Distribution of Starch in Trunkwood of Catalpa bungei ‘Jinsi’: A Revelation on the Metabolic Process of Energy Storage Substances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question of the manuscript is to understand the energy storage characteristics of trunkwood, evaluate wood quality, and provide scientific basis for breeding, wood processing, and utilization.

The manuscript deals with a recent and interesting topic relevant to the field. The discussed properties have limited literature, and as the property investigated seems to be species specific, it is adding new knowledge to the field. Thus, it is filling a gap that might be interesting for the practice too.

The methodology is well described and appropriate to support the problem statement. The quality of the presentation of the results is good. However, the number of trunks tested is rather low, which is a little week point of the study.

The conclusions express the findings of the manuscript in a clear way, answering the main question of the study. Explanation of the results is clear, easy to follow and well supported by an appropriate number of relevant references.

Correcting some minor type (e.g. line 111)

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on our paper (forests-3395882). We greatly admire your profound professional knowledge and rigorous scientific attitude. What is more valuable is that you not only pointed out the problems in our manuscript, but also provided valuable suggestions for modification. The main corrections with red text in the paper and responses to your comments are as follows:

(1)  The manuscript deals with a recent and interesting topic relevant to the field. The discussed properties have limited literature, and as the property investigated seems to be species specific, it is adding new knowledge to the field. Thus, it is filling a gap that might be interesting for the practice too.

Response to (1): Thank you very much for your kind evaluation and for recognizing our research and writing. ‌

(2)   The methodology is well described and appropriate to support the problem statement. The quality of the presentation of the results is good. However, the number of trunks tested is rather low, which is a little week point of the study.

Response to (2): Thank you very much for your kind evaluation and concern. To be honest, the small number of sample trees is indeed a limitation of this study. In order to comprehensively study the spatial distribution of starch granules in the stems of 10-year-old Catalpa bungei 'Jinsi' trees, we considered four directions and three height positions, and annual ring. More than 300 anatomical sections need to be made for just three same trees, which is very time-consuming and consumable. Due to budget and time constraints, three trees were selected in this study to meet the basic research needs. Our statistical analysis also confirms that the measurement deviation between the sample trees is within an acceptable range. Of course, under suitable conditions in the future, we will increase the number of sample trees to further validate the results of this study. ‌

 (3)    Correcting some minor type (e.g. line 111)

Response to (3): We are sorry for our less rigorous writing. Based on your kind suggestion, we have corrected the sentence (Line 111). We have also corrected other similar errors in our manuscript.

Thank you again, Happy New Year！

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for this interesting study. It read carefully and some observations can be considered to improve the article. 

Abstract

This review considers that the abstract is presented adequately, and all information of research is easy to understand.

 

Introduction

However, this section presented adequately the problem and is focused appropriately, some observations can be considered and specially, the information of objective.

L31 change “;” by “.”

L26-31 All information presented must be referenced.

L32-33 the information of bamboo is not necessary.

L48-53 the references 11-42 are older, can be update?

L55-63 All information presented must be referenced.

L63-69 some references are older, can be update?

L70-88 Idem

L89-93 The objective must be planned adequately and the authors must be mentioned the importance of study.

 

Materials and methods 

This part is weak, many part must be improved.

L118 the information about cross-section was not detailed. Information of heartwood diameter and sapwood thickness is important.

L120 The information about cross-section samples were not detailed. For example, the abstract information wrote “…..f the trunk height position (stump, breast height, and crown base) from pith to bark in four directions (west, east, south, north) of the tree”…… “he starch content of sap- wood is much higher than that of heartwood, and starch content…”. Then description of samples is necessarily to detailed widely. The information of sap-and heartwood is not presented.

L129 Each ring zone? But the ring zone was not determined in this study.

L1124-125 This description of Starch must be detailed better form.

 

Results

Some consideration can be considered:

L141-143 According to Figure 1 is difficult to see that starch present circular or elliptical form. A new figures with these forma can be added.

L144-145 Idem

L148 Change “um” by “mm”

L157 Are there a possibility to indicate the direction pith to bark.

L159 Change “um” by “mm”

 

Discussion

L198-199 Which are species? And they are referenced.

L215-218 These lines must be referenced.

L294-294 as Starr, et al. …. This sentence is incomplete.

 

Conclusion

L319-321 These lines can be removed, but the conclusion must be began according to study

L321-326 The conclusion is not a summary of results. Conclusion must be derived from objective. Which was not planned appropriately.

 L327-330 this conclusion must be elaborated widely.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our paper (forests-3395882). We greatly admire your profound professional knowledge and rigorous scientific attitude. What is more valuable is that you not only pointed out the problems in our manuscript, but also provided valuable suggestions for modification. The main corrections with red text in the paper and responses to your comments are as follows:

Abstract:

This review considers that the abstract is presented adequately, and all information of research is easy to understand.

