Effects of Chemical Soil Characteristics, Air Temperature and Precipitation on Pinus pinea Growth in Southern Inland Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript does not show any novelty of the study which perhaps due to the lack of contents that should be carefully contemplated and portrayed. The manuscript also lacks organization and brevity in some parts that should be revised significantly, such as Results.

First of all, I think that the title should be improved and include specific study variables that are important or of concern in the study, rather than just 'soil and climate'. Also, the study location is not known to international audience. The authors should describe the significance of Alentejo in general and somewhat attractive terms; for example, varying topographic profiles/climatic conditions, etc.

The abstract is too general and does not sufficiently indicate the important results and findings of the study. The overall content seems to be too generic to draw interests from readers.

The introduction is too narrative and descriptive. The structure needs to be improved to make it flow better. I did not feel convinced after reading the introduction that this study would offer new insights/findings to the scientific community. It's good that the authors set specific objectives in the end; however, they are still very broad. For example, what do you mean by 'the site', 'soil characteristics', 'climate' in Objective 1, 2 and 3, respectively. It will be better if the authors specify what study variables that these terms were referred to.

For the rest of the manuscript, I think there were too many parameters and variables that the authors measured but did not clearly design the study and hence the analysis. The Results and Discussion only described what the authors found based on data from the collected samples without trying to explain the reasons or truly discuss about observed relations. I think the authors did extensive measurements, but they should contemplate more on how to present these data in a nice and logical ways in scientific settings, rather than describing the results and only discussing how the data were different. Perhaps, clear hypotheses in the beginning would help.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine, but the writing structure needs to be re-organized within each section to make the contents flow. It was also relatively difficult to follow with so much information, perhaps, the authors could try to summarize some parts. 

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the reviewer comments and have rewritten the manuscript accordingly. Please see below the answers.

 

1) Overall, the manuscript does not show any novelty of the study which perhaps due to the lack of contents that should be carefully contemplated and portrayed. The manuscript also lacks organization and brevity in some parts that should be revised significantly, such as Results.

First of all, I think that the title should be improved and include specific study variables that are important or of concern in the study, rather than just 'soil and climate'. Also, the study location is not known to international audience. The authors should describe the significance of Alentejo in general and somewhat attractive terms; for example, varying topographic profiles/climatic conditions, etc.

Answer: The manuscript was restructured and the results rewritten (lines 181-293). The title was changed, according to the reviewer's suggestion, to “Effects of chemical soil characteristics, air temperature and precipitation on Pinus pinea growth in southern inland Portugal”. The description of the location of the study as well as their main characteristics were added (lines 50-58)

 

2) The abstract is too general and does not sufficiently indicate the important results and findings of the study. The overall content seems to be too generic to draw interests from readers.

Answer: The abstract was rewritten, according to the reviewer suggestions (lines 15-23).

 

3) The introduction is too narrative and descriptive. The structure needs to be improved to make it flow better. I did not feel convinced after reading the introduction that this study would offer new insights/findings to the scientific community. It's good that the authors set specific objectives in the end; however, they are still very broad. For example, what do you mean by 'the site', 'soil characteristics', 'climate' in Objective 1, 2 and 3, respectively. It will be better if the authors specify what study variables that these terms were referred to.

Answer: The introduction was rewritten and objectives improved as suggested (lines 50-102)

 

4) For the rest of the manuscript, I think there were too many parameters and variables that the authors measured but did not clearly design the study and hence the analysis. The Results and Discussion only described what the authors found based on data from the collected samples without trying to explain the reasons or truly discuss about observed relations. I think the authors did extensive measurements, but they should contemplate more on how to present these data in a nice and logical ways in scientific settings, rather than describing the results and only discussing how the data were different. Perhaps, clear hypotheses in the beginning would help.

Answer: The results were rewritten (lines 181-293), highlighting in the text the most significant results and reporting to the figures and tables for the remaining. The discussion was improved relating the results with other published and by the compound discussion of the results of growth, soil chemical characteristics, air temperature and precipitation (lines 295-382).

 

5) The English is fine, but the writing structure needs to be re-organized within each section to make the contents flow. It was also relatively difficult to follow with so much information, perhaps, the authors could try to summarize some parts.

Answer: The structure of the manuscript was revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) The title is broad but not specific enough. In fact, the soil and climate themselves include a lot of factors that need to be figured out when study plant growth. I think that the survey indicatiors selected in this study may not be enough to explain the results. For example, soil mcirobial, soil fertility, etc. are the key factors that need to be considered in researching of Pinus growth.

2) The abstract needs to be corrected carefully. The current version would miss some important information. A correctly constructed abstract of scientific article contains: research hypothesis (and/or objective), basic elements of the methodology, basic results (or key data of the results) and the final conclusion that summarized the research. The length of the abstract should be appropriated to publication requirements.

3) The structure of Introduction section was a little bit fragmented, so,the scientific question(s) to be addressed in this study were not clearly. In addition, the specific objectives listed in the end wuold be commonly, there was no need to study to get the affirmative answer (yes).

4) There were too many figures in the manuscrip. Such as Figure 1., whether is it necessary here? please consider.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well written, however some details have to be checked. It is needed to improve the text.

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the reviewer comments and have rewritten the manuscript accordingly. Please see below the answers.

 

1) The title is broad but not specific enough. In fact, the soil and climate themselves include a lot of factors that need to be figured out when study plant growth. I think that the survey indicatiors selected in this study may not be enough to explain the results. For example, soil mcirobial, soil fertility, etc. are the key factors that need to be considered in researching of Pinus growth.

Answer: The title was changed, according to the reviewer suggestion, to “Effects of chemical soil characteristics, air temperature and precipitation on Pinus pinea growth in southern inland Portugal”. The limitations of the study were included in the discussion (lines 393-396)

 

2) The abstract needs to be corrected carefully. The current version would miss some important information. A correctly constructed abstract of scientific article contains: research hypothesis (and/or objective), basic elements of the methodology, basic results (or key data of the results) and the final conclusion that summarized the research. The length of the abstract should be appropriated to publication requirements.

Answer: The abstract was rewritten, according to the reviewer suggestions (lines 15-23).

 

3) The structure of Introduction section was a little bit fragmented, so,the scientific question(s) to be addressed in this study were not clearly. In addition, the specific objectives listed in the end wuold be commonly, there was no need to study to get the affirmative answer (yes).

Answer: The introduction was rewritten and objectives improved (lines 50-102)

 

4) There were too many figures in the manuscrip. Such as Figure 1., whether is it necessary here? please consider.

Answer: Figure 1 was removed and figures 3, 4 and 5 were included in Annex.

 

5) The manuscript is well written, however some details have to be checked. It is needed to improve the text.

Answer: All the text was revised and English improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all questions/concerns and have improved the manuscript based on previous comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing has been improved. However, there were some minor mistakes in the writing format (such as the use of puntuation, etc.). Please go through the manuscript carefully again and correct any mistakes where necessary.

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the reviewer comments and have rewritten the manuscript accordingly. Please see below the answers.

 

1) The writing has been improved. However, there were some minor mistakes in the writing format (such as the use of puntuation, etc.). Please go through the manuscript carefully again and correct any mistakes where necessary.

Answer: All the text was revised and English improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There was still a slight flaw in the revised version, for example, sentence flow, word accuracy, and paragraphs logic should be deliberated carefully again. In addition, the quality of some fig. need to be improved better.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no further comments on this revised version, and would like to suggest to accept it after a minor revision. Thank you very much.

Author Response

The authors acknowledge the reviewer comments and have rewritten the manuscript accordingly. Please see below the answers.

 

1) There was still a slight flaw in the revised version, for example, sentence flow, word accuracy, and paragraphs logic should be deliberated carefully again. In addition, the quality of some fig. need to be improved better.

Answer: All the text was revised and English improved. Figures were improved

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf