Tree Supports—A Method for Managing the Protection of Habitat Trees, Increasing Biodiversity and the Resilience of Urban Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research focuses on the protection of important urban trees that provide habitat value, aiming to improve biodiversity and reinforce ecosystem resilience. With revisions to improve clarity in the methods and results, and to strengthen the discussion, the study has strong potential to contribute to research and practice in improving sustainable strategies for protecting ecologically valuable urban trees. I also appreciate that the methodology has already been tested in real-world situations, which makes it promising for use in future efforts to protect habitat trees.

 

Areas for Improvement

Introduction

Line 52-Line 54 “The concept of veteran trees and the process of veteranisation of trees was developed as a way, based on solutions occurring in nature, to extend the life of trees in the human environment and increase their role in the environment” is not clear. What are the solutions occurring in nature? What exactly are the “solutions occurring in nature”? Are these meant to refer to trees’ self-adaptive strategies (e.g., compartmentalisation, regeneration of structures) or to broader ecological processes such as natural renewal and symbiotic mechanisms? In addition, the concept of “veteranisation” itself is not sufficiently explained, which makes the sentence difficult to interpret.

Lines 60–61: The statement that “This methodology translates into real action in valuable natural and cultural heritage sites such as Aleja Waszyngtona in Krakow” is vague. What specific actions were undertaken at this site? Please clarify how the methodology was concretely applied in this heritage context. Although lines 62–69 provide broader context on the integration of biodiversity and cultural heritage goals, they do not explain what specific actions were carried out at Aleja Waszyngtona in Krakow. The example remains vague without concrete description of the measures applied.

The specific novelty of this study is not articulated clearly. The introduction outlines important background and recent advances (e.g., CODIT model, veteranisation, and developments in tree statics), and mentions the author’s proposal of “dendromechanics” as well as the use of LiDAR scanning. How does “dendromechanics” differ from established tree biomechanics? What methodological or conceptual advances does this study add beyond existing static load tests and wind-load analyses? A more explicit statement of the research gap and innovation would strengthen the introduction.

 

 

 

Methods

The rationale for selecting 8 representative trees out of the 1,500 tested is not sufficiently explained. Clarifying the criteria for their selection would enhance methodological transparency.

In addition, the background information on the case studies (Warsaw and Krakow) should be provided in the methods text. A concise summary of the case study context (e.g., site type, cultural or ecological significance, management challenges) could also be presented in a table format for clarity. This would complement Table 1 by showing not only the physical parameters of the trees but also their contextual relevance.

 

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion should be reinforced. It should include a stronger comparison with another similar research on this topic.

Line 257-Line 159 “The proposed methodology is not only applicable to new cases of valuable trees requiring protection, but also to the analysis of existing solutions in the context of changing support parameters.”  This sentence is unclear. The authors should clarify its meaning and provide concrete examples. What exactly is meant by “new cases”? In addition, more illustrative examples from other European countries would help strengthen the discussion and demonstrate broader applicability.

The conclusion would benefit from a brief acknowledgement of the study’s limitations, which would improve transparency and guide future research.

Other Minor Points for Improvement

- Table 2 currently lacks a title. Please provide an informative title that clearly reflects its content.

- The Funding statement should be corrected (e.g., “This research received no external funding” if applicable).

- The reference list requires revision. At present, books, journal articles, conference proceedings, and grey literature are cited in a similar way, making it difficult to identify source types. Please revise according to the journal’s guidelines, ensuring consistency, clarity of publication type, and inclusion of DOIs where available.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear but could be polished. Many sentences are overly long and would benefit from simplification for clarity and readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviever,

Thank you for the detailed revision of my text. My answers are presented below and inside the attachment. I’ve implemented your suggestions and improved my article.

This research focuses on the protection of important urban trees that provide habitat value, aiming to improve biodiversity and reinforce ecosystem resilience. With revisions to improve clarity in the methods and results, and to strengthen the discussion, the study has strong potential to contribute to research and practice in improving sustainable strategies for protecting ecologically valuable urban trees. I also appreciate that the methodology has already been tested in real-world situations, which makes it promising for use in future efforts to protect habitat trees.

Areas for Improvement

Introduction

Line 52-Line 54 “The concept of veteran trees and the process of veteranisation of trees was developed as a way, based on solutions occurring in nature, to extend the life of trees in the human environment and increase their role in the environment” is not clear. What are the solutions occurring in nature? What exactly are the “solutions occurring in nature”? Are these meant to refer to trees’ self-adaptive strategies (e.g., compartmentalisation, regeneration of structures) or to broader ecological processes such as natural renewal and symbiotic mechanisms? In addition, the concept of “veteranisation” itself is not sufficiently explained, which makes the sentence difficult to interpret.

Veteranization is essentially based on two synergistic processes, namely reducing size by shedding branches. The process of spontaneous branch shedding is a natural phenomenon called cladoptosis. The reasons for this process include energy deficits, problems with water transport, and excessive bending moments that the wood cannot withstand. A damaged, broken, or weakened tree can produce new, lower levels of secondary branches, which cause the higher ones to be shed, and the tree can structurally rebuild itself and improve its vitality. A naturally occurring process resulting from water deficit and decreasing cell turgor is called the summer drop branch. Trees develop defence mechanisms against infection, such as resin, wetwood, and CODIT, which allow them to control decay and gradually reject “unnecessary internal mass.” The actions of tree care specialists can mimic the shedding of branches and, in many situations, anticipate this process to help the tree and limit the amount of damage to the surrounding area caused by falling branches or even parts of the tree. The second parallel process involves the creation of ecological niches at the site of cuts and breaks, which promote biodiversity, water retention in the decaying trunk, and soil around the tree enriched with humus, thereby improving the quality of ecosystem services. Both processes ultimately allow the tree to decrease in size, thus extending its lifespan in the environment. The author's method supports this process.

Lines 60–61: The statement that “This methodology translates into real action in valuable natural and cultural heritage sites such as Aleja Waszyngtona in Krakow” is vague. What specific actions were undertaken at this site? Please clarify how the methodology was concretely applied in this heritage context. Although lines 62–69 provide broader context on the integration of biodiversity and cultural heritage goals, they do not explain what specific actions were carried out at Aleja Waszyngtona in Krakow. The example remains vague without concrete description of the measures applied.

A detailed description of the history, condition, and entire process of the pilot multi-stage veteranization of selected trees on Aleja Waszyngtona in Krakow, along with the whole methodology, is discussed in the author's article. The author conducted the first study of the Avenue, published in 2007; hence, the author's method is firmly grounded in many years of research and observation.

