Temporal Dynamics and Influencing Mechanism of Air Oxygen Content in Different Vegetation Types
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work aims to contribute to analyzing the effect of vegetation on oxygen content as well as analyzing patterns in different types of vegetation at different time scales to correlate between oxygen content and environmental factors. The topic is important since it helps determine the role of different types of vegetation in oxygen production, which helps determine changes in the contribution in different silvicultural treatments or in the composition of trees in forest plantations. Although the data focuses on 4 specific types of vegetation, as mentioned, the data found helps in knowing the patterns at different times, months or seasons of the year. In general, the methodology used is appropriate and well described. Only a few small details in the description of the results of some analyzes (Table 2). The conclusions are in accordance with the results found and cover the objectives indicated in the manuscript. I have no suggestions on the references used. Figures 3 and 4 need to be modified a little to avoid confusion for readers. Details are in the attached PDF document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of English Language looks ok
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in a next revision. No track changes. Consider comments in the entire text.
Dear authors, I would suggest you to address the similarity present in the text, which starts in the abstract.
Please do not use the first person. WE, etc
Please revise proper spacing all over.
“Tian et al.(2013)”
I would suggest you to add a reference on the vegetation types being considered in table 1.
Please do not use the term formula, but equation.
In the case of grouped figures and as I am sure that authors are aware, a different subcaption must correspond to each different letter after the main caption.
“Figure 2. Diurnal variations of air oxygen content in different vegetation types.”
Once again, the vegetation types being considered in table two should have a reference because they are, in fact, already present in the literature.
“Figure 2. Diurnal variations of air oxygen content in different vegetation types.”
Because authors are using the same time frame exactly found in the literature, this would need a clarification.
“From September 2019 to January 2020 and from May to August 2020, the m”
Here and in many other cases
Please address the necessary correct spacing and italics in parameters.
“(p=0.781>0.05).”
Here. And in the case of tables too, please make sure to define all abbreviations being used so that reader is not forced to go back.
“Figure 3. Monthly variations of air oxygen content in different vegetation types.”
Please define all abbreviations under notes below the table.
“Table 4. Multiple stepwise regression analysis of air oxygen content and environmental factors in different vegetation types.”
It is my perspective that authors should try to update references being used in the discussion which should be as recent and as made more international as possible.
The conclusions section should start by briefly contextualizing the paper. So it is really clear. Why is it important? Then, briefly, the methodology main findings practical implications, limitations and future prospects. After such a significant quantitative data being presented in the text, there is none in the abstract nor in the conclusions.
As mentioned earlier, the relevance of the text should also rely in the relevance of the references being used, which are scarce, in this case, and concentrated in a specific region. Please add much more international references to contextualize and widen the discussion as well as much more recent references. We are in 2024.
Please consider that that is comments intent to assist the author in obtaining a more international and relevant text. The references are wrong. The authors used COI instead of DOI...
The similarity aspects are very important because it needs to be clear here. Why is the study original and there is similarity all over, particularly in the methods.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with an interesting topic, having well organized research objectives, a robust analysis and a meaningful argumentation of the research outcomes. In this respect the manuscript can be processed at the Forests journal after the consideration of the following review comments suggested.
1. In the Abstract section typical numerical data related to air oxygen content, temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, “coniferous and broad-leaved mixed forest”-quantitative information, can be added.
2. In Figures 2 and 5 each subgraph can be numbered and interpreted in separate explanatory paragraph, enabling a more precise and comprehensive understanding of the embodied information in each one.
3. The three subsections of main 4. Discussion section can collectively outline the weighted significance of each subsection 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, by formulating a 3-columned Table, in which the columns 1 and 2 to be similar to the already Table 2: Seasons, Vegetation types, and the column 3 to be each-one-time the topics of subsections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, respectively. The entries of this new Table can be the qualitative information/scales/levels of: --- (highly negative) …..0 (neutral)….+++(highly positive). In this Table-format authors can collect and graphically represent the key-findings of the corresponding narrative and argumentation of subsections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, respectively.
4. The theoretical coverage can be enriched with the following relevant citation, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-16324-1_3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in a next revision. No track changes. Consider comments in the entire text.
Dear authors, Please send a clean version where we can clearly see the changes made highlighted in a different color. It is very confusing to see a manuscript like this. I’m sure you know that.
Please do not use upper letters in the subcaptions.
Despite the changes made to the manuscript, it is my perspective that first the authors should respond in a very different way to the questions, highlighting clearly the changes not okay every time, and then trying to move away from some significant similarity, which is already present in the text. No answer to it.
Please add the meaning to of every variable or abbreviation under tables in notes.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
