The Effect of Tree Spacing on the Growth and Biomass of Wattle Trees in Northwestern Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article aims to assess the effect of tree spacing on the growth and biomass of wattle trees in Northwestern Ethiopia. The idea is a good one, and the authors have made some important reports; however, some areas need to be improved.

Abstract

·         I suggest that the authors build the aim of the research into the abstract and reflect all the sections/parts of this article into the abstract. Remember, an abstract should summarise key findings and highlight your research's significance.

Introduction

·         I will suggest that the authors should set the context and highlight the gap in knowledge in this section.

·         Also, the study's objective or hypothesi(e)s should be stated in the last paragraph of the introduction and end the introduction section by finding a way to key in the aim of the study.

·         Please authors should Consolidate the information on the ecological and economic benefits of A. mearnsii to improve flow.

·         Ensure consistent citation style (e.g., Line 37, "Mesfin Wondafrash, 2023" lacks proper formatting compared to others).

·         Please consider clarifying the linkage between solar radiation, tree spacing, and biomass. See line 56.

·         Please break lines 48 to 71 into two paragraphs.

Materials and Methods

·         Please use the term study area instead of study site

·         You need to back up your methods with references. Let your methodology ensure reproducibility by describing experiments clearly and citing standard references.

·         Please cite Figure 1 in the text under the heading “Study sites” before its appearance.

·         You also need to add more information to the title of Figure 1. For example, “Map of Northwestern Ethiopia showing …………………..”

·         Figure 1 appeared twice under different figures. Why? See line 148.

·         The equation in lines 104–106 for aboveground biomass lacks context. Please briefly explain why this formula is appropriate for A. mearnsii in this study.

·         Under the statistical analysis, please mention the condition considered before using ANOVA. For example, how did you test for normality and homogeneity of variance?

·         Additionally, you need to indicate whether you used one-way or two-way ANOVA.

·         Are you sure about the statement in line 115? How did you use chi-square to check the homogeneity of the experimental error? Please, the authors need to check this.

·         Please indicate the statistical software and version used for your statistical analysis.

 

 

Results

·         Tables (e.g., 1, 2) have inconsistent decimal formats. Please standardize to two decimal places throughout.

·         The caption Table 5, appeared in line 119 before other supposed preceding tables. Why? Please authors should note and follow the standard format of scientific writing unless otherwise stated by the journal

·         The captions tables or figures should appear in the text before the appearance of the tables and figures. In addition, captions are supposed to follow an ascending pattern (E.g, Table 1, 2, 3 etc) in terms of text appearance and the main body's subsequent appearance. Please authors should fix this issue.

·         Now, see line139, Table 4 appears but where is Table 3 that is supposed to come before Table 4. This is unacceptable.

·         Verify consistency between table references and their captions

·         Generally, it would have been better to present tables with mean and standard deviations/standard errors, p and F values, and a good title that explains the content of the table rather than having ANOVA tables all through. The ANOVA tables should go to Appendices or supplementary material and be refer to as such.

·         Please italicize A. mearnsii throughout. See lines 119, 120, and others

 

Discussion

·         Avoid stating results again in your discussion.

·         Take note of this here, state reasons, implication and then compare with previous findings.

·         Expand the discussion by comparing results to previous studies more explicitly (e.g., "parallel with studies" in Line 202 lacks specific comparison details).

