Dust Capturing Capacity of Woody Plants in Clean Air Zones throughout Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors checked dust capturing capacity of different tree species in Taiwan. Paper is interesting but need some work. For me it is not explain why this research is important on continent or world level. For now it is very local study - please add paragraf about importance of this research. Results and methods are mixed - please move paragraf (lines 274-278) to methods. Discusion is to brief, please extend.
Minor comments:
line 90,91 - how authors check diameters of roots in ground? Maybe it should be stem in this sentence?
line 99,100 - please add reference of maps
line 172, 173, 181, 182, 190, 202, 261, 263 - trees names are in table for a first time so in text it should be abbreviation of first word
line 193 - shouldn't be mean number of stem instead of "the largest stem number"
line 218 - delete"
line 221 - shouldn't be: "10 selected individuals of tree species"?
line 225 - shouldn't be: "average foliar surface"?
line 236 - delete "
line 237 - delete second dot
lines 255 and 261 - there is no table 8
line 284-5 - in table 7 there is no ranking so please change this sentence or table content
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers #1 for his/her careful review of our manuscript and providing us with his/her comments and suggestion to improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with most of the suggestions given by the reviewer and are happy to revise based on his/her comments.
The following responses have been prepared to address the reviewer’ comments in a point –by-point fashion. The addition and changes to the previous manuscript are highlighted in red colored text. We also have asked for professional editing support on language for the revision part.
Authors checked dust capturing capacity of different tree species in Taiwan. Paper is interesting but need some work. For me it is not explain why this research is important on continent or world level. For now it is very local study - please add paragraf about importance of this research. Results and methods are mixed - please move paragraf (lines 274-278) to methods. Discusion is to brief, please extend.
Response: thanks for the positive comment. We have revised the introduction, method, discussion part as suggested.
The paragraph (lines 274-278) has been moved to methods　as suggested.
Minor comments:　
line 90,91 - how authors check diameters of roots in ground? Maybe it should be stem in this sentence?
Response. It has been changed to “diameters above root crown or buttress.”
line 99,100 - please add reference of maps
Response: Fig.1 has been deleted as suggested by Reviewer #3
line 172, 173, 181, 182, 190, 202, 261, 263 - trees names are in table for a first time so in text it should be abbreviation of first word
Response: Revision done
line 193 - shouldn't be mean number of stem instead of "the largest stem number"
Response: Revision done.
line 218 - delete"
Response: Revision done
line 221 - shouldn't be: "10 selected individuals of tree species"?
Response: Revision done
line 225 - shouldn't be: "average foliar surface"?
Response: Revision done
line 236 - delete "
Response: Revision done
line 237 - delete second dot
Response: Revision done
lines 255 and 261 - there is no table 8
Response: Table 7 has been changed to table 8.
line 284-5 - in table 7 there is no ranking so please change this sentence or table content
Response: Table 7 has been inserted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors investigate the dust capturing and retention capacity of different tree species across Taiwan. The authors have put in a significant amount of hard work, which is greatly appreciated.
Suggestions:
- The evaluation of the clean air zones (CAZ) should be more directly stated and would expand your discussion beyond individual species.
- Suggestion, add BVOCs emissions (e.g., isoprene and monoterpenes) along with the dust capturing and retention capacity of different tree species, in your final recommendations. Several publications examine BVOCs (isoprene and monoterpenes) emissions from different tree species and the inclusion of this data would help provide a more holistic assessment (i.e. trees as both sources and sinks for air pollution).
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers #ï¼’ for his/her careful review of our manuscript and providing us with his/her comments and suggestion to improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with most of the suggestions given by the reviewer and are happy to revise based on his/her comments.
The following responses have been prepared to address the reviewer’ comments in a point –by-point fashion. The addition and changes to the previous manuscript are highlighted in red colored text. We also have asked for professional editing support on language for the revision part.
The authors investigate the dust capturing and retention capacity of different tree species across Taiwan. The authors have put in a significant amount of hard work, which is greatly appreciated.
Response: We greatly appreciate the very positive comments from the reviewer.
Suggestions:
- The evaluation of the clean air zones (CAZ) should be more directly stated and would expand your discussion beyond individual species.
Response: the research purposes in the introduction part and the discussion part have been largely revised. The clear air zones vegetation structure has been evaluated. The dust retention capacity of individual tree species has been commented.
- Suggestion, add BVOCs emissions (e.g., isoprene and monoterpenes) along with the dust capturing and retention capacity of different tree species, in your final recommendations. Several publications examine BVOCs (isoprene and monoterpenes) emissions from different tree species and the inclusion of this data would help provide a more holistic assessment (i.e. trees as both sources and sinks for air pollution).
Response: Thanks for this extremely important point. The part of BVOs emissions has been added in the conclusion part.
Reviewer 3 Report
The obtained data are interesting for the reader and significant for the scientific world, but their presentation is too chaotic, there is not enough structuring. First of all, the goal and objectives are not clearly set, the methodology is not clearly described, novelty and significance are not emphasized.
The title of the article does not fully reflect its essence. As a suggestion: Dust capturing capacity of woody plants in Clean Air Zones throughout Taiwan
Abstract: more specifics are needed, for example, what kind of “surface structure and morphological characteristics of the leaves”. As the main conclusion, a well-known fact is given; on the contrary, it is necessary to bring out the novelty and significance of the study.
Lines 39-42: as a suggestion, it could be shown what practical application your research has, how it can help improve the «CAZ program»
Lines 50-51: I would like to see a more detailed analysis of previous studies to emphasize the novelty of this study.
Line 59-60: as a suggestion, compare the results obtained in the study with previous studies in the discussion.
Line 62: which «effect»?
Lines 77-78: «the pollutant filtering efficiency of these green spaces has not yet been systematically assessed» - is this the main reason for the study? It should be a more significant purpose of the study. This paragraph should clearly state the global goal, specific objectives, the novelty, and significance.
Survey sites and methodology: In general, this section is written very sparsely, there are not enough details about the sites themselves, or how the plants were selected, how the leaves were sampled. This study cannot be repeated if desired. Moreover, sample site of "Tree leaf seedling" is indicated after its first mention in the text, also without the necessary details about the site and sampling method. There should be a subdivision about the statistical processing of results, about the level of significance, especially when it comes to correlation. It is very confusing when you see in the results of average calculation that the error is almost equal to the value or even exceeds it. For example, in Supplementary table 3 Dust load (g) for Melia azedarach is 3.13±5.00.
Line 85: Fig.1 is not necessary.
Line 87: reference 27 to Wikipedia is ridiculous, the relief information can be found in a more reliable source.
Lines 89-90: I suppose Fig.2 can become more informative. First, there is a lack of legend. Secondly, you can choose different colors for the zones that are located in cities/counties. For example, you can add CAZ numbering for further visual analysis, possibility of combining the results by some criteria, their description.
Lines 95-96: In my opinion, such a mention is not correct from the point of view of the scientific language, it is worth reformulating, it is even better to provide information important for this study, indicating what other information can be found at that article.
Line 117: add an explanation
Line 132: how many leaves were used
Lines 132, 134: lack of uniformity in references
Line 157: the data is different from the data shown in table 3.
Line 159: the title looks incomplete. What is meant by «Plot areas»?
Line 164: the title of the table 3 is confusing. Total value for «Crown width» and «Mean Basal Area» differ from North and South values hundreds of times. For "Mean Basal Area" there is no need to leave decimal places. Does it make sense to concatenate and count the "total" value? What does it give? What is the reason for the division of the northern and southern parts. I would like to see an explanation in the text.
Tables 4, 6: in the case of bringing Basal area in cm2, I see no point in such data accuracy and indicating 2 decimal places.
Table 5: what does the number in brackets mean?
Lines 237-239: I did not catch the meaning of what was written
Lines 265-266: More detailed analysis is needed.
All data are given in tables, so the article lacks clarity, it would be good to see diagrams, graphs, maybe maps.
Line 274: why only «five CAZs», on what basis they were selected.
The discussion section contains information that is not presented in the results section or is mentioned only in passing, for example, lines 303-305, 308-309, at the same time, the presented results are not discussed.
Since the article did not have clearly formulated objectives, clearly formulated conclusions could not have been expected.
I believe that not being a native speaker, I cannot comment on the level of the English language, however, there are many typos in the text, missing letters, unnecessary punctuation marks.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers #3 for his/her careful review of our manuscript and providing us with his/her comments and suggestion to improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with most of the suggestions given by the reviewer and are happy to revise based on his/her comments.
The following responses have been prepared to address the reviewer’ comments in a point –by-point fashion. The addition and changes to the previous manuscript are highlighted in red colored text. We also have asked for professional editing support on language for the revision part.
The obtained data are interesting for the reader and significant for the scientific world, but their presentation is too chaotic, there is not enough structuring. First of all, the goal and objectives are not clearly set, the methodology is not clearly described, novelty and significance are not emphasized.
Response: the research purposes have been rewritten to improve clarification. The methodology part and survey site map have been revised. The novelty and significance have been highlighted at the introduction part.
The title of the article does not fully reflect its essence. As a suggestion: Dust capturing capacity of woody plants in Clean Air Zones throughout Taiwan
Response: title revised as suggested.
Abstract: more specifics are needed, for example, what kind of “surface structure and morphological characteristics of the leaves”. As the main conclusion, a well-known fact is given; on the contrary, it is necessary to bring out the novelty and significance of the study.
Response: Revised as suggested.
Lines 39-42: as a suggestion, it could be shown what practical application your research has, how it can help improve the «CAZ program»
Response: The last paragraph at the end of introduction has been added to clarify the practical meaning of this study to CAZ program.
Lines 50-51: I would like to see a more detailed analysis of previous studies to emphasize the novelty of this study.
Response: The finding of previous studies have been added as suggested.
Line 59-60: as a suggestion, compare the results obtained in the study with previous studies in the discussion.
Response: Revision done as suggested.
Line 62: which «effect»?
Response: Revision done as suggested.
Lines 77-78: «the pollutant filtering efficiency of these green spaces has not yet been systematically assessed» - is this the main reason for the study? It should be a more significant purpose of the study. This paragraph should clearly state the global goal, specific objectives, the novelty, and significance.
Response: The paragraph has been rewritten as suggested.
Survey sites and methodology: In general, this section is written very sparsely, there are not enough details about the sites themselves, or how the plants were selected, how the leaves were sampled. This study cannot be repeated if desired. Moreover, sample site of "Tree leaf seedling" is indicated after its first mention in the text, also without the necessary details about the site and sampling method. There should be a subdivision about the statistical processing of results, about the level of significance, especially when it comes to correlation. It is very confusing when you see in the results of average calculation that the error is almost equal to the value or even exceeds it. For example, in Supplementary table 3 Dust load (g) for Melia azedarach is 3.13±5.00.
Response: thanks for the comment. Explanations of research method had been added for clarification.
Line 85: Fig.1 is not necessary.
Response: Deleted as suggested.
Line 87: reference 27 to Wikipedia is ridiculous, the relief information can be found in a more reliable source.
Response: Changed as suggested.
Lines 89-90: I suppose Fig.2 can become more informative. First, there is a lack of legend. Secondly, you can choose different colors for the zones that are located in cities/counties. For example, you can add CAZ numbering for further visual analysis, possibility of combining the results by some criteria, their description.
Response: Revised as suggested. Two supplementary tables are added for detailed site information.
Lines 95-96: In my opinion, such a mention is not correct from the point of view of the scientific language, it is worth reformulating, it is even better to provide information important for this study, indicating what other information can be found at that article.
Response: Revision done.
Line 117: add an explanation
Response: additional explanation inserted as suggested.
Line 132: how many leaves were used
Response: it should be a leaf. The sentence has been revised for clarification.
Lines 132, 134: lack of uniformity in references
Response: Revised as suggested.
Line 157: the data is different from the data shown in table 3.
Response: Corrected as suggested.
Line 159: the title looks incomplete. What is meant by «Plot areas»?
Response: Revised to improve the clarification.
Line 164: the title of the table 3 is confusing. Total value for «Crown width» and «Mean Basal Area» differ from North and South values hundreds of times. For "Mean Basal Area" there is no need to leave decimal places. Does it make sense to concatenate and count the "total" value? What does it give? What is the reason for the division of the northern and southern parts. I would like to see an explanation in the text.
Response: title of table 3 revised.
The first column of «Crown width» and «Mean Basal Area»ã€€was opposite, and has been corrected. We apologize for the carelessness.
Two decimal places of mean basal area have been rounded due to the existing small trees.
Reasons of the division of the northern and southern parts were added.
Tables 4, 6: in the case of bringing Basal area in cm2, I see no point in such data accuracy and indicating 2 decimal places.
