Climate Change Projections for Bioclimatic Distribution of Castanea sativa in Portugal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have presented a manuscript, which evaluated the chestnut index in Portugal. The manuscript presents interesting results concerning the selection and the response, but they are some point, which need to improve. Following, I have included some comments aimed to enhance the paper:
- The authors must include mores details and related studies in the introduction, it is very short. Improve the introduction and the presentation of the objectives.
- Some keywords are like a text, simplify them.
- This work presents very interesting results. I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration. The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained. The material and methods is better before Results.
· Consider extending the conclusions and adding a Future works paragraph.
Finally, the topic of this manuscript is interesting; since evaluated the chestnut index in Portugal, but authors must restructure the manuscript to improve the readability of the text and their future trends and challenges.
Author Response
Title: Climate change projections for bioclimatic distribution of Castanea sativa in Portugal
Authors: Teresa R. Freitas , João A. Santos , Ana P. Silva , Joana Martins , Hélder Fraga *
Manuscript ID: agronomy-1690407
Manuscript type: Research Paper
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We are very thankful to the Editor and the Reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for giving constructive comments and insightful suggestions, which we believe will surely help improve our study. You can find below our point-by-point replies to the comments. In addition, the corresponding changes in the manuscript are indicated in red font colour.
Point 1: The authors must include mores details and related studies in the introduction, it is very short. Improve the introduction and the presentation of the objectives
Response 1: The introduction was improved and new citations/studies are now added. However, there are very few studies for the topics of climate changes and bioclimatic zoning for chestnut trees.
New citations added
- Guo, L.; Dai, J.; Ranjitkar, S.; Xu, J.; Luedeling, E. Response of chestnut phenology in China to climate variation and change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 2013, 180, 164–172, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.06.004.
- Furones Pérez, P.; Fernández López, J. Morphological and phenological description of 38 sweet chestnut cultivars (Castanea sativa Miller) in a contemporary collection. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2009, 7, 829, doi:10.5424/sjar/2009074-1097.
- Casazza, G.; Malfatti, F.; Brunetti, M.; Simonetti, V.; Mathews, A.S. Interactions between land use, pathogens, and climate change in the Monte Pisano, Italy 1850-2000. LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY 2021, 36, 601–616, doi:10.1007/s10980-020-01152-z.
- Conedera, M.; Krebs, P.; Gehring, E.; Wunder, J.; Hulsmann, L.; Abegg, M.; Maringer, J. How future-proof is Sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) in a global change context? FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 2021, 494, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119320.
Point 2: Some keywords are like a text, simplify them.
Response 2: The keywords were altered.
Point 3: . The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained. The material and methods is better before Results.
Response 3: We have reviewed the results section, also taking into account another reviewer suggestions.
Point 4: Consider extending the conclusions and adding a Future works paragraph.
Response 4: we have added a future works section in the conclusion.
Point 5: Finally, the topic of this manuscript is interesting; since evaluated the chestnut index in Portugal, but authors must restructure the manuscript to improve the readability of the text and their future trends and challenges.
Response 5: We have performed an extensive revision of the current manuscript, also taking into account another reviewer suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed the paper titled: “Climate change projections for bioclimatic distribution of Castanea sativa in Portugal". In my opinion, the aims of the paper are germane with “Agronomy” journal topic, however, in the present form, the paper fits only in part with the international scientific standards. The paper is written with an average English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge is acceptable but some important flaws are present in the text. I understand the difficult work done, but as a reviewer it is my duty to highlight the gaps in order to improve the research approach and its presentation to the international scientific community. Please I suggest revising the paper following the suggestions and comments reported in the pdf attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Title: Climate change projections for bioclimatic distribution of Castanea sativa in Portugal
Authors: Teresa R. Freitas, João A. Santos, Ana P. Silva, Joana Martins, Hélder Fraga
Manuscript ID: agronomy-1690407
Manuscript type: Research Paper
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We are grateful to the Editor and the Reviewer for the encouraging comments. Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments. The corresponding changes in the manuscript are highlighted in red font colour.
Point 1: agro-forestry, here and in all the text
Response 1: The word has been corrected.
Point 2: if they "are" can not be "an", please carefully check english language troughout all the manuscript
Response 2: The sentence has been modified. We have carefully checked the English language throughout the manuscript.
Point 3: this is the production of fruits I supposed, please specify..
Response 3: The sentence was changed to “while the chestnut production reached over 2 million t”.
Point 4: probably it would be better to move all the information related to Portugal in a dedicated sub-section "study area" in M&M section
Response 4: We understand the reviewers point. However, we would like to keep this section here due to another reviewers comment.
Point 5:please add the innovative aspects of your study and the research hypothesis
Response 5: We added more information about innovative aspects for our study on the last paragraph of the introduction, focusing on the new innovative index for chestnut tree suitability.
Point 6: please better define the scenarions
Response 6: Scenario description has been improved.
Point 7: I suggest to add some justification for the applied methodology, referring if possible to previous literature having the same approach... For instance: why don't apply some multi criteria decision analysis technique, for instance AHP, to create a rank of importance among the various influencing factors? This is not mandatory but authors' choice, which implies that all the parameters have the same importance on chestnut suitability should be justified and explained to readers
Response 7: These are indeed positive suggestions. However, we would prefer to keep the current approach and follow these suggestions in a subsequent study. We have added a more detailed description of the applied methodology.
Point 8: if you presented the current distribution in the introduction why reporting it as a result? Better to remove from the previosu part of the manuscript and reporting it here as a result... Or create a sub-section in M&M and reporting it there as suggested in my previous comment
Response 8: In this subsection our intent was to compare the current distribution (input) with the optimal distribution (outcome) based on the bioclimatic indices. To avoid confusion, we have changed the title of this section.
Point 9: this section shiuld be restructured highlighting the innovative aspects of the study and referring to the research hypothesis/questions which should be added in the introduction. In the current form it is presented as an interesting case study but the scientific novelties and structure is not enough yet...
Response 9: We have restructured parts of the discussion of highlight the innovative aspects of this study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