Conclusion

·         Make all your statements here categorical and include recommendation(s) to close the conclusion section of your manuscript.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Must be improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors General comment: This article aims to assess the effect of tree spacing on the growth and biomass of wattle trees in Northwestern Ethiopia. The idea is a good one, and the authors have made some important reports; however, some areas need to be improved.
Abstract: Comments 1: I suggest that the authors build the aim of the research into the abstract and reflect all the sections/parts of this article into the abstract. Remember, an abstract should summarize key findings and highlight your research's significance.
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions to the abstract accordingly. We have focused on clearly articulating the aim and ensuring that the abstract accurately reflects all sections of the study. The changes are primarily located on lines 10-12 and 24-27 and are highlighted in green.
Introduction: Comments 2: I will suggest that the authors should set the context and highlight the gap in knowledge in this section.  Response 2: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. We have made revisions focusing on establishing the context and emphasizing the knowledge gap, the changes located between lines 35 to 39 and 56 to 73 and are highlighted in green. Comments 3: Also, the study's objective or hypothesis (e) s should be stated in the last paragraph of the introduction and end the introduction section by finding a way to key in the aim of the study. Response 3: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. We have presented the objective at the end of the introduction section. The changes are mainly located on lines 116-117 and are highlighted in green. Comments 4: Please authors should Consolidate the information on the ecological and economic benefits of A. mearnsii to improve flow. Response 4: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. We have tried to consolidate the information on the ecology and economic benefit of A. mearnsii. The changes are mainly located between lines 56 and 63 and are highlighted in green. Comments 5: Ensure consistent citation style (e.g., Line 37, "Mesfin Wondafrash, 2023" lacks proper formatting compared to others). Response 5: Thank you Agree. We have accordingly corrected to emphasize this point. The change is located on line 54 and is highlighted in green. Comments 6: Please consider clarifying the linkage between solar radiation, tree spacing, and biomass. See line 56. Response 6: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The changes are located between lines 103 and 104 and are highlighted in green.        Comments 7: Please break lines 48 to 71 into two paragraphs.
Response 7: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. We have added a line break based on your comments, which can be found on line 103 and are highlighted in green.
Materials and Methods: Comments 8: Please use the term study area instead of study site. Response 8: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change is located on line 118 and is highlighted in green. Comments 9: You need to back up your methods with references. Let your methodology ensure reproducibility by describing experiments clearly and citing standard references. Response 9: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. The changes are found on lines 124, 126, 130, and 134 and are highlighted in green. Comments 10: Please cite Figure 1 in the text under the heading “Study sites” before its appearance. Response 10: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change is found on line 121 and is highlighted in green. Comments 11: You also need to add more information to the title of Figure 1. For example, “Map of Northwestern Ethiopia showing …………………..” Response 11: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change made is found on line 134 and is highlighted in green.  Comments 12: Figure 1 appeared twice under different figures. Why? See line 148. Response 12: Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. This issue is checked and solved. Change made found line 203.  Comments 13: The equation in lines 104–106 for aboveground biomass lacks context. Please briefly explain why this formula is appropriate for A. mearnsii in this study. Response 13: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The changes are found between lines 146 and 148 and are highlighted in green. Comments 14 : Under the statistical analysis, please mention the condition considered before using ANOVA. For example, how did you test for normality and homogeneity of variance? Additionally, you need to indicate whether you used one-way or two-way ANOVA. Are you sure about the statement in line 115? How did you use chi-square to check the homogeneity of the experimental error? Please, the authors need to check this. Please indicate the statistical software and version used for your statistical analysis. Response 14: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. Correction is made based on the mentioned comments. The changes are found between lines 154 to 160 and are highlighted in green.     Results: Comments 15: Tables (e.g., 1, 2) have inconsistent decimal formats. Please standardize to two decimal places throughout. The caption Table 5, appeared in line 119 before other supposed preceding tables. Why? Please authors should note and follow the standard format of scientific writing unless otherwise stated by the journal. The captions tables or figures should appear in the text before the appearance of the tables and figures. In addition, captions are supposed to follow an ascending pattern (E.g, Table 1, 2, 3 etc) in terms of text appearance and the main body's subsequent appearance. Please authors should fix this issue. Now, see line 139, Table 4 appears but where is Table 3 that is supposed to come before Table 4. This is unacceptable. Verify consistency between table references and their captions Response 15: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. Corrections were made to make consistent decimal format and ensure that tables and figures appear in the text before their corresponding visuals. Captions have been adjusted to follow an ascending order consistent with their appearance in the main body. Additionally, corrections were made to maintain consistency between table references and their captions. The changes are found on between lines 162 and 235 and are highlighted in green.  Comments 16: Generally, it would have been better to present tables with mean and standard deviations/standard errors, p and F values, and a good title that explains the content of the table rather than having ANOVA tables all through. The ANOVA tables should go to Appendices or supplementary material and be refer to as such. Please italicize A. mearnsii throughout. See lines 119, 120, and others. Response 16: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The ANOVA table was replaced with a table that includes means, standard errors, p-values, and F-values and the ANOVA tables were moved to Appendices based on your comments. The change is found in line 173, 195, 225 and 307-311. Discussion: Comments 17: Avoid stating results again in your discussion. Take note of this here, state reasons, implication and then compare with previous findings.  Expand the discussion by comparing results to previous studies more explicitly (e.g., "parallel with studies" in Line 202 lacks specific comparison details).] Response 17: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. The changes addressing your major comments on the discussion are located between lines 237 and 281. The revisions addressing the issue mentioned on line 202 in the original file are located on line 258 in the revised version. All changes are highlighted in green Conclusion: Comments 18:  Make all your statements here categorical and include recommendation(s) to close the conclusion section of your manuscript. Response 18: Agree. We have accordingly modified to emphasize this point. The change made is found on line between 283 and 298. Typically, we have used green highlights to indicate all the changes made in response to your specific comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the research is really interesting, since the expansion of vegetation and wood production of good quality is of high importance all over the world. However, there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before thinking of publication.

Please add some more relevant keywords, towards the readability and detectability of the article in the future.

References in the manuscript as well as at the end of it should be written according to the guidelines of the journal

Τhe objectives of this work are not adequately described in the text. In my opinion, the aim of the study should be extensively described and justified right after introduction and before methodology.

 

Furthermore, I would like to point out that, even though the biomass production is of high importance, the manuscript includes very few primary data collected for this study. Perhaps it could be enriched with additional data, such as  growth characteristics of the tree, for example growth rings formation and ring width

State-of-the-art could be improved. Some suggested research papers which could be included are:

-Coutinho, V. M., de Oliveira, T. W. G., Fiorentin, L. D., Sanquetta, M. N. I., Sanquetta, C. R., & Dalla Corte, A. P. (2021). How to estimate black wattle aboveground biomass from heteroscedastic data?

-Gwate, O., Mantel, S. K., Finca, A., Gibson, L. A., Munch, Z., & Palmer, A. R. (2016). Exploring the invasion of rangelands by Acacia mearnsii (black wattle): biophysical characteristics and management implications. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 33(4), 265-273.

-Coldebella, R., Giesbrecht, B. M., Pedrazzi, C., Machado, P. F. D. S., Costa, H. W. D., Vivian, M. A., ... & Gomes, C. M. (2023). Anatomical characterization of black wattle wood for the pulp and paper production. Ciência Rural, 53(9), e20210865.

Line 42: How many years approximately is the rotation time?

Line 49: “are too much consumed”  could be expressed in a better way with “consumed at a large scale” or “in a great degree”

Line 53-54: “According to….as it influences…” please rephrase

Line 68-70: please rephrase

Line 86: Perhaps you could add some photos of the trees and the study area

Line 88: Figure 1-what is the source of the maps?

Line 101: How many trees were measured in total? 

Line 106: You should number the equation

Line 115: Which statistical package or program was applied for the conduction of the statistical analyses?

Line 119: the tree spacing

Tables 1,2: You should mention what SS, MS and the rest of the abbreviations represent

Line 160: What spacing does the scatter plot represent?

Line 194-196, 201-203: Please rephrase

Line 205: “was also might be” Please rephrase

At the section of Conclusions you could provide some total values and conclusions as well as research suggestions for the future.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check the language as well as the repetition of words and expressions, since it was noticed in many parts of the manuscript. In some cases, the expressions of the manuscript don't clearly describe what the writers mean and need to be rephrased.

