Variations in the Forest Productivity of Pinus patula Plantations in Tanzania: The Need for an Improved Site Classification System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsObservations and suggestions have been made in the manuscript to improve its content and form. In each section of the manuscript, specific observations have been indicated that the authors must address.
In particular, the Materials and Methods section should include specific details of various methodological aspects, as well as the mathematical structures and components of the models used. The method proposed by the authors to improve the productivity classification system must be sufficiently explained. In the Discussion section, various aspects of the original model that was used to classify productivity must be analyzed, among which the following stand out: type of growth model (anamorphic or polymorphic curves or others), model derivation technique (guide curve or algebraic difference or generalized algebraic difference or other), origin of the type of observations analyzed (stem analysis or remeasurements of permanent plots), age intervals and dominant height analyzed, number of observations used and representativeness of the sample size and, statistical fitting strategy applied. In different sections of the manuscript, various questions have been raised that the authors must address. The References section should be written based on the Forests Journal author's guide.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of the english language is good, only some technical aspects should be corrected.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: [REVIWER 1: In the abstract, the reviewer suggested the sample size must be representative of the population of interest at the compartment level. Line 14-15 |
|
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We have integrated our response to the manuscript as suggested in the Materia and Method section. Page 4 and 5, line 169 - 173 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 2: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that dominant height as a proxy for forest productivity must be described sufficiently and clearly in the Material and Method section, Line 18 |
|
Response 2: Agree. We have revised the comment. The dominant height as a proxy for forest productivity has been well discussed in the Material and Method section, including the original site index model for P. patula plantation in Tanzania. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 3: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that the stratified sampling plots be reflected in the Material and Method section, Line 20 |
|
Response 3: Agree. We have revised the comment. The stratified sampling plots have been discussed in the Material and Method section. Pages 4 and 5. Line 169-173 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 4: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that the original site index model must be presented in the Material and Method section, Line 24 |
|
Response 4: Agree. We have revised the comment The original site index model has been included in the Material and Method section. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 5: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer recommended to include bibliographic citations to support some arguments presented in the introduction section, Line 34 |
|
Response 5: Agree. We appreciate the suggestion provided. We have addressed the comments based on the author's guidelines provided by the journal. |
|
Comments 6: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that the names of some African countries be indicated in the paragraph, Line 60 |
|
Response 6: Agree. Thanks for the comments We have included the names of the countries that summarise productivity in large compartments/ site classes. Page 2 Line 79 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 7: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer recommended including bibliographic citations to support some arguments presented in this section. Line 80 |
|
Response 7: We have accepted and addressed the comment, Page 2, Line 99 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 8: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer recommended including bibliographic citations to support some arguments presented in this section. Line 86-87 |
|
Response 8: Addressed, Page 2, Line 107 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 9: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that Material and method must include specific details of various methodological as well as the mathematical structures and their components of the models used. Line 104 |
|
Response 9: We agreed on the comments and addressed Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 10: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested reversing the order of presentation of the images of the plantations, first (top and right) the Sao Hill plantation and then (bottom and right) the Shume plantation. Line 129 |
|
Response 10: Agree. Thank you for the suggestion. We have addressed the comments, Page 5 Line 146-147 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 11: [REVIEWER 1] The reviewer suggested including the technical criteria used to define these four site index classes. If a site index mathematical model was used, please present its mathematical structure. Also indicate the order of greatest productivity (I, II, III, IV or IV, III, II and I). Line 133 |
|
Response 11: Thanks for the comment. We addressed this by including the technical criteria through the site index model for defining site classes, Page 4, Line 153 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 12: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that bibliographic citations of these methodological aspects be included. Also, to include the respective units in which the normal diameter and total height were measured. Please indicate if the age of the plantation was recorded and how it was determined. Line 143 - 146 |
|
Response 12: Thanks for the comment. We addressed on Page 5, Line 174, 176- 179, 180, 185-187 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 13: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested to indicate the reason why different intervals were determined |
|
Response 13: We appreciate the suggestion and addressed on Page 5, Line 191-192 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 14: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer questioned how the same models are used to estimate productivity attributes, and asked to indicate and justify why the same models were used. Line 158-159 |
|
Response 14: Thanks for the comment. We addressed that the models used were species-specific models. Page 6, Line 196-198 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 15: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer asked if the tree height is the total height of the tree? Line 160 |
|
Response 15: We thank you for the question. Addressed on Page 6, Line 199 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 16: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested to include the meaning of the abbreviation MAI. Line 161 |
|
Response 16: Agreed and addressed. Page 6, Line 202 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 17: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer argued on the incorrect formula used and asked to review where necessary. Line 162 |
|
Response 17: We appreciate the comment and addressed. Page, Line 201 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 18: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested to indicate how predictions and determinations of dominant height were made, include the mathematical structure of the model used, the name of the model (allometric or growth) used, as well as the type of generating site index curves (anamorphic or polymorphic or both). Line 175 |
|
Response 18: We agreed on the comments and addressed as follows The determinant and prediction of Hdom were adapted based on the site index model for P. patula forest plantations in Tanzania, as described in the yield table. The mathematical structure model indicated in page 6, Line 218 – 221 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 19: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested to include the mathematical structure and its different components of this type of model used (LMM). . Line 178. |
|
Response 19: We appreciate and addressed the comment on page 6, Line 222-231 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 20: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer asked how the two types of plantation (Sao Hill and Shume) were considered in the model. Line 180 |
|
Response 20: Thanks for your observation. The plantation sites were treated separately in the model |
|
Comments 21: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer recommended to have logical and sequential order on the figures; in this case, figure 3a must be mentioned first before Figure 3b. Line 190 |
|
Response 21: Agree. Thank you for the comment. The logical and sequential order was corrected. Page 7, Line 243-249 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 22: [REVIEWER 1:The reviewer emphasized that the observed and predicted dominant height calculated or determined must be clearly indicated in the Materials and Methods section. In the Results section, the fit statistics and parameters of the obtained model must be presented. Line 205 |
|
Response 22: We appreciate and addressed the comment in the material and method section. Page 4. Line 151 -167 We did not develop a model but used a previously developed model (original site index model) to correlate the observed and predicted dominant height, hence the shift in site classes. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 23: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that the observed and predicted dominant height is calculated or determined must be clearly indicated in the Materials and Methods section. Line 214 |
|
Response 23: Thank you for the suggestion. Addressed. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 24: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer emphasized including the mathematical structure of the final LMM model obtained. Line 219 |
|
Response 24: Agree. We appreciate the comment and addressed it in the material and method section. Page 6, Line 222-231 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 25: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested improving the writing to express the idea correctly and clearly. Line 224 |
|
Response 25: Thanks. The ideal improved Page 8, Line 277-280 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 26: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer reiterated that in Materials and Methods, the structure of the LMM model must be presented; it must be clear who is the dependent variable and which are the independent (predictive) variables. Line 227 |
|
Response 26: We appreciate the comment. The structure of the LMM model is presented in the material and method section. And dependent and independent variables are clearly expressed. Page 6, Line 222-231 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 27: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested to correct T-value and P-values. Line 228 |
|
Response 27: We appreciate the suggestion and addressed on page 8, Line 285 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 28: [REVIEWER 1: the reviewer suggested that on the "Y" axis the units must be written (m3 ha-1 yr-1). Line 230 |
|
Response 28: Thanks for the comment. Addressed, Page 9, Line 287 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 29: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that on the "Y" axis the units must be written (m3 ha-1 yr-1). Line 234 |
|
Response 29: Thanks for the comment. Addressed. Page 9, Line 292 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 30: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer recommended to pay attention to what has been observed regarding the analysis of the original model that was used to classify the productivity of the plantations. Line 237 |
|
Response 30: We appreciate the comments and all the suggestions and comments have been addressed “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 31: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that the analysis of the site index model originally used to classify the productivity of the plantations studied must also be considered Line 242 |
|
Response 31: We appreciate the comments. It has been addressed on Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 32: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that it is important to analyze the original site index model that was used to classify the productivity of the plantations analyzed. Line 254 |
|
Response 32: Thanks for the comment. It has been addressed in the Material and Method section. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 33: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that it is important to analyze the original site index model that was used to classify the productivity of the plantations analyzed. Line 256 |
|
Response 33: Thanks for the comment. It has been addressed in the Material and Method section. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 34: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested that it is important to analyze the original site index model that was used to classify the productivity of the plantations analyzed. Line 260 |
|
Response 34: We appreciate the comments. Thanks for the comment. It has been addressed in the Material and Method section. Page 4. Line 151 -167 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 35: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested removing the underline in the citation. Line 270 |
|
Response 35: Thanks for noticing this observation. The comment has been addressed. Page 10, Line 325 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 36: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer suggested to modify the statement rather than making a conclusion. Line 279 |
|
Response 36: We appreciate the comment. It has been Corrected Page 10, Line 349 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 37: [REVIEWER 1: The idea of ​​this is not clear; please improve the wording. Line 293 |
|
Response 37: We appreciate the comment. Since the idea contradicted the statement, it has been removed “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 38: [REVIEWER 1: The reviewer recommended that the comparison must be of the same species. Line 299 |
|
Response 38: We appreciate the comment. The statement has been removed “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 39: [REVIEWER 1: In the conclusion, the reviewer suggested that the inconsistencies of the classification system identified must be analyzed through a review of the classification system itself; that is, to the site index model originally used to classify plantation productivity. On the other hand, it is not clear what the authors mean by: suboptimal use of resources, please develop this aspect in the Discussion section. Line 307. The procedure for predicting productivity must be sufficiently clear in the Materials and Methods and Results Sections. Compressive and precise classification system that the authors refer to is not clear in the Materials and Methods and Results Sections. Please improve the presentation of those sections of the manuscript so that what the authors refer to can be concluded. Line 307 - 308 |
|
Response 30: We appreciate the comment, and the conclusion has been revised by incorporating all comments ty Page 11, Line 355-372, and in the Material and Method section “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: Reviewer 1: The reviewer acknowledged that the quality of the English language is good, only some technical aspects should be corrected |
|
Response 1: We appreciate the comments. Some technical aspects have been addressed. |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
|
|
No more comments to add. Thank you for your valuable comments, suggestions, and observations. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented work by the authors is an interesting issue of revisiting the method of counting forest areas / plantations. The authors proposed some interesting solutions however, they poorly presented the current knowledge of the presented topic (they focused on their method and the area of African plantations - in my opinion, there is a lack of broader coverage of the topic which the changes are proposed below).
There are 6 figures and 3 tables in the paper (figure 2 is not discussed in the paper presented, the numbering of the tables is incorrect (two tables are numbered 2).
The abstract of the work presented is, in my opinion, too general. The first three sentences should be in the literature review and the abstract should clearly present the aim of the thesis, the existing knowledge about the topic of the presented thesis and the inaccuracies observed in the research hypothesis and the most interesting results concerning the thesis.
The introduction is very superficial. The introduction lacks information on annual timber production in the world and in African countries. And what share the plantations have in this production. Indicate what the increase in timber demand has been in the last 10-20 years and why. The authors have not presented methods for measuring forest areas/plantations with an indication of the formulas they use, the advantages depending on the region of the world, and new methods for measuring the harvesting potential of woody material using satellites or drones as well as aerial photography. I propose to restructure the introduction to make it clear what methods of measuring the growth of woody material there are, under which conditions these methods work and what +/- they have. Provide clear and simple mathematical formulae used for the calculations with a discussion of them. The review should also include information on the species under study in the plantations, their habitat preferences where they originally came from and what growth rates they are likely to exhibit. This should facilitate the process of measuring timber on habitats.
In the sentence beginning in verse 310 to the end of the proposals, a variation is presented on the topic of habitat reclassification and how this might affect (in truth it could enable change - if there is a will in the community). I would suggest rebuilding the end to make it a conclusion rather than a dissection of the results.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: [REVIEWER 2: The presented work by the authors is an interesting issue of revisiting the method of counting forest areas/plantations. The authors proposed some interesting solutions. However, they poorly presented the current knowledge of the presented topic (they focused on their method and the area of African plantations - in my opinion, there is a lack of broader coverage of the topic, which the changes are proposed below). |
|
Response 1: Thanks for your appreciation of the topic. However, the comment about focusing on broader coverage of the topic has been addressed on page 1, Lines 40-45. “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 2: [REVIEWER 2: The reviewer suggested discussing Figure 2 in the paper presented and renumbering tables. |
|
Response 2: We appreciate the comment. However, Figure 2 only indicates the location of sampling plots, and the table's renumbering has been addressed. Page 6, Line 199, Page 8, Line 283 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 3: [REVIEWER 2: The reviewer suggested that to remove the first three sentences and the abstract should clearly present the aim of the thesis, the existing knowledge about the topic of the presented thesis and the inaccuracies observed in the research hypothesis and the most interesting results concerning the thesis. Line 13-30 |
|
Response 3: We appreciate the comment. All the concerns have been addressed in the abstract section. Page 1 Line 13-30. However, the first three sentences were modified to show the background of the work “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 4: [REVIEWER 2: The reviewer commented to improve the introduction by adding information on annual timber production in the world and African countries and what share the plantations have in this production. To indicate the increase in timber demand in the last 10-20 years and why. To present methods for measuring forest areas/plantations with an indication of the formulas they use, the advantages depending on the region of the world, and new methods for measuring the harvesting potential of woody material using satellites or drones as well as aerial photography. To restructure the introduction to clarify what methods of measuring the growth of woody material there are, under which conditions these methods work and what +/- they have. Provide clear and simple mathematical formulae used for the calculations with a discussion of them. The review should also include information on the species under study in the plantations, their habitat preferences where they originally came from and what growth rates they are likely to exhibit. This should facilitate the process of measuring timber on habitats. Line 34 – 103 |
|
Response 4: Thanks for the comments. The introduction has been restructured by including all comments and suggestions provided. Page 1-3, Line 35-121 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 5: [REVIEWER 2: The reviewer suggested rebuilding the end of the conclusion. Line 310 - 318 |
|
Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. The section has been addressed, Page 11, Line 355 - 372 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: Reviewer 2: No reviewer comments on the quality of the English language |
|
Response 1: |
|
|
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
|
|
No more comments to add. Thank you for your valuable comments, suggestions, and observations. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs is known, there is currently a widespread reduction in the area of forests as a result of anthropogenic and natural factors. Also, against the background of anthropogenic impact (aeropollutants, changes in natural and climatic conditions, violation of edaphic conditions, etc.), the state of forest biogeocenoses may deteriorate, and, consequently, decrease forest productivity. Assessing the productive capacity of forests in natural and anthropogenic disturbed areas is one of the important forestry tasks of all countries. In this regard, the conducted research aimed at studying this issue, as well as zoning forests based on their productivity, is very relevant. This article makes a very good impression, it is easy to read, all terms are applicable for their intended purpose. The tabular material is presented interestingly, the drawings are very informative. Statistical processing of information is presented competently, the algorithm of its implementation is very correct. The list of references is very impressive, which allowed the authors to correctly interpret the data obtained and compare it with the materials of other researchers. There are comments in the work, which are given below.
2-3 -the title of the article should be changed, there is an option: «Forest productivity on Pinus patula plantations and problems of its classification (on the example of the western part of Tanzania)»
28 - a mistake in the word
103- why the question
129- the figure should show the macro level (Africa), it will be more convenient for specialists to work
141 - specify which classification was used in the methods (SC = site classified)
158 - there is no data in the table H
Once again, I want to thank you for the good materials, a very informative article. I hope that another article on this issue will be published soon, but in another area of Africa.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text is written very clearly: small sentences, simple phrases, everything is clear and concise. All terms are used correctly, and the captions in the tables and figures are clear. I think that the article is understandable to scientists from various countries who are interested in this problem.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer appreciated and acknowledge the topic that there is currently a widespread reduction in the area of forests as a result of anthropogenic and natural factors. Also, against the background of anthropogenic impact (aeropollutants, changes in natural and climatic conditions, violation of edaphic conditions, etc.), the state of forest biogeocenoses may deteriorate, and, consequently, decrease forest productivity. Assessing the productive capacity of forests in natural and anthropogenic disturbed areas is one of the important forestry tasks of all countries. In this regard, the conducted research aimed at studying this issue, as well as zoning forests based on their productivity, is very relevant. This article makes a very good impression, it is easy to read, all terms are applicable for their intended purpose. The tabular material is presented interestingly, the drawings are very informative. Statistical processing of information is presented competently, the algorithm of its implementation is very correct. The list of references is very impressive, which allowed the authors to correctly interpret the data obtained and compare it with the materials of other researchers. There are comments in the work, which are given below. |
|
Response 1: Thank you so much for your appreciation of the topic |
|
Comments 2: [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer suggested that the title of the article should be changed, there is an option: «Forest productivity on Pinus patula plantations and problems of its classification (on the example of the western part of Tanzania) Line 2 – 3. |
|
Response 2: We appreciate your concern, however, the topic focused on variations that resulted in reclassifying site classes. A proposed title will not capture all the information intended to be delivered. Page 1, Line 2-3 |
|
Comments 3 : [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer observed a mistake in the word line 28 |
|
Response 3: Thanks for the good observation. Unfortunately, we didn’t observe a word mistaken |
|
Comments 4: [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer commented on why the question in the research question Line 103 |
|
Response 4: We appreciate your comment. Addressed. Page 3, Line 116-121 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 5: [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer suggested that figure 1 to reflect the macro level (Africa) so that it can be convenient for specialists to work. Line 129 |
|
Response 5: Thank you for the comment. Addressed Page 4, Line 147 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 6: [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer suggested to specify the classification used in the methods (SC = site classified) Line 141 |
|
Response 6: Thank you for the comment. It has been addressed. Page 7, Line 244 “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 7: [REVIEWER 3: The reviewer commented to add data in the table H |
|
Response 7: Thank your observation. We have no table H |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: Reviewer 3: The reviewer commented that the text is written very clearly: small sentences, simple phrases, everything is clear and concise. All terms are used correctly, and the captions in the tables and figures are clear. I think the article is understandable to scientists from various countries interested in this problem. |
|
Response 1: Thank you so much. |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
|
|
No more comments to add. Thank you for your valuable comments, suggestions, and observations. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the Discussion section: the analysis of the characteristics of the original site index model and its effect on the results of the present study is still pending. It is suggested to incorporate this analysis as indicated in the first review. In particular, for the Discussion section, observations (comments) 30 to 34 indicated in the first review must be addressed.
In the References section: there are still some inconsistencies that were noted in the first review, please fix them. To do this, it is necessary to consult the Forests Journal author's guide.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of the english language is good.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: [REVIWER 1: In the Discussion section line 295: The analysis of the characteristics of the original site index model and its effect on the results of the present study is still pending. The reviewer suggested incorporating this analysis as indicated in the first review. In particular, observations (comments) 30 to 34 indicated in the first review must be addressed for the Discussion section. |
|
Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We have integrated the analytical statement on the characteristics of the original site index model and its effect on the results presented. Page 10. Line 309-312. However, the observations on comments 30-34, as per the first review and first round, have been addressed in the material and method section on Page 4. Line 151-164. “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
Comments 2: [REVIWER 1: Some inconsistencies were noted in the references section in the first review; please fix them. To do this, it is necessary to consult the Forests Journal author's guide. |
|
Response 2: We appreciate the comment. All the concerns have been addressed based on consultations from Forests Journal author's guide Pages 12 - 15, Line 396-575. “[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: Reviewer 1: The reviewer acknowledged that the quality of the English language is Good |
|
Response 1: We appreciate the comments and remarks. |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
No more comments to add. Thank you for your valuable comments, suggestions, and observations. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for taking into account some of my comments and to address all of them. I believe that the work after corrections can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: [REVIEWER 2: The reviewer thanks for considering the comments and addressing them all and believe after corrections, the work will be accepted for publication. The reviewer suggested improving (i)The introduction section, (ii) Research/Sampling design section, and (iii) Results section. |
|
Response 1: Thanks so much, and we appreciate your comments on our work. However, the sections have been improved. INTRODUCTION page 2, Lines 60-70, 79-80, RESEARCH DESIGN page, 4 lines 151-164, 171-172 and RESULTS page 7, Lines 244-250, 260-264 and page 8, line 275-278“[updated text in the manuscript]” |
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: Reviewer 2: No reviewer comments on the quality of the English language |
|
Response 1: |
|
5. Additional clarifications |
|
No more comments to add. Thank you for your valuable comments, suggestions, and observations. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
