Next Article in Journal
Biophysical Accounting of Forests’ Value under Different Management Regimes: Conservation vs. Exploitation
Next Article in Special Issue
Publication Performance and Trends in Mangrove Forests: A Bibliometric Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Smart Steaming: A New Flexible Paradigm for Synchromodal Logistics
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Local Drivers Associated to Temporal Spectral Response of Chlorophyll-a in Mangrove Leaves

Sustainability 2021, 13(9), 4636; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094636
by Blanca Castellanos-Basto 1, Jorge Herrera-Silveira 2, Érick Bataller 3 and Rodolfo Rioja-Nieto 4,5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(9), 4636; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094636
Submission received: 5 March 2021 / Revised: 5 April 2021 / Accepted: 7 April 2021 / Published: 21 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mangrove Ecosystem Ecology, Conservation and Sustainability)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of this work is to determine the structural characteristics at the tree level of the two species present in two types of mangrove forest (MF), their temporal changes, and their relationship to local environmental variables that influence the concentration of Chla-a at the leaf level. This was addressed through exploring the temporal relation of Chl-a of leaves of R. mangle and A. germinans with the ambient temperature (Tamb), relative humidity (Hrel), flood level (fL), interstitial salinity (Si), interstitial temperature (ti), dissolved oxygen in water (Oi) and structural maximum tree heights (H), breast height diameter (DBH) and basal area (BA) in mangrove forests of lagoon fringe type (FMF) and of lower basin (BMF) of a karst region.

Comments

Abstract

1) Add a summary of the above objectives

2) Both in the abstract and in the Introduction )(line 98), the authors can to highlight the novelty of this research.

Figure 2. This is a Spatiotemporal chlorophyll-a spectral response in Fringe Mangrove Forest figure:  (a) Leaf spectral response from Rhizophora mangle; (b) Leaf spectral response from Avicennia germinans.

Figure 3. This is a Spatiotemporal chlorophyll-a spectral response in Basin Mangrove Forest figure:  (a) Leaf spectral response from Rhizophora mangle; (b) Leaf spectral response from Avicennia germinans.

The two figures above are not clearly legible, the graphs could be improved and made more scientific.

Table 3. Analysis of Deviance Table of Adjusted Model (Mod1).

Table 4. Analysis of Deviance Table of best model (Mod2).

In the tables above there are four decimal numbers, two decimal numbers would be enough.

in the abstract and in the Introduction, line 98, the authors were able to highlight the novelty of this research.

The conclusions section should start with a few lines of introduction on the subject matter.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

in my opinion your work is very interesting in a cognitive context and contributes a lot to plant physiology and the role of biotic and abiotic factors. This work shed more light on the functioning of mangrove forests, also in the context of their proper protection. As the Authors rightly point out, there is a huge amount of literature related to green pigment content in mangrove leaves, but there is restricted number of work that evaluates the environment along with the characteristics of the soil, structural forest at the tree level and that measures Chl-a at the leaf level in different types of mangrove and its changes over time.” The studies carried out by the Authors are fully justified and useful.

All the figures are appropriate for this type of article. In general, the paper has a logical flow and fit the aims and scope of the journal. The abstract well correspond with the main aspects of the work. Nevertheless, I see a few weak points in this work (given below), which I am convinced that the Authors are able to resolve.

First of all, I see one important weak point of this work, namely related with references. As a reviewer, I cannot help but notice that out of 58 quoted references, as many as 25 references are written in Spanish, so in practice they will be unavailable to most readers studying your work. Is it possible to replace them with English references, of course, fully reflecting the presented content?

As a reviewer I am also obligated to pay attention to the other less important weak points of this work and all mentioned below comments should be carefully considered.

Line 2-3

Title without dot

Line 17

,,Forest” should be lowercase

Line 18

,,Chlorophyll-a” should be lowercase

Line 20

In my opinion should be: ,,Chl-a leaf concentration”

Line 21

,,Mangrove Forests” should be lowercase

Line 31

Keywords without assigning them a sequence number

Lines 43 and 45

,,Hydroperiod” should be lowercase

Line 60

,, …the concentration of Chl-a in leaves… “ sounds better

Line 100

,,Study Area.” without dot

Line 104

Superscript should be used in case of ,, 21o10'02.3" N and 90o01'54" W”

Line 109, Figure 1

In my opinion should be ,,Sampling zone” not ,,Zampling zone”

Line 111

,,and” without using italic

Lines 121 and 137, 148, 163

,,Data field campaign.” and ,,Sample data collected.” without dot

Line 185

In my opinion should be µg per cm2

Line 192

I think should be in English ,,Manglar de cuenca baja.” and without dot

Line 218

Table 2 – title without dot

Line 219, Table 2

Should be ,,Species” not ,,specie”

Line 219

,,Analysis of results” sounds better

Lines 253 and 285

Correctly written is ,,species”

Line 258

In my opinion there is something wrong: ,,a leaves are the ones that register the largest Chl-a”. In my opinion should be ,, a leaves are the ones that contain the largest concentration of Chl-a”

Lines 341-356

,,species” not ,,specie”

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

as a Reviewer I appreciate and thank you for the work put into revising the manuscript, which in my opinion were necessary to improve its quality.

Yours faithfully,

Reviewer 2

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the comments. As there were no further changes suggested, no file has been uploaded.

Back to TopTop