Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article refers to determining suitable traits for selecting high-wood yield Korean pine clones. It is based on an extensive  research. Its layout is typical for scientific articles, with proper methodological assumptions, presentation of results, discussion,  and conclusions drawn. However, I would suggest considering a few comments.

Detailed comments:

1. Line 4. Shouldn't the last parts of surnames also start with capital letters?
2. Line 6. “;” should be placed directly after the word to avoid a line starting with it.
3. In principle, the article should contain one corresponding author.
4. In the Introduction, please present the potential possibilities of using selected clones (maybe in ha). What is its percentage in the species composition in the whole country?
5. Line 109. (2014) - Wrong citation.
6. Line 119. There is no need to specify these parameters. The first one is generally known and the second one has already been given before.
7. Line 121. Providing a website reference should be included in the References.
8. Line 122. (Field 2013) - Wrong citation.
9. You should check the descriptions and references to tables, figures, and equations throughout the text to see if they meet the requirements of the journal.
10. Tables should be arranged in such a way that they are on one page.
11. I would propose to present the results of Table 3 as in Figure 2. Also in both cases the same order of presenting all features should be kept.
12. Line 273. Instead of ":" should be "." at the end.
13. Lines 279-280. Used software should be presented in Methodology, not here.
14. Line 309. Not m3 but m³.
15. Line 320. Wrong citation.
16. Line 392. Please replace the example from Finland with another one. Regions are located too far.
17. Author Contributions. I think it's better to use the authors' initials.
18. Please check references carefully. Sometimes there is non-compliance with the journal's requirements.

 

Author Response

First of all, we want to thank you for your consideration and encouragement of the glowing reviews of our manuscript.

The responses to the different observations are presented as follows:

1. Line 4. Shouldn't the last parts of surnames also start with capital letters?

               All initials of surnames have been capitalized

2. Line 6. “;” should be placed directly after the word to avoid a line starting with it.

The correction has been made

3. In principle, the article should contain one corresponding author.

The change has been made

4. In the Introduction, please present the potential possibilities of using selected clones (maybe in ha). What is its percentage in the species composition in the whole country?

A paragraph on the need for the use of Korean pine improved varieties in reforestation was inserted

5. Line 109. (2014) - Wrong citation.

The citation was corrected

6. Line 119. There is no need to specify these parameters. The first one is generally known and the second one has already been given before.

That redundancy has been removed

7. Line 121. Providing a website reference should be included in the References.

The website has been removed from citation and moved to the bibliography

8. Line 122. (Field 2013) - Wrong citation.

The citation was corrected

9. You should check the descriptions and references to tables, figures, and equations throughout the text to see if they meet the requirements of the journal.

Table titles and references and references of figures and equations have been revised throughout the manuscript

10. Tables should be arranged in such a way that they are on one page.

Table layout has been revised throughout the manuscript

11. I would propose to present the results of Table 3 as in Figure 2. Also, in both cases, the same order of presenting all features should be kept.

The succession order of traits in tables has been reviewed throughout the manuscript

12. Line 273. Instead of ":" should be "." at the end.

"." have been added at the end of the title for all tables

13. Lines 279-280. Used software should be presented in Methodology, not here.

Information on used software has been removed from that place

14. Line 309. Not m3 but m³.

The correction has been made

15. Line 320. Wrong citation.

The citation has been corrected

16. Line 392. Please replace the example from Finland with another one. Regions are located too far.

An example from northeast-China have been referred

17. Author Contributions. I think it's better to use the authors' initials.

The author's initials have been used

18. Please check references carefully. Sometimes there is non-compliance with the journal's requirements.

All the references have been checked carefully.

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for the research, for the interpretation of obtained data and for the convincing conclusions.

I believe that the research should be continued emphasising also on wood quality.

Given the culinary and medicinal importance of Korean pine seeds, it would be interesting to identify the sources that produce large quantities of seeds of the high quality.

Perhaps the scientific name of the species (Pinus koraiensis) should be included in the title of the article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your encouragement and for the research proposition for future perspectives. We will see as far as possible to finalize the experiment on wood properties and the nutrient content of seeds from these clones.

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors for this successful manuscript. I feel that the expermient design and presentation of data is very succesful. Maybe it could be improved by shortening more the manuscript, including some of this data in supplementary information. Also recognizing the scientific debate on the value of clonal plantation and its consequences on biodiversity.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your encouragement on our manuscript. Some information regarding the importance of improved Korean pine varieties in the reforestation in Northeast China has been added in the introduction.