The avenue has a long history, dating back nearly 200 years. It is home to a collection of valuable trees of historical, monumental, and ecological significance, particularly important for biodiversity. Since 2017, a slow but comprehensive process has been implemented on the Avenue, focusing on thorough dendrological and arboricultural identification, measurements and static analysis, as well as necessary protective and conservation measures. The observations, measurements, and assessments carried out allow for the selection of trees that need to be removed, those that are not of significant habitat importance, and those that need to be veteranized. On the one hand, these measures reduce the size of individual trees. On the other hand, they preserve them in various forms, gradually reducing valuable trees from a naturalistic perspective—especially in terms of biodiversity protection—to a safe state. In subsequent years, the author participated in analyses and work related to the safety and care of trees as required. Last year, he carried out a detailed verification of the condition of all trees growing in the Avenue, supplemented this year by sound tomography and load testing of the indicated group of trees. On this basis, further guidelines for the management of the avenue are being developed to preserve as much biodiversity potential as possible. These measures are being consulted on an ongoing basis and implemented by the Municipal Greenery Authority in Krakow.

The specific novelty of this study is not articulated clearly. The introduction outlines important background and recent advances (e.g., CODIT model, veteranisation, and developments in tree statics), and mentions the author’s proposal of “dendromechanics” as well as the use of LiDAR scanning. How does “dendromechanics” differ from established tree biomechanics? What methodological or conceptual advances does this study add beyond existing static load tests and wind-load analyses? A more explicit statement of the research gap and innovation would strengthen the introduction.

In the method, the author innovatively and synergistically combines the results of specific activities, integrating separate branches of knowledge —dendrology, ecology, arboriculture, mechanics, construction, and materials engineering — into a single comprehensive activity. The proposed method defines a process for generating effective solutions to protect specific trees. Old, mature, and venerable trees are the most valuable in our environment, but at the same time, they are very different, and the approach must be individualised. The main advantage of the method is that the proposed algorithmic scheme of actions is model-based and can be used for almost any tree.

The author bases his actions on the principles of modern arboriculture, which are based on the CODIT model developed by Alex Shigo and his colleagues. It is currently being continuously improved, interpreted, and developed, mainly by German researchers  Dujesiefken and  Liese.

Methods for assessing and measuring tree statics are currently among the most rapidly developing branches of dendrology, biomechanics, and physiology; hence, the proposal to separate dendromechanics from biomechanics, as research on trees increasingly diverges from the fundamental research conducted in biomechanics. The author does not insist that the concept of dendromechanics is essential, but points out that its introduction into science would organise a specific group of activities and fill a research gap in the nomenclature and grouping of activities undertaken worldwide in this field.

Currently, apart from the author's own research examples, pulling tests and wind load analyses do not use the widely available LIDAR laser-scanning method, which allows for exact mapping of a tree's shape and thus the accurate determination of its dendrometrical parameters. An additional, innovative way of using LIDAR scanning is the method introduced by the author, which uses scanning to model trees and then to design detailed, accurate tree protection measures —mainly supports, pylons, bracing, and cabling.

 

Methods

The rationale for selecting 8 representative trees out of the 1,500 tested is not sufficiently explained. Clarifying the criteria for their selection would enhance methodological transparency.

These selected trees represent a representative group of valuable and, at the same time, problematic specimens from a static point of view, mainly in terms of stability and resistance to fracture, for which the site and landscape managers decided to implement the proposed method as a pilot programme to protect valuable trees. These managers decided to implement an algorithmic process for determining whether to preserve a tree, taking the necessary measurements and finding dedicated solutions on a case-by-case basis. This ensures that the method is not just a theoretical consideration but an action proven in practice. All conceptual and implementation work took place in Poland in selected cities (Kraków, Warsaw, Polkowice) and parks (Nieborów). The first decisions on the author's part to work on the method and improve the algorithm took place in 2015, where, as a member of a team led by Marek Siewniak, a specialist in dendrology and arboriculture, he supported the process, the successful rescue of a maple-leaf plane tree (Platanus xhispanica) damaged and partially destroyed by fire based on a load test in the historic park in Nieborów near Łódź. The main scope of activities was to prepare a concept and visualisation of the pylon supporting the tree. A further step in 2016 was the assessment, based on measurements with a sonic tomograph, of a valuable, aged small-leaved lime tree (Tilia cordata) in Polkowice, for which a care plan and a concept for modifying the support protection were developed.  In the following years, 2017-2020, the development of the method was based on consultations and the creation of guidelines and supervision of nursing works for valuable trees (Waszyngtona Avenue - Kraków 2017, Osobowicki Cemetery - Wrocław 2018, Royal Castle Wawel - Kraków 2019, Aleja Fryderyka Chopina Avenue - Duszniki-Zdrój 2020). In 2018, the first trial solution was proposed to support a Norway maple (Acer platanoides) in Planty Park in Krakow. In 2021, a pilot implementation of the whole method — from identification through assessment and measurement to the concept and design of a support structure for tree protection — was conducted. This was a support for a Norway maple (Acer platanoides - tree no. 2 in Tables 1 and 2) in Krakowski Park in Krakow. In 2022, several implementations of the method were developed in Warsaw (trees Nos. 3-8 in Tables 1 and 2) and the Japanese pagoda tree (Styphonolobium japonicum, tree No. 1 in Tables 1 and 2) in Krakow.

In the course of his research, the author has repeatedly sought various solutions to increase the chances of protecting the most valuable trees. Within the scope of this method is the protection of trees through the preparation of dedicated supports and safeguards to maximise the life of individual tree specimens. The author, in the course of earlier research, observed the impossibility of preserving many valuable trees due to the lack of ready-made, effective methodological solutions, and developed and implemented the presented method on selected examples. Apart from the implementations of the method mentioned in the text, the author consulted on the replacement of the supports of the Indian bean tree (Catalpa bignonioides) and the English oak in the Fryderyk Chopin Park in Żelazowa Wola, implementation of the method for the protection of a several-hundred-year-old lime tree (Tilia cordata) in Szklarska Poręba, English oaks in Warsaw and Hrubieszów, horse chestnuts (Aesculus hippocastanum) in Katowice and in Warsaw, the London plane (Platanus xhispanica)  in Krakow, or the Kobus magnolia (Magnolia kobus) in the Arboretum in Kórnik. The author aims to improve the method by exploring additional possible implementations.

In addition, the background information on the case studies (Warsaw and Krakow) should be provided in the methods text. A concise summary of the case study context (e.g., site type, cultural or ecological significance, management challenges) could also be presented in a table format for clarity. This would complement Table 1 by showing not only the physical parameters of the trees but also their contextual relevance.

 The selected trees, the way of many surveyed and analysed, stood out:

- important cultural context - Indian bean tree - Catalpa bignonioides- city centre, neighbourhood of the Museum of Polish Jews - Polin, Warsaw;

- as an element of a modernist, nearly 100-year-old composition - Japanese pagoda tree - Styphnolobium japonicum - Axentowicz Square, Kraków; Kobus magnolia - Magnolia kobus - Skaryszewski Park, Warsaw;

- as a witness to history - a tree that survived the bombing of the city during the war - Black Locust - Robinia pseudoacacia - Piękna Street, Warsaw;

- important social and compositional context ( Boxelder maples - Acer negundo - Agrykola Park and Wilson Square , Warsaw, Norway maple - Acer platanoides - Krakowski Park, Krakow.

It is not the purpose to present all cases used as test or implementation cases, and the successful protection of selected trees sufficiently confirms the relevance of the developed method.

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion should be reinforced. It should include a stronger comparison with another similar research on this topic.

Line 257-Line 159 “The proposed methodology is not only applicable to new cases of valuable trees requiring protection, but also to the analysis of existing solutions in the context of changing support parameters.”  This sentence is unclear. The authors should clarify its meaning and provide concrete examples. What exactly is meant by “new cases”? In addition, more illustrative examples from other European countries would help strengthen the discussion and demonstrate broader applicability.

The conclusion would benefit from a brief acknowledgement of the study’s limitations, which would improve transparency and guide future research.

The proposed methodology follows the expectations of modern times, related to accelerated climate change, deteriorating urban living conditions, and declining biodiversity, for which the preservation of valuable and old trees of high value, and growing in large cities facing the effects of the problems mentioned above, is a matter of increasing urgency and necessity. The methodology was first implemented in two of Poland's most significant cities (Warsaw—the country's capital; Krakow—the former capital, a major centre of services and business, and Poland's most important tourist destination, with more than 8 million tourists a year).

Broader discussions on the proposed solutions were held only for specific trees — most notably the Bartek oak in Poland and the Robin Hood oak in Great Britain. In many cases, this led to damage to trees or parts of them, destruction or damage to supports, and, in some cases, to entire trees. Some very spectacular tree supports, such as those for the Major Oak (Quercus robur) or the well-known Japanese pagoda tree (Styphnolobium japonicum) at Kew Gardens in the UK, the Pines (Pinus sp.) near the Canale Grande in Venice, and the supports created by Gerard Passola in Spain. All of them were made without conducting in-depth biomechanics studies and were based more on the performers' experience.  

Some very spectacular protected trees include the Major Oak or others at Kew Garden in the UK, the Umbrella Pines by the Canale Grande in Venice, the supports in Spain (Gerard Passola) or others, were created without doing in-depth studies on biomechanics and relied more on the experience of the contractors.

Other Minor Points for Improvement

- Table 2 currently lacks a title. Please provide an informative title that clearly reflects its content.

The error has been corrected.

Table 2. Constructions of tree supports – materials and dimensions

- The Funding statement should be corrected (e.g., “This research received no external funding” if applicable).

The error has been corrected.

“This research received no external funding”

- The reference list requires revision. At present, books, journal articles, conference proceedings, and grey literature are cited in a similar way, making it difficult to identify source types. Please revise according to the journal’s guidelines, ensuring consistency, clarity of publication type, and inclusion of DOIs where available.

The error has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article refers to the practical issue of tree care in urban areas, especially older and valuable trees. It proposes a methodology for assessing them for the purpose of undertaking special stabilisation measures (supports). It also presents examples of practical applications of the described method. For now, the article needs to be reworked and made more detailed in order to achieve its full value. Below are detailed comments on the text.

 

Introduction

L39 – a brief explanation of what the CODIT model is would be helpful

L62 – it should be added that Krakow is in Poland, as readers outside Poland may not necessarily be familiar with this city

L71 – should this be ‘statics’ rather than ‘statistics’?

L79-82 – I am not a native speaker, but I think the structure of this sentence needs to be checked, especially the first part.

L83-100 – here, the focus should be on the aim of this work, while methodological issues should be discussed in the next chapter and the development possibilities of the presented methodology (LiDAR) – in the discussion of the results.

 

Materials and Methods

If I understand the author's intention correctly, his goal is to develop a method for preparing correct tree supports. Therefore, a VERY DETAILED description of the developed method is the RESULT of the author's work and should be included in the Results chapter. In addition, the author may add case studies there – specific cases in which he applied his developed method. In the Materials and Methods chapter, however, he should describe what he did step by step to develop his method – what literature he studied, what assumptions and framework he adopted for his method, what (and how) field observations he conducted over those 10 years, and on what basis he selected the eight trees that he presented in the Results.

Therefore, after supplementing the current text with the missing details, it should be moved to the Results section, excluding the few pieces of information concerning the method's development. In turn, some calculation formulas and scales used to assess descriptive parameters should be added to the description of the method. This should be a complete instruction on what to do and how to do it, step by step, in relation to a given tree, without the need to refer to dozens of cited literature sources. Then it will have specific value and practical usefulness.

L117 – what specifically should be assessed in ‘the tree's surroundings?’

L134 – rather unnecessary ‘you’

L138/139 – how can the concept of basic safety be explained?

L151, 153 – ‘we calculate’ – how?

L155-157 – this is a vague sentence; how are people who would like to use the author's method supposed to implement it?

L158 – the text does not mention the k factor, the formula from which the presented value is derived, or why this particular value was chosen.

L174-176 – citation missing.

 

Results

This chapter should be divided into subsections – first, the method developed by the author should be presented in detail, and then, in a separate subsection, examples of trees that have been assessed and supported using the developed method should be presented.

L184-185 – this should be described in the research methodology.

Fig. 1 – each of these stages should be described in detail in the theoretical assumptions of the method developed by the author.

L195-197 – imprecise sentence. Table 1 does not show the calculated average Bp. Instead, it shows the Bp range from 143% to 1121%. Please reword this sentence so that it fully corresponds to the information contained in Table 1.

L199 – tested group of trees – does this refer to the eight trees in Table 1 or all 1,500?

Table 1 – the ‘%’ is missing from the last number

L206-231 – if, according to Table 1, this tree has Bp=243%, and is therefore above 150%, why were supports designed for it, since L162 states: ‘If the values are greater [than 150%], the tree can remain”, and only when it is <150% are three intervention options considered (L162-165) – this is completely inconsistent, please explain (the same applies to the rest of the text in the results). Why was the “worst” tree, i.e. No. 7, not presented in detail?

