Shelterbelt Structure and Crop Protection from Increased Typhoon Activity in Northeast China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It would be good if the authors could find a good English proff-reader as there are several odd formulations. It is an interesting piece of research and it deserves a presentation.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reports the result of some investigations about shelterbelt structure and crop protection from a typhoon effect. Authors used a UAV to measure the lodging in crops which has different classifications. In general, the topic is important considering the current extreme weather events and its effect on agricultural crops. The introduction section is informative while the methodology and results sections are quite vague, lack many essential information and are not organized properly. Moreover, the study used a subjective approach for the evaluation of lodging events with not enough evidence for their claims. Finally, the English language requires a revision before publication. 

Here are some specific comments:

L14: (We), use passive tense. Also in lines 103, 104, 110.

L43: Do you mean combine harvesters?

L47: Add reference.

L83: Define what you mean by the term porosity of trees.

L85 & L87: Maintain the same style 25% or 0.25.

L108: tree height multiple , what do you mean by that?

Figure 2: You did not introduce this figure in the text.

L159: How did you capture the 25 to 30m photos? Please add this information.

L202: Which kind of CAD software and version did you use?

L216: I suggest elaborating in the description of the ILCD in the text.

L220: The ILCD definition is repeated. Please remove it.

L239-242: This information is needed in the methodology section. Please move it.

L249-257: This information is needed in the methodology section. Please move it.

L258-271: This paragraph is subjective and not supported by analysis nor clear description for the claimed reasons.

L275: I got lost here. You were talking about the rice field and suddenly moved to corn. Where are these fields? Is it the same location?

L280: You did not mention in your methodology how you measured these percentage of crop lodging? Please add this required information in your methodology.

L294: (called) Probably you mean recommended.

L297-300: This is quite logical information. The question here, how did your analysis and results prove that?

L319: This sentence is not clear. However, I think if rice has lodging resistance, it will not be the best crop to describe the effect of wind.

L330-336: I don't think that you have enough evidence to prove these findings from your study.

L370: Add a conclusions section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

While this paper appears to address a very interesting issue using some novel techniques, unfortunately I think the level of detail in the methods of how this work was conducted is not up to the standards to be accepted. Due to the unsuitable methods section, I am unable to determine whether the conclusions of this paper are appropriately drawn.

In addition, the manuscript needs a strong edit for clarity and there are large section where information provided in unreferenced.

Some of the key issues that would need to be adressed for this paper to be considered i have outlined below. Hopefully these changes can be made in the future as the authors are adressing an interesting subject.

Abstract:

L15: When stating the results I would like to see some actual results not just stating “obvious differences” and “greatest influence”. What were the differences and influences?

Intro:

L46: “Prior studies” but only give on example, can more be added?

L51: Why does it matter that [previous studies were from further south? Wouldn’t the benefits of windbreaks be similar? Can you explain the reasoning and the gaps this study fills more clearly?

L55-65: Largely unreferenced section.

L71: Is the Brandle ref correct here?

L78 – 90: Largely unreferenced. There is a large body of work on the impact of porosity and height on how windbreaks operate and none of it is included in this paper. Also, you spend a lot of the analysis and conclusions on the design aspect, and it is only really covered by 1-2 sentences in the intro. Much more background on this aspect is required.

Materials and Methods

Fig 1: This figure is very unclear and hard to understand. Also, throughout the manuscript there needs to be much more information contained in the figure captions.

Fig 2: Doesn’t appeared to be referenced in the text. Also only shows five sites but you mention 19 in the text. Again, no info in the caption to understand what’s going on.

L129-132: Not clear what these categories are for they don’t seemed to be used in the rest of the manuscript and it is hard to know how many shelterbelts of each type you had and where the restoration belts fit into these categories.

L142: What is this section describing? How to measure porosity?

L141: There doesn’t appear to be any information on when the typhoon cam through this area what direction it cam from, what the windspeeds were like. All of this is critical to understand the level of wind that the windbreaks are aiding against.