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	Thank you for your appropriate evaluation
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Must be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Abstract: Comments 1: Please add some more relevant keywords, towards the readability and detectability of the article in the future.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added one more keyword accordingly. The modification is highlighted in yellow on line 32.
Introduction: Comments 2: References in the manuscript as well as at the end of it should be written according to the guidelines of the journal.  Response 2: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. Corrections were made to the reference style to align with the journal's guidelines. The changes are between lines 314 and 405. Comments 3: Τhe objectives of this work are not adequately described in the text. In my opinion, the aim of the study should be extensively described and justified right after introduction and before methodology. Response 3: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. We have presented the objective at the end of the introduction section. The changes are highlighted in yellow mainly located on lines 113-117. Comments 4: Furthermore, I would like to point out that, even though the biomass production is of high importance, the manuscript includes very few primary data collected for this study. Perhaps it could be enriched with additional data, such as growth characteristics of the tree, for example growth rings formation and ring width. Response 4: Thank you. We appreciate the comment. However, due to constraints in time and resources, we have not yet gathered the necessary data to revise and emphasize this point adequately. We will consider this feedback to update the current work or enhance future research. Comments 5: State-of-the-art could be improved. Some suggested research papers which could be included are: -Coutinho, V. M., de Oliveira, T. W. G., Fiorentin, L. D., Sanquetta, M. N. I., Sanquetta, C. R., & Dalla Corte, A. P. (2021). How to estimate black wattle aboveground biomass from heteroscedastic data?   -Gwate, O., Mantel, S. K., Finca, A., Gibson, L. A., Munch, Z., & Palmer, A. R. (2016). Exploring the invasion of rangelands by Acacia mearnsii (black wattle): biophysical characteristics and management implications. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 33(4), 265-273.   -Coldebella, R., Giesbrecht, B. M., Pedrazzi, C., Machado, P. F. D. S., Costa, H. W. D., Vivian, M. A., ... & Gomes, C. M. (2023). Anatomical characterization of black wattle wood for the pulp and paper production. Ciência Rural, 53(9), e20210865. Response 5: Thank you so much. Agree. We have added the suggested papers to emphasize this point accordingly. The changes can be found between lines 47, 49 and 51 in the word document are highlighted in yellow. Comments 6: Line 42: How many years approximately is the rotation time? Response 6: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly corrected to emphasize this point. The change is highlighted in yellow located on lines 56.        Comments 7: Line 49: “are too much consumed”  could be expressed in a better way with “consumed at a large scale” or “in a great degree”.
Response 7: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to correct this point. The change is located on lines 74 and is highlighted in yellow.
Comments 8: Line 53-54: “According to….as it influences…” please rephrase. Response 8: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The changes are located between lines 84 and 86 and are highlighted in yellow. Comments 9: Line 68-70: please rephrase. Response 9: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. The changes are found between lines 113 and 116 and are highlighted in yellow. Comments 10: Line 86: Perhaps you could add some photos of the trees and the study area. Response 10: Thank you. We agree with the idea. However, the concern is that the pictures taken lack the necessary clearance for publication, making it difficult to revise and emphasize this point accordingly. Comments 11: Line 88: Figure 1-what is the source of the maps? …………………..” Response 11: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. A new study map has been prepared to address the issue, and it is located on line 133.  Comments 12: Line 101: How many trees were measured in total? Response 12: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change is found on line 144 and is highlighted in yellow.  Comments 13: Line 106: You should number the equation. Response 13: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change is found on line 150 and is highlighted in yellow. Comments 14 : Line 115: Which statistical package or program was applied for the conduction of the statistical analyses? Response 14: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The changes are located on line 160, highlighted in yellow. Results: Comments 15: Line 119: the tree spacing. Response 15: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. The changes are located on line 163, highlighted in yellow. Comments 16: Tables 1,2: You should mention what SS, MS and the rest of the abbreviations represent Response 16: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The ANOVA table was replaced with a table that includes means, standard deviations/standard  errors, p-values, and F-values, incorporating feedback from other reviewers as well. The Anova table is moved to Appendix. The change are found on line 308 and are highlighted in yellow. Comments 17: Line 160: What spacing does the scatter plot represent? Response 17: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The changes are highlighted in yellow on lines 209. Comments 18:  Line 194-196, 201-203: Please rephrase Response 18: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly modified to emphasize this point. The changes are highlighted in yellow between lines 246-248, and 266-269. Comments 19:  Line 205: “was also might be” Please rephrase. Response 19: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly modified to emphasize this point. The changes are highlighted in yellow on lines 261-262. Comments 20: At the section of Conclusions you could provide some total values and conclusions as well as research suggestions for the future. Response 20: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly modified to emphasize this point. Corrections were made based on your comments and suggestions, with the changes located between lines 283-298. Comments 21: Please check the language as well as the repetition of words and expressions, since it was noticed in many parts of the manuscript. In some cases, the expressions of the manuscript don't clearly describe what the writers mean and need to be rephrased. Response 21: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly modified to emphasize this point. Revisions have been made throughout the document to address issues related to language, repetition of words, and expressions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the impact of tree spacing on the growth and biomass of the wattle tree. While the topic may hold some local relevance, the study's novelty appears limited, and the dataset is relatively small for publication in a high-impact journal like Forests. Consequently, I suggest that the authors consider submitting this manuscript to a more regionally focused journal. However, I defer to the editor's judgment on this matter.

