Growth, Productivity, and Nutrient Return of a Mixed Plantation of Fast-Growing Eucalyptus Hybrid and Acacia auriculiformis Trees in Thailand
and La-ongdao Thaopimai 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsΤhe present research covers a very interesting subject and the experimental control gives many and different results. I believe that the volume of results are not sufficiently clarified; in the conclusions and at the research closure.
For example in Figure 4. Stem biomass (A) and aboveground biomass (B) of 5-year-old Eucalyptus hybrid and A. 224 auriculiformis in the mixed and monoculture plantations. The different letters above the bars indi- 225 cate statistical difference at p < 0.05.
There is no efficient explanation; the reason that the statistical difference at p < 0.05 matters.
The discussion should perhaps be part of the conclusions, while the future possibility of research will be probably to other areas with similar cultivation means and mixed tree plantation could be included as a discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAt the Results section; you may improve your language in order to be understood more clearly where the research is emphasing to.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
thanks for your interesting work and submission. There is not much I can contribute - but I can make some suggestions:
- avoid the same terms in the title and the keywords
- as you have single-species variants - the title is not fully precise; please reflect on that and maybe adapt it
- lines 139-146: I suggest to create a table (would look nicer and will be easier to follow for readers)
- please check your main text: obviously not all of the tables (and figures ?) are cited in it
- in Discussions you mention correctly ecologic factors like light etc. Question: were the canopy/canopies closed (density of plantation?)
What about ground-water level - this definitely is important for the water-balance of the canopies with regard to precipitations
You mention correctly the understory-vegetation (besides clearing of weeds) - have you undertaken monitoring (of species and density)?
- Obviously the fixation of nitrogen did not play a significant role in productivity according to your results. What is the ecologic gain then?
In my home-country nitrogen fixation is regarded as ecologic threat to the natural vegetation (grassland communities).
- In general you quote for 'environmental benefits' - I apologize, I cannot see these in your paper. Yes, Eucalyptus obviously can have detrimental effects on the environment and in European countries they undertake heavy efforts to remove it from the forests. But this may be very different in Thailand.
I suggest to re-think and re-discuss the environmental benefits. In case you keep to these in your paper, make clear statements and avoid just general terms.
- In Discussion you mention nitrogen-fertilization, which I did not notice before in the paper. This appears to be an important information and factor.
Maybe you can refer to that already in the introduction and provide information whether you fertilized or not.
- With regard to litter fall: have you monitored the velocity of degradation / mineralization?
And it appears it does not contribute significantly to concentration of humic compounds. What would the natural contents in a woody canopy be?
Do you think, that gaseous losses (of N and C) might play a role?
Again - thanks and I look forward to seeing your revised paper!
All the best in 2025 and Season's Greetings!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood study about behaviour of mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus and Acacia in Thailand.
It is a good work, simple but well documented, which reaches conclusions consistent with its objectives.
I recommend that the authors little changes to the text by incorporating some details aimed at improving the understanding of the results and conclusions.
+ line 66. When presenting the DBH and H indices here, their meaning should be stated, although this is done later on line 135.
+ Line 127, figure 2, zone R3, correct the figure, since the experimental units E30:A67 and E50:A50 are REPEATED and E100 and A100 are MISSING.
+ Lines 253 to 261. the text and table 2 are highlighted, so they should be in a separate section (nutrient return?) but differentiated form 4.3 and 4.4.
Lines 253 to 261. this paragraph and the table 2 should be another section (¿nutrient return)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study assesses how mixed species plantations including eucalyptus and acacia are an effective alternative for sustainable plantation management. In this study wa evaluated the growth, productivity, nutrient supply and soil properties of a mixed and differnt prportions of plantation of hybrid Eucalyptus (E. camaldulensis x E. urophylla; E) and Acacia auriculiformis (A).
The abstract is clear and summarizes the results of the study very well.
The introduction is also clear and provides a solid basis for understanding the study.
Results are presented in detail and conclusions are supported by these results.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your consideration and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your positive comments on the abstract, introduction, results, and conclusions. Your insights help us improve the quality of our work.