L147: mentioning that you uased UAV is not enough information on how the images were capture, what type of sensors did you use what were the brands etc.

L178: The most key part of this paper was the lodging and there is no detail on how you determined if the area was lodged or not.

Results:

Large parts of the results are described that have not been introduced in the methods as a consequence of this it is impossible to tell the level of replication, how the data was extracted etc.

L187-192: ILCB used extensively through the result but not mentioned in the methods and insufficient detail here to know how it was calculated.

L194-201: These are intro/discussion not results.

Fig 5: What was the significant of this result even though it has a small r I think the pattern looks pretty convincing so I imagine it would be a statistically significant result.

Fig 6: How was the degree of lodging determined? Whats severe for example?

Fig 7: What is the level of replication/error in these bar graphs. For many of them I imagine it would only be  1 or 2 shelterbelts that had the specific row spacings. Is this level of replication enough to draw significant conclusions from?

L280: Another example of information that isn’t in the methods.

L294: Another example of analysis that isn’t in the methods also by dividing the samples up like this do you end up again with very poor replication?

Fig 9: Very unclear what this figure is showing.

While this paper appears to address a very interesting issue using some novel techniques, unfortunately the level of detail in the methods of how this work was conducted is not up to the standards to be accepted as a scientific paper. Due to the unsuitable methods section, I am unable to determine whether the conclusions of this paper are appropriately drawn.

In addition, the manuscript needs a strong edit for clarity and there are large section where information provided in unreferenced.

Abstract:

L15: When stating the results I would like to see some actual results not just stating “obvious differences” and “greatest influence”. What were the differences and influences?

Intro:

L46: “Prior studies” but only give on example, can more be added?

L51: Why does it matter that [previous studies were from further south? Wouldn’t the benefits of windbreaks be similar? Can you explain the reasoning and the gaps this study fills more clearly?

L55-65: Largely unreferenced.

L71: Is the Brandle ref correct here?

L78 – 90: Largely unreferenced. There is a large body of work on the impact of porosity and height on how windbreaks operate and none of it is included in this paper. Also, you spend a lot of the analysis and conclusions on the design aspect, and it is only really covered by 1-2 sentences in the intro. Much more background on this aspect is required.

Materials and Methods

Fig 1: This figure is very unclear and hard to understand. Also, throughout the manuscript there needs to be much more information contained in the figure captions.

Fig 2: Doesn’t appeared to be referenced in the text. Also only shows five sites but you mention 19 in the text. Again, no info in the caption to understand what’s going on.

L129-132: Not clear what these categories are for they don’t seemed to be used in the rest of the manuscript and it is hard to know how many shelterbelts of each type you had and where the restoration belts fit into these categories.

L142: What is this section describing? How to measure porosity?

L141: There doesn’t appear to be any information on when the typhoon cam through this area what direction it cam from, what the windspeeds were like. All of this is critical to understand the level of wind that the windbreaks are aiding against.

L147: mentioning that you uased UAV is not enough information on how the images were capture, what type of sensors did you use what were the brands etc.

L178: The most key part of this paper was the lodging and there is no detail on how you determined if the area was lodged or not.

Results:

Large parts of the results are described that have not been introduced in the methods as a consequence of this it is impossible to tell the level of replication, how the data was extracted etc.

L187-192: ILCB used extensively through the result but not mentioned in the methods and insufficient detail here to know how it was calculated.

L194-201: These are intro/discussion not results.

Fig 5: What was the significant of this result even though it has a small r I think the pattern looks pretty convincing so I imagine it would be a statistically significant result.

Fig 6: How was the degree of lodging determined? Whats severe for example?

Fig 7: What is the level of replication/error in these bar graphs. For many of them I imagine it would only be  1 or 2 shelterbelts that had the specific row spacings. Is this level of replication enough to draw significant conclusions from?

L280: Another example of information that isn’t in the methods.

L294: Another example of analysis that isn’t in the methods also by dividing the samples up like this do you end up again with very poor replication?

Fig 9: Very unclear what this figure is showing.