Response: Thank you very much for your kind evaluation and agree with our writing of the abstract section.

Introduction:

However, this section presented adequately the problem and is focused appropriately, some observations can be considered and specially, the information of objective.

Response: Thank you very much for your concern. At your suggestion, we have tried our best to improve and modify each problem (see below).

L31 change “;” by “.”

Response: We are sorry for our less rigorous writing. We have corrected the interpunction and the sentence.

L26-31 All information presented must be referenced.

Response: At your suggestion, we have added the necessary references.

L32-33 the information of bamboo is not necessary.

Response: At your suggestion, we have removed this redundant sentence.

L48-53 the references 11-42 are older, can be update?

Response: At your suggestion, we tried our best to replace some old references. Unfortunately, some have not found the latest and suitable alternatives

L55-63 All information presented must be referenced.

Response: At your suggestion, we have added the necessary references.

L63-69, L70-88 some references are older, can be update?

Response: At your suggestion, we have tried our best to replace some of the old references.

L89-93 The objective must be planned adequately and the authors must be mentioned the importance of study.

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have rewritten the objective.

Materials and methods

This part is weak, many part must be improved.

Response: Thank you very much for your concern. At your suggestion, we have tried our best to improve this part (see bellow).

L118, 120 the information about cross-section was not detailed. Information of heartwood diameter and sapwood thickness is important.

 Response: At your suggestion, we have supplemented the Information on heartwood diameter and sapwood thickness of the discs (Table 2).

L129 Each ring zone? But the ring zone was not determined in this study.

 Response: In order to study the starch distributio in trunkwood, this paper not only investigated the position and orientation, but also considered the radial variation of starch content caused by cambial age. Therefore, it is necessary to measure the starch content ring by ring from pith to bark, that is, to measure the starch content within each ring.

L124-125 This description of Starch must be detailed better form.

Response: At your suggestion, we have detailed the description of starch content measurement.

Results

Some consideration can be considered:

Response: Thank you very much for your concern. At your suggestion, we have tried our best to improve and modify this section.

L141-145 According to Figure 1 is difficult to see that starch present circular or elliptical form. A new figures with these forma can be added.

Response: We are sorry for our inappropriate writing. We did not measure the shape and size of individual starch granules. Judging whether its shape is circular or elliptical based solely on photos is not rigorous. After careful consideration, we have decided to remove these descriptions.

L148, L159 Change “um” by “mm”

Response: Black bars=100 um=0.1 mm. But for photos of wood anatomical structures, the most commonly used unit seems to be "um".

L157 Are there a possibility to indicate the direction pith to bark.

Response: At your suggestion, we have indicated the direction from pith to bark in Figure 2.

Discussion

L198-199 Which are species? And they are referenced.

Response: At your suggestion, we have listed several tree species and added the necessary reference.

L215-218 These lines must be referenced.

Response: At your suggestion, we have added the necessary references.

L294-294 as Starr, et al. …. This sentence is incomplete.

 Response: We are sorry for our incorrect writing. We have corrected the sentence.

Conclusion

L319-321 These lines can be removed, but the conclusion must be began according to study

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have removed the inappropriate sentence and rewrote this section according to the study.

L321-326 The conclusion is not a summary of results. Conclusion must be derived from objective. Which was not planned appropriately.

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have rewrote this section.

L327-330 this conclusion must be elaborated widely.

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have elaborated this section.

Thank you again, Happy New Year！

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

 

The abstract should include key findings: present the range of values of starch content in the stump, breast height, and crown base.

Materials and methods

 

Paragraph 1: It would be helpful to include a summary of the climatic data and the range of soil physicochemical property values for the location.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our paper (forests-3395882). We greatly admire your profound professional knowledge and rigorous scientific attitude. What is more valuable is that you not only pointed out the problems in our manuscript, but also provided valuable suggestions for modification. The main corrections with red text in the paper and responses to your comments are as follows:

(1)   The abstract should include key findings: present the range of values of starch content in the stump, breast height, and crown base.

Response: Thank you very much for your kind evaluation and concern. At your suggestion, we ‌ added the range values of starch content in the stump, breast height, and crown base.

 (2)    Materials and methods, Paragraph 1: It would be helpful to include a summary of the climatic data and the range of soil physicochemical property values for the location.

Response to 2: Based on your kind suggestion, we have added the climatic data and the soil physicochemical property for the location.

(3)    Line 47: bad spelling “increase”.

Response to 3: We are sorry for our less rigorous writing. We have corrected the abbreviation of the journal title. Based on your suggestion, we have corrected the word.

(4)    Line 135-137: recast.

Response to 4: Based on your suggestion, we have rewritten this sentence.

 (5)    Line 375: Correcting the journal title.

Response to 5: We are sorry for our less rigorous writing. We have corrected the abbreviation of the journal title.

Thank you again, Happy New Year！