Impact of Crown Closure on Cone Production and Effective Number of Parents in Natural Stands of Taurus Cedar (Cedrus libani A. Rich.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
it was a pleasure to review such a good and interesting manuscript. Interesting topic, but during reading and when I finished reading and revised. I would kindly ask you to put some guidelines for using these results into practice.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank for your valuable comments in improving the manuscript. Enclosed is revised version of the manuscript. Our response to your comments were given at end of the manuscript.
Yours sincerely, on behalf of the author.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this research, authors try to estimate the influence of crown closure class on cone production of Taurus cedar.
Several issues in the manuscript are summarized as follows.
[1] Tables or Figures (e.g. Table1, Figure1-3) should be in the section ‘3.Result’.
[2] ANOVA should be used to assess whether the cone production trait is different among four crown closure classes (e.g. DF, LC, MC, & FC). The ANOVA result should be added in the section ‘3.Result’. Then, the pairwise comparison of four crown closure classes should be conducted.
[3] In addition, whether the weight and size of cone is different between four crown closure classes?
Major modification
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank for your valuable comments in improving the manuscript. Enclosed is revised version of the manuscript. Our response to your comments were given at end of the manuscript.
Yours sincerely, on behalf of the author.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the manuscript 2344497
Abstrat:
Crown closure should be considered a biotic factor. Said closure could modify abiotic factors such as light penetration, temperature, relative humidity, etc.
In line 11, what does aspect mean?
The abstract starts with the objective of the work. The abstract should begin with the justification of the work.
The abstract does not present the part corresponding to materials and methods.
Introduction:
English must be reviewed by a native speaker.
Review units of tons.
Botanically, strobili and cones are the same thing.
There is no parallelism among the objectives, materials and methods, results and discussion.
Materials and Methods:
In table 1, there are acronyms that do not give their meaning.
Figures 1 and 2 do not have the "y" axis.
Generally, precipitation is expressed as a cumulative and not an average.
Figures 1 and 2 have the same title.
Results:
Tables and figures should be self-explanatory without having to refer to the text to understand them. There are acronyms which do not indicate that they express.
Data should not be repeated in tables, figures and text. For example, in Figure 4, in Table 2 and in the text the data is repeated. Therefore, the results must be rewritten.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English must be reviewed by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank for your valuable comments in improving the manuscript. Enclosed is revised version of the manuscript. Our response to your comments were given at end of the manuscript.
Yours sincerely, on behalf of the author.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
