Chemical and Kraft Pulping Properties of Young Eucalypt Trees Affected by Physiological Disorders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comment:

The authors of this paper describe the effect of abiotic stress, called Eucalyptus 12 Physiological Disorder, on wood quality for pulping production. This study remains an important research topic and I appreciate the work of the authors. The research is reasonably interesting, although it has to be included in the category of “case study”, more correctly.

Title: It is not correctly clear and brief. I suggest to rephrase it to better summarize the approach and results of the manuscript.

Keyword:

Words from the title should not be used as keywords. In addition, the number of keywords is excessive.

 

Abstract:

Abstract requires a revision to improve the comprehension of the work. Some sentences need rephrasing for a better clarity.

Introduction

The Introduction should provide a short state of art what is being discussed in this paper. Need rephrasing to show the milestones of the paper

Lines 60-67. “Specific…….gravity”. Several sentences are not clear. Need rephrasing.

Lines 68-73. Need rephrasing to show the aim of the paper and to emphasize the specific context.

 

Material and method has been well-organized to describe the area study and the field tests.

Lines 92-3. When the chipping phase was realized? After a period of storage or immediately after harvesting and transport phases?

Line 108- cooking variables- Please explain better these variables

Line 113. Dimension of laboratory digester system?

 

Result, Discussion and

Lines 128-135. I suggest to move and separate these sentences between Introduction and Material/Method.

See Table 3. Remove see

It is well written but it could be improved by a more focused approach on the problem, addition of relevant references for the last part, a better formulation of the findings. Some parts need your careful revision to clarify, extend and check some inconsistencies.

What are the main conclusions? What could be take-home message?

Discussion do not clearly describe the potential future work, if any.

Conclusion

Conclusion is not correct for this type of journal. The conclusions should be written comparing objects of the study and the results obtained. The conclusions repeat the results, not well focused on your findings and know is possible to develop this research. The conclusion is quite short basically including the results. More future developments and conclusions should be considered.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS

 

General comment:

The authors of this paper describe the effect of abiotic stress, called Eucalyptus 12 Physiological Disorder, on wood quality for pulping production. This study remains an important research topic and I appreciate the work of the authors. The research is reasonably interesting, although it has to be included in the category of “case study”, more correctly.

Title: It is not correctly clear and brief. I suggest to rephrase it to better summarize the approach and results of the manuscript.

Response: We have added another option.

 

Keyword:

Words from the title should not be used as keywords. In addition, the number of keywords is excessive.

Response: This comment was addressed with changes in the keywords.

 

Abstract:

Abstract requires a revision to improve the comprehension of the work. Some sentences need rephrasing for a better clarity.

Response: Abstract was completely rewritten

 

Introduction

The Introduction should provide a short state of art what is being discussed in this paper. Need rephrasing to show the milestones of the paper

 

Lines 60-67. “Specific…….gravity”. Several sentences are not clear. Need rephrasing.

Response: Several parts of the introduction were rewritten

Lines 68-73. Need rephrasing to show the aim of the paper and to emphasize the specific context.

Response: It was rephrased.

Material and method has been well-organized to describe the area study and the field tests.

 

Lines 92-3. When the chipping phase was realized? After a period of storage or immediately after harvesting and transport phases?

Response: The information was added in the sentence.

Line 108- cooking variables - Please explain better these variables

Response: We added the variables in this sentence.

Line 113. Dimension of laboratory digester system?

Response: Information added.

 

Result, Discussion and

 

Lines 128-135. I suggest to move and separate these sentences between Introduction and Material/Method.

Response: Done.

See Table 3. Remove see

Response: Done.

 

It is well written but it could be improved by a more focused approach on the problem, addition of relevant references for the last part, a better formulation of the findings. Some parts need your careful revision to clarify, extend and check some inconsistencies.

Response: Thank you for all feedbacks

 

What are the main conclusions? What could be take-home message?

Response: Thank you for all feedbacks

 

Discussion do not clearly describe the potential future work, if any.

Response: We added one.

Conclusion

Conclusion is not correct for this type of journal. The conclusions should be written comparing objects of the study and the results obtained. The conclusions repeat the results, not well focused on your findings and know is possible to develop this research. The conclusion is quite short basically including the results. More future developments and conclusions should be considered.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report for manuscript "Wood quality traits of young eucalypt trees under physiological disorder and their impacts on pulp production in Brazil"

The manuscript is well written. There are some minor issues, that needs to be resolved before publication:

Please be more specific about the results of your research in the abstract.

I suggest removing from the Keywords specific gravity.

The Introduction:

Lines 35-37: Please cite some of the large studies you mentioned here.

Lines 38-41: Please be more specific about factors, as there are also many other issues.

The whole Introduction part should be revised, please discuss more deeply topics of your manuscript from scientific point of view like abiotic stress, growth disorders, stressful conditions, Eucalyptus wood properties, and ways of solving these issues.

The Materials and methods: This part is well prepared.

In line 71 you mentioned physical properties, please be more specific in the Materials and methods section about it.

The results and discussion part is well prepared.  Also the Conclusions part.

Please add limitations of your research, be more precise with the Novelty of your research and please add also Implications for Industrial practice and for further research.

 

 

Author Response

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS

 

Review report for manuscript "Wood quality traits of young eucalypt trees under physiological disorder and their impacts on pulp production in Brazil"

The manuscript is well written. There are some minor issues, that needs to be resolved before publication:

Please be more specific about the results of your research in the abstract.

Response: Abstract was completely rewritten

I suggest removing from the Keywords specific gravity.

Response: removed.

The Introduction:

Lines 35-37: Please cite some of the large studies you mentioned here.

Response: We rewritten and added a referee.

Lines 38-41: Please be more specific about factors, as there are also many other issues.

Response: Examples of external factors were added.

The whole Introduction part should be revised, please discuss more deeply topics of your manuscript from scientific point of view like abiotic stress, growth disorders, stressful conditions, Eucalyptus wood properties, and ways of solving these issues.

Response: Several parts of the introduction were rewritten

The Materials and methods: This part is well prepared.

In line 71 you mentioned physical properties, please be more specific in the Materials and methods section about it.

Response: We clarified in the text that we were talking about one physical properties: density (or specific gravity)

The results and discussion part is well prepared.  Also the Conclusions part.

Please add limitations of your research, be more precise with the Novelty of your research and please add also Implications for Industrial practice and for further research.

Response: We rewrote several parts of the conclusion adding this information.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper had been significantly improved by the authors - congratulations to you.

 

This remains an important research topic and I appreciate the work of the authors.

The authors did improve the suggested review significantly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate you for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments and feedback. 

Thank you!