Below, I provide detailed comments, concerns, and suggestions to improve the manuscript:

General Comments: The Introduction section lacks a comprehensive review of relevant literature. The authors should incorporate findings from previous studies on the effects of tree spacing on growth and biomass for various tree species to provide better context and justification for their work.

The description of the study site in the Materials and Methods section is incomplete. Please include details about the common soil type at the experimental site, including the proportions of sand, silt, and clay.

The results should be compared with the previous research results for better and deeper discussion.

 

Other comments and concerns:

1. Line 105: All formulas and equations must be formatted using the equation editor in MS Word and sequentially numbered for clarity.

2. Lines 120–121: It is preferable to use "p < 0.05" instead of specific values like "p-value = 0.01 and 0.04" for consistent and standard statistical reporting. There are some similar corrections needed at the other parts of the paper.

3. Tables 1, 2, and 7 presenting ANOVA results may not be essential for the main text in a high-quality journal like Forests. If deemed necessary, these tables should be moved to the Supplementary Material.

4. Table 3 and Figure 2 are missing from the manuscript.

There are two figures labeled as "Fig. 1." This needs correction.

5. Data redundancy is an issue. The same data is presented in Table 4 and Figures 1 and 3. Each data point should be presented only once in the manuscript to avoid repetition.

6. Errors in Table and Figure Numbering: There are multiple errors in the numbering of tables and figures throughout the manuscript. For instance, lines 171–172 refer to Table 4, which should be Table 6. All numbering errors must be corrected.

7. Table 4: Include the standard error of the mean (SEM) alongside the averages to provide a better representation of variability in the data.

 

The manuscript contains numerous inconsistencies and errors in formatting, numbering, and presentation. These issues must be thoroughly addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication.

While the study focuses on an important aspect of forestry research, a more rigorous approach and broader dataset would enhance its contribution to the field.

In conclusion, while the study may not meet the standards of Forests, I encourage the authors to address these issues and consider submitting to a local journal better aligned with the study's scope and impact. I respectfully leave the final decision to the editor.

