Study on the Optimization of Street Tree Management Strategies for Enhancing Growth and Carbon Storage Capacity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the growth and environmental conditions of street trees were statistically analyzed, and the optimization strategy of street trees to enhance carbon storage was proposed. The data calculation process is reasonable and the research process is perfect, but the demonstration analysis and the process of proposing strategies should be further improved.
Line 285： In "3.2. derivation of street tree growth diagnostic indicators" in this part, the diagnostic indicators determined by the conditions of street trees and the tools used in field measurement are introduced, which will be more appropriate in "2. Materials and Methods". It is suggested to adjust the writing order.
Table 5： As mentioned above, the concentrations of elements in soil has a negative effect on the growth of trees. So whether there is correlation between the precise diagnostic indicators used here? Will soil conditions, such as pH and hardness, affect the growth of trees? Here, the indicators that may have correlation are put together as the diagnostic indicators of street tree growth, which may cause logical confusion in the subsequent analysis. Further analysis is recommended.
Line 357： Tree height, chlorophyll content and stem vigor were significant predictors of DBH in Ginkgo biloba. Although the Vif values of these indexes performed well in regression analysis, it still could not fully explain that there was no correlation between variables, and there might be the possibility of circular argument. Further analysis is recommended.
Line 368： It is suggested to make statistics on the management deficiencies found in the survey, analyze the possible relationship between them and the growth of street trees, and further demonstrate the correlation between them.
Line 370： If the proposed content is not directly derived from the experiment, it is suggested to put it in the discussion or conclusion part.
Table 11： The scale of samples in regression analysis needs to be further explained. For example, the population mentioned the example of Jincheon-dong earlier, but the scale used in other data is not mentioned, which is related to the sample size and accuracy in regression analysis.
Line 425： This paper mainly uses a kind of street tree for analysis -- Ginkgo biloba. The proposal to use a variety of plant species as street trees also lacks the demonstration process, and it is recommended to add more investigation or analysis at the planning level and in practice.
Line 439： The suggestions in this part are not well explained in the argumentation process of the article, and the argumentation process is not perfect. For example, the part related to soil needs further analysis.
Author Response
The parts pointed out by the reviewer have been revised as follows. Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study focuses on the carbon storage capacity of urban street trees, aiming to explore how environmental factors influence their carbon sequestration potential. With the advancement of global carbon neutrality goals, urban green spaces, particularly street trees, are increasingly recognized for their role in carbon fixation and ecological improvement. However, the manuscript currently exhibits several issues that require careful revision to align with the standards of Sustainability. The specific issues are as follows:
Identified Issues and Suggested Revisions
Line 13-17: The logical connection in this section is somewhat weak and requires further refinement. The transition from global carbon neutrality to urban landscapes needs to be articulated more explicitly.
Line 13-27: The abstract fails to clearly specify the key methods employed in this study. Furthermore, the statement regarding achieving carbon reduction targets appears somewhat exaggerated. Instead, it should emphasize that the study contributes to enhancing urban carbon sequestration capacity.
Line 52-65: The manuscript reviews a substantial body of national and international literature. However, it does not clearly highlight the research focus of this study, resulting in a lack of structured presentation. The articulation of key content is unclear, making it difficult to identify the study's novelty.
Line 66-72: While this section addresses issues in street tree management, it does not explicitly outline the limitations of existing research or clarify the core problem that this study aims to resolve.
Line 83-87: The discussion of climate change appears abrupt, as it has not been emphasized in the preceding sections. The significance of the study is not well articulated. The authors should clarify the research gap being addressed and its implications for urban carbon sequestration.
Line 89: What is the total area of the study region? What are its climatic characteristics, including annual average temperature and precipitation? If this study is related to climate change, these fundamental data should be explicitly stated.
Line 95-96: Why is this the most suitable study area? There is no supporting data or literature regarding air pollution levels or the impact of different landscape types on carbon storage in this region.
Line 106-107: The font in the figure is relatively unclear and should be corrected. Additionally, the scale bar text is too small and should be adjusted for readability.
Line 175: When was the field survey conducted? The precision of the analytical tools should be specified. Furthermore, were the measurements conducted according to national standard protocols?
Line 344: It is recommended to include regression models for different areas and report the adjusted R² values to illustrate how carbon storage determinants vary across different environmental conditions.
Line 401: The discussion section lacks an in-depth comparison with existing studies. Furthermore, additional citations should be included to facilitate a comparative analysis with similar studies.
Line 402-406: The study aims to evaluate the influence of environmental factors on the carbon storage of street trees. However, the discussion section does not explicitly indicate whether the results support the initial hypotheses.
Line 465: The key findings of this study are not effectively highlighted. Instead, the conclusion section includes an excessive amount of background information, which is unnecessary. Additionally, the manuscript should incorporate a discussion of research contributions, limitations, and future research directions within either the discussion or conclusion section.
Author Response
The parts pointed out by the reviewer have been revised as follows. Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper focuses on optimizing street tree management to improve carbon storage capacity, aligning with sustainable urban development goals conducted in Dalseo-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City.
I do recommend the following.
1. The research structure should include a “Literature Review”; this article lacks this part. The final part is “Conclusions,” which consists of the managerial implications, the limits of the study, and future research that could be included in this section.
2. From a theoretical perspective to methodological strategies, the authors should explain the methodology used to obtain the information graphically.
3. Review your references and confirm that you have at least 60% related to papers or other documents with no more than 5-6 years of publication. If there's not this proportion, please include newer references.
4. The paper mentions that approximately 10% of street trees in the selected areas were sampled. The number of trees sampled should be stated, and the rationale for the 10% sampling rate should be provided.
5. What is the research value of this study? Additionally, please include future research and how you intend to enhance the impact of your work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
The parts pointed out by the reviewer have been revised as follows. Please check the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made careful and meticulous revisions to the article, resulting in a clearer and more logical structure. In terms of variable interpretation in the article analysis, the author provided additional supplementary explanations for the relevant variables studied in this article, which improved the credibility of the analysis section. At the same time, the connection between the discussion section and the research section of the article is closer, and the theme section of the article is more prominent, reducing the lack of logical reasoning.
The main content analyzed in the article remains consistent. Although it has been revised to meet the requirements of reasonable argumentation, it is still hoped that the author will expand the research objects and conduct more in-depth research in future studies.
Overall, after the author's revisions, the article can be acceptable.
The author's English proficiency meets the requirements, with accurate narration and clear language expression
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author answered all my questions. And revised in the manuscript.
