Coppicing Abilities of Decapitated Elite Tree Trunks of Selected Acacia Species Genotypes in Mixed-Species Plantation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Also, please take your time and clarify your research desigh in the figure. To be it clear. Now for me many uestios arrise regarding your research design and because of this also validaty of your findings is questionable.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have received your review and corrected all the mistakes pointed out in our manuscript and also included some additional information that might be related to the manuscript for better understanding. We are so thankful for your kind comment and appreciate your effort to further improve our manuscript. We have tried our best to fulfill and include all the criteria you needed to enhance the quality of this manuscript. We hope this meets your expectations. Please find enclosed the document for the detailed elaboration on the corrections that have been made to all the comments on your part. Thanks again for your constructive comments and response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors give an analysis about coppicing abilities of decapitated elite trees trunks of selected Acacia species genotypes in mixed species plantation. It is suggested to perform the additional analysis and revise the manuscript.

The ages of 120 trees in this study should be provided.

This study selected two cutting heights of 100cm, and 1.5m, how to decide it? 

How is the determination time of germination number and other data selected? It is recommended to determine at different time points such as fast growth period, slow growth period and dormant period.The number of dormant bud germination is one of the important indexes of germination ability.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the manuscript some grammatical and type mistakes can be found, please correct them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have received your review and corrected all the mistakes pointed out in our manuscript and also included some additional information that might be related to the manuscript for better understanding. We are so thankful for your kind comment and appreciate your effort to further improve our manuscript. We have tried our best to fulfill and include all the criteria you needed to enhance the quality of this manuscript. We hope this meets your expectations. Please find enclosed the document for the detailed elaboration on the corrections that have been made to all the comments on your part. Thanks again for your constructive comments and response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for taking my comments into account. Still o need to clarify one issue regarding your design of experiment. What is the point to talk about complete block design if all species and progenies were mixed in each block? For me it looks like one big field  with the mixture.

 

Regards

 

Author Response

To reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and the good intention to improve our manuscript. We truly appreciate your effort and time. We have attached an explanation note to the comment. Please advise us on how we can improve the quality of our manuscript. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf