Local Management System of Dragon’s Blood Tree (Dracaena cinnabari Balf. f.) Resin in Firmihin Forest, Socotra Island, Yemen
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports on the structural characteristics of tapped Dracaena cinnabari Balf. F stands to assess the sustainability of this activity. The ecological, economic and social importance of resin tapping and the observed risks for the tapping stand sustainability makes this a relevant scientific topic. However, in my opinion, this manuscript needs important improvements before it can be published in the Journal.
English language should be deeply reviewed and edited.
The figures are not well located into the text, (figure 6 is overlapped the figure 5).
Some of the results are very irrelevant from a scientific point of view and others are lacking of any scientific basis.
A significant lack of references is also remarkable, especially from an anatomical and physiological point of view.
In addition, although I am not a statistical expert, my general impression is that this part of the manuscript should be reviewed and the figures should be homogenised
Author Response
English language should be deeply reviewed and edited.
Response: the manuscript was revised by native speaker specialized on Socotra.
The figures are not well located into the text, (figure 6 is overlapped the figure 5).
Response: The Figures was placed to the right position.
Some of the results are very irrelevant from a scientific point of view and others are lacking of any scientific basis.
Response: Please, could be more specific? Which results? All my results have scientific basis (both interview and field survey).
A significant lack of references is also remarkable, especially from an anatomical and physiological point of view.
Response: I added two paragraphs to the Introduction section regarding the anatomy and physiology of dragon´s blood resin including the references.
In addition, although I am not a statistical expert, my general impression is that this part of the manuscript should be reviewed and the figures should be homogenised
Response: I used different statistical methods for data evaluations, thus the figures seem to be not homogenised.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is indeed interesting and within the important category of non-timber forest products. Some of the "data" is entirely anecdotal and the research is sociological as much or more than biological. I'd be eager to see the authors set up some controlled wound response work as done for broadleaved and conifer trees to work out the dynamics of wounding, resin production, and tree survival. I don't think that a strong case was made with respect to sustainability or the possible loss of DC due to harvesting practices.
Author Response
Response: Social data are may be little bit anecdotal, but very important from ethnobotanical point of view. Controlled wound response work it isn´t possible to do because the trees are currently protected and it isn´t allowed to make new wounds. My aim of work was mainly to describe the current status of the trees and also describe the traditional technique of resin harvesting by local people.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
English language should be deeply reviewed and edited.
Response: the manuscript was revised by native speaker specialized on Socotra.
The figures are not well located into the text, (figure 6 is overlapped the figure 5).
Response: The Figures was placed to the right position.
Some of the results are very irrelevant from a scientific point of view and others are lacking of any scientific basis.
Response: Please, could be more specific? Which results? All my results have scientific basis (both interview and field survey).
A significant lack of references is also remarkable, especially from an anatomical and physiological point of view.
Response: I added two paragraphs to the Introduction section regarding the anatomy and physiology of dragon´s blood resin including the references.
In addition, although I am not a statistical expert, my general impression is that this part of the manuscript should be reviewed and the figures should be homogenised
Response: I used different statistical methods for data evaluations, thus the figures seem to be not homogenised.
Source type and size are different in the graphs. The sample size is not included in any graph
Figure 5 is considered unnecessary, include the result only in text
I can’t understand the figure 9, also, there’s no R value associated. The parameter “probability of trees with used wounds” is not described.
Figure 10 has no letters meaning included. If they are the result of LSD test, this figure shows the same value for all the groups, the discussion associated is not relevant in this case. Line 361-366 and
Figure 11 is not necessary at all, the description of price increase in enough for this information
The quality of images is really poor and the wounds are not clear at all
Observations such as line 354 has no relevance, obviously tapping causes damages
Line 265-29 paragraph has no scientific value from my point of view
Line 449-450 has no analysis associated to this assertion
Author Response
Source type and size are different in the graphs. The sample size is not included in any graph
Respond: I added to the graphs the source of data which comes from my field survey and measurements. The sample size is 819 trees. I added also the sample size (trees with used wounds) in figure 9, and number of plots in figure 8. The type and size of letters were unified.
Figure 5 is considered unnecessary, include the result only in text
Response: I have deleted figure 5 and included the result in the text.
I can’t understand the figure 9, also, there’s no R value associated. The parameter “probability of trees with used wounds” is not described.
Response: Please, could be more specific? What you can’t understand in figure 9, the probability of trees with used wounds (harvested trees) increased with the increase of tree diameter, I used correlation using GLMM model, R value is not desirable to be used in GLMM, p-value is <0.05.
Figure 10 has no letters meaning included. If they are the result of LSD test, this figure shows the same value for all the groups, the discussion associated is not relevant in this case. Line 361-366.
Response: I added explanation in the first review from line 304 to 309 and explanation in the figure. I built the model using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and tested and visualized by LSD test for the relationship between crown status and number of wounds. The figure shows two groups (a and ab) and they are significantly different..
Figure 11 is not necessary at all, the description of price increase in enough for this information
Response: Figure 12 (after first review), has been deleted and just description of price increase included in the text.
The quality of images is really poor and the wounds are not clear at all
Response: I selected all figures because they are the most representative for what I need to show. I hope, the editor will improve arrangement of pictures, I am not expert in this field.
Observations such as line 354 has no relevance, obviously tapping causes damages
Response: deleted
Line 265-29 paragraph has no scientific value from my point of view
Response: Do you mean 265-269? Deleted.
Line 449-450 has no analysis associated to this assertion
Response: deleted
