Sustaining Medicinal Barks: Survival and Bark Regeneration of Amphipterygium adstringens (Anacardiaceae), a Tropical Tree under Experimental Debarking
, Juan Ignacio Valdez-Hernández 2, Alfredo Saynes-Vásquez 3, José Blancas 4,*, José Antonio Sierra-Huelsz 5, Sol Cristians 1, Andrea Martínez-Ballesté 1, Angélica Romero-Manzanares 2, Mario Luna-Cavazos 2, Ma. Amparo Borja de la Rosa 6, Elizandro Pineda-Herrera 2, Belinda Maldonado-Almanza 4, Gregorio Ángeles-Pérez 2, Tamara Ticktin 7 and Robert Bye 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of the manuscript aimed to assesses the survival and bark regeneration of A. adstringens under experimental debarking. Authors presented concise, but sufficient theoretical background. However, as the authors state, it is associated with a small amount of works related to the studied issue. The study is well prepared and contains a clearly raised aims and hypotheses, clearly described methods and results. The strong side of the work is the discussion of results. It is detailed and touches upon all the elements of the results obtained.
Minor comments:
-lines 46, 50: The numbers in parentheses indicating two quoted references should be unified. For example in line 46 we find two successively listed references separated by dash [2-3], and in other line (50) successively listed references are separated by a comma [1,2]. The correct method, if I'm not mistaken, contains a comma separator. Please check carefully the whole manuscript.
- lines 198-214: I was supposed to inquire about lateral bark regrowth. However, the statement in the following lines (216-218) clears my doubts.
- line 284 and 285: please add the space between the sign< and the p values i.e. p > 0.0001.
- lines 435-442: In my opinion, informations presented in the following lines should be removed to the introduction section (last paragraph) to highlight the novelty and importance of the study. Moreover, I would rather avoid using the term worldwide (line 440). I would rather simply delete such word in this context.
- lines 717, 719: "long" dash (pause) between page numbers should be replace by "short" dash, as it is in other references.
- lines 887 and 889: I find that the record of journal abbreviations differ from other listed journal references. Please unify the references.
-line 897: please check if the abbrev of journal name should be written in bold?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a superb paper and was a pleasure to review.
Aside from minor corrections of grammar and spelling (marked on the text), I have nothing but positive things to say about it. It is clearly written and well organized throughout. The study design is intelligent and clearly presented and the analysis of results is revealing. The introduction provides excellent context and the discussion is perceptive and intelligent. The paper is also well references and the authors do a superb job integrating relevant literature into their introduction and into the discussion of key findings. The discussion of management recommendation is also perceptive and sensible.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
