Peatmass Change and Water Level Influencing Regenerated Melaleuca Forest after a Fire in U Minh Thuong National Park, Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

You have done an excellent job in writing this manuscript. But you need to revise the manuscripts as per the journal guidelines and improve the quality of the text writing of the manuscript for the international readers of the Journal. 

Comments:

The title of the manuscript is very good.

Abstract

1.      Introduction, objective, material and methods, results, and conclusion must be included in the abstracts.

Introduction:

1.      The bibliographic references added to the manuscript must be revised as per the journal guidelines.

2.      Several new bibliographic references must be included in this section related to the study to improve the introduction.

3.      The introduction of the manuscript needs rewriting and the importance of the study and the hypothesis and objective of the study are clearly understood.

Materials and methods

1.      The materials and methods section needs to be rewritten to eliminate the duplicates in the sampling procedures.

2.      The procedure of collecting sampling needs explained properly.

3.      Add the name of the instruments used for height and crown diameter measurement.

4.      The analytical parameters also need to be elaborated and explained properly to good understanding of the international scientific community.

5.      Statistical analysis also needs to be shortened to good understand readers.

Results

1.      The results and discussion sections need to be separated.

Discussion

1.      The discussion of the results in the manuscript is absent. Pl add the discussion section separately with relevant citations.                                                                               

Conclusions

1.      The conclusion of the manuscript is written very short and needs to add objectives, hypotheses, materials and methods, results, and discussion.

I hope my submitted comments help in improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

After reading the comments including 8 items, we tried to edit and check the results, and uploaded them for you to see. If you have any additional details, please cmment.

Please the PDF version 

Thank you very much 

Thai Thanh Luom

Kien Giang University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This studies the relationship between forest fire and forest regeneration, and the results have strong practical values for forest regeneration. The following suggestions are for reference only:

1. In the introduction, there is a lack of summary of the status quo of relevant studies, so please supplement it.

2. Please give this article a more specific scientific questions.

3. If there is any information, please introduce the general situation of forest fires, so as to facilitate readers' understanding of the content of this paper.

4. The results can be appropriately compressed to show the core summary.

5. The paper does not see obvious discussions, and what is discussed is not clear, please add.

6. References need to be updated with the latest developments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

After reading your comments with 8 addition, we have tried to edit and supplement them, and now forward them to you for consideration.

If you have any additional details, please comments. Please attach the PDF version.

Thank you very much

Best Regrads

Thai Thanh Luom

Kien Giang University 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article provides a detailed review of research results related to seasonal peat changes, the impact of peat thickness and inundation regime on Melaleuca forest growth, and the relationship between peat chemical composition and forest development. While the manuscript contains valuable information and presents findings from what seems to be a comprehensive study, I have some criticisms of the manuscript and suggestions for the authors:

1-“Introduction” section:

·         “Peat is a valuable geological resource found in natural forests and can be used effectively for forest fire prevention (Huat, 2004; Page et al., 1999)” A more detailed description of peat before this sentence will help readers to understand peat better. The transition between paragraphs is too hard.

·         If available, studies in the literature in this field can be added to the introduction.

2- The manuscript could provide more context for the study's significance. Why is understanding peat thickness and chemical composition important? How do these findings contribute to our broader understanding of wetland ecosystems or forest management?

3- “2.3 data analysis” section

 “All analyses are done using statistical software IBM SPSS 20.0 Windows and Statgraplics Centurion XVI.”  Do you mean Statgraphics Centurion XVI? in the following sentences Statgraplies Centurion 19.12???  Please verify.

4- “Relationship between peat chemical and growth of melaleuca forest after forest fire” section

…The α value, also known as the p-value, is used to determine the significance of the relationship. A value greater than 0.05 suggests no significant relationship between the variables…. These have already been mentioned in the "data analysis" section. I think it should be deleted.

5- The manuscript could benefit from better organization and clearer headings to help readers navigate through the content. Some sections, especially those discussing the relationship between peat chemical composition and growth indicators, can be quite dense and might be challenging for readers to follow.

6-Some sentences in the manuscript could be clarified for better readability. Additionally, there are instances of repetition that could be edited for conciseness.

7- The discussion section could be expanded to provide a more in-depth analysis of the findings. For example, it could explore the implications of the research results for forest management, conservation efforts, or climate change mitigation.

8- The conclusion section summarizes the findings but does not provide clear recommendations or implications for future research or policy. Adding a more robust conclusion with actionable takeaways would enhance the manuscript’s practical value.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

After reading your 6 comments, we have tried to edit and supplement them and now forward them to you for consideration.

If you have any more detailed suggesttions, please commet to help improve it.

Thank you very much

Best Regrads

Thai Thanh Luom

Kien Giang University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author you done excellent job in reviewing the manuscript.  It my pleasures to review this manuscript. Now the manuscript suitable for the publication in the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer first

We are thank you very much, 

Which your commments, we have tried our bét to revise the manuscript. thanks to your enthusiasm. In orther to provide scientific information to the International community, on behalf of the article writing team. we are very pleased. Scincerely thank you.We also contineu to improve and send it back for you review

Best Regrads

Thai Thanh Luom

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has been modified a lot, and it is recommended to accept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

With your comments, we have tries our best to revise the manuscrip. Thank to your enthusiasm. In order to provide scientific information to the International community, on behalf of the article writing team, we arevery pleased. Sincerely thank you. We also continue to improve and send back to you for review.

Thank you very much

Best Regrads

Thai Thanh Luom

Author Response File: Author Response.docx