manuscript includes important information and knowledge and reveals laborious research efforts of the authors.
A thorough check for syntactical/grammatical errors should be implemented, especially in the newly added parts of text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Silky oak (Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br.); High Value Economic Wood in Thailand”.
We have studied your comments carefully which we hope meet with your approval. We answer your questions or comments in details in the following texts. Detailed answer to review:
Be carefull with the scientific names of species to be in italics.
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions.
In abstract, this "3 age ranges including: 2 years, 21 3-4 years, and 7 years" needs improvement since the 2 of the 3 are not ranges but "levels".
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions.
In line 22, the "allometric equation was relationship" needs grammatical check.
Response: The authors revised their recommendation by changing from “For research methodology, allometric equation was relationship between biomass (dry weight data) and diameter at breast height (DBH)” to “For research methodology, an allometric equation has been used to develop based on mathematical models that described the relationship between biomass and diameter at breast height (DBH) of tree.”
In line 29, you refer "contents" and provide only one value, and therefore the sentence needs to be rephrased in order to be clarified (that you talk about the total content value?). Please correct the subscript values.
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions.
Since it is an international journal, the unit of rai has not any value, you can find in the "author's instructions" the requirement for SI units to be used in the articles.
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions.
In line 59, the scientists are very interested in....not "biomass is very interested".
Response: The author has edited according to the instructions.
A thorough check for syntactical/grammatical errors should be implemented.
Response: The authors make corrections as instructed by submitting articles for review by language experts.
We really hope theses modification can meet with your approval. Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Teerawong Laosuwan
Faculty of Science
Mahasarakham University
Maha Sarakham, 44150, THAILAND
Email: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