L213-215 – these elements are not visible in Fig. 3, only in Fig. 4

Fig. 2a – please explain in the text why the blue and red lines do not start from the base of the trunk but at a certain distance from it

Fig. 3b and 4a – they are too small, the descriptions are not legible. Captions for Fig. 3 and 4 – why is there a pear tree here, when the text refers to a Japanese pagoda tree? It is the same tree as in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

L233-238 – this is a completely vague description; if someone wanted to implement it for their tree, they would have no chance. What analyses? What calculations? What tree modelling?

Table 2 – the title is missing

L243-245 – it would be worth adding photos of the trees from Table 2 with the protective measures applied

 

Discussion

The discussion needs to be expanded, with more extensive commentary on the solutions adopted and the specific results obtained (described trees). There are also no references to the literature or sources of information, which are essential elements of any discussion.

L260 – pear tree?

L260-263 – if this method is so widely used, the question arises as to whether it makes sense to publish this article, because what new information does it provide? Please rephrase this section so that the sense of the research is clear.

 

Conclusions

L270/271 – this laser scanning is not very visible in the results; simply stating that it was used is not enough; it should be shown in more detail, as was the case with tree no. 1.

 

Abbreviation

Please adapt this to this specific article.

 

References

Some descriptions are incomplete, page numbers are missing.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviever,

Thank you for the detailed revision of my text. My answers are presented below and inside the attachment. I’ve implemented your suggestions and improved my article.

The article addresses the practical issue of tree care in urban areas, particularly older and valuable trees. It proposes a methodology for assessing them to undertake special stabilisation measures (supports). It also presents examples of practical applications of the described method. For now, the article needs to be reworked and made more detailed to achieve its full value. Below are detailed comments on the text.

 Introduction

L39 – A brief explanation of what the CODIT model is would be helpful

The CODIT model, based on Hepting's research and developed and expanded by Shigo, posits that, as a result of fungal infection, desiccation, and damage, decay can develop within the trunk, which is counteracted by the formation of walls—barriers that fence off the area. The tree exerts four types of walls, which we can imagine like a cut out of a cylinder, resembling a piece of birthday cake, specifically these:

- two walls, No. 1 - the weakest, compartmentalising  (fencing off) changes/decomposition from above and below

- wall No. 2 - not very resistant, compartmentalising changes/decomposition from the middle of the trunk/horizon

- two walls No. 3 - moderately resistant, compartmentalising changes/distribution from the sides

- wall no. 4 - named by Shigo "barrier zone" - the strongest, and compartmentalising changes/decomposition from outside the trunk/horizon.

 

L62 – It should be added that Krakow is in Poland, as readers outside Poland may not necessarily be familiar with this city

Completed in the main text.

L71 – should this be ‘statics’ rather than ‘statistics’?

Completed in the main text.

L79-82 – I am not a native speaker, but I think the structure of this sentence needs to be checked, especially the first part.

Completed in the main text.

L83-100 – here, the focus should be on the aim of this work, while methodological issues should be discussed in the next chapter and the development possibilities of the presented methodology (LiDAR) – in the discussion of the results.

 Completed in the main text.

Materials and Methods

If I understand the author's intention correctly, his goal is to develop a method for preparing correct tree supports. Therefore, a VERY DETAILED description of the developed method is the RESULT of the author's work and should be included in the Results chapter. In addition, the author may add case studies there – specific cases in which he applied his developed method. In the Materials and Methods chapter, however, he should describe what he did step by step to develop his method – what literature he studied, what assumptions and framework he adopted for his method, what (and how) field observations he conducted over those 10 years, and on what basis he selected the eight trees that he presented in the Results.

Therefore, after supplementing the current text with the missing details, it should be moved to the Results section, excluding the few pieces of information concerning the method's development. In turn, some calculation formulas and scales used to assess descriptive parameters should be added to the description of the method. This should be a complete, step-by-step instruction on what to do and how to do it, in relation to a given tree, without the need to refer to dozens of cited literature sources. Then it will have specific value and practical usefulness.

The primary objective of the research was to develop a coherent procedural model to methodically solve tree stability problems, mainly through supports or pylons [45], by identifying and analysing the situation and creating a solution that combines the results of physical measurements and calculations in terms of dendromechanics, taken as bases, with structural design and material selection. The concept of dendromechanics is the author's proposal for separating from plant biomechanics those areas that encompass a tree's mechanical properties. Biomechanics or plant physics [46] is a comprehensive concept, and not all ideas, theories, and research are appropriate for trees, a specific group of plants in which mechanical research is also essential for human safety.

The method has a procedural character, presented as an algorithmic flowchart, allowing a step-by-step approach. The process is based on several essential steps:

- problem identification, where the focus should be on baseline, screening surveys, to quickly search for problem trees in urban or park stands. In the future, perhaps not far away, processes can be automated with AI support. Greehill is implementing such solutions []

- basic tree assessment based on standardised sensory evaluation methods, which are implemented throughout Europe [] and are the guideline for most tree specialists. This enables advanced diagnostics of the tree's needs, allowing the next steps in the algorithm to be carried out effectively.

- Wind pressure analysis performed based on a photograph or based on a LIDAR scan of the tree. Such an analysis can and should be combined with a sonic tomography examination of the trunk or a load test. This allows determination of the mechanical parameters of the tree, which will serve as the basis for further structural calculations.

- Analysing the results of the tree condition in the context of the sensitivity of the surroundings, to assess which solution is the most optimised, not only for the tree itself, but also for the protection of the surroundings. The assessment of the sensitivity of the surroundings is a fundamental component of the extensive tree risk assessment methods [].

- modelling of the tree based on LIDAR scans, allowing effective selection of tree support solutions - supports or pylons. A well-prepared model enables greater design precision. This actually reduces the time required to fabricate and install a protective element, making a real difference in the active protection of valuable trees.

- The selection of the final protection solution allows structural calculations to be made and material solutions to be selected. It is essential to design a foundation with a limited impact on the root system. Optimal solutions should have the least possible impact on the tree's current physiology. They should not block the mechanisms of reaction wood, which are responsible for the construction of load-bearing structures.

- Modelling and visualising the solution for a specific tree, which makes it easier to familiarise decision makers with the chosen solution. This also facilitates the subsequent installation of the solution on the tree. 

- All the steps mentioned above make it possible to prepare a comprehensive tree protection documentation.

- carrying out the tree work for the installation of the chosen protection solution. A contractor usually carries this out under the supervision of the inspectors, protecting the tree in the process.

- monitoring the effects of the protection system and implementing adjustments if these prove necessary or if the tree develops significantly or the condition of the tree deteriorates due to decay.

