Wood Quality of Young Tectona grandis L. f. Trees and Its Relationship with Genetic Material and Planting Site in Mato Grosso, Brazil
, Luis Alberto Ugalde Arias 3, Bárbara LuÃsa Corradi Pereira 1 and Aylson Costa Oliveira 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWood quality of young Tectona grandis L. f. trees and its relationship with genetic material and planting site in Mato Grosso, Brazil
Abstract
L21-23 The objective can be added more information about properties evaluated.
L22 What parameter is quality evaluated?
L26.27 Which parameter od stability dimensional and mechanical properties was evaluated?
L29 which parameter is mechanical resistance?
Introduction
This section is adequately presented and focused on the problem of the study. However some small observations can be considered:
L54 some lines can be added about the relation of soil properties and wood quality.
L75 It is not true. The wood from plantation is different to mature o native wood. Then this affirmation is incorrect. The sentence can be modified, different wood properties in fast-growth plantation.
L85 Quality of wood is wide, author may be more specific.
Materials and methods
This section appropriately describes the materials and methods used to achieve the objectives planned in the MS. Two observations can be considered:
L153-155 there is possibility to know the radial position of specimens for mechanical test.
L178 This review prefers to write shrinkage and not dimensional stability.
Results and discussion
The results obtained were presented appropriately, however there is a lack of explaining the differences between sites and type of material, so there is a lack of depth in analyzing the results, Some observation can be considered:
L225-226 Is there a possibility to add a table, which show the material source, place and their interactions.
L228, L301, L376 The (,) must be changed by (.). The decimal in English is (.)
Conclusion
This section is not summarized of results, This section must be present a conclusion of analysis of results.
Author Response
The responses for the suggested edits and comments made by the reviewers are shown below.
Reviewer#1:
Abstract
L21-23 The objective can be added more information about properties evaluated.
L22 What parameter is quality evaluated?
L26.27 Which parameter od stability dimensional and mechanical properties was evaluated?
L29 which parameter is mechanical resistance?
Response: The information has been included. Additionally, the abstract has been reformulated according to suggestions from the other reviewers.
Introduction
This section is adequately presented and focused on the problem of the study. However, some small observations can be considered:
L54 some lines can be added about the relation of soil properties and wood quality.
Response: This was also a suggestion from reviewer 2. A paragraph about the topic has been added.
L75 It is not true. The wood from plantation is different to mature o native wood. Then this affirmation is incorrect. The sentence can be modified, different wood properties in fast-growth plantation.
Response: The sentence has been modified as requested by the reviewer.
L85 Quality of wood is wide, author may be more specific.
Response: The last paragraph of the introduction has been rewritten to be clearer, as suggested by reviewer 3.
Materials and methods
This section appropriately describes the materials and methods used to achieve the objectives planned in the MS. Two observations can be considered:
L153-155 there is possibility to know the radial position of specimens for mechanical test.
Response: We added the information that the samples were randomly taken along the radial direction of the diametrical board. It wasn't possible to maintain a pattern due to the specific conditions of each tree.
L178 This review prefers to write shrinkage and not dimensional stability.
Response: We have changed the term.
Results and discussion
The results obtained were presented appropriately, however there is a lack of explaining the differences between sites and type of material, so there is a lack of depth in analyzing the results, some observation can be considered:
Response: We worked to improve the discussion of the paper as highlighted in the revised version.
L225-226 Is there a possibility to add a table, which show the material source, place and their interactions.
Response: The table was prepared as requested, but the authors preferred to present it as supplementary material.
Table A - Summary of analysis of variance of data (mean square) concerning the mean diameter and heartwood diameter (Planting Location, Genetic Material and Height tree)
|
Source of variation |
Planting Location (PL) |
Genetic Material (GM) |
Height (H) |
PL*GM |
PL*H |
GM*H |
PL*GM*H |
Error |
Total |
|
Degrees of freedom |
1 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
10 |
108 |
143 |
|
Mean diameter |
1857,03538 * |
19,39536 * |
738,65551 * |
8,84084 * |
18,49118 * |
1,52669 NS |
0,90805 NS |
1,87961 |
|
|
Heartwood diameter |
1757,35627 * |
64,78875 * |
597,78849 * |
16,61619 * |
13,11332 * |
3,22105 NS |
0,7774 NS |
2,85175 |
Table B - Summary of analysis of variance of data (mean square) concerning the morphological parameters, physical and mechanical properties (Planting Location and Genetic Material)
|
Source of variation |
Planting Location (PL) |
Genetic Material (GM) |
PL*GM |
Error |
Total |
|
Degrees of freedom |
1 |
2 |
2 |
18 |
23 |
|
Bark (%) |
35,332* |
4,42* |
15,468* |
1,069 |
|
|
Sapwood (%) |
184,21* |
57,54* |
8,73NS |
8,66055 |
|
|
Heartwood (%) |
397,80* |
52,075* |
22,48NS |
11,59111 |
|
|
Pith (%) |
0,17510* |
0,014785NS |
0,00038NS |
0,016106 |
|
|
Pith eccentricity (%) |
23,602NS |
22,545NS |
31,2265NS |
10,22766 |
|
|
Longitudinal Shrinkage (%) |
0,015504NS |
0,001159NS |
0,006018NS |
0,00645417 |
|
|
Tangential Shrinkage (%) |
0,2688NS |
2,7919* |
0,02465NS |
0,1553 |
|
|
Radial Shrinkage (%) |
0,7303* |
0,2275NS |
0,14575NS |
0,11365 |
|
|
Volumetric Shrinkage (%) |
1,4341* |
4,3818* |
0,0471NS |
0,26264 |
|
|
Anisotropy factor |
0,21156NS |
0,151NS |
0,149425NS |
0,128812 |
|
|
Bulk density (g/cm3) |
0,000417NS |
0,002168NS |
0,0070095* |
0,00135216 |
|
|
DF |
1 |
2 |
2 |
24 |
29 |
|
Shear strength- fv0 (MPa) |
0,956NS |
0,864NS |
8,323* |
0,67295833 |
|
|
Static bending strength fm (MPa) |
26,9577NS |
196,2288NS |
620,5019* |
78,287 |
|
|
compressive strength parallel to the fibers fc0 (MPa) |
12,129* |
3,0235NS |
84,989* |
2,02129167 |
|
|
Janka hardness fH90 (kN) |
0,4026NS |
0,61095* |
0,92325* |
0,10497083 |
L228, L301, L376 The (,) must be changed by (.). The decimal in English is (.)
Response: In the English language version of the Office, values (Graphics) are presented with a period (.).
Conclusion
This section is not summarized of results, This section must be present a conclusion of analysis of results.
Response: We altered the conclusion section as suggested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Abstract must be rewritten and in a more clear way to present an introduction, methodology, results and discussions and conclusions, just like the manuscript.
Although the Introduction is very well organized in terms of presenting a big picture of the situation converging to the objectives of the study, I consider that the Introduction needs further improvements, i. e., more bibliographic papers (references) need to be used to explain the relevance of the Tectona grandis in terms of practical applications, in construction, pulp sector (if it is used for this), etc.
In addition, the authors could emphasize better the importance of doing what they intended to do with their work, i.e., they should make it more clear to the reader the importance of their work.
Figure 2 is very interesting and important, therefore, I recommend improving its quality.
Item 2.4 Mechanical properties: Although the authors mentioned the standards that they used to do each mechanical test, I have the following recommendations: 1) clearly mention in the text the dimensions of the samples used; 2) the number of samples used for each test; 3) to indicate if they worked with small clear samples or samples with defects. That is an important piece of information.
In the Results, the paper lacks more information about the practical implications of the findings. Hence, the discussions can be more in-depth improved rather then being only descriptive and comparative with previous research works.
Conclusions must be rewritten.
The text requires extensive English and formatting improvements.
Extensive English improvements are necessary.
Author Response
Reviewer#2:
Abstract
I recommend the authors indicate the properties of the wood tested.
Lines 22-22: what does your mean by these sentences? It is unclear.
Add a sentence regarding the industrial application of the obtained results.
Lines 28-29: In general, in Nova Maringá, the wood of the seminal material was more resistant than that of the clonal material. What does your mean by more resistant? Did you measure the durability of the wood species? (No). Please edit the sentence or delete it.
Altogether, I recommend the authors rewrite the Abstract section.
Response: We reformulated the abstract according to the reviewer's suggestions.
Introduction
The author can consider the following paper:
Chu, D., Yao, T., Zhou, L., Yan, H., Yu, M., Liu, Y., ... & Liu, S. (2022). Genetic variation analysis and comprehensive evaluation of wood property traits of 20-year-old Chinese fir clone. European Journal of Forest Research, 141(1), 59-69.
Response: We thank reviewer 2 for recommending the above article. In response to their suggestion, along with input from the other reviewers, we have restructured the introduction as highlighted in the text. We added a contextualization of the species' relevance at the beginning of the introduction, a paragraph discussing the soil's relationship with wood quality, and, following the example of the paper cited by the reviewer, we enhanced the justification/importance of this study.
I recommend the authors add some sentence regarding the influence of site conditions on the wood properties.
Response: This was also a suggestion from reviewer 1. We have added a paragraph about the topic.
Material and Methods
GPS information?
Response: OK, we added this information.
Did you analysis the Chemical and granulometric attributes of the soil? If yes, please indicate the applied methods.
Response:
As described in the caption of Table 2, these results were not determined in the present study. They are secondary data, determined according to the procedures described in "TEIXEIRA, P. C.; DONAGEMMA, G. K.; FONTANA, A.; TEIXEIRA, W. G. Manual de métodos de análise de solo. 3rd ed. Brasília: Embrapa, 2017. 24p" - reference has been added to the text.
"The regions were delimited macroscopically through the differentiation of color between sapwood and heartwood". Please inset the cross-section photos of the studied wood species.
Response: In Figure 2, there are cross-section photos and the measurement method used. We have included a reference to Figure 2 in the text.
Why did you measure bulk density? What about dry density?
Response: The term "bulk density" has been changed to "air dry density," which is the more commonly used term. We used this density because it's a quality parameter for teak wood that's widely utilized and assessed in many studies, such as:
- RIZANTI, D. E.; DARMAWAN, W.; GEORGE, B.; MERLIN, A.; DUMARCAY, S.; CHAPUIS, H.; GÉRARDIN, C.; GELHAYE, E.; RAHARIVELOMANANA, P.; KARTIKA SARI, R.; SYAFII, W.; MOHAMED, R.; GERARDIN, P. Comparison of teak wood properties according to forest management: short versus long rotation. Annals of Forest Science, 75, n. 2, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s13595-018-0716-8.
- SHUKLA, S. R.; VISWANATH, S. Comparison of growth and few wood quality parameters of 24–25-year-old Tectona grandis (teak) trees raised under three agroforestry practices. Agroforestry Systems, 97, n. 4, p. 631-645, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10457-023-00815-5.
- HOUNLONON, M. C.; KOUCHADE, C. A.; KOUNOUHEWA, B. B. Physical and mechanical properties of teak wood from Tanzanian and local provenances in Benin. Bois et forêts des tropiques, n. 331, p. 9, 2017. doi.
Additionally, the Brazilian standard ABNT NBR 7190, used as a reference, also adopts "air dry density," as it is a parameter used by teak exporting companies.
Statistical analysis: Please indicate the software.
Response: Added information - R software, version 4.3.1.
Results
You bring the table 2, however, did not use it for the discussion of the obtained results. You can consider the following paper for linking between wood properties and soil properties:
Response: We worked to improve the discussion of the paper as highlighted in the revised version.
Please indicate the relationship between volumetric variations with the density. Please indicate the relationship between volumetric variations the mechanical properties.
Response: We have included a table with the correlation values in the document.
Conclusions
Suggesting that authors discuss the possibility of using the obtained results on a practical scale.
Response: We have altered the conclusion section to include conclusions at a practical scale, as suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study examined the influence of genetic material and planting location on the productivity and wood quality of teak (Tectona grandis L. f). The authors was found that these factors significantly affect the wood's market value. Please see the comments below:
Abstract
I recommend the authors indicate the properties of the wood tested.
Lines 22-22: what does your mean by these sentences? It is unclear.
Add a sentence regarding the industrial application of the obtained results.
Lines 28-29: In general, in Nova Maringá, the wood of the seminal material was more resistant than that of the clonal material. What does your mean by more resistant? Did you measure the durability of the wood species? (No). Please edit the sentence or delete it.
Altogether, I recommend the authors rewrite the Abstract section.
Introduction
The author can consider the following paper:
Chu, D., Yao, T., Zhou, L., Yan, H., Yu, M., Liu, Y., ... & Liu, S. (2022). Genetic variation analysis and comprehensive evaluation of wood property traits of 20-year-old Chinese fir clone. European Journal of Forest Research, 141(1), 59-69.
I recommend the authors add some sentence regarding the influence of site conditions on the wood properties.
Material and Methods
GPS information?
Did you analysis the Chemical and granulometric attributes of the soil? If yes, please indicate the applied methods.
"The regions were delimited macroscopically through the differentiation of 166 color between sapwood and heartwood". Please inset the cross-section photos of the studied wood species.
Why did you measure bulk density? What about dry density?
Statistical analysis: Please indicate the software.
Results
You bring the table 2, however, did not use it for the discussion of the obtained results. You can consider the following paper for linking between wood properties and soil properties:
Please indicate the relationship between volumetric variations with the density.
Please indicate the relationship between volumetric variations the mechanical properties.
Conclusions
Suggesting that authors discuss the possibility of using the obtained results on a practical scale.
/
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer#3
The Abstract must be rewritten and in a more clear way to present an introduction, methodology, results and discussions and conclusions, just like the manuscript.
Response: We reformulated the abstract according to the reviewer's suggestions.
Although the Introduction is very well organized in terms of presenting a big picture of the situation converging to the objectives of the study, I consider that the Introduction needs further improvements, i. e., more bibliographic papers (references) need to be used to explain the relevance of the Tectona grandis in terms of practical applications, in construction, pulp sector (if it is used for this), etc.
Response: We have added the requested information at the beginning of this topic.
In addition, the authors could emphasize better the importance of doing what they intended to do with their work, i.e., they should make it more clear to the reader the importance of their work.
Response: The final paragraph of the introduction has been rewritten to make the importance of the study clearer.
Figure 2 is very interesting and important, therefore, I recommend improving its quality.
Response: We improved the quality of the figure.
Item 2.4 Mechanical properties: Although the authors mentioned the standards that they used to do each mechanical test, I have the following recommendations: 1) clearly mention in the text the dimensions of the samples used; 2) the number of samples used for each test; 3) to indicate if they worked with small clear samples or samples with defects. That is an important piece of information.
Response: We have added the requested information to the text.
In the Results, the paper lacks more information about the practical implications of the findings. Hence, the discussions can be more in-depth improved rather then being only descriptive and comparative with previous research works.
Response: We worked to improve the discussion of the paper as highlighted in the revised version.
Conclusions must be rewritten.
Response: We have altered the conclusion section as suggested by all reviewers.
The text requires extensive English and formatting improvements.
Response: We have reviewed the entire text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors for making the necessary improvements in their work. It had its scientific quality significantly improved. Even so, I do consider that the Conclusions still require further improvements.
I kindly recommend the authors rewrite the conclusion, summarizing the main findings, indicating if the objectives were achieved and future steps.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
