Evaluation of Different Modeling Approaches for Estimating Total Bole Volume of Hispaniolan Pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in Different Ecological Zones
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell written article that contributes to the expanded knowledge of evaluating different modeling approaches of estimating total bole volume for Pinus occidentalis in different ecological zones and different modeling variants.
I would suggest a few changes.
Line 37 DBH and Height are presented as part of Volume equations, yet Line 57 introduces (DBH) as diameter -at-breast-height, height (H) as volume.
Page 3 Figure 1 - Legend is spelled incorrectly (Leyend). I would suggest adding DEZ, IEZ, and HEZ into the Legend. - after Dry Zone add DEZ, after Intermediate Zone add IEZ, after Humid Zone add HEZ).
Line 123 - I would suggest removing the word "de" and replacing it with "the".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments on our manuscript " Evaluation of different modeling approaches to estimating total bole volume for Hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in different ecological zones.". We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Please find our point-by-point responses below:
Line 37 presents DBH and Height as part of Volume equations, yet Line 57 introduces (DBH) as diameter—at-breast-height and height (H) as volume. We decided to be more concise and careful with the descriptions of the variables DBH and H and other abbreviations.
With Figure 1, we corrected the spelling of the Legend and added DEZ, IEZ, and HEZ.
In Line 123, we replaced the word "de" with "the".
We hope these revisions have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. If any issues remain unclear, we welcome further guidance. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Santiago W. Bueno
Corresponding Author
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the paper is the more accurate volume prediction for Pinus occidentalis (Swartz) in La Sierra, an area with different ecological zones. For this purpose, different modeling variants were compared and evaluated to improve forest management practices of this tree species.
Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner? Yes
Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Yes
Does it include an excessive number of self-citations? No
Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis? Yes
Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section? Yes
Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? No, they could be combined and thus shortened. Do they properly show the data? Yes, they show the data, but Figure 1, for example, cannot be recognized correctly. Are they easy to interpret and understand? No, unfortunately the abbreviations are confusing or inconsistent. Is the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? The data description in the results section is partially missing. The interpretation in the discussion section is also incomplete.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Yes
General concept comments
The text is fluently written and easy to understand. The numerous, in my opinion superfluous, abbreviations disrupt the flow of reading and make it necessary to jump back and forth between the text and the explanations. Some of the figures and tables are poorly labeled or not clearly visible. There are no references in the introduction. Every statement should be verifiable. In the discussion section, there is a lack of information after the individual aspects, which is the consequence for this work.
Specific comments
Line 1 to 3: The reading flow is disturbed by the comma. Here it would be more appropriate to write “Evaluation of different modeling approaches to estimating total bole volume for hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in different ecological zones.
Line 13: Please put Swartz in brackets. (Swartz)
Line 21 to 26: Modeling variants are written here that have not yet been explained. What do the abbreviations SH02/SH03/SH mean? A short description is missing in this section, which you should understand even without knowing the text.
Line 33 to 40: There are no references to the statements here. It should not be difficult to find suitable references and add them to the text.
Line 47 to 50: Reference is missing again.
Line 63: Point between “violated” and “It” is missing.
Line 67 to 68: Reference is missing.
Figure 1: The image is very difficult to recognize. The proportions are wrong (north arrow too large and the map in the top left too small). The location of La Sierra and the different zones are not recognizable. Is “Leyend” supposed to be the legend?
Too many abbreviations are used that are unnecessary to the flow of the paper. H, EZ/Ezs, DEZ, IEZ and HEZ should always be written out in full. This does not lengthen the paper immensely, but it improves comprehension and means that you do not have to keep returning again and again to the explanation.
Table 1: The explanations of the abbreviation like “Std Dev= standard deviation” in the table heading is missing.
Line 126: What is D2H? Please explain it here and not in the next chapter.
Line 134: What do you mean? The following equation was used?
Line 163: Please change D2H to D2H.
Line 199 and 201: Aren’t DBH classes and D classes the same? The different terms lead to confusion here.
Line 236: Shouldn’t it be “Rank value No. 1”?
Line 240: Please write “quantile-quantile plot” in the header and not the abbreviation.
Line 242: What is “CIHEZ”? You haven't explained it up to this point.
Line 262 to 265: Could you please shorten the sentence and maybe make 2 sentences out of it?
Figure 2: Please add a) and b) at the top left above the scatter diagrams and write (…) DBH (a) and D2H (b) in the description.
Line 278: There is something wrong with the header of Table 2 and the text.
Table 3: What does the second “)” stand for under RMSE? See CV01 and CV02.
Table 3: The abbreviations must be checked and the sources should be indicated. The abbreviations explained should also be found in the table (see DBH, H, etc.).
Line 325: The abbreviation “SHMV” appears only once in the text and is not explained.
Table 4: Reference after Schumacher & Hall is repeatedly missing. See also notes to Table 3 also apply here.
Would it be possible to merge the two tables 3 and 4 into one and highlight the important differences?
The same applies to Tables 5 and 6, where the sources behind the model used are again missing. The abbreviations should be explained, because tables and figures must also be understandable without the text, and I also think it makes sense to combine the two tables. If it is not possible to combine them, then at least the formatting should be the same.
A text describing Tables 5 and 6 in the results section is completely missing. These should not be mentioned for the first time in the discussion.
Figure 3: Why is the line at zero thick at the bottom left and the line at zero dashed at the top left and a thick line at 2.01?The labeling must be understandable without the text; abbreviations should be avoided if possible. Lower-case letters from a) to d) should be used above the four individual illustrations to make it easier to understand which illustration shows what. This is common practice in science to visualize several figures in one. The same applies to Figure 4.
Line 377: The name of the Pinus patula should be checked again. It is mentioned differently in the source.
Line 378: What does better mean? First of all, it is smaller. Here, literature should be used to discuss why it should be classified as “better”.
Line 386 to 391: What does this section's conclusion mean for the present work? A discussion is missing.
Line 397: If the stem volume accumulated below breast height is lower in the DEZ, what do the trees look like? So what are the visual differences between the EZs?
Line 398 to 401: What do the statistical differences mean for this study?
Line 411 to 414: Which tree species were examined, are the results comparable with those of the study? And what are the consequences?
Line 423: What does “better” mean here again? Better suited for determining the shape? Please be more precise.
Line 442 to 443: Why is this not recommended? This aspect should be taken up in the discussion.
Line 448 to 452: The sentence is too long for the reader to understand. This aspect could be subdivided.
Line 480 to 481: There is an error in the source information. Source 1 exists twice, this should also be compared with the text.
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful comments on our manuscript " Evaluation of different modeling approaches to estimating total bole volume for Hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in different ecological zones.". We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Please find our point-by-point responses below:
Specific comments
Comment: Line 1 to 3: We value your suggestion and have changed the title to: “Evaluation of different modeling approaches to estimating total bole volume for hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in different ecological zones.
Response: Line 1 to 3: The reading flow is disturbed by the comma. Here it would be more appropriate to write “Evaluation of different modeling approaches to estimating total bole volume for hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in different ecological zones.
Comment: Line 13: Please put Swartz in brackets. (Swartz)
Response: Line 13: Swartz was placed in brackets. (Swartz)
Comment: Line 21 to 26: Modeling variants are written here that have not yet been explained. What do the abbreviations SH02/SH03/SH mean? A short description is missing in this section, which you should understand even without knowing the text.
Response: Line 21 to 26: Abbreviations SH02/SH03/SH were described.
Comment: Line 33 to 40: There are no references to the statements here. It should not be difficult to find suitable references and add them to the text.
Response: Line 33 to 40: References were added.
Comment: Line 47 to 50: Reference is missing again.
Response: Line 47 to 50: Reference added.
Comment: Line 63: Point between “violated” and “It” is missing.
Response: Line 63: Point between “violated” and “It” was placed.
Comment: Line 67 to 68: Reference is missing.
Response: Line 67 to 68: Reference added.
Comment: Figure 1: The image is very difficult to recognize. The proportions are wrong (north arrow too large and the map in the top left too small). The location of La Sierra and the different zones are not recognizable. Is “Leyend” supposed to be the legend?
Response: Figure 1: The image was changed for a new study area map.
Comment: Too many abbreviations are used that are unnecessary to the flow of the paper. H, EZ/Ezs, DEZ, IEZ and HEZ should always be written out in full. This does not lengthen the paper immensely, but it improves comprehension and means that you do not have to keep returning again and again to the explanation.
Response: Unnecessary abbreviations were eliminated, specifically EZ, Ezs, DEZ, IEZ and HEZ
Comment: Table 1: The explanations of the abbreviation like “Std Dev= standard deviation” in the table heading is missing.
Response: Table 1: The explanations of abbreviations like “Std Dev = standard deviation” in the table heading was placed.
Comment: Line 126: What is D2H? Please explain it here and not in the next chapter.
Response: Line 126: What is D2H was explained here.
Comment: Line 134: What do you mean? The following equation was used?
Response: Line 134: “The following model was fitted to indicator variables and the continuous variable D2H” replaced “The following equation was used”.
Comment: Line 163: Please change D2H to D2H.
Response: Line 163: D2H changed to D2H.
Comment: Line 199 and 201: Aren’t DBH classes and D classes the same? The different terms lead to confusion here.
Response: Line 199 and 201: Aren’t DBH classes and D classes the same? Terms were made more concise by employing only DBH classess.
Comment: Line 236: Shouldn’t it be “Rank value No. 1”?
Response: Line 236: Shouldn’t it be “Rank value No. 1”? Yes, it was corrected.
Comment: Line 240: Please write “quantile-quantile plot” in the header and not the abbreviation.
Response: Line 240: Please write “quantile-quantile plot” in the header and not the abbreviation. This matter was addressed.
Comment: Line 242: What is “CIHEZ”? You haven't explained it up to this point.
Response: Line 242: What is “CIHEZ”? It stands for Combined Intermediate and Humd Ecological Zone. Explanation was placed.
Comment: Line 262 to 265: Could you please shorten the sentence and maybe make 2 sentences out of it?
Response: Line 262 to 265: Sentence was shortened.
Comment: Figure 2: Please add a) and b) at the top left above the scatter diagrams and write (…) DBH (a) and D2H (b) in the description.
Response: Figure 2: a) and b) at the top left above the scatter diagrams were added and written as (…) DBH (a) and D2H (b) in the description.
Comment: Line 278: There is something wrong with the header of Table 2 and the text.
Response: Line 278: We could not identify the problem with the header of Table 2 and the text.
Comment: Table 3: What does the second “)” stand for under RMSE? See CV01 and CV02.
Response: Table 3: The ranking values of each goodness of fit statistic are placed in parenthesis under each statistic's realized value.
Comment: Table 3: The abbreviations must be checked and the sources should be indicated. The abbreviations explained should also be found in the table (see DBH, H, etc.).
Response: Table 3: Abbreviations were checked and the sources indicated. There were many unneeded abbreviations.
Comment: Line 325: The abbreviation “SHMV” appears only once in the text and is not explained.
Response: Line 325: The abbreviation “SHMV” was eradicated and replaced for its description.
Comment: Table 4: Reference after Schumacher & Hall is repeatedly missing. See also notes to Table 3 also apply here.
Response: Table 4: Reference after Schumacher & Hall were set.
Comment: Would it be possible to merge the two tables 3 and 4 into one and highlight the important differences?
Response: We found cumbersome to try to merge tables 3 and 4 and tables 5 and 6. The abbreviations were explained, The formatting was set to be the same.
Comment: The same applies to Tables 5 and 6, where the sources behind the model used are again missing. The abbreviations should be explained, because tables and figures must also be understandable without the text, and I also think it makes sense to combine the two tables. If it is not possible to combine them, then at least the formatting should be the same.
A text describing Tables 5 and 6 in the results section is completely missing. These should not be mentioned for the first time in the discussion.
Response: A text describing Tables 5 and 6 was added.
Comment: Figure 3: Why is the line at zero thick at the bottom left and the line at zero dashed at the top left and a thick line at 2.01?The labeling must be understandable without the text; abbreviations should be avoided if possible. Lower-case letters from a) to d) should be used above the four individual illustrations to make it easier to understand which illustration shows what. This is common practice in science to visualize several figures in one. The same applies to Figure 4.
Response: Figure 3: The lines were fixed at zero. Lower-case letters from a) to d) were used above the four individual illustrations
Comment: Line 377: The name of the Pinus patula should be checked again. It is mentioned differently in the source.
Response: Line 377: The name of the Pinus patula was checked and corrected.
Comment: Line 378: What does better mean? First of all, it is smaller. Here, literature should be used to discuss why it should be classified as “better”.
Response: Line 378: What does better mean? As a measure of the average magnitude of the residual error, RMSE lower values indicate better goodness-of-fit of a regression model [26]. Our RMSE statistic value is much smaller and better.
Comment: Line 386 to 391: What does this section's conclusion mean for the present work? A discussion is missing.
Response: Line 386 to 391: A discussion was added.
Comment: Line 397: If the stem volume accumulated below breast height is lower in the DEZ, what do the trees look like? So what are the visual differences between the EZs?
Response: Line 397: Trees having approximately the same age are smaller at the DEZ.
Comment: Line 398 to 401: What do the statistical differences mean for this study?
Response: Line 398 to 401: What do the statistical differences mean for this study? It means that the observed relationship between the dependent variable stem volume outside bark and the predictors is unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Comment: Line 411 to 414: Which tree species were examined, are the results comparable with those of the study? And what are the consequences?
Response: Line 411 to 414: Which tree species were examined, are the results comparable with those of the study? And what are the consequences? twenty-five species in natural stands of Canada and northeastern United States, including balsan poplar, eastern white cedar, Engelman Spruce and European larch. These are temperate forest trees, and the results may not be comparable, but it has been assumed that all trees should approximate one of these mathematical shapes regardless of species.
Comment: Line 423: What does “better” mean here again? Better suited for determining the shape? Please be more precise.
Response: Line 423: “better” means “better suited for wood production”.
Comment: Line 442 to 443: Why is this not recommended? This aspect should be taken up in the discussion.
Response: Line 442 to 443: Why is this not recommended? Volume equations resulting in a bias larger than 10% are very imprecise, leading to poor performance and unreliable predictions.
Comment: Line 448 to 452: The sentence is too long for the reader to understand. This aspect could be subdivided.
Response: Line 448 to 452: Sentence was subdivided in three.
Comment: Line 480 to 481: There is an error in the source information. Source 1 exists twice, this should also be compared with the text.
Response: Line 480 to 481: Error in the source information with Source 1 was corrected.
We hope these revisions have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. If any issues remain unclear, we welcome further guidance. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe MS deals with a precise measurement of bole volume of an economically important and forest tree, namely Pinus occidentalis in Dominican Republic employing statistical models with various growth patterns in consideration. It is well established that the bole volume of a tree broadly conforms to some specific geometrical shapes for which precise formulae are available for computation. Nevertheless, the growth pattern gets influenced with the tree age and micro-climate of the ecological zones and deviates from regular geometrical shapes, posing a difficulty in precise measurement of bole volume for economic purpose. Therefore, the mensuration for bole volume of forest trees employs linear and non-linear statistical models by working out different coefficients and statistical significance so that the chosen model could precisely predict the parameter within the acceptable range.
The present investigation has tested two equations namely, combined variable and Schumacher-Hall across nine modeling variants. The best fitted statistically robust model derived from Schumacher-Hall equation computed bole volume which was satisfactorily cross validated through real-time bole volume obtained from destructive sampling of adequate number of trees collected from three ecological zones. Further, the same model also successfully predicted bole volume of the other set of trees in three ecological zones. The investigation is based on adequate sample size and sound statistical design & considerations.
The MS vividly introduces the research problem. Methodology is clearly and reproducibly described with rich description of the statistics being applied. Result section provides trend of the data, which has been discussed well in the light of the recently published literature with succinct conclusion for scientific and economic implication of the findings in forest-industry scenario.
The MS is precise and has used standardized English language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments on our manuscript " Evaluation of different modeling approaches to estimating total bole volume for Hispaniolan pine (Pinus occidentalis Swartz) in different ecological zones.". We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Please find our point-by-point responses below:
We hope that the incorporated revisions have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. If any issues remain unclear, we welcome further guidance. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Santiago W. Bueno
Corresponding Author
