Dew Evaporation Amount and Its Influencing Factors in an Urban Ecosystem in Northeastern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the manuscript: Dew evaporation amount and its influencing factors in an
urban ecosystem in northeastern China
General comments: The manuscript is well written in English and reports the time and amount of dew evaporated among different plants in a green urban ecosystem area and to reveal the influencing factors of the dew evaporation process from the perspective of meteorological factors and leaf microstructures. The introduction, methods, results are well documented. However, there are some specific comments for the methods and results section that should be resolved before publication.
Comments to authors:
METHODS:
It should be convenient to explain the experimental study design, ANOVA and type of correlation used, replications of treatments (species), etc.
Also it would be nice to include an image (photo) to see the location of the sensors and devices working in field.
RESULTS:
Regarding this section, the information in lines 137-138 is repeated in lines 160-161.
The interline spacing between line 333-343 must be corrected (Figure 3)
Author Response
We appreciate for the reviewer’ warm work earnestly, and the comments from the reviewer were so helpful for the improvement of our manuscript. According to your advice, we have added more detailed explanation in our revised manuscript. We believed these changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. The details of the modification were listed as follows:
- Comment:It should be convenient to explain the experimental study design, ANOVA and type of correlation used, replications of treatments (species), etc.
Our response: We have added the more explanation in the part of “Materials and Methods”. We believe that the method in the revised manuscript is sufficient and concrete (page 3, line 124-126, page 4 line 137-145 of the revised manuscript).
- Comment:It would be nice to include an image (photo) to see the location of the sensors and devices working in field.
Our response: Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the schematic graph in the graphical abstract.
- Comment:Regarding this section, the information in lines 137-138 is repeated in lines 160-161.
Our response: Thank you for the reminding and we have deleted the repeat information (page 4, line 171 of the revised manuscript).
- Comment:The interline spacing between line 333-343 must be corrected (Figure 3)
Our response: We have modified interline spacing according to the reviewer’s suggestion (page 10, line 347-357 of the revised manuscript). We hope it can be acceptable.
Special thanks to you for your significant comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has collected many data and organized well in the content.
I do not have any other comments.Author Response
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly. Thank you.
