Shoot Phenology as a Driver or Modulator of Stem Diameter Growth and Wood Properties, with Special Reference to Pinus radiata

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author and Editor,

it has been a real pleasure for me to read this Review on a complex topic of great scientific and applicative interest, on which clear, wide-ranging synthesis works are very limited in number. I have no points to raise, nor do I feel any additions or clarifications are necessary, as the work is perfectly structured and balanced in its present form. I therefore believe that this Review should be published in Forests in its present form. I have taken the liberty of pointing out a few typing errors in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Lines 118-122. Call for reference(s) on defining features of Mediterranean climates.  I consider that the general nature of a Mediterranean climate is too well known to require any referencing. I have referred to Mediterranean climate in many past publications without ever be asked for a reference.

 

Line 127. Minor typo corrected.

 

Line 157. Ditto.

 

Table 1. Confusion on part of reviewer over commas every third digit. Stet.

 

Line 386. Querying boldface to flag a topic. Dropped

 

Line 465. “I/we” Corrected

 

Lines 537-538. Clarification sought. Reworded.

 

Line 686. Minor typo corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a valuable review article summarizing experience of author in the field of phenology and its relation to the tree growth with a special focus to Pinus radiata. Key environmental factors having the influence on this issues are discussed. About 15 % of works cited are self-citations but I dont't feel such a specialist in this field to judge if it is a correct relation to works of other authors.

Detailed questions to parts which I see as unclear as well as technical errors found in the text, especially on the reference list are listed below:

Row 77 – 1996 or 1995?

Row 79 – repeated „are there”

Row 127 – „hey nutrients”?

Row 132 – „20010” should be „2010”

Row 156 – 1977 or 1963?

Row 171 and 175 – „Savidge 2001” – lack on the references list

Row 267 – 1947 or 1937?

Row 314 - Harris 1965 - lack on the references list

Row 315 - Cown&Harris 1991 - lack on the references list. Maybe “Harris&Cown 1991”?

Row 319 – Harris 1969 a or b?

Row 325 - Harris 1965 - lack on the references list

Row 398 – Burdon 2010 - lack on the references list

Row 501 – earlywood vs latewood or corewood vs outerwood?

Row 619 - Eom & Butterfield 2001 - lack on the references list

Row 686 – „2097” should be „2007”

Row 845 – „Barry” should be „Berry”

Row 875 – „19972” should be „1997”

Row 915 – „51977” should be „1977”

References Nº 6, 25 and 88 are not cited in the text.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2

Row 77 – 1996 or 1995?

Row 79 – repeated „are there” Thanks

Row 127 – „hey nutrients”? key

Row 132 – „20010” should be „2010” Thanks

Row 156 – 1977 or 1963?

Row 171 and 175 – „Savidge 2001” – lack on the references list  Now inserted

Row 267 – 1947 or 1937?

Row 314 - Harris 1965 - lack on the references list Made good

Row 315 - Cown&Harris 1991 - lack on the references list. Maybe “Harris&Cown 1991”?

Row 319 – Harris 1969 a or b?

Row 325 - Harris 1965 - lack on the references list Made good

Row 398 – Burdon 2010 - lack on the references list Made good

Row 501 – earlywood vs latewood or corewood vs outerwood?

Row 619 - Eom & Butterfield 2001 - lack on the references list Made good

Row 686 – „2097” should be „2007” Thanks

Row 845 – „Barry” should be „Berry” Thanks

Row 875 – „19972” should be „1997” Thanks

Row 915 – „51977” should be „1977” Thanks

References Nº 6, 25 and 88 are not cited in the text. Have checked, and they are.

In addition, a query raised over the number “10,000”, stemming from alternative convention of using a comma for a decimal point

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper could be interesting for a book chapter, but not for an article (much too long and not focused).

The link between shoot growth and diameter growth and wood properties are well stated in the title, but the manuscript does not point out clearly the link, missing link depending on many factors (ring width structure, tree species etc.). The text is very confusing and does not help the reader to see the highlights.

The aim of this manuscript is not defined and all the texte has to be straiten out. The literature is very old and incomplet, many more research has been done and published during the last two decades.

A very irritating fact are many errors in missing points, majuscule etc. Also, the author used 14 x his on work, which is in itself not a problem when other papers are also mentioned to support the text.

