Resin-Tapping Production in Pinus pinaster Ait. Stands in Galicia (NW Spain): Effects of Location, Number of Faces, Wound Width and Production Year

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors found the mean resin production, for all treatments in both production years, was significantly higher in Caldas de Reis than in Maceda.  Cadas de Reis trees were younger and had less diameter than trees in Mecada. The authors acknowledge that “Variables related to the tree size and vigour affect resin production (Schopmeyer and Larson, 1955; Clements, 1974; Ruel et al., 289 1998; Lombardero et al., 2000; Rodrigues et al., 2008)” but they do not discuss how these variables affected their results. I recommend the authors discuss how their results was impacted by age and size of trees.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, below I respond to your comments and suggestions:

The authors found the mean resin production, for all treatments in both production years, was significantly higher in Caldas de Reis than in Maceda.  Cadas de Reis trees were younger and had less diameter than trees in Mecada. The authors acknowledge that “Variables related to the tree size and vigour affect resin production (Schopmeyer and Larson, 1955; Clements, 1974; Ruel et al., 289 1998; Lombardero et al., 2000; Rodrigues et al., 2008)” but they do not discuss how these variables affected their results. I recommend the authors discuss how their results was impacted by age and size of trees.

Although this recommendation seems appropriate, we only considered the effect of tree size and vigour (tree age could also be included) in the set of variables related to location and which could explain the differences between locations. Our study was not designed to determine the impact of diameter or age on resin production and we only mentioned this as a possible factor (among others included in specific location) that influence production. The trees in Caldas de Reis were younger and of smaller diameter than trees in Maceda, but the soil and climate are different in the two areas and genetic factors were also probably different. In this new version, we have also included the concept of crown length, as the mean values of this variable are similar in both locations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The work by García-Méijome et al. advances our understating of Resin-tapping production in Pinus pinaster Ait. However, before being able to recommend acceptance, I invite authors to address the following amendments.

- Line 34: I suggest add "Iberian Peninsula" to keywords.

- Lines 50-53: The authors provided information about resin in spain. However, I suggest remerk P. pinaster resin-tapping production situation.

- Line 83-84: literature review must be more extended. 

- Line 103-104: Why the authors selected different years (2016-2018 vs 2017-2019) for assessment? Did not biased the results?

- Lines 120-121: "The trial thus included 600 trees per location, i.e. a total of 1200 trees." not nessessary, and can be remove.

- Line 126: The meteorological in table 1 should presented for each of the years seperatly.

- Line 126: Soil characterestics not presented in the material and method!

- Line 134: Remove this sentence "Annual resin production per tree was the main study variable.".

- Line 161: Please mention to used R packages exactly.

- Line 186: The "significantly higher (12-14 %)" should be presented as p-vlaue no percent (%).

- Line 191: The error bar in figure 2 is SE or SD?

- Lines 238-240: The sentence is ambiguous. Please rewrite it in an apporpriate form.

- The discussion is very limited.

- The English languague should be improved and be more fluent.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, below I respond to your comments and suggestions:

- Line 34: I suggest add "Iberian Peninsula" to keywords.

Done.

- Lines 50-53: The authors provided information about resin in spain. However, I suggest remerk P. pinaster resin-tapping production situation.

 We have made some changes in the introduction including more information about resin tapping of P. pinaster.

- Line 83-84: literature review must be more extended. 

We have made some changes in the introduction and discussion and have extended the literature review.

- Line 103-104: Why the authors selected different years (2016-2018 vs 2017-2019) for assessment? Did not biased the results?

We initially planned to compare resin collection at the same time in both plots. However, problems related to the ownership of the Maceda pine forest prevented us from establishing the trial at the same time as in Caldas de Reis. To verify the influence of the year factor and to determine the possible bias that this factor could introduce in the results, we conducted a joint statistical analysis for the two locations in the two years in which the trial was simultaneous (2017 and 2018), given the impossibility of assigning three equivalent levels (1st, 2nd and 3rd year) to the year variable for both locations. The three levels of the year factor are used in the independent analysis by location, where years are equivalent to successive tapping seasons (1st, 2nd and 3rd).

- Lines 120-121: "The trial thus included 600 trees per location, i.e. a total of 1200 trees." not nessessary, and can be remove.

 Done.

- Line 126: The meteorological in table 1 should presented for each of the years seperatly.

 Done.

- Line 126: Soil characterestics not presented in the material and method!

 We have included the soil characteristics in the revised version.

- Line 134: Remove this sentence "Annual resin production per tree was the main study variable.".

 Done.

- Line 161: Please mention to used R packages exactly.

 Done.

- Line 186: The "significantly higher (12-14 %)" should be presented as p-vlaue no percent (%).

Done.

- Line 191: The error bar in figure 2 is SE or SD?

 Done.

- Lines 238-240: The sentence is ambiguous. Please rewrite it in an apporpriate form.

 Done.

- The discussion is very limited.

We have modified the discussion in response to this comment.

- The English languague should be improved and be more fluent.

The manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

First, I would ask the authors to re-check the formatting according to the requirements of the journal.

Overall, the Abstract is informative, justifying the need for the study, the methods used, and the main results achieved.

In line 12 – Why “Resin” is in bold?

I think that the sentence "Resin is usually extracted by making horizontal wounds in the tree, removing the bark and phloem, and adding a chemical product to stimulate secretion ("American tapping-method")", lines 13-15, needs references for “American tapping-method”).

The same applies to the sentence "Therefore, a specific regional management model that is different from the traditional model established for other resin producing areas in the Iberian Peninsula is required". I ask the authors to provide references for the "traditional method".

In the Introduction - Although the authors present in-depth data on the quantities of resin production worldwide, in Spain and in particular in Galicia, on the application of resin and the historical development of this production, the data on the methods used for this type of production is extremely limited. From here it is not clear how the factors were chosen for the study (lines 87-90). Therefore, I ask the authors to expand the information and reasonably state the investigated factors.

In my opinion, the Materials and methods part is well prepared and informative.

Please authors to re-check the formatting of table 1 (lines 126-132).

In the Results and Discussion - I ask the authors to give Axis titles in figure 2 (lines 189-190). The same recommendation applies to the remaining figures in the part – figure 3 (line 234) and figure 4 (line 276).

The Conclusions are well prepared, reflecting the main results achieved.

The references cited are appropriate, but why are they not numbered? I ask authors to double-check formatting requirements, including references and their citations in the text.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, below I respond to your comments and suggestions:

First, I would ask the authors to re-check the formatting according to the requirements of the journal.

Done.

Overall, the Abstract is informative, justifying the need for the study, the methods used, and the main results achieved.  

We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.

In line 12 – Why “Resin” is in bold?

This was a mistake, which we have corrected.

I think that the sentence "Resin is usually extracted by making horizontal wounds in the tree, removing the bark and phloem, and adding a chemical product to stimulate secretion ("American tapping-method")", lines 13-15, needs references for “American tapping-method”).

The same applies to the sentence "Therefore, a specific regional management model that is different from the traditional model established for other resin producing areas in the Iberian Peninsula is required". I ask the authors to provide references for the "traditional method".

We have removed the term “American method” from the Abstract and have included a reference in the Introduction section. We have maintained the term "traditional method" in the Abstract, but we have not included a reference because references are not generally included in this section. The traditional method is explained in the Introduction section and a reference was added.

In the Introduction - Although the authors present in-depth data on the quantities of resin production worldwide, in Spain and in particular in Galicia, on the application of resin and the historical development of this production, the data on the methods used for this type of production is extremely limited. From here it is not clear how the factors were chosen for the study (lines 87-90). Therefore, I ask the authors to expand the information and reasonably state the investigated factors.

We have added more worldwide data to the introduction. Regarding the study factors, we have added appropriate references to the text. Thus, we comment that these factors were identified in a literature search conducted before the field trials were started. In Spain, the traditional method of tapping 1 face with a wound of width 12 cm, and rotating faces every 5 years, is the only one used at a productive level. However, we wanted to test whether tapping a wider wound (16cm) and even several simultaneous faces (we have added some other references about this aspect) would increase the resin yields.

In my opinion, the Materials and methods part is well prepared and informative.  

We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.

Please authors to re-check the formatting of table 1 (lines 126-132).

Done.

In the Results and Discussion - I ask the authors to give Axis titles in figure 2 (lines 189-190). The same recommendation applies to the remaining figures in the part – figure 3 (line 234) and figure 4 (line 276).

Done.

The Conclusions are well prepared, reflecting the main results achieved.

We thank the reviewer for this positive comment.

The references cited are appropriate, but why are they not numbered? I ask authors to double-check formatting requirements, including references and their citations in the text.

Done.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your invitaiton.

The manuscript has been mproved. However, the author affiliations should be presented in English form and the manuscript language and style should be improved.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript is significantly improved.

The respected authors have responded to all my suggestions and recommendations, and the formatting is also corrected.

That gives me a reason to recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its present form.