Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article examines the climate and the radial growth of conifers in Texas and Mexico regions. It is interesting and well structured. Also, it is easy to follow and the reader has a clear flow of the representation of the results. However, some improvements are necessary and more details are needed to add so as considered accepted in the Forests Journal.

The footprint of climate variability and reported trends have a profound effect on the forest ecosystems and both species growth and diversity.

Moreover, recent research (Stefanidis and Alexandridis, 2021) shows that also the temporal changes of drought conditions differ significantly between forest ecosystems with different forest types (broadleaved, coniferous) and climatic conditions.

Stefanidis, S., & Alexandridis, V. (2021). Precipitation and potential evapotranspiration temporal variability and their relationship in two forest ecosystems in Greece. Hydrology, 8(4), 160.

It is also confirmed that the growth of conifers is highly correlated with the meteorological variations and drought episodes in the Mediterranean (Proutsos and Tigkas, 2018).

Proutsos, N., & Tigkas, D. (2020). Growth response of endemic black pine trees to meteorological variations and drought episodes in a Mediterranean region. Atmosphere, 11(6), 554.

In the introduction, the context of climate change is not analyzed sufficiently. It is well-acknowledged that future climate projection will highly affect forest growth and even forest line shift (Zindros et al., 2020)

It is necessary to add some results from the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also, this part mentions the possible role of Afforestation in climate change mitigation.

IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group, I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021.

Zindros, A., Radoglou, K., Milios, E., & Kitikidou, K. (2020). Tree line shift in the Olympus Mountain (Greece) and climate change. Forests, 11(9), 985.

Line 149. Why GPCC data used instead of other gridded precipitation datasets (eg Chelsa, TerraClimate, ERA). Some advantages/disadvantages must added and an explanation for this selection must be given.

Line 160. Add a description for the method PCA and some of the main rules it uses. Moreover why it is selected rather than partial least square  (PSL) and principal component regression (PCR) methods

The discussion part must be enlarged and in depth discussion is needed. In the current form is not accepted. Also, if prepare a formal discussion part you can separated from conclusion, as also suggested in journal instruction for authors.

This is an interesting article and highly important for the readers of the journal. However, in the current form is really weak. My suggestion in the aforementioned parts I believe will strengthen the sound of the research.

 

Author Response

Please see the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article Climate and the radial growth of conifers in Borderland natural 2 areas of Texas and northern Mexico can be print without additional correction.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research article submitted entitled Climate and the radial growth of conifers in Borderland natural areas of Texas and northern Mexico meets scientific content, innovations, constructive methodology, well-written results, and conclusions. The research topic covered is unique and innovative. The current research adds knowledge, methods, and findings to readers, scientific content, and modeling, are unique.

Abstract: The authors must revise it, as to how this study can be a role model for further investigation. Highlight major results with statistics. Rest ok

Introduction and aim of the study: Must be rewritten, as in current form lacks novelty, innovations, hypotheses, recent studies on the current topic, and various latest techniques used are missing.

Study area: Include more relevant literature for the introduction of your study area to the unknown authors for greater readability.

Methods: In the current form methodology flowchart is missing, the authors must include it with a detailed discussion on how they followed the processes to obtain the results.

Results: The results are too short. No significant knowledge to the readers and already known facts are discussed. Authors also need to elaborate discussion as in its current form is not acceptable. It is requested to revise the entire content. It’s also requested to authors keep all the maps in the same template, shape, size, and figures, as all the maps in current research are of different shapes and sizes. The font size, quality, template, and resolutions must be high and clear.

 

Conclusion: Again it is too short and no significant outcome of research missing. Please add major highlights and future scope and way forward from current research.

Minor Corrections

1. Figures 4 and 5, improve resolutions and text readability 

2. Improve the discussion with the latest scientific experiments and results.

Author Response

Please see the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is accepted in the current form