Specifying Spatial Dependence for Teak Stands Specific to Solomon Island-Derived Clones in Tawau, Sabah, Malaysia: A Preliminary Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
- Line 60: Ghosh et al. (2019) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(3), 786 can be added here.
- Provide a reference for equation 1.
- Line 117-118: Provide reference.
- Line 139: The country name should also be mentioned.
- Line 159-160: Did you record the coordinates of the trees as well.
- Line 163: “…… data will be analysed”. I hope the data has been analysed already.
- Line 167: What was the accuracy of the GPS?
- Line 176: “……….. rough flow chart”. Why are you referring it as ‘rough’?
- The conclusion section is missing. Should be added.
- The utility of this kind of study from a sustainability point of view should be discussed.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Please see the attached file to see our responses.
Thank You
Rossita
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present article is approaching the issue of teak trees from Solomon Islands.
First of all, the title must be simplified/ clarified. In the present form is quite unclear.
In the abstract, the issue of spatial dependence (in relation with what?) needs also a clearer approach.
Please pay attention on how the citations are made in the text. Please check the MDPI rules for this.
Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 needs to be improved in terms of quality since, in this present form, they are hardly readable.
The discussions section is under-developed. Which is the main conclusion of your work?
The article needs to follow a major proof-reading process. Due this problem, the methodology used in this work is not clearly presented.
It is not clear if the authors followed all the 6 steps mentioned in figure 2 to achieve the article objectives. Please clarify this aspect.
The article seems also to be focused on a local situation. It is not clear if the results/ conclusions of this work can be applied/ are valid for other areas also.
The reference list is not written according to MDPI rules.
To conclude:
- the main objective of this article, the used methodology, the results and the main conclusion should be better correlated.
- the methodology is not clear, mainly the considered algorithm
- Please clearly mention the hypothesis considered in your study
- Please perform a proof-reading of you article before re-submittion
Author Response
Dear Referee,
Please see the attached file to see our responses.
Thank You
Rossita
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors succeed to provide clear and relevant answers to the questions mentioned after the first review.
The revised manuscript can be accepted as it is.