Allometry, Growth and Survival of Three Eucalyptus Species (Eucalyptus benthamii Maiden and Cambage, E. dunnii Maiden and E. grandis Hill ex Maiden) in High-Density Plantations in Uruguay
, Rafael M. Navarro-Cerrillo 2, Cecilia Rachid-Casnati 1, Andrés Hirigoyen 1, Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier 3 and Joaquín Duque-Lazo 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Points
FOREST 382869 v1
……….three eucalyptus species in high density plantations in Uruguay
Line 34 Change from “is a suitable” to “is suitable”.
Line 106. Change “bases” to “based”.
Line 113. Change “tree of each row was not measured” to “trees of each row were not measured”.
Line 190. Change “Diversely” to “Conversely”.
Lines 231-232. Delete the information of F value and significance level. The key information is reported in Table 2.
Line 443. Change “prospecting” to “selecting”.
Author Response
Minor comments/suggestions are:
……….three eucalyptus species in high density plantations in Uruguay
Line 34 Change from “is a suitable” to “is suitable”.
Line 106. Change “bases” to “based”.
Line 113. Change “tree of each row was not measured” to “trees of each row were not measured”.
Line 190. Change “Diversely” to “Conversely”.
Lines 231-232. Delete the information of F value and significance level. The key information is reported in Table 2.
Line 443. Change “prospecting” to “selecting”
The text has been reviewed including all the reviewer´s recommendation
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of “Survival, allometry and growth of three species of 2 eucalyptus (Eucalyptus benthamii Maiden & 3 Cambage, E. dunnii Maiden and E. grandis Hill ex 4 Maiden) in high-density plantations in Uruguay”
This study analyzed stand-level stemwood volume responses to different planting densities and crop species at two sites. Results were based on destructive sampling.
Major comments
The Introduction section is not closely aligned with the objectives and results of the study. It does not really set-up any of the interesting experimental topics of the study. Actually, there is quite a mismatch between the Introduction section, which discusses whole tree biomass, and the Results section, which is confined to estimating stemwood+bark volume.
The manuscript requires extensive editing for minor typos and to improve the flow.
Minor comments
Title: I propose changing to “Allometry, growth and survival of three…”
L34: “a suitable”
L51: new paragraph?
L51-59: Perhaps remove?
L106: “bases”
L117: You applied a 150 kg does of one mix and then 180 kg dose of another similar one? A brief explanation of why this was done would help.
L209: MAI and CAI should have units.
L227: “volumen”
Author Response
Major comments
The Introduction section is not closely aligned with the objectives and results of the study. It does not really set-up any of the interesting experimental topics of the study. Actually, there is quite a mismatch between the Introduction section, which discusses whole tree biomass, and the Results section, which is confined to estimating stemwood+bark volume. The manuscript requires extensive editing for minor typos and to improve the flow.
The introduction was modified according to the reviewer´s recommendation
The manuscript has been completely reviewed once again, including all the suggestions made by the reviewer.
Minor comments
Title: I propose changing to “Allometry, growth and survival of three…”
The title was modified according to the reviewer´s recommendation
L34: “a suitable”
L51: new paragraph?
The text was modified according to the reviewer´s recommendation
L51-59: Perhaps remove?
The paragraph has been removed according to the reviewer´s recommendation
L106: “bases”
L227: “volume
The text was modified according to the reviewer´s recommendation
L117: You applied a 150 kg does of one mix and then 180 kg dose of another similar one? A brief explanation of why this was done would help.
The description of the type and dose of fertilizer used has been improved
Lines 120-122.- This dose was applied at the moment of plantation only. The type and dose of fertilizer was defined by the forestry company where the trials were installed. This responds to expected differences in the chemical composition of both types of soils
L209: MAI and CAI should have units.
The units were included in the text and in the table 3
