Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. Abstract

 

 

Please add one sentence explicitly stating the main practical conclusion (e.g., "Despite measurable variations, the characteristic yellow hue remains stable across sites")

 

 

2. Introduction

 

 

Lines 34-54:

 

• The historical and distribution information, while valuable, is somewhat lengthy. Consider condensing slightly to focus more on color-related aspects.

 

Lines 97-104:

 

• The paragraph on extractives and color formation is excellent but could benefit from a brief mention of specific chromophoric compounds in black locust (robinetin, dihydrorobinetin) earlier in the section.

 

Lines 128-134:

 

• Consider adding a brief hypothesis statement (e.g., "We hypothesized that site conditions would significantly affect color parameters, with good growing sites producing more uniform coloration").

 

Lines 135-140:

 

• Consider adding a brief sentence about how these findings might guide forest management decisions.

 

 

3. Materials and Methods

 

 

Section 2.1 (Sampling Strategy):

 

 

• Line 181-183: Consider adding a brief statement about how age uniformity was achieved during sampling.

 

Section 2.2 (Sample Preparation):

 

• Lines 197-200: The statement about excluding juvenile trees is good, but note the earlier acknowledgment that juvenile and mature wood cannot be visually distinguished. Consider clarifying how this potential confounding factor was addressed.

 

 

 

Section 2.4 (Statistical Analysis):

 

Specify the significance level (α = 0.05) in the text, not just in the figure caption.

 

 

4. Results

 

 

 

Section 3.1 (Differences Between Growing Sites Countrywide):

 

• Lines 265-270: Consider adding a brief caveat about the small sample size (n=2 for PSp).
• Figure 3: Consider adding scale bars or dimensions to the photographs.

 

 

 

Section 3.5 (Color Variegation Within a Single Piece):

 

• Lines 376-390: Consider adding a brief explanation of why a* variance might be higher (e.g., sensitivity to localized extractive concentration).

 

• Lines 394-404: Consider moving some of this to the Discussion section for better structural balance.

 

---

 

5. Discussion

 

 

Weaknesses/Suggestions:

 

• Consider adding a dedicated Discussion section to synthesize key findings and their broader implications
• Lines 394-404: Add a subsection discussing limitations of the study (e.g., single cultivar, Hungarian sites only, limited sprout-origin samples)

 

 

6. Conclusions

 

Add a brief sentence suggesting future research directions (e.g., "Further research should investigate the relationship between specific extractive compounds and color parameters, as well as the stability of these color differences during processing and aging.")

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on black locust colour variations by geographical site, a species with significant potential for expansion in the context of climate change and promising utilization in the future.

The introduction is thoroughly documented and focuses on wood colour, specifically emphasizing the colour of black locust.

However, I have some comments  for authors:

What does "middle board" mean? It includes only heartwood, excluding the pith. A simple scheme for board sampling might be useful. You didn't specify whether the boards included bark, and you didn't measure the color in that area.

Could you please clarify the formulas ΔL, Δa, and Δb (formula 1)? Specifically, I would like to understand the meanings of L2, L1, and so on. In your method, do you compare two successive points to calculate ΔE, or do you work with initial or control values for L and a, b coordinates, or you compared boards from the same site? I was unable to locate these details in your methodology.

Did you choose the colour measuring points randomly, or did you follow a specific method? Since color is closely related to the chemical makeup of wood, examining the wood's chemical compounds could have enhanced your study.

Fig 2- It might be helpful to remove points A and B from the graphs, as they could confuse the reader. Instead, I recommend labeling the axes as L for lightness, a for redness, and b for yellowness. Additionally, in the second graph, consider coloring the box plot for 'a' in red or a reddish hue and for 'b' in yellow. This will enhance the visibility and suggestiveness of the figure.

Figure 3 shows the results, but it is unclear how ΔE was calculated and what it was compared to. Could you please provide a clearer explanation?

As a general observation: How did you calculate ΔE for each results chapter?

Same situation  for table 4. 

Fig 5- I suggest changing the colours for L, a (reddish),b (yellowish), etc.

Please summarize the conclusions without repeating the procedure.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments:

1. “Thanks to its durability, black locust is currently one of the most important raw materials for outdoor furniture and other usages” pls change the wording of the sentences and include appropriate citation of the statement.
2. “Extractive substances such as flavonoids and tannins, which significantly affect wood pigmentation, are influenced by site types and soil chemistry.” Why did not the authors make an attempt to study the flavonoid and tannins contents of the  trees growing in different sites to confirm the above statement??
3. “The aim of this study is to determine whether variation in site types induces measurable differences in the coloration of black locust wood”. Kindly explain the significance of the aim of this present study. Why is it important to conduct this study?? It seems there are less clarity in putting up the objectives and importance of this study.
4. Though 975 colour measurements were performed, these are repeated measurements for only 23 boards, which originate from a limited number of trees. In some site types (e.g., Poor–Sprout stands) only two specimens represented it. This will reduce biological replication and limits the reliability of statistical inference.
5. In the presnt study, site quality classification ws based on general ecological descriptions (soil stratification, hydrology, precipitation, etc.) but lacked quantitative environmental measuremets. When there are no numerical soil and climate parameters, the conclusions about environmental influence will remain partly descriptive. Pls clarify.
6. The MS (manuscript) states that wood coluor is governed by extractives, particularly robinetin-type compounds, but no chemical quantification or compositional analysis was performed.  When there are no  chemical data, the link between the site conditions and the variation of colour remains speculative. Clarify.
7. Authors classified all heartwood collectively, but juvenile wood may differ chemically and structurally from mature heartwood, which may influence coluor metrics.
8. In the MS, it is shown that the tree age variance is relatively low, but age is a known factor which can influence extractive accumulation and heartwood formation. Why did the study not analyze the age as a covariate??
9. The MS suggested that the sprout-origin trees may produce fewer extractives due to pathogen exposure and aging root systems, but no physiological or pathological measurements were not conducted to support this claim.
10. The maps of present and future climate zones wre included, however the study didm’t quantitatively link projected climate variables with chromatic changes. Thus , the climate discussion remained descriptive rather than analytical.
11. It seems that most of the present findings were not correlated/ compare with the previous studies (similar works)  in the discussion part of the MS. Authors are requested to cite previous related works  while presenting the results of the present work.( as the results and discussion are clubbed together in the MS).
12. There are some minor English errors through out the MS and the authors are suggested to thoroughly check the MS and make necessary changes.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considered all the comments, and the manuscript has been changed significantly. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

I accept your comments and improvements and consider the manuscript suitable for publication.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found that the authors have made necessary changes in the manuscript, Now it looks appropriate. However, some paragraphs in the body were made bold which I think those will be looked after by the Editorial office.