L117 – what specifically should be assessed in ‘the tree's surroundings?’

The tree's surroundings' vulnerability needs to be checked. There is my article in the references, which shows it in detail.

L134 – rather unnecessary ‘you’

Completed in the main text.

L138/139 – how can the concept of basic safety be explained?

Basic safety is the numerical or percentage expression of the relationship between the bending moments acting on the tree, caused by the wind pressure and the tree's own weight if the tree is tilted from the vertical to the response the tree gives in terms of material properties (compressive strength of the wood) and the shape of the trunk which translates into an individual bending cross-sectional index. 

L151, 153 – ‘we calculate’ – how?

This is not central to the process as a whole. Specialists do this, and all the formulas are built into the measurement software. The article is not about measuring tree statics just using them. The whole measurement process is described, for example, by Erk Brudi in the article provided.

L155-157 – this is a vague sentence; how are people who would like to use the author's method supposed to implement it?

To measure tree statics using the pulling test method, a specialised measuring set and software are needed, so not everyone can do it, just as not every doctor can perform surgery. However, he or she does benefit from the resulting knowledge. The pulling test method is becoming increasingly common worldwide, especially in Europe.

L158 – the text does not mention the k factor, the formula from which the presented value is derived, or why this particular value was chosen.

The safety factor, k, is an unmeasured number used in engineering that expresses the ratio of the dangerous value to the allowable value; i.e., the ratio of the perilous moment that overturns/breaks the tree to the maximum moment reached at the maximum permissible wind force of 33 m/s. The safety factor varies with material and construction, and for trees, a value of 1.5 has been adopted, which is the lower limit for elastic materials.

L174-176 – citation missing.

 Completed in the main text.

Results

This chapter should be divided into subsections – first, the method developed by the author should be presented in detail, and then, in a separate subsection, examples of trees that have been assessed and supported using the developed method should be presented.

L184-185 – this should be described in the research methodology.

During the research and development, the conduct model was detailed, as described in the methodology. On this basis, an essential element for those implementing the handling model was achieved: an algorithmic decision-making scheme. It was tested to varying degrees across many cases —at least a dozen —and the text selected the most illustrative examples from different types of sites relevant to the method's development.

Fig. 1 – each of these stages should be described in detail in the theoretical assumptions of the method developed by the author.

Completed in the main text.

L195-197 – imprecise sentence. Table 1 does not show the calculated average Bp. Instead, it shows the Bp range from 143% to 1121%. Please reword this sentence so that it fully corresponds to the information contained in Table 1.

The results of these tests, for eight representative examples, are summarised in Table 1. The data therein reflect the dendrometric and mechanical parameters of the selected trees, those key to the analysis of the support concept, namely: tree height, trunk circumference at breast height, crown area exposed to the wind, centre of the wind load (centre of gravity for the crown area), calculated bending/breaking/tipping moment of the tree and the value of basic safety for the selected trees. Basic safety was computed using the well-established methodology presented earlier. 

L199 – tested group of trees – does this refer to the eight trees in Table 1 or all 1,500?

These trees are selected examples from over 20 trees on which the behavioural model was tested to varying degrees, as described in the methodology. The author has been involved in the testing of around 1,500 trees over the last 10 years.  The results of these studies show that the average basic safety value for the trees included in the measurements ranges from 250 to 300%, so the basic safety factor varies between 2.5 and 3. This means that most of the large, valuable trees growing in cities and parks have good or very good biomechanical properties. The survey of a large group of trees shows that only 10 to 15% of specimens (150-200 trees) have noticeable mechanical problems and require further analysis, which, in some cases, usually involves leaning, valuable, old, habitat trees. Those trees indicate the need to select systems and materials for a planned support protection project. Of the 150-200 trees in need of action, many were removed due to the inability to implement protection solutions or the lack of financial resources to prepare a dedicated solution. The author managed to convince the owners or managers to implement the treatment model in whole or in part for only about 10% of this group (more than 20 trees). The treatment of these trees was chosen 8 as the most cross-sectional set of specimens that required external support to maintain stability or resistance to breakage.

Table 1 – the ‘%’ is missing from the last number

Completed in the main text.

L206-231 – if, according to Table 1, this tree has Bp=243%, and is therefore above 150%, why were supports designed for it, since L162 states: ‘If the values are greater [than 150%], the tree can remain”, and only when it is <150% are three intervention options considered (L162-165) – this is completely inconsistent, please explain (the same applies to the rest of the text in the results). Why was the “worst” tree, i.e. No. 7, not presented in detail?

A chosen tree combines several issues. Firstly, the basic safety value accounts for the presence of an old, deformed support (Figure 2b), which could fail at any time. Secondly, a large bench was designed directly under the tree (Figure 4b), thereby significantly increasing the surrounding vulnerability and increasing the risk of damage. Thirdly, the tree is one of the four original 100+-year-old specimens in the square's modernist layout and thus has high historical and cultural value. Fourthly, decomposition is developing in the tree, which is essential for increasing biodiversity.

L213-215 – these elements are not visible in Fig. 3, only in Fig. 4

Completed in the main text.

Fig. 2a – please explain in the text why the blue and red lines do not start from the base of the trunk but at a certain distance from it

Completed in the main text.

Fig. 3b and 4a – they are too small, the descriptions are not legible. Captions for Fig. 3 and 4 – why is there a pear tree here, when the text refers to a Japanese pagoda tree? It is the same tree as in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

Completed in the main text.

L233-238 – this is a completely vague description; if someone wanted to implement it for their tree, they would have no chance. What analyses? What calculations? What tree modelling?

The author has supplemented the detailed description of the method in the methodology, resulting in the data in Table 2 explaining the different solutions for trees with similar problems but in different spatial situations and environmental contexts. In the other research cases presented, actions were carried out according to the proposed procedure model each time. According to the method, after the LIDAR scanning of the tree, three-dimensional models of the trees were made and, with their help, the solutions of supports, pylons were selected in detail for individual trees in terms of the type of support, the material used, the size of the foundations necessary for the foundation of the tree protection elements (Table 2). This selection of dedicated solutions is essential if the tree's presence in the environment is to be maximised. 

Table 2 – the title is missing

Completed in the main text.

L243-245 – it would be worth adding photos of the trees from Table 2 with the protective measures applied

Several examples have been added to illustrate the scanning and creation of a 3D model of the tree and support, together with visualisations.

Discussion

The discussion needs to be expanded, with more extensive commentary on the solutions adopted and the specific results obtained (described trees). There are also no references to the literature or sources of information, which are essential elements of any discussion.

  A methodical approach is adopted from problem identification, through relevant surveys and measurements, including the use of state-of-the-art scanning and modelling of trees and safeguards. Many authors highlight methods for problem identification (surveys, tree assessments) and measurement (by type, quality, and applicability), as well as material applications (wood, steel, concrete). What is lacking is a coherent method that enables complementary actions for a specific tree.

The proposed methodology follows the expectations of modern times, related to accelerated climate change, deteriorating urban living conditions, and declining biodiversity, for which the preservation of valuable and old trees of high value, and growing in large cities facing the effects of the problems mentioned above, is a matter of increasing urgency and necessity. The methodology was first implemented in two of Poland's most significant cities (Warsaw—the country's capital; Krakow—the former capital, a major centre of services and business, and Poland's most important tourist destination, with more than 8 million tourists a year).

Broader discussions on the proposed solutions were held only for specific trees — most notably the Bartek oak in Poland and the Robin Hood oak in Great Britain. In many cases, this led to damage to trees or parts of them, destruction or damage to supports, and, in some cases, to entire trees. Some very spectacular tree supports, such as those for the Major Oak (Quercus robur) or the well-known Japanese pagoda tree (Styphnolobium japonicum) at Kew Gardens in the UK, the Pines (Pinus sp.) near the Canale Grande in Venice, and the supports created by Gerard Passola in Spain. All of them were made without conducting in-depth biomechanics studies and were based more on the performers' experience.  

Some very spectacular protected trees include the Major Oak and others at Kew Gardens in the UK, the Umbrella Pines by the Canale Grande in Venice, the supports in Spain (Gerard Passola) or others, which were created without in-depth biomechanical studies and relied more on contractors' experience.

L260 – pear tree?

Completed in the main text.

L260-263 – if this method is so widely used, the question arises as to whether it makes sense to publish this article, because what new information does it provide? Please rephrase this section so that the sense of the research is clear.

 Completed in the main text.

 

Conclusions

L270/271 – this laser scanning is not very visible in the results; simply stating that it was used is not enough; it should be shown in more detail, as was the case with tree no. 1.

 Completed in the main text.

Abbreviation

CODIT - Compartmentalization of Decay in Trees

LIDAR - Light Detection and Ranging

Bp – Basic Safety

SIM - Static Integrated Measurement – pulling test,  

References

Some descriptions are incomplete, page numbers are missing.

Completed in the main text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the problem of protecting valuable trees that are of great importance as habitat trees in urban environments. This topic is relevant to practice and will be of interest to specialists from various disciplines engaged in the study of greenery, particularly the protection of trees within the broader urban context.

The methodology chosen by the author is generally clear and appropriate for the presented study. The figures and tables are relevant.

The references cited in the article are appropriate. However, only a small portion of them were published in the last five years. The author should work more thoroughly with the most recent literature related to the study.

The reviewer has the following comments and suggestions:

1. The author mentions “the primary objective” twice in the article — in the “Introduction” section and in the “Results” section — with different wording.

1) “The primary objective of the research was to develop methods for designing tree protection in the form of supports/pylons [44] by combining the results of research obtained through measurements and physical calculations, related explicitly to dendromechanics, with structural designs and material solutions” (lines 83–86).

2) “The primary objective of the research and the main achievement was to develop a coherent model – an algorithm (Figure 1) that allows for the methodical resolution of problems related to the tree static, ancient trees that are valuable to the urban ecosystem and increase biodiversity due to the multitude of niches found in this type of tree” (lines 178–181).

   It would be advisable for the author to settle on a single objective or somehow combine these two formulations.

2. The author writes in the article that “the article presents an analysis of solutions based on 10 years of research on over 1,500 trees” (lines 16–17). However, in the “Results” section, he provides a detailed description of only 8 trees in Warsaw and Krakow. It would be advisable for the author to explain more clearly how the sample of 8 trees was selected and what role the other approximately 1,500 trees played in the study.

 

3. The author needs to significantly improve the “Discussion” section. The main purpose of this section is to demonstrate the importance of the research and its place within the broader scientific context. Accordingly, the content should include the discussion and interpretation of the study’s results, their comparison with other existing studies, and the identification of strengths and weaknesses.

 

4. The “Conclusions” also need to be revised. They are too general and do not accurately reflect the study's results.

Author Response

Dear Reviever,

Thank you for the detailed revision of my text. My answers are presented below and inside the attachment. I’ve implemented your suggestions and improved my article.

The article is devoted to protecting valuable trees, which are of great importance as habitat trees in urban environments. This topic is relevant to practice and will be of interest to specialists from various disciplines engaged in the study of greenery, particularly the protection of trees within the broader urban context.

The methodology chosen by the author is generally clear and appropriate for the presented study. The figures and tables are relevant.

The references cited in the article are appropriate. However, only a small portion of them were published in the last five years. The author should work more thoroughly with the most recent literature related to the study.

The author has attempted to rely on proven literature and research that he trusts. Partly newer literature has been added. Literature directly relevant to the subject is lacking, as the method fills a specific knowledge gap. The older literature is basic to the subject.

The reviewer has the following comments and suggestions:

1. The author mentions “the primary objective” twice in the article — in the “Introduction” section and in the “Results” section — with different wording.

1) “The primary objective of the research was to develop methods for designing tree protection in the form of supports/pylons [44] by combining the results of research obtained through measurements and physical calculations, related explicitly to dendromechanics, with structural designs and material solutions” (lines 83–86).

2) “The primary objective of the research and the main achievement was to develop a coherent model – an algorithm (Figure 1) that allows for the methodical resolution of problems related to the tree static, ancient trees that are valuable to the urban ecosystem and increase biodiversity due to the multitude of niches found in this type of tree” (lines 178–181).

   It would be advisable for the author to settle on a single objective or somehow combine these two formulations.

The error has been corrected. There is one goal.

1. The author writes in the article that “the article presents an analysis of solutions based on 10 years of research on over 1,500 trees” (lines 16–17). However, in the “Results” section, he provides a detailed description of only 8 trees in Warsaw and Krakow. It would be advisable for the author to explain more clearly how the sample of 8 trees was selected and what role the other approximately 1,500 trees played in the study.

These selected trees represent a representative group of valuable and, at the same time, problematic specimens from a static point of view, mainly in terms of stability and resistance to fracture, for which the site and landscape managers decided to implement the proposed method as a pilot programme to protect valuable trees. These managers decided to implement an algorithmic process for determining whether to preserve a tree, taking the necessary measurements and finding dedicated solutions on a case-by-case basis. This ensures that the method is not just a theoretical consideration but an action proven in practice. All conceptual and implementation work took place in Poland in selected cities (Kraków, Warsaw, Polkowice) and parks (Nieborów). The first decisions on the author's part to work on the method and improve the algorithm took place in 2015, where, as a member of a team led by Marek Siewniak, a specialist in dendrology and arboriculture, he supported the process, the successful rescue of a maple-leaf plane tree (Platanus xhispanica) damaged and partially destroyed by fire based on a load test in the historic park in Nieborów near Łódź. The main scope of activities was to prepare a concept and visualisation of the pylon supporting the tree. A further step in 2016 was the assessment, based on measurements with a sonic tomograph, of a valuable, aged small-leaved lime tree (Tilia cordata) in Polkowice, for which a care plan and a concept for modifying the support protection were developed.  In the following years, 2017-2020, the development of the method was based on consultations and the creation of guidelines and supervision of nursing works for valuable trees (Waszyngtona Avenue - Kraków 2017, Osobowicki Cemetery - Wrocław 2018, Royal Castle Wawel - Kraków 2019, Aleja Fryderyka Chopina Avenue - Duszniki-Zdrój 2020). In 2018, the first trial solution was proposed to support a Norway maple (Acer platanoides) in Planty Park in Krakow. In 2021, a pilot implementation of the whole method — from identification through assessment and measurement to the concept and design of a support structure for tree protection — was conducted. This was a support for a Norway maple (Acer platanoides - tree no. 2 in Tables 1 and 2) in Krakowski Park in Krakow. In 2022, several implementations of the method were developed in Warsaw (trees Nos. 3-8 in Tables 1 and 2) and the Japanese pagoda tree (Styphonolobium japonicum, tree No. 1 in Tables 1 and 2) in Krakow.

In the course of his research, the author has repeatedly sought various solutions to increase the chances of protecting the most valuable trees. Within the scope of this method is the protection of trees through the preparation of dedicated supports and safeguards to maximise the life of individual tree specimens. The author, in the course of earlier research, observed the impossibility of preserving many valuable trees due to the lack of ready-made, effective methodological solutions, and developed and implemented the presented method on selected examples. Apart from the implementations of the method mentioned in the text, the author consulted on the replacement of the supports of the Indian bean tree (Catalpa bignonioides) and the English oak in the Fryderyk Chopin Park in Żelazowa Wola, implementation of the method for the protection of a several-hundred-year-old lime tree (Tilia cordata) in Szklarska Poręba, English oaks in Warsaw and Hrubieszów, horse chestnuts (Aesculus hippocastanum) in Katowice and in Warsaw, the London plane (Platanus xhispanica)  in Krakow, or the Kobus magnolia (Magnolia kobus) in the Arboretum in Kórnik. The author aims to improve the method by exploring additional possible implementations.

1. The author needs to significantly improve the “Discussion” section. The main purpose of this section is to demonstrate the importance of the research and its place within the broader scientific context. Accordingly, the content should include the discussion and interpretation of the study’s results, their comparison with other existing studies, and the identification of strengths and weaknesses.

 The author has extended the discussion with reference to the most recent literature relevant to the work's subject matter.

1. The “Conclusions” also need to be revised. They are too general and do not accurately reflect the study's results.

The author has extended the conclusions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper introduces an approach to manage and safeguard urban habitat trees. The current tree protection systems fail because they depend on practitioner experience instead of scientific evidence. The proposed method unites statics research with calculation methods and an action algorithm to generate customized solutions for individual trees. The research draws from a 10-year analysis of 1,500 trees to develop a new conservation management algorithm and provides implementation strategies with supporting changes and support biodiversity growth.

 

The methodology unites multiple fields through its combination of examples. The authors stress that research-driven solutions play a crucial role in developing urban ecosystems that resist environmental stresses with structural calculations and material science, as well as biological knowledge of trees.

The research draws from a large dataset of 1500 trees, which were studied during a ten-year period.

The tested methodology demonstrates its effectiveness through real-world applications which makes it suitable for protecting valuable trees in new situations.

The paper maintains a logical structure through its introduction, followed by the methods section, and then the results and discussion sections.

The paper uses diagrams, figures, and tables to present its methodology and research findings.

 

However, there are areas for Improvement:

 

1. The paper would gain more value through additional detailed case studies, which demonstrate the implementation of the proposed methodology.
2. The paper should include a technical term glossary to enhance accessibility for readers who are not experts in the field.
3. The paper provides valuable insights for urban forestry research, laying a strong foundation for future investigations and practical applications.
4. The discussion must be improved with citations and references to previous studies in comparisons or contracts
5. The conclusion could be improved with the aim of the study, also make the way forward clearer

Author Response

Dear Reviever,

Thank you for the detailed revision of my text. My answers are presented below and in attachment. I’ve implemented your suggestions and improved my article.

The paper introduces an approach to manage and safeguard urban habitat trees. The current tree protection systems fail because they depend on practitioner experience instead of scientific evidence. The proposed method unites statics research with calculation methods and an action algorithm to generate customized solutions for individual trees. The research draws from a 10-year analysis of 1,500 trees to develop a new conservation management algorithm and provides implementation strategies with supporting changes and support biodiversity growth.

The methodology unites multiple fields through its combination of examples. The authors stress that research-driven solutions play a crucial role in developing urban ecosystems that resist environmental stresses with structural calculations and material science, as well as biological knowledge of trees.

The research draws from a large dataset of 1500 trees, which were studied during a ten-year period.

The tested methodology demonstrates its effectiveness through real-world applications which makes it suitable for protecting valuable trees in new situations.

The paper maintains a logical structure through its introduction, followed by the methods section, and then the results and discussion sections.

The paper uses diagrams, figures, and tables to present its methodology and research findings.

The paper was extended, and many details were added.

However, there are areas for Improvement:

The paper would gain more value through additional detailed case studies, which demonstrate the implementation of the proposed methodology.

The author has extended the case study.

The paper should include a technical term glossary to enhance accessibility for readers who are not experts in the field.

The author has extended the explanation of the method and concepts used in the article. The complex concepts, processes, and the model as a whole are extensively dissected.

The paper provides valuable insights for urban forestry research, laying a strong foundation for future investigations and practical applications.

The author has extended the discussion with reference to the most recent literature relevant to the work's subject matter.

The discussion must be improved with citations and references to previous studies in comparisons or contracts

The author has extended the discussion in the main text.

The conclusion could be improved with the aim of the study, also make the way forward clearer

The author has extended the conclusions.

Every year, more and more valuable trees provide ecosystem benefits for us, the city, and the environment. They are essential for dendrology and local history. Senile trees, despite loss and wood decay, are of great value to the city's depleted ecosystem, habitat development, and biodiversity. Such trees very often need to be actively protected, not only by reducing the impact of external factors but also by using support or pylon systems. The model of action proposed by the author has no analogues in known solutions. The method developed, based on an algorithmic scheme that leads from identification through surveys, measurements, calculations, and analyses to design solutions, includes key steps such as combining the results of the wind pressure analysis with an assessment of basic safety, resulting in a well-chosen and calibrated solution for individual trees. As demonstrated through operational monitoring, the proposed methodology produces accurate results, supports sustainable tree protection, and is practical for protecting valuable specimens. The use of proven survey methods, combined with modern, precise laser-scanning techniques, yields more effective design solutions. With this method, it is possible to save more valuable trees in the city that would otherwise be condemned to total or partial removal, resulting in significant losses to the urban ecosystem.  The role of such trees has been described in the previously mentioned literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has thoroughly revised the manuscript according to the previous comments, and the revision is satisfactory. I would still suggest that the author explicitly acknowledge the methodological and contextual limitations. This would improve the paper’s balance, transparency, and overall robustness.

Author Response

Thank you once more for revising my text. I’ve implemented your suggestions and improved my article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has supplemented a lot of information and corrected previous errors. However, the article still lacks the correct structure. The developed method is a RESULT, so it should be presented in detail in the RESULTS section. The Materials and Methods section should describe what the author did step by step to develop his method – what literature he studied, what assumptions and framework he adopted for his method, what (and how) field observations he conducted over those 10 years, and on what basis he selected the trees he presented in the Results. This appeared in part, for example, in the supplemented Introduction, but should be in the next chapter. Below are detailed comments on the text.

 

Introduction

Please review the entire introduction for repetitive content and remove it. In addition, much of the added content should be moved to the next chapter, Materials and Methods.

L44 – I suggest removing ‘resembling a piece of birthday cake’; this is a scientific article.

L67-84 – sources of information should be added.

L84 – the sentence about the author's method is unnecessary here; it disrupts the flow of information and should be moved to the section discussing the assumptions of this author's method. (i.e. to the Materials and Methods section).

L91-112 – this text is too long and unnecessarily lengthens the introduction. As I suggested earlier (in my previous review), information about how the method was developed and the author's experience in this field should be described in the Materials and Methods section. Furthermore, it is not acceptable to have one giant paragraph from L53 to L129; please divide it into smaller paragraphs according to topic.

 

Materials and Methods

Once again, I would like to emphasise that the method developed by the author is the RESULT of his work, a work that must be presented in the RESULTS chapter as an achievement. By including a description of the developed method in the Materials and Methods chapter, the author diminishes his achievement. The Materials and Methods chapter should describe ONLY the author's experiments, the assumptions for developing this method, the assumptions for selecting the case studies presented, and nothing else. Some of this information is currently in the Introduction, some in Materials and Methods. I strongly advise you to arrange this content correctly in order to better highlight the author's achievement.

L180 – this text (starting from this point) together with Fig. 1 should be placed together in the RESULTS section. To avoid confusion, I suggest numbering the individual stages from L182-218 and combining them into larger units of text by supplementing them with information that is further on in the text. Otherwise, there is chaos, with the same thing being mentioned twice. The current information in the individual tirets is not specific or precise enough for anyone to want or be able to use this method. I still believe that the more technical details the author provides (instead of citations), the greater the practical value of this article will be.

L258 – numerical citations should be added at the end here

L287 – in fact, four solutions are mentioned, not three

L300 – ‘these selected trees’ – please rephrase this, as there is no information about any selected trees in the previous sentence (or even several sentences). In general, this entire sentence does not fit in with the earlier part of the paragraph; it describes specific cases from the past without any connection to the earlier general content – is this information from Gerard Passol's webinars? If not, a new paragraph should be created and the beginning should be formulated in such a way that it is clear which trees are being referred to

L314-315 – does ‘All conceptual and implementation work’ refer to the explanations described earlier or to the subsequent ones from Poland, because it can be confusing? If the latter, it should be separated as another paragraph. This description – as an explanation of the process of developing the method – should be left in the Materials and Methods section.

L315 – there are more cities listed below

L319 – ‘load test’ – earlier in the text, the author replaced this term with ‘pulling test’; consistency should be maintained

L332-335 – perhaps it would be possible to use references other than tables, as the rule is that a table should be inserted in the text immediately after the reference, whereas these tables should remain in the Results. Perhaps some case study numbers for those that are described in more detail in the Results?

L334-335 – this should be made into a sentence

L342 – it would be necessary to specify which war is meant

 

Results

L351-357 – such suspended texts, not assigned to a specific subchapter, should not be used. Please move this to the beginning of subchapter 3.1, limiting repetitions with the text already present there.

L358 – I suggest changing this to Method description.

Fig. 1 – the caption does not reflect the content of the diagram. It is more of a comprehensive system of care for old trees, part of which is deciding on the method of protection. Please verify this caption.

Fig. 1 should be followed by a detailed description of the method, which is currently in the Materials and Methods section.

L372-374 – two sentences saying the same thing.

L374-380 – this text repeats the same list of features as at the beginning of the paragraph (L369-372). Please review and correct the entire paragraph.

L380 and 382 – did the author test over 20 or around 1,500 trees? Please clarify this. Reading further, I think I know where the 20 comes from, but unfortunately there is chaos in the whole description. It should start with 1,500, then go to 20, and from there to the 8 that are in the table.

L388 – the words ‘in some cases, usually’ are quite divergent in meaning, please correct the wording

L400 – maybe: case studies?

L406 – the reference to Figure 2a should be after the words ‘south-west’ and not after ‘new solution’

Figures 3 and 4 – please enlarge them to the width of the page, as they are currently not legible enough

L434 – unnecessary subheading, this is a continuation of case studies

L435-441 – I suggest dividing this text into separate paragraphs for each case study, where the text should include a note that this is such-and-such a tree from Table 1, with such-and-such characteristics.

Table 2 – the header of the first column should include a note that this is No. of tree

 

Discussion

L478 – ‘A methodical approach is adopted’ – does this refer to the author's method presented in the article or something else? Please clarify.

L480-482 – please add sample references.

L483 – please add to what extent the author's method fills this gap

L491 – the source for this information is missing

L502-505 – please check the structure of this sentence

 

Conclusions

The last sentence is completely unnecessary and spoils the overall effect.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have included my comments on the language in the main text of the review.

Author Response

Thank you once more for the subsequent, detailed revision of my text. My answers are presented in the file below. I’ve implemented your suggestions and improved my article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx