Mixed-Effects Height Prediction Model for Juniperus procera Trees from a Dry Afromontane Forest in Ethiopia
, Evaldo Muñoz Braz 3, Carlos Moreira Miquelino Eleto Torres 1, Dimitrios Ioannis Raptis 4, Patricia Povoa de Mattos 3, Hailemariam Temesgen 5,*, Ernesto Alonso Rubio-Camacho 6 and Gudeta Woldesemayat Sileshi 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have tested several models for prediction of Juniperus procera trees and proposed mixed-effect model as an ideal. The authors have put a good work and it will be beneficial for foresters. This manuscript is well organized and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results.
Abstract.
Abstract is too lengthy. The authors needs to summarize this section.
Line 48. The references are old. I will suggest to update.
Line 57. Typing mistake needs correction.
Line 74-78. The authors mentioned that “mixed-effect model is proven a best height indicator for tree height.” Then what is the need of the current study?.
Line 82. “few efforts” it should be fresh start to the sentence.
Line 88-95. Please rephrase in order to deliver a clear sound.
Line 114. Resolution of figure 1 needs improvement.
Line 117-125. These lines must be supported by relevant reference for example; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106111 and https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01774-3
Line 137. The reference is too old.
Line 146. Same issue as above.
Line 165. The authors mentioned that sampling was carried both from plantation and natural forests. I will suggest to run the model separately for both i.e. plantation forests and natural forests. It will further add verification to the performance of best fitted model.
Line 463-464. Please check for font size.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors have tested several models for prediction of Juniperus procera trees and proposed mixed-effect model as an ideal. The authors have put a good work and it will be beneficial for foresters. This manuscript is well organized and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results.
Abstract.
Abstract is too lengthy. The authors needs to summarize this section.
Line 48. The references are old. I will suggest to update.
Line 57. Typing mistake needs correction.
Line 74-78. The authors mentioned that “mixed-effect model is proven a best height indicator for tree height.” Then what is the need of the current study?.
Line 82. “few efforts” it should be fresh start to the sentence.
Line 88-95. Please rephrase in order to deliver a clear sound.
Line 114. Resolution of figure 1 needs improvement.
Line 117-125. These lines must be supported by relevant reference for example; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106111 and https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01774-3
Line 137. The reference is too old.
Line 146. Same issue as above.
Line 165. The authors mentioned that sampling was carried both from plantation and natural forests. I will suggest to run the model separately for both i.e. plantation forests and natural forests. It will further add verification to the performance of best fitted model.
Line 463-464. Please check for font size.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Damian,
Subject: Response to reviewers’ comments on manuscript ID (2850421)
I hope this letter finds you well.
We thank you and the three esteemed reviewers for their invaluable time and constructive comments on our manuscript, “Mixed-effects height prediction model for Juniperus procera trees from Dry Afromontane forests in Ethiopia).” We appreciate a thorough evaluation of our work and have carefully considered each comment and suggestion.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript introduced a mixed-effects height prediction model for the Juniperus procera tree species. I think the key point for a model construction paper is the amount of data, the data collection methods, the data representativeness, and the data processing methods. In this manuscript, data representativeness and data cleaning methods are not well described. The advantage is that the results section and the discussion part of the article are more adequate. Specific comments are listed below.
1. Abstract
a) Why research the Juniperus procera? Is this tree species very important in the research region? Or is it a worldwide distributed species?
b) Do any other studies report the height model of J. Procera?
c) It’s better to move the line 134-146 to the introduction part.
d) Add the species name to the keywords.
2. Materials and methods
a) Better to add the plot's position to the study map.
b) What are the specific climate factors of each plot? At least a certain grouping rule describes the climate factors for each dataset.
c) How many trees were used in this study?
d) How does the fitting dataset and the calibration dataset be selected? How to extract the data?
e) Check the font size of the line 180-182. And the whole manuscript.
3. Results
a) It looks like there are some data points that deviate too much from the population, in Fig 2a, 2b., and Fig 3b. So, the authors must introduce the data selection method more clearly.
The discussion and conclusion part is ok. My only suggestion is to add an explanation of how the model is applied in forest management.
Author Response
We thank you and the three esteemed reviewers for their invaluable time and constructive comments on our manuscript, “Mixed-effects height prediction model for Juniperus procera trees from Dry Afromontane forests in Ethiopia).” We appreciate a thorough evaluation of our work and have carefully considered each comment and suggestion.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOne part of introduction is a little bit flawed, please find more in attached .pdf., it needs rework.
On the other hand, mixed-effects models and their significance is well described (second part of introduction).
I would suggest authors dedicate few more sentences to history and already done mixed-effects models, add few more citations of previous works, which are numerous.
I appreciate very nice, clear and professional figures in Methodology.
It seems a lot of field effort was done as well as considerable amount of mathematical and statistical exercise.
The study is novel and the results could be beneficial for research and forestry practice.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank you and the three esteemed reviewers for their invaluable time and constructive comments on our manuscript, “Mixed-effects height prediction model for Juniperus procera trees from Dry Afromontane forests in Ethiopia).” We appreciate a thorough evaluation of our work and have carefully considered each comment and suggestion.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reading the author's reply letter, they have replied to my concerns point-to-point, and I have no further comments.