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Must be improved
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Must be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The Introduction section lacks a comprehensive review of relevant literature. The authors should incorporate findings from previous studies on the effects of tree spacing on growth and biomass for various tree species to provide better context and justification for their work.
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added some references accordingly, with the changes primarily located on lines 96-103 and 108-110, highlighted in green.
Comments 2: The description of the study site in the Materials and Methods section is incomplete. Please include details about the common soil type at the experimental site, including the proportions of sand, silt, and clay.  Response 2: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change is located on lines 132, highlighted in green color.        Comments 3: 1. Line 105: All formulas and equations must be formatted using the equation editor in MS Word and sequentially numbered for clarity. Response 2: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. The change is highlighted in green on line 151. Comments 4: 2. Lines 120–121: It is preferable to use "p < 0.05" instead of specific values like "p-value = 0.01 and 0.04" for consistent and standard statistical reporting. There are some similar corrections needed at the other parts of the paper. Response 4: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. We made necessary correction based on your comments. The change is highlighted in green color on lines 165 and 224.    Comments 5: Tables 1, 2, and 7 presenting ANOVA results may not be essential for the main text in a high-quality journal like Forests. If deemed necessary, these tables should be moved to the Supplementary Material. Response 5: Thank you. Agree. We have added the suggested papers to emphasize this point accordingly. The ANOVA table was replaced with a table that includes means, standard deviations/standard errors, p-values, and F-values, and it is moved to Appendix based on your comments. The change is found in line 311-317. Comments 6: 4. Table 3 and Figure 2 are missing from the manuscript. There are two figures labeled as "Fig. 1." This needs correction. Response 6: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly corrected to emphasize this point. Corrections were made in response to the comments, with the changes located on lines 205 and 210. Comments 7: Data redundancy is an issue. The same data is presented in Table 4 and Figures 1 and 3. Each data point should be presented only once in the manuscript to avoid repetition.
Response 7: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to correct this point. A correction has been made by introducing a new table to replace the previous ANOVA table and Table 4. The change is located on lines 173, 197 and 204.
Comments 8: Errors in Table and Figure Numbering: There are multiple errors in the numbering of tables and figures throughout the manuscript. For instance, lines 171–172 refer to Table 4, which should be Table 6. All numbering errors must be corrected. Response 8: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize this point. Correction is made on error in table and figure numbering. The changes are located on lines between 173 and 239. Comments 9: Table 4: Include the standard error of the mean (SEM) alongside the averages to provide a better representation of variability in the data. Response 9: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. The ANOVA table was replaced with a table that includes means, standard errors, p-values, and F-values, based on your comments. The change is found in line 173, 197 and 226. Comments 10: The manuscript contains numerous inconsistencies and errors in formatting, numbering, and presentation. These issues must be thoroughly addressed before the manuscript is considered for publication. Response 10: Thank you. Agree. We have accordingly revised to emphasize these points. The necessary corrections have been made to address various inconsistencies and errors related to formatting, numbering, and presentation. Comments 11: While the study focuses on an important aspect of forestry research, a more rigorous approach and broader dataset would enhance its contribution to the field. Response 11: Thank you. Agree. However, due to limitations in resources and time, we are unable to address additional tasks at this moment. We will consider these issues to update the current work and for future improvements. Comments 12: In conclusion, while the study may not meet the standards of Forests, I encourage the authors to address these issues and consider submitting to a local journal better aligned with the study's scope and impact. I respectfully leave the final decision to the editor. Response 12: We appreciate and understand your concern. We have carefully reviewed your comments and made revisions to the manuscript in an effort to improve the quality of the work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the implementation of the review comments on your research paper. You managed to amplify your research with the enrichment of introduction section, as well as materials and methods and the improvement of the results presentation.

The revised version is suggested to be accepted for publication.

However, I would strongly suggest you update your current work with additional data, since they will be very valuable for the scientific community.

Author Response

Comment: Thank you for the implementation of the review comments on your research paper. You managed to amplify your research with the enrichment of introduction section, as well as materials and methods and the improvement of the results presentation.

The revised version is suggested to be accepted for publication.

However, I would strongly suggest you update your current work with additional data, since they will be very valuable for the scientific community.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestions and acknowledgment of the improvements made. I greatly appreciate your recommendation to include additional data. I will make it a priority to enrich the current work with the suggested updates to ensure it provides greater value to the scientific community.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for addressing my comments and concerns regarding the revised manuscript. Most of the issues have been resolved effectively. However, there remains one revision that needs to be addressed:

Figure 2 appears to be missing. The manuscript currently contains two figures labeled as Figure 1. It seems likely that the second "Figure 1" should be correctly labeled as Figure 2.

Author Response

Comment: Thank you to the authors for addressing my comments and concerns regarding the revised manuscript. Most of the issues have been resolved effectively. However, there remains one revision that needs to be addressed:

Figure 2 appears to be missing. The manuscript currently contains two figures labeled as Figure 1. It seems likely that the second "Figure 1" should be correctly labeled as Figure 2. 

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable observation and comments. We have corrected the labeling issue in the figures, ensuring the second "Figure 1" is now correctly labeled as Figure 2. The changes have been made and highlighted in the revised manuscript for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx