The Premature Mortality of Sabinos or Montezuma Bald Cypress (Taxodium mucronatum Ten.) in the State of Durango, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments

This is a very good study, dealing with the impact of wastewater in the on growth of Sabino seedlings. The manuscript is well written, presenting the findings in a clear way and the methodology is well designed. However, some improvements are recommended. Following comments may be considered to improve its presentation:

·        Line 9: please add in the introduction part the English name of the Sabino tree family

·       Line 9: please add a . symbol after the word Ten

·       Lines 12-12: “several specimens of sabino dead”  please revise  this

·       Lines 31-39: it is recommended for these 12 services to use a different related citation after you analyze each service and not all the citations at the paragraph ending.

·       Lines 54-57: please check the order you analyze  (first & second) the effect of water quality and quantity.

·       Introduction part: these part must be improved/extended by adding what are the possible usage of a sabino tree and possible benefits to the local society and economy.  Also, the novelty of this study and the contribution of this study must be added and analyzed.

·       Lines 110& 132: there is an issue regarding Figure S1 and Figure S2, since there is a mismatch with the figures and their legends and what is mentioned in lines 110& 132. Also, it would be nice if figure S1(the right part) was divided into subfigures

·       Line 165: there is no figure S3 in the supplementary part, please make sure to check this part

·       In the discussion section, propose to add fruitful findings more precisely and adequately with proper justifications with relevant citations.

·       References part:   it is recommended to add a little more citations (e.g. in the introduction, discussion part) from sources- authors from around the world and not limited to Mexico.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Each of the observations was addressed

We appreciate your time and expertise in helping us improve the paper, we hope that the changes you have indicated are in line with your expectations, your observations and those of other the reviewers resulted in a slightly different document, if you think something should be changed or added please indicate what you think. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Taxodium mucronatum, Ten. Known as Montezuma cypress, so please replace Sabino with Montezuma cypress;

- in Abstract replace ”Taxodium mucronatum” Ten with ”Taxodium mucronatum” Ten.;

- ” Due to lax regulations regarding the quality and quantity of the water in these rivers,..” - what regulations are you talking about when you refer to quantity?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

1. The different names by which Taxodium mucronatum is recognized were noted at the beginning of this document.
2. The amount of water must be regulated with the ecological flow standard issued in 2012

We are grateful for your time and expertise, which helped us to enhance the paper. We hope that the changes you suggested meet your expectations. The observations and suggestions from other reviewers have resulted in a document that is somewhat different from the original. If you believe that something should be changed or added, please indicate what you consider to be the appropriate changes. 

King  regards

DRA MARIA ELENA PEREZ LOPEZ 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper describes a study undertaken to explain dieoffs of an important tree species in Mexico and whether the causes were water quality and/or quantity-related. The writing in this paper is clear and easy to understand, but the methodology and conclusions need additional consideration.

The methodology testing on seedlings needs to be clarified. In its current state, the "Seedlings survival evaluation" section is not replicable by an external scientist. Lines 117-125 need better explanation, particularly with how the 3 different samples are incorporated (i.e., is it water sample 1 applied to the same seeds, then water sample 2 and water sample3? If so, why? Or is it different water samples applied to different seeds?)

In Figure 2, the approximate percentage of tree cover that constitutes each category should be included. Why were seedlings only tested from areas with high coverage? What implications does this have on the results and conclusions about water quality vs water quantity?

Table 1 should use a consistent period (".") instead of comma (",") in listed numbers. The purpose of the letters a through j next to various numbers should be explained in the text.

One issue with the water samples used are that tap water is considered a baseline, but as the control samples prove, the tap water is not "pure" and could have its own effects. Distilled water or local rain water would be better choices for the lab experiments. It also appears that wastewater treatment plant water still contains a similar level of contaminants and coliforms that are present at the inflow. The ANOVA analysis of the different water quality parameters for the test samples does not provide anything additional of interest to the reader.

Line 211: check word "ausence"

Figure 3 seems to imply that this study has an interest in seeing how much influence the seedlings have on water quality parameters, not the other way around.

Preliminary results seem to indicate that the various treatments were similar, with the exception of the higher concentrations of contaminants in the industrial water sample, potentially with salinity that is too high. Figure 4 would be complemented with additional information (perhaps in table form) such as the actual numbers of plants experiencing various changes in height and other relevant information from the experimental outcomes.

However, lines 278-283 capture some of the biggest issues with this experimental design: it does not necessarily reflect actual on-the-ground growing conditions (i.e., growing medium, sunlight, etc.), and thus it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about actual causes of sabino dieoffs in the wild, which could still reasonably be a result of low water, high salinity, or a combination of these or other factors. This research would benefit from additional analysis based on observed streamflow and precipitation (or monitored drought conditions) and any available satellite imagery taken over those observed time periods that could give insight into when the trees died.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

We would like to thank you for your time and expertise, which helped us to improve the paper. The observations and suggestions from you and of the other reviewers have resulted one paper something different. We hope that the changes we do, you indicated, meet your expectations.  If you have any further suggestions for changes or additions, we would be grateful if you could let us know. 

King regards

DRA MARIA ELENA PEREZ LOPEZ

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded positively to the reviewers' suggestions. In this form the manuscript ID sustainability-3103639: ”Impact of wastewater from the Durango city, Mexico, in the growth of Sabino seedlings (Taxodium mucronatum, Ten.)” can be published in Sustanabilty.

Author Response

Thanks you for your comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made commendable modifications to the initial version of this paper, especially with providing graphics showing the methodology more in-depth. Unfortunately, the seedlings study that this paper is based on does not replicate "real-life" outdoor growing conditions for sabinos and thus makes it difficult to draw any real conclusions. The study uses gravel as a growing medium, while natural outdoor growing conditions in soils (and abundant sunlight) could have some buffering effects against poor water quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The new additions to the paper should be edited for language.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We agree that the field conditions were not identical. It is challenging to fully capture the experience of adult Sabino trees that range in height from 2 to 40 meters. Our approach was to demonstrate that even under the most extreme conditions, the small seedlings survived. This suggests that older and more robust individuals may be better equipped to withstand such challenges.

The gravels that we used are just there to support the little seedlings. Also, live in different humidity and temperature conditions compared to adults, because they're so delicate. Their first few years are spent in the shade of their parent trees. Because of this fragility, they were chosen to see their tolerance to different water qualities, because if they survive, then the adults will easily survive. And if they survived on gravel alone without the benefits of soil, then this is further evidence that water quality was not the cause of the Sabino's death.

We appreciate your insights; we send the article to translate expert, and we do changes on lines 96 to 112; 365 to 376 and 409 to 428.

Will consider your suggestions as we continue to refine our approach.

Best regards

Dra. María Elena Pérez López