Response: thanks for the point. The unit has been changed to m2, and to only one decimal place.
Table 5: what does the number in brackets mean?
Response: the numbers in the brackets present the standard deviation.
Lines 237-239: I did not catch the meaning of what was written
Response:　Revised to improve the clarification.
Lines 265-266: More detailed analysis is needed.
Response:
All data are given in tables, so the article lacks clarity, it would be good to see diagrams, graphs, maybe maps.
Response: Thanks for the suggestions, we agree that using diagrams, graphs or maps will help to clarify our survey findings. However, we prefer to use tables in this article, as it involves with many species, while, it is difficult to tell any trend among the different speices.
Line 274: why only «five CAZs», on what basis they were selected.
Response: one new paragraph has been added for more explanation.
The discussion section contains information that is not presented in the results section or is mentioned only in passing, for example, lines 303-305, 308-309, at the same time, the presented results are not discussed.
Response: The result part related to the discussion has been added as suggested.
Since the article did not have clearly formulated objectives, clearly formulated conclusions could not have been expected.
Response: the objectives have been revised as suggested.
I believe that not being a native speaker, I cannot comment on the level of the English language, however, there are many typos in the text, missing letters, unnecessary punctuation marks.
Response: We apologize for the mistakes. The manuscript has been proofread by a native speaker from Editage Company before resubmission.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate that the authors took into account and worked through the comments, however, I believe that some comments were not fully worked out. Thus, minor revision are required prior to publication.
Line 101: remove link to Fig.1
The second and third paragraphs in section 2.2 repeat each other in the explanation on "Beishihu Environmental Protection Park" and confuse the reader about the repetition rate. There is still not enough information on how exactly the leaves were sampled (from which side, at what height, which leaves were selected). No response to the previous comment "There should be a subdivision about the statistical processing of results, about the level of significance, especially when it comes to correlation".
Tables 7 and 8 should better lead to the same presentation of results.
Line 371: when adding a new sentence above, the logic of the narrative was lost.
Conclusion: I would like to see a conclusion correlating with the objectives set, also reflecting the novelty and significance of the study. The added information could be the place to be, as a supplement, but by and large has a weak correlation with the current study.
Author Response
Response letter to the Reviewer
The authors would like to thank the reviewers #3 for his/her careful review of our manuscript and providing us with his/her comments and suggestion to improve the quality of the manuscript.
The following responses have been prepared to address the reviewer’s comments in a point –by-point fashion. The addition and changes to the previous manuscript are highlighted in red colored text.
I appreciate that the authors took into account and worked through the comments, however, I believe that some comments were not fully worked out. Thus, minor revision are required prior to publication.
Response: Thanks for the positive assessment of our recent revision. We are happy to continue to improve this manuscript on basis of your comments.
Line 101: remove link to Fig.1
Response: Revision done.
The second and third paragraphs in section 2.2 repeat each other in the explanation on "Beishihu Environmental Protection Park" and confuse the reader about the repetition rate. There is still not enough information on how exactly the leaves were sampled (from which side, at what height, which leaves were selected).
Response: The repetition of in the explanation on "Beishihu Environmental Protection Park" has been deleted and combined to the same paragraph. We apologize for the sampling selection standard for seedling leaves and tree leaves. It has been based on surveyors’ observation to ensure only healthy leaves to be selected. We greatly appreciate this piece of suggestion, and will apply it to our future survey.
No response to the previous comment "There should be a subdivision about the statistical processing of results, about the level of significance, especially when it comes to correlation".
Response: We apologize for the carelessness, even not intentionally neglection. Actually, we had not done statistical processing of results, which can be seen as a deflection. We wish to apply your suggestions to our future research.
Tables 7 and 8 should better lead to the same presentation of results.
Response: Table 7 has been revised to unify with table 8.
Line 371: when adding a new sentence above, the logic of the narrative was lost.
Response:　Revision done. Two paragraphs have been combined for better understanding.
Conclusion: I would like to see a conclusion correlating with the objectives set, also reflecting the novelty and significance of the study. The added information could be the place to be, as a supplement, but by and large has a weak correlation with the current study.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. A new paragraph at the end of conclusion has been added to extend our discussion as hoping to contribute to the international knowledge of tree species in the tropics, and subtropics.
