Wood Basic Density Assessment of Eucalyptus Genotypes Growing under Contrasting Water Availability Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall manuscript assessment: content of the manuscript in general is clear and well-written, results are based on the experimental tests and easy to understand. At the same time, sections of the manuscript are recommended to be improved, the results are based on a poor (limited) number of measurements; the manuscript contains incorrect terms. Following questions, recommendations and comments can be highlighted:

11.  The authors use the term “resistograph” in relation to the nondestructive method and to the drilling tool applied. This is a mistake. Resistograph is the trade mark (name of the model) only one of the drilling tools available on the market - https://rinntech.info/. The authors used the drilling tool from another company - https://www.iml.de/. Suggested term for the method is drilling resistance measurements (Ross, Robert J. 2015. Nondestructive Evaluation of Wood: Second Edition. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, General Technical Report, FPL-GTR-238, 2015; 176 p.). “Resistograph trace, resistogram” (line 131, line 220) – correctly is to be term “drilling resistance profile”. The same for the Resistography (line 211, 212). The IML Resistograph PD400 (line 216) is completely incorrect term. Device name is “IML-RESI PowerDrill” (https://www.iml-service.com/pole-inspection/). Please check also other section of the manuscript for the “Resistograph” correction.

22.   Sentence in the line 143 is not clear;  “…wood resistance…” to what?

33. Material of the manuscript presented between the lines 180-210 belongs to the Introduction and Discussion sections.

44.    Line 218, term “micro-drilling” is also not correct. Suggested term is “drilling”.

55.  Please specify the lengths of the wood cores, which were used for correlation with drilling resistance in materials and methods section. It is not clear, mean drilling resistance for bark-to-bark depth was correlated with mead BD? Was drilling resistance profile correction applied or not (Gendvilas, Vilius, Downes, Geoffrey M., Neyland, Mark, Hunt, Mark, Jacobs, Andrew and O’Reilly-Wapstra, Julianne. "Friction correction when predicting wood basic density using drilling resistance" Holzforschung, vol. 75, no. 6, 2021, pp. 508-516. https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2020-0156)?

66. The results presented in Figure 3 are too poor (figure a) or have a low coefficient of determination (figure b) to form unambiguous conclusions.

77. Line 287, two times “basic” was used.

88. Please also see the following published papers corresponding to the manuscript for Introduction and Discussion sections improvements: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049158.2018.1500676 ,

https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2016-0058

 

Author Response

06 december, 2023

 

 

Review 1.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall manuscript assessment: content of the manuscript in general is clear and well-written, results are based on the experimental tests and easy to understand. At the same time, sections of the manuscript are recommended to be improved, the results are based on a poor (limited) number of measurements; the manuscript contains incorrect terms. Following questions, recommendations and comments can be highlighted:

11. The authors use the term “resistograph” in relation to the nondestructive method and to the drilling tool applied. This is a mistake. Resistograph is the trade mark (name of the model) only one of the drilling tools available on the market - https://rinntech.info/. The authors used the drilling tool from another company - https://www.iml.de/. Suggested term for the method is drilling resistance measurements (Ross, Robert J. 2015. Nondestructive Evaluation of Wood: Second Edition. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, General Technical Report, FPL-GTR-238, 2015; 176 p.). “Resistograph trace, resistogram” (line 131, line 220) – correctly is to be term “drilling resistance profile”. The same for the Resistography (line 211, 212). The IML Resistograph PD400 (line 216) is completely incorrect term. Device name is “IML-RESI PowerDrill” (https://www.iml-service.com/pole-inspection/). Please check also other section of the manuscript for the “Resistograph” correction.
12.  Sentence in the line 143 is not clear;  “…wood resistance…” to what?
13. Material of the manuscript presented between the lines 180-210 belongs to the Introduction and Discussion sections.
14.   Line 218, term “micro-drilling” is also not correct. Suggested term is “drilling”.
15. Please specify the lengths of the wood cores, which were used for correlation with drilling resistance in materials and methods section. It is not clear, mean drilling resistance for bark-to-bark depth was correlated with mead BD? Was drilling resistance profile correction applied or not (Gendvilas, Vilius, Downes, Geoffrey M., Neyland, Mark, Hunt, Mark, Jacobs, Andrew and O’Reilly-Wapstra, Julianne. "Friction correction when predicting wood basic density using drilling resistance" Holzforschung, vol. 75, no. 6, 2021, pp. 508-516. https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2020-0156)?
16. The results presented in Figure 3 are too poor (figure a) or have a low coefficient of determination (figure b) to form unambiguous conclusions.
17. Line 287, two times “basic” was used.
18. Please also see the following published papers corresponding to the manuscript for Introduction and Discussion sections improvements: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049158.2018.1500676,

https://doi.org/10.1515/hf-2016-0058

 

 

 

Dear Reviewer 1

Thanks for the review and comments, all the suggestions all included in the text.

Kind regards,

 

 

Dr. Juan Pedro Elissetche

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled „Wood basic density assessment of Eucalyptus genotypes growing under contrasting water availability conditions” presents the information about how water conditions affect the density of two different eucalyptus clones. Additionally, it assesses the usefulness of non-destructive resistography technique in evaluating wood density in growing trees.

The research was well-planned and conducted, the methods and results are presented clearly. I would suggest adding some scientific discussion or hypotheses on the differences observed between the two analysed clones, and supplementing the article with practical conclusions from the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

06 december, 2023

 

 

Review 2.

 

The manuscript entitled „Wood basic density assessment of Eucalyptus genotypes growing under contrasting water availability conditions” presents the information about how water conditions affect the density of two different eucalyptus clones. Additionally, it assesses the usefulness of non-destructive resistography technique in evaluating wood density in growing trees.

The research was well-planned and conducted, the methods and results are presented clearly. I would suggest adding some scientific discussion or hypotheses on the differences observed between the two analysed clones, and supplementing the article with practical conclusions from the study.

 

Dear Reviewer 1

Thanks for the review and comments, all the suggestions all included in the text.

Kind regards,

 

 

Dr. Juan Pedro Elissetche

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, with the adjustment of the manuscript and highlighting the modification of the changes usually step-by-step response on reviewer comments should is attached. Now you use 2 variants: “drill resistance” and “drilling resistance” please check with English native speaker what is the correct. I used always – drilling resistance.

Please also check all the reference list to be in the journal requirements, especially see the references 25, 28, 31 with evident mistakes.

Thank you.

Author Response

11 december

 

Dear Reviewer 1

the changes were made:

1. drill resistance and not drilling resistance is proposed

2.  bibliography was revised and fixed

kind regards.,

 

Juan Pedro Elissetche

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf