Soil-Sensitive Weibull Distribution Models of Larix principis-rupprechtii Plantations across Northern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with modeling the influence of soil composition on tree diameters, which could be an auxiliary tool for decision-making in forestry. The issue is interesting, the research carried out is based on a scientific approach, mainly mathematical modeling and static calculation methods, however, I have several comments regarding the processing of this article.

I would recommend slightly modifying the article's title to more accurately describe the researched issue.

The keywords do not meet the keyword processing requirements in the guidelines for authors. Keywords need to be reworked.

The Materials and Methods chapter provides brief basic information about the extensive and long-term research that was focused on the investigated issue.

For the calculation, the adopted model according to the cited literature was used. For easier orientation in the calculation model, I would recommend giving a clear form of the model expressed graphically (independent and dependent quantities etc.). I also ask for a justification of why the mentioned model and its modifications were used.

Minor formal deficiencies, e.g. line 91 - correct the entry (H2O), probably meaning water.

For easier orientation in the text, I would recommend giving an explanation of the meaning of abbreviations in all names of Tables and Figures. E.g. in the header of Table 1, some quantities are listed by their full name (e.g. Basal Area, etc.), and other quantities are listed in the table header only by an abbreviation (Dg/cm; SI/m). I would recommend using only abbreviations in the tables, which will facilitate the creation of tables, but it is advisable to specify the meaning of each abbreviation in the table title.

Line 101 (Table 2) the term "candidate soil" is used. Please explain.

I expected that in the article more attention would be paid to the description of the relief of the terrain and the connection with the composition of the soil and meteorological and climatic conditions, in the article this issue is only marginally mentioned.

The influence of soil on the growth of trees and their survival in changing climatic conditions is significant. However, there are other factors that affect the growth of trees. For example, air and water temperatures (precipitation). How did the amount of precipitation manifest itself in the examined periods? I believe that this issue should be addressed in this research because the size and diameter of the trees are affected as a result of these conditions. However, the authors do not address this issue in this article, nor is it mentioned in the discussion that there are other influences and factors at work. Please explain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Soil-Sensitive Diameter Distribution Models of Larix principis-rupprechtii Plantations across Northern China

Dear authors

Congratulations for this manuscript (MS), it is professionally written and organized. Also, the MS is interesting for forestry about the diameter distributions. Even though the Weibull function has been used for several type of forests and species, it is important for the study area.

Please, organize the information about the Parameter recovery method (PCT) and parameter prediction method (PPM). Please, avoid comparations between them in Conclusion section. The PPM depends on PCT. They are not comparable. Maybe, a different PCT method could be used and compare with the percentile method. For example, Moment method, maximum likelihood method, or modified maximum likelihood method.

Please, provide some Weibull-plots for three or five sample plots to show the observed and predicted distributions.

Please, organize all Figures and Tables after first mention and be more emphatic and concise in conclusion section.

Some comments and recommendations can be found as follows:

Title

Well done. Congratulations.

Abstract

Line 11. Please describe the used variables.

L19. Please, be more emphatic about keywords. Maybe, those could be separated and use five or six keywords.

1.       Introduction

L64. “… of China; and …”

2. Materials and methods

Why the minimum measured DBH was 5 cm?

Please, explain and justify.

L78. “QMD” instead of “Dg”.

L81. Please, organize the reference.

L83. Please, give a short explain about the different area of each location and the sampling size.

L100. “QMD” instead of “Dg”.

L100. “years or y” instead of "a”.

L100. “SD” instead of "standard deviation”.

Please, improve the Table 1.

L118. “…PDF…”

Please, explain in detail meaning of 0.3333 and 2.343088.

L148. Please, include a reference and the used packages.

L101, Please, make sure about all variables description.

L159. Please, add the significance level for KS test, and justify.

L171. Equations reported in 5 and 6 are not equations. Please, rewrite.

If you are using SSE and SSR in Equation 8 and 9, please use them in Equations 10, 11, and 13.

Please, explain the equation 15.

3. Results

L211 “QMD”. Do the same in the entire MS.

Please, include some Weibull-plots for some five or six sample plots.

L254. Please, include the variables description for all variables in Table 4.

4. Discussion

L266 “… method.”.

Sometimes R2 is used and sometime R-square. Please, use the same variables name in the entire MS.

L303. Please, do not use superscript font for the reference.

A discussion about the Weibull-plots should be added here.

5. Conclusion

L344 The parameter recovery method (PCT).

L345—346. Parameter prediction method (PPM).

Please, avoid comparation between PCT and PPM. The percentiles were used to recovery the Weibull parameters and them those were related with some variables. They are not comparable. Please, include another method as moments method or maximum likelihood method.

References

Congratulations. This section seems good and enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was partially edited according to the reviewer's instructions and the authors' possibilities. I recommend it for publication.