Radial Variation of Wood Anatomical Characteristics and Maturation Ages of Six Korean Oak Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The radial variations of anatomical characteristics were compared among six Korean oak species. This manuscript contains some interesting findings and is valuable for evaluating the wood quality. Some issues should be improved before this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

 

1.     It is hard to distinguish the transition from juvenile wood to mature wood based on the results of earlywood vessel diameter and fiber length. From Figure 1 and 3, the transition is not obvious to be found. Statistical analysis is suggested to evaluate the transition, for example, the cluster analysis.

2.     Radial variation from previous studies should be given appropriately, such as the pattern of vessel size variation, fiber length, or tissue proportion.

3.     The images observed through the light or electronic microscopy are suggested to be provided.

4.     Direction should be specified when describing the fiber dimeter or lumen size.

5.     Not only fiber and vessels, other typical anatomical features could be considered, for example, wood ray, parenchyma tissue, pit, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be polished. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have meticulously revised and reconstructed it following your valuable feedback. The revised sentences have been highlighted and tracked changes have been made in the manuscript file. Additionally, we have provided a summary of our response to the reviewers and editor, attached herewith.

Best regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revision of the manuscript entitled: “Radial variation of wood anatomical characteristics and maturation ages of six Korean oak species”

 

The manuscript deals with the determination of xylem maturation age based on radial pattern of variation of some anatomical traits. Less attention is paid to the search of anatomical characteristics valuable in identification keys to distinguish among the six wood species under study, although the wood species identification is much more useful in trade than the accurate calculation of maturation age.

I think the manuscript is acceptable for publication after including the following modifications I propose. 

Lines 19-20, 121-122: There is not any explanation of the “segmented regression model” method. It should be exposed in Materials and methods chapter.

Lines 29-30: Please remove keywords included in the title. Why not including “Quercus” as a keyword? Please write the terms in alphabetical order.

Line 34: perhaps “versatility” is more suitable than “popularity”.

Line 40: Please write “high” instead of “higher”.

Lines 50, 51 and 79: What do you mean with “high-grade” and “low-grade”? I suggest high/low added value instead.

Lines 80-81: Please remove the phrase “to provide identification keys and quality indices for the effective utilization of these species”, because identification keys and quality indices are not yielded as a result of the manuscript, although it would be fine to offer the reader with a identification key, or tentative key, for the six Korean oak woods.

To date, is it difficult to identify each of the six Korean oak woods? Please explain in the introduction, as an enhanced justification of the study.

Line 90: Replace “Fundamental” with “Sampled tree”.

Table 1. Heading: replace “Diameter” with “Breast height diameter”; data in column “age” is not age but the number of rings at breast height. 

Lines 126-127, 145-146: I feel this procedure should be graphically presented on the figures in the Results chapter.

Table 2: The transition age is different for each of the anatomical traits. Which one is the real transition age? Which one is the anatomical characteristic most related to wood quality? The computed transition age is not a value, but a range. Why? Is the fitting different for each of the sampled trees? Is it considered a confidence interval for the fitting parameters in the segmented regression model?  

I miss a discussion on the most suitable anatomical trait for the accurate determination of maturation age. I have checked the narrowest intervals are those related to latewood vessel diameter.

Figure 1: Is each dot the mean of 50 diameter values x three oak trees? Please explain.

Line 154 and the rest of the document: Please remove the shadow on the written lines.

Line 159: Please explain how do you compute “proportion of mature wood”.

Lines 169, 179, 224 and 328: The goodness-of-fit of the segmented model should be exposed by numerical indicators, for instance adjusted R2 or RMSE, instead of qualitative assessments as “…their patterns did not fit the regression model.” or “…fits the regression model well,”. Indeed, this type of sentences for evaluating the regression fitting reduces severely the value of your work.

Line 178: I do not think the trend in the figure is “constant”.

Line 192: I do not think the trend in the figure shows “stability”.

Line 207: What do you mean with “consistent thickness”?

Line 236: I do not find the asterisks.

Lines 311-312: please rewrite this sentence. I think you want to say just the opposite, as regards the rest of the paragraph.

Line 333: What do you mean with “indistinct”?

It would be a very valuable conclusion the presentation of cell mean dimensions specific for each of the six oak woods.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revision of the manuscript entitled: “Radial variation of wood anatomical characteristics and maturation ages of six Korean oak species”

 

The manuscript deals with the determination of xylem maturation age based on radial pattern of variation of some anatomical traits. Less attention is paid to the search of anatomical characteristics valuable in identification keys to distinguish among the six wood species under study, although the wood species identification is much more useful in trade than the accurate calculation of maturation age.

I think the manuscript is acceptable for publication after including the following modifications I propose. 

Lines 19-20, 121-122: There is not any explanation of the “segmented regression model” method. It should be exposed in Materials and methods chapter.

Lines 29-30: Please remove keywords included in the title. Why not including “Quercus” as a keyword? Please write the terms in alphabetical order.

Line 34: perhaps “versatility” is more suitable than “popularity”.

Line 40: Please write “high” instead of “higher”.

Lines 50, 51 and 79: What do you mean with “high-grade” and “low-grade”? I suggest high/low added value instead.

Lines 80-81: Please remove the phrase “to provide identification keys and quality indices for the effective utilization of these species”, because identification keys and quality indices are not yielded as a result of the manuscript, although it would be fine to offer the reader with a identification key, or tentative key, for the six Korean oak woods.

To date, is it difficult to identify each of the six Korean oak woods? Please explain in the introduction, as an enhanced justification of the study.

Line 90: Replace “Fundamental” with “Sampled tree”.

Table 1. Heading: replace “Diameter” with “Breast height diameter”; data in column “age” is not age but the number of rings at breast height. 

Lines 126-127, 145-146: I feel this procedure should be graphically presented on the figures in the Results chapter.

Table 2: The transition age is different for each of the anatomical traits. Which one is the real transition age? Which one is the anatomical characteristic most related to wood quality? The computed transition age is not a value, but a range. Why? Is the fitting different for each of the sampled trees? Is it considered a confidence interval for the fitting parameters in the segmented regression model?  

I miss a discussion on the most suitable anatomical trait for the accurate determination of maturation age. I have checked the narrowest intervals are those related to latewood vessel diameter.

Figure 1: Is each dot the mean of 50 diameter values x three oak trees? Please explain.

Line 154 and the rest of the document: Please remove the shadow on the written lines.

Line 159: Please explain how do you compute “proportion of mature wood”.

Lines 169, 179, 224 and 328: The goodness-of-fit of the segmented model should be exposed by numerical indicators, for instance adjusted R2 or RMSE, instead of qualitative assessments as “…their patterns did not fit the regression model.” or “…fits the regression model well,”. Indeed, this type of sentences for evaluating the regression fitting reduces severely the value of your work.

Line 178: I do not think the trend in the figure is “constant”.

Line 192: I do not think the trend in the figure shows “stability”.

Line 207: What do you mean with “consistent thickness”?

Line 236: I do not find the asterisks.

Lines 311-312: please rewrite this sentence. I think you want to say just the opposite, as regards the rest of the paragraph.

Line 333: What do you mean with “indistinct”?

It would be a very valuable conclusion the presentation of cell mean dimensions specific for each of the six oak woods.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have meticulously revised and reconstructed it following your valuable feedback. The revised sentences have been highlighted and tracked changes have been made in the manuscript file. Additionally, we have provided a summary of our response to the reviewers and editor, attached herewith.

Best regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate your effort in understanding the wood quality. I have a few suggestions that could help enhance the overall quality of your work. and It would have been better if the microscopic pictures of wood were included to compare vessel, annual rings, diffuse, and ring-porous changes in juveniles and mature wood.

Page 1

Line 34: This Popularity of what?

Sentences need rewriting.

Line 35: Need the year of the publication. Better modify the sentence below

The distribution of the oak wood species is found extensively across the United States, Europe, Africa, and Asia [4].

Line 42: use the word tree or species for Oak “stands.” I hope the Stand mainly describes the homogeneous trees of the same age, size, and height in the patch or area. In this sentence, it doesn't suit.

Line 44: Public benefits, what are they? is it Economic benefits or any free public benefits?

Line 45: Add author citation for each botanical name at their first mention.

Quercus variabilis Blume

Page 2

Line 55: Wood is xylem, not including phloem and bark.

Page 3:

Line 95: Does it refer to the length or just the growth rings? If it is about the growth rings, how do you get from the pith to the bark? Only wood has growth rings.

better to mention the description at first mention in text for pith to bark as first tree ring outside the pith to the last ring close to bark.

Page 8:

Figure 5 and Figure 6: Cambial age will be appropriate for the X-axis.

Page 9:

Table 4: Does the age range for juveniles and mature trees remain constant for all tree species studied here, or does it depend on the transition years?

Page 11:

It is important to mention the values of each parameter that is highlighted in anatomical characteristics. Additionally, providing anatomical characters such as grain characters of wood identification or patterns of axial parenchyma cells can help distinguish between different wood species.

Page 12:

Line: 331: Shift to discussing part

Keep the conclusion brief and straight to the point.

 

Regards

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have meticulously revised and reconstructed it following your valuable feedback. The revised sentences have been highlighted and tracked changes have been made in the manuscript file. Additionally, we have provided a summary of our response to the reviewers and editor, attached herewith.

Best regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have meticulously revised and reconstructed it following your valuable feedback. Additionally, we have provided a summary of our response to the reviewers, attached herewith.

Best regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Most of the suggestions I made in the first revision (> 2/3) were accepted.

I feel the authors should include the following explanation in the manuscript itself and not only in the answer to the reviewer:

“Each dot represents the average of three trees, with each tree comprising 50 repetitions. This implies that the average is derived from a total of 150 cells.”

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments aimed at improving the manuscript. We have meticulously revised and reconstructed it following your valuable feedback. Additionally, we have provided a summary of our response to the reviewers, attached herewith.

Best regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents valuable data on the anatomical characteristics associated with the transition from juvenile to mature wood of six Korean oak wood species. The manuscript is well written and the methodology is detailed. Nevertheless I would like to point one major improvement suggestion:

 

1.   ----- Most of the result sections of this manuscript are too descriptive. For instance in lines 131 to 133 ( “ All species had different transition ages or maturation ages, ranging from 19 to 41 years: Qv 32–36 years, Qs 25–36 years, Qm 19–30 years, Qd 22–36 years, Qal 30–35 years, and Qac 30–41 years.”), as stated by the authors the values can be seen in table two, so they do not need to be repeated in the text. Same in line 145 “These findings indicate that Qm had the highest mature wood portion at 54–70%, followed by Qd at 56–67%, Qs at 54–61%, Qv at 44–48%, Qal at 30–32%, and the lowest was in Qac with 15–38%.”, etc… These values on the text make the results section heavy to read and more difficult to understand. I would suggest to remove them as much as possible.

 

 

More detailed comments below:

 

 

Line 29: I would recommend to use shorter keywords to allow for better traceability of the article.

Line 37-39: It would be important to discuss on the economic importance of oak wood in Korea. Moreover it would be interesting to provide ecological information about the 6 species used in this study and their current economic uses.

Line 139: Figure 1:  Maybe it would be clearer if all the A to F panels were combined into a single graph. Would it not be possible to average the data from the three trees analyzed per species and then present the averages on the graph? Moreover if this unification is not possible the X scale should be kept the same across the graphs because like this it induces the reader to compare the trends with different axe scales. Lastly, in some of the panels (B and D) the X axe labels do not have enough space making them hard to read so they should be corrected. In the figure 1 legend should be stated what the error bars stand for.

 

Line 160: Figure 2. Same comments as for figure 1: should be unified; the axes scale should be constant across panels; figure legend should state what error bars stand for.

 

Line 177: Figure 3: Same comments as for figure 1: should be unified; the axes scale should be constant across panels; figure legend should state what error bars stand for.

 

 

Line 186: Figure 4: Same comments as for figure 1: should be unified; the axes scale should be constant across panels; figure legend should state what error bars stand for.

 

Line 191: Figure 5: Same comments as for figure 1: should be unified; the axes scale should be constant across panels; figure legend should state what error bars stand for.

 

Line 202: Figure 6: Same comments as for figure 1: should be unified; the axes scale should be constant across panels; figure legend should state what error bars stand for.

 

Line 229. Table 4: Should be explained in table legend what the values of IAWA list stand for.

Line 317.Conclusions: It would be important to expand this section mentioning the next steps following this work and its impact for the economic/ecological usage of these oak trees in Korea.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments to improve the manuscript. We revised and reconstructed it very carefully according to your valuable comments. The revised sentences were presented with the highlight and track changes for the manuscript. A summary of our responses to the reviewer's comments is provided in a separate Word document.

Kind regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled „Radial Variation of Wood Anatomical Characteristics and Maturation Ages of Six Korean Oak Species” discusses differences between dimensions of selected anatomical elements of various oak species within the context of their maturation/cambial age. The research was well-planned and performed. However, I suggest adding a clear statement about its novelty and importance. Also, a scientific discussion about the observed differences between species and wood of different ages would be interesting here since it is a scientific article. I wonder if three replicates of each oak species analysed in the study are enough to draw reliable conclusions and how the obtained results can be used in practice to distinguish between different species since some parameters have values similar for a few species, and we know how variable wood and its individual elements can be. I would like the Authors to add a discussion about these issues in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your critical suggestions and informative comments to improve the manuscript. We revised and reconstructed it very carefully according to your valuable comments. The revised sentences were presented with the highlight and track changes for the manuscript. A summary of our responses to the reviewer's comments is provided in a separate Word document.

Kind regards,

Alvin Muhammad Savero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been corrected and supplemented. I can recommend it for publishing.