The text is too long and not focus enough.

Suggest: try to add table or figure to regroupe your informations. The reader do not get the point what is the aim of this paper.

Also, I see a lot of shift from physiological observation jumping to wood properties. The paper has to be better divided.

To many auto-citation, not enough recent papers. I saw more than 12 000 new paper during the last 5 years on pinus sp.  ecology and physiology (including pinus radiata). 

Just looking at the comment at the beginning of the paper about root growth and cambial activity, many very interesting papers a now available.

Long parts of the text is not supported by literature and I am sure, there are many.

The regroupement of your observation into tables and figures will allow to shorten the text to half and the reader gets easily your points.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #3

This paper could be interesting for a book chapter, but not for an article (much too long and not focused). See various specific responses.

The link between shoot growth and diameter growth and wood properties are well stated in the title, but the manuscript does not point out clearly the link, missing link depending on many factors (ring width structure, tree species etc. surely covered). The text is very confusing and does not help the reader to see the highlights. A colleague, well versed in wood properties, from whom I sought intormal review but could not find time for a detailed critique, gave the general verdict “very nice paper”.

The aim of this manuscript is not defined and all the texte has to be straiten out. Have inserted an explanatory  paragraph (after line 61, with immediately following restructuring). The literature is very old and incomplet, many more research has been done and published during the last two decades. Have added a disclaimer concerning literature coverage, which cannot be made good within available time frame.

A very irritating fact are many errors in missing points, majuscule etc. I take it that this is referring to minor typos, which a very few in relation to my general editorial experience. Also, the author used 14 x his on work, which is in itself not a problem when other papers are also mentioned to support the text. ???????

The text is too long and not focus enough.  Opinion.

Suggest: try to add table [This was suggested by another reviewer (qv), but much easier requested than implemented],  or figure to regroupe your informations. The reader do not get the point what is the aim of this paper.  Other readers seem not to have had the same problem.

Also, I see a lot of shift from physiological observation jumping to wood properties. The paper has to be better divided. Disagree

To many auto-citation, not enough recent papers. Ignoring, as instructed. I saw more than 12 000 new paper during the last 5 years on pinus sp.  ecology and physiology (including pinus radiata). 

Just looking at the comment at the beginning of the paper about root growth and cambial activity, many very interesting papers a now available. See disclaimer, which will be specifically reiterated here.

Long parts of the text is not supported by literature and I am sure, there are many.  Note disclaimer, now made, about literature coverage,

The regroupement of your observation into tables and figures will allow to shorten the text to half and the reader gets easily your points.  Easier said than done here.

__________

Lines 23-31: “Not interesting’. I see this as effectively a denial of the brief I was given.

Line 42: Gathering up several points in general comments. See other responses.

Lines 66-70: Not all hardwoods showing EW/LW differentiation. Addressed in lines 646-657.

Lines 78-83. No references. Flagged as an area for further study of literature.

Line 299. Attention to points (punctuation?). Addressed where noted (by self or reviewers).

Lines 430-457. Recapping, with some expansion, on general criticisms. See other responses.

Lines 459-469, re differentiating between EW and LW and literature. (e.g. A Deslauriers).  Have tracked down the following: Cuny, H., Rathgeber, C., Frank, D. et al. Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests. Nature Plants 1, 15160 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.160 This, very good material, but is not germane to the point, being made. Also, it seems to have a problem of not being grounded in detailed observations of shoot extension phenology.   More importantly, I see incorporating it as needing to add too much explanation. Have not incorporated.

Line 480. Wanting only Fig. 7.  Accept that Figs 1-4 are optional, so agreeable to dropping them.  Propose that Figs 6 and 6 be dropped fro main text but be relegated to Supplementary material. Could even do the same for Figs 1-4. For Academic Editor, I would want your sanction to comply.

Lines 547ff. Additional references on compression wood  (Parent et al. 2001; DesRochers et al.) None of the references by these authors brought up on Google Scholar seem nearly relevant enough. Indeed, I am extremely puzzled as to why they have even been mentioned in this context.

Lines 598-608 (or Section 3?). Call for a Table. I considered this, concerned over the amount of unbroken text, but did not see a solution that would be tidy enough to help clarity.