Sonic Tomograph as a Tool Supporting the Sustainable Management of Historical Greenery of the UMCS Botanical Garden in Lublin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submission presents the use of sonic tomographies to establish the health of trees for the case of a Botanical Garden in Lublin. In my opinion is an acceptable work, however some changes are required before publication. The introduction is very short, as well as the materials and methods section. I suggest to move part of the results section, very large, to the introduction. For example, all the historical description of the origin of the garden should be moved. Some insights on the selection of the trees to be considered should be added in the methodological section. The conclusion is a little poor: it is clear that such kind of analysis can be useful to the sustainable conservation of the gardens, however authors should describe the advantages respect to other actions, and the general sustainable conservation plan in which can be inserted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think this is a good article that makes a valuable argument about the practical application of a newer form of digital imaging, put to the service of assessing the health of old trees in an important public space. My feeling is that it should be published with the following suggestions taken into account. There is mention of sustainability at the beginning and end of the paper, and usually in relation to the question of how this new technology can be a "sustainable" means of tracking the health of older trees. Yet the paper also notes that the cost of the technology prohibits its widespread use (p 12). So is the technology in question actually "sustainable"? As a concept, sustainability means different things but I assume that a practice has to be accessible and ongoing in order for it to be called sustainable. My suggestion would be instead to elaborate on how older trees are an important part of a self-sustaining natural environment (mixed age forest), and thus how the technology supports sustainability in that sense. It would be good to see this addressed somewhere in the body of the paper as well.I see that the authors have already published on a similar topic (https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20193362804). It would be good to explain, in a sentence or two, what is new or different about the research findings in this paper.
A few sentences explaining tomography would be useful - not all readers will be familiar with this technology. In addition, it would be helpful to have a very brief review of the literature - if there is any - of other research involving this technique as a diagnostic tool for assessing tree health. This could be integrated into part 2, Materials and Methods.
The article uses photos, figures, and tables, all of which are numbered independently. This makes it confusing for the reader to know where to find the images in question in the article. My suggestion would be to make all illustrations (photos and figures) into "figures", and number these consecutively. Tables would of course be treated differently. The table on page 6 is incorrectly formatted and is obscuring the text.
Some errors of writing need to be corrected:
"small-leaved" is often used but I believe the correct phrasing/spelling would be "small-leafed"
p 3
"among winding ravines and ravines" - seems repetitive
"Redoubt in Slawinek did not stay in history" - unclear
p 4
"observation deck with an exposure to the city" - awkward
p 5
"we learn about the undergrounds and ramps" - do you mean "underground passageways"?
p 6
There were formatting issues with Table 1 which should be corrected before the next stage.
The paragraph beginning on this page, line 215, appears to be cut off.
"green. (the" - should be corrected (line 219)
p 8
"the started process of decomposition" - awkward
Final sentence on this page is also rather awkward.
p 10
Canadian Poplar should be capitalized (line 371).
"trunk. two" should be corrected (line 381)
p 11
There are formatting issues with Table 2.
"remain out of sight of the examiner" (line 398) - awkward - do the authors mean "remain invisible to the naked eye"?
Sentence beginning with "Unlike other instruments" needs explanation for readers who are not experts in this particular technology. What are "CODIT barriers"? (line 405)
p 12
"different speed" should read "different speeds" (line 424)"otherinstruments" should read "other instruments" (line 426)
"Mainly due to the cost of the device $ 25,000." - is a sentence fragment (432)
"PicusSonic 3 tomograph" - this is the first time we see this particular brand (?) name. Is it important? If so, this should be mentioned earlier in the paper. If not, then it should be removed. (446)
"the building" - not sure I understand why the ensemble in question is being referred to as a "building". If I am following correctly, the Redoubt is a designed feature built into the landscape that integrates - today - a significant range of botanical and living organisms. Is "building" the right word? (462)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is not up to standards of Sustainability journal.
Abstract is actually like an introdution and does not contain methods and results.
The introduction is too short containing only 5 references. It does not discuss previous studies on tree tomography.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 should be included in introduction or materials and methods. The actual results are very simple and trivial.
The paper is not innovative enough to be published in a journal as highly ranked as Sustainability.
Common maple is usually called Norway maple.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors improved the submission as suggested.
Author Response
Dear Madame/ Sir.Thanks for your suggestions for changes. The article will be sent for language corrections in MDPI. I would like to mention that I added a few sentences at the end of the introduction and 4 new references.
Yours faithfully.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper improved especially by adding more references but the main problems remain
- The intriduction does not refer much to "onic tomograph as a tool supporting the sustainable management of historical greenery" with few references to it
- The paper is not innovative and should only be published in a minor journal and not in Sustainability.
Also small-leafed should be changed to small-leaved throughout the text.
Author Response
Dear Madame/ Sir.Thanks for your suggestions for changes. The article will be sent for language corrections in MDPI. I added a few sentences at the end of the introduction and 4 new references. I added links to articles too. I changed the species of small-leaved linden as well.
Yours faithfully.
