Comparing the Urban Floods Resistance of Common Tree Species in Winter City Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript provides a useful evaluation of the water holding capacity forest floor debris for a range different tree species. Generally, the manuscript is well structured and written but few it need some improvement.

Major shortcoming of the present study is the lack of temporal dimension. Forest litter properties will change during the year as old leaves are decomposed; therefore, this effect need to be acknowledged in the discussion as well. At least the season when the forest litter was collected must be stated in the manuscript and any seasonal aspects need to be discussed. 

From the hydrological point of view, the water holding capacity of sediments most often is expressed as volumetric water content (units m3/m3) at field capacity and at full saturation. I do not see these values in the manuscript, thus the wider re-use of obtained results is limited. I suggest that authors re-examine their data to see if the volumetric water holding capacity can be calculated. 

Specific comments:

1. Abstract: The summarization of the results (lines 16-28) is rather long and seems not be relevant. I suggest that you choose and mention in the abstract only one or two most relevant parameters (e.g. area-specific water holding capacity) and leave the rest for the manuscript itself.

2. I suggest that you provide your equations (lines 144 to 153) in a table format, explaining the meaning and relevance of each index as well as its units

3. Unit “hm2” is used through the manuscript – it actual meaning is not clear to me – is it “hecto square meters”? But if this is the case, then the tree density given in table 1 is unrealistically high. Please present you results using common SI units and commonly used decimal unit prefixes (mili, kilo and so on). 

4. I suggest expressing the water interception capacity in mm or kg/m2, so that reader can easily relate it to commonly used precipitation units.

5. Please, explain clearly what you mean by “waterlogging” at first mention. Do you mean it as a synonym to the “floods”? If so, why then not use the word “floods” instead?

6. A term “winter cities”, used in the manuscript need to be explained.

7. Table 1 – pleas add coordinates of your research plots and 

8. Table 2 and elsewhere statistical significance is provided by a letter code, that is not explained in the manuscript. Please explain it. In addition, column heading “Rate” is misleading, I suggest naming it “Proportions”; and the respective values appear not to be “%” – please correct. 

9. Both Table 1 and 2 – please report the mean and its uncertainty only with necessary number of significant figures (if your uncertainty is about ±30, then there is no point reporting it with two figures after a decimal separator, especially, if it has been calculated from just 3 measurements)

10. Please add proper reference to R environment and any specific packages You use.

11. I would suggest that the ranking of different tree species according to its suitability for urban conditions is omitted form this manuscript as it is somehow out of the main topic. Alternatively, please provide a summary of each parameter you considered. In addition, I do not see the attachment where the species fitness for urban environment would be examined.

12. Figure 1 and 2– explain what the different graphs are indicated by capital letters!

13. All the figures: text in the figures are too small to be easily read in the printed version of the manuscript – pleas increase the font size.

14. Consider the renaming section 4.2 – currently the title suggests that the ability of trees to survive in waterlogged conditions is considered, which is not the case.

15. Discussion section it poorly structured, with lengthy paragraphs, where different aspects of the study are mixed unnecessary. Please improve the structure of your discussion, taking one idea per paragraph.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

We would like to submit our revised paper entitled “Comparing the urban floods resistance of common tree species in winter city parks” (land-2058708) to Land.

We appreciate the suggestions and comments for the reviewers and editors on the manuscript. We have made sincere efforts and revised the manuscript including the English language and style. We hope that the concerns, critiques, and suggestions have been addressed to satisfaction in the revised manuscript. Editorial changes in the manuscript were highlighted in red. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s specific comments are listed below.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to Chang Zhai at the following address, phone number, and e-mail:

College of Landscape Architecture, Changchun University

No.6543, Weixing Road, Changchun, Jilin Province, CHINA 130022

Tel: + 86-0431-85115711, E-mail: [email protected]

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is interesting. Minor corrections suggested. See the comments below:

1. The text has several grammatical errors. Go through carefully and correct.

2. In the Introduction section (especially para 2) more details and specific information on actual land effects by waterlogging need to be added. The present text just reflects general information. More scientific info needed. 

3.  Is there any unit for canopy closure? Refer Table 1

4. There are spellings mistakes in the MS. For example, Section 3.1. There is an extra "A" in accumulation. Correct it. Also check the entire text and make corrections in spelling error.

5. Suggestion to explain the abbreviations in all graphics and tables. These should be self-explanatory

6. Section 3.3 is poorly presented. Also, what do the authors want to portray with Fig 3? Describe the caption and text in a better way.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

We would like to submit our revised paper entitled “Comparing the urban floods resistance of common tree species in winter city parks” (land-2058708) to Land.

We appreciate the suggestions and comments for the reviewers and editors on the manuscript. We have made sincere efforts and revised the manuscript including the English language and style. We hope that the concerns, critiques, and suggestions have been addressed to satisfaction in the revised manuscript. Editorial changes in the manuscript were highlighted in red. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s specific comments are listed below.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to Chang Zhai at the following address, phone number, and e-mail:

College of Landscape Architecture, Changchun University

No.6543, Weixing Road, Changchun, Jilin Province, CHINA 130022

Tel: + 86-0431-85115711, E-mail: [email protected]

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      In the Abstract Section, what is the main novelty of this study?

2.      In the introduction section authors discussed about the human induced activities and impacts of climate change however no references have been added in this regards it is suggested to review the following contributions:

·         Attribution of runoff change in the alpine basin: a case study of the Heihe Upstream Basin, China." Hydrological sciences journal 62.6 (2017): 1013-1028

·         Understanding the impacts of climate change and human activities on streamflow: a case study of the Soan River basin, Pakistan." Theoretical and Applied Climatology 134.1 (2018): 205-219

3.      In section 2.1 it is suggested to add few more details regarding the climate of the study area.

4.      It is suggested to add the flow chart of the methodology of this study.

5.      What does the authors want to conclude from equation number 10 it is difficult to understand.

6.      Authors should revise the quality and explanation of Figure 1 it is confusing.

7.      The conclusion section is too short and it can be extended.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

We would like to submit our revised paper entitled “Comparing the urban floods resistance of common tree species in winter city parks” (land-2058708) to Land.

We appreciate the suggestions and comments for the reviewers and editors on the manuscript. We have made sincere efforts and revised the manuscript including the English language and style. We hope that the concerns, critiques, and suggestions have been addressed to satisfaction in the revised manuscript. Editorial changes in the manuscript were highlighted in red. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s specific comments are listed below.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to Chang Zhai at the following address, phone number, and e-mail:

College of Landscape Architecture, Changchun University

No.6543, Weixing Road, Changchun, Jilin Province, CHINA 130022

Tel: + 86-0431-85115711, E-mail: [email protected]

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of the concerns raised before has been addressed by the authors. Some language edition might be needed (e.g. line 152 instead of  "drawled" use "generated" or "drawn").