Modelling Climate Using Leaves of Nothofagus cunninghamii—Overcoming Confounding Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A most interesting study: publish with minor changes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the careful comments prepared by reviewer 1 and respond as follows

 Line 50: Use “Maslova et al” instead of writing out all of author’s names. Do the same in other places where there are many authors.

Updated

Lines 88-89: The authors must mean that the species grows within a mean annual temperature range of 5oC.

Updated; Line 70

Line 128-ff equations: Explain what UI and SI are in equations: For Undulation Index equation: “Where, UI is Undulation Index, Ce is cell circumference…”

Following have been added:

Line 102: The undulation index is defined by Kürschner 1997 [19] as the ratio of measured epidermal cell circumference to the circumference of a a circle with the same area as the cell. Essentially, the higher the undulation index, the more wavy the cell walls, the lower the undulation index, the straighter the cell walls.

and

Line 109: Stomatal index is the proportion of epidermal cells that have transformed into stomata. It is independent of epidermal cell size [21].

Lines 187-88: for spring temperatures, do you mean maxima for a month or for the three months Sept-Nov? What you are currently saying is the actual maximum and minimum temperatures seen in the whole spring period—the maximum on the hottest day in the spring period and the minimum on the coldest day.

This has been clarified as follows:

Line 149: These climate predictors were: maximum and minimum spring [mean values from September - November] temperature [°C], and total summer [summed over December - February] rainfall [mm]. 

Line 277: “..reconstruct past temperatures and, at least to some extent, rainfall using predictive models… “ This change will make line 277 consistent with line 273 where authors state “lesser extent summer rainfall” and line 289 where the authors say “possibly rainfalls”:

This has been amended at line 230.

Line 300-ff: “..the CANTRIP database cannot be applied to fossil leaves because its measurements cannot be made on such leaves, except for leaves from deciduous trees (32),”

Amended at line 239.

Line 314-317: Use Peppe et al instead of writing out all of the author’s names.

Done :) Line 250

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have investigated the effect of weather conditions on leaf anatomy. Another factor taken into account is direct exposure to radiation.

The study is implemented and reported in a professional manner. This reviewer does not have many comments.

It is stated that Eq. 1 is dimensionless, and Eq. 2 is given in percentages. Actually also Eq. 2 is dimensionless, and the conversion to percentages appears unnecessary.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 made the following main comment:

It is stated that Eq. 1 is dimensionless, and Eq. 2 is given in percentages. Actually also Eq. 2 is dimensionless, and the conversion to percentages appears unnecessary.

We have stated that Eqn. 2 is given as a percentage as this is a standardised way to present stomatal index, as a percentage of stomatal cells in an area of epidermal cells.

Reviewer 3 Report

1.     Is the Title appropriate to describe whole story of the research? Can be Improved.

2.     Does the Abstract represent the research? Yes.

3.     In Introduction, Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Yes, can be improved. It will be better if you describe briefly related to the others modelling climate methods.  

4.     Is the Objectives of the research address correctly? Yes.

5.     What is the main question addressed by the research? Can be improved.

6.     Is the main question relevant and interesting? Can be improved.

7.     How original is the topic? Yes, it is original.

8.     What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Providing a new method for modelling climate.

9.     Does the Methodology describe well? Can be improved. It will be better if you make a concise and brief methods but can explain whole process. 

10.  Is the Result display in the correct way? Yes

11.  Does the Discussion describe all of the results? Can be improved.

12.  Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved.

13.  Is the paper well written? Can be improved.  

14.  Is the text clear and easy to read? Yes.

15.  Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Can be improved.

16.  Are the conclusions address the main question posed? Can be improved.

17.  Does the Reference cite appropriately? Can be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 mostly ticked "can be improved" boxes in response to questions set by the journal. As there were not suggestions as to how to improve anything, we are taking Reviewer 1 and 2's comments only as assisting the review.