Intra-Annual Variation of Stem Circumference of Tree Species Prevailing in Hemi-Boreal Forest on Hourly Scale in Relation to Meteorology, Solar Radiation and Surface Ozone Fluxes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper” Intra-Annual Variation of Stem Circumference of Tree Species Prevailing in Hemi-Boreal Forest on Hourly Scale in Relation to Meteorology, Solar Radiation and Surface Ozone Fluxes” intends to evaluate the impact of sun radiation, soil water potential, vapor pressure deficit, rainfall and surface ozone on physiological processes occurring in tree species: Scot’s pine, Norway spruce, Silver and Downy birch. The analysed area is a coniferous-deciduous forest in north-eastern part of Lithuania, during 2016-2018.
Meteorological parameters included in this study were obtained from Aukstaitija IMS while stem circumference formation of each considered tree species were obtained from an electronic dendrometers DRL 26.
Although this article is signed by only one author, it is constantly spoken in the first-person plural:” we” or” our”. From my point of view, the information presented is valuable, but in order for the study to be published, I think that either the way of presentation or the journal must be changed. The impact of meteorological parameters and ozone on vegetative processes should be discussed in more detail, to the detriment of other information referring to tree physiology.
It should also be checked carefully with English language; I can give two examples:
Row 37 instead of” vapor pleasure deficit” must be” vapor pressure deficit”
Row 37 instead of” soil water potention” must be” soil water potential”
Author Response
Answers to first reviewer comments:
Point 1: Although this article is signed by only one author, it is constantly spoken in the first-person plural:” we” or” our”.
Response 1: It was taken into account and changed.
Point 2: From my point of view, the information presented is valuable, but in order for the study to be published, I think that either the way of presentation or the journal must be changed.
Response 2:The manuscript was amended essentially and therefore I hope it is suitable for the special issue of the journal “Atmosphere”.
Point 3: The impact of meteorological parameters and ozone on vegetative processes should be discussed in more detail, to the detriment of other information referring to tree physiology.
Response 3: Amended.
Point 4: It should also be checked carefully with English language; I can give two examples: Row 37 instead of” vapor pleasure deficit” must be” vapor pressure deficit”; row 37 instead of” soil water potention” must be” soil water potential”
Response 4: Professional of the English language edited the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Intra-Annual Variation of Stem Circumference of Tree Species Prevailing in Hemi-Boreal Forest on Hourly Scale in Relation to Meteorology, Solar Radiation and Surface Ozone Fluxes” presents the results on a study using automatic and manual dendrometers and sapflux on coniferous and deciduous trees growing in three sites in Lithuania. Although this manuscript presents the results of a significant amount of work it is not presented in a clear way. The introduction does not give a context to the study and the methodology presents several significant faults. I hope that my comments will help the author improve the manuscript.
Introduction
The literature review made in the introduction presents serious faults. Most of the ideas presented by the authors are not supported with literature. The introduction is not clear to someone unfamiliar with automatic dendrometers. The author mentions daily cycles of stem swelling and shrinking but does not explain what those are. There is no sufficient background information to understand the aim and motivation of this study. I suggest the author to re-organize the introduction by first explaining the differences between coniferous and deciduous trees and how a group could be better prepared for climate change and then presenting how he will analyse these potential differences, using automatic dendrometers and sapflow. Also, there is no information on the impact of surface ozone on tree physiology. The ideas are not clearly presented, and the text is sometimes hard to follow. I also suggest the author to have a native speaker proofreading the manuscript.
Add references to the sentences from lines:
L34; 43; 46; 58; 63;
L 38 Please explain how the effect of surface ozone is affecting trees physiological processes. Provide examples from the literature.
L46 Include a reference to a study relating stem radius increment derived from automatic dendrometers to ozone.
L 59 I can think of at least two papers describing software packages to define the seasonal patterns of radius variation that the author says are still lacking. In fact, one is cited by the author (11)!!!
Deslauriers, A., Rossi, S., Turcotte, A., Morin, H., and Krause, C. (2011). A three-step procedure in SAS to analyze the time series from automatic dendrometers. Dendrochronologia 29, 151–161. doi:10.1016/j.dendro.2011.01.008.
Van der Maaten, E., Van der Maaten-Theunissen, M., Smiljanić, M., Rossi, S., Simard, S., Wilmking, M., et al. (2016). DendrometeR: Analyzing the pulse of trees in R. Dendrochronologia 40, 12–16. doi:10.1016/j.dendro.2016.06.001.
L 66 In the last decade there is a growing interest in cambial activity and xylogenesis. There are studies in multiple environments and species and even global analysis on the environmental forcing on cambial activity and wood formation. Please see:
Huang, J. G., Ma, Q., Rossi, S., Biondi, F., Deslauriers, A., Fonti, P., et al. (2020). Photoperiod and temperature as dominant environmental drivers triggering secondary growth resumption in Northern Hemisphere conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 20645–20652. doi:10.1073/pnas.2007058117.
Rossi, S., Anfodillo, T., Čufar, K., Cuny, H. E., Deslauriers, A., Fonti, P., et al. (2016). Pattern of xylem phenology in conifers of cold ecosystems at the Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 3804–3813. doi:10.1111/gcb.13317.
L 75 Please mention that you are comparing band dendrometers with point dendrometers.
L 78 Those studies also mentioned that periderm and phloem growth is significantly smaller that xylem growth and thus it can be dismissed from dendrometer data.
L 80 Remove this sentence or move it to the discussion.
L 85 Please mention the forest species.
L87 – 92 I do not understand what the author means. If sapflow is analysed in the manuscript the introduction should mention it. Please include a paragraph presenting sapflow and how it will be used to complement this study.
L 94 This is the first time that the author mentions that it will compare coniferous with deciduous forests. There is no mention to the potential differences between the two groups of trees in the introduction.
Materials and methods
Besides comparing two distinct functional groups of forest trees, the author is also comparing trees growing in different sites, with different soil types. These should have been mentioned in the introduction.
Figure 1. The three areas identified in red in the map correspond to the three study sites? Please include this information in the caption.
Table 1 Replace “Number” by density (if I understood correctly).
L142 Please provide a reference.
L148 Please provide a reference.
L155 Please provide a reference.
Figure 2. Where does the data presented in Figure 2 comes from? What do the roman numbers represent?
L170 How did the author determined that the beginning of the vegetation period was above 5ºC?
L171-174 Move to results section.
L175-183 Move to results section.
The methods used in this manuscript are not explained. I do not understand what methodology was used to divide the automatic dendrometer data into shrinking, swelling and irreversible increment.
L232 Stem radius increment, not intra-annual stem ring formation.
Author Response
Answers to third reviewer comments:
Point 1: The introduction does not give a context to the study
Response 1: Introduction was amended and rewritten.
Point 2: The literature review made in the introduction presents serious faults. Most of the ideas presented by the authors are not supported with literature.
Response 2: It was amended and the newest references were added to support the ideas of the author.
Point 3: The introduction is not clear to someone unfamiliar with automatic dendrometers.
Response 3: A new paragraph on application of electronic dendrometers in climate effect studies was included.
Point 4: The author mentions daily cycles of stem swelling and shrinking but does not explain what those are.
Response 4: Amended.
Point 5: There is no sufficient background information to understand the aim and motivation of this study.
Response 5: The last paragraphs of introduction are meant to explain the motivation of the study.
Point 6: I suggest the author to re-organize the introduction by first explaining the differences between coniferous and deciduous trees how a group could be better prepared for climate change and then presenting how he will analyse these potential differences, using automatic dendrometers and sapflow.
Response 6: Amended and re-organized
Point 7: Also, there is no information on the impact of surface ozone on tree physiology.
Response 7: This information is presented.
Point 8: The ideas are not clearly presented, and the text is sometimes hard to follow.
Response 8: Re-editted.
Point 9: I also suggest the author to have a native speaker proofreading the manuscript.
Response 9: Manuscript is edited by English speaking professional and if it is needed we ready send it to editing office suggested by Journal.
Point 10: Add references to the sentences from lines: L34; 43; 46; 58; 63;
Response 10: Amended
Point 11: L 38 Please explain how the effect of surface ozone is affecting trees physiological processes. Provide examples from the literature.
Response 11: Amended.
Point 12: L46 Include a reference to a study relating stem radius increment derived from automatic dendrometers to ozone.
Response 12: Manuscripts which analyze O 3 effect applying electronic dendrometers are lacking.
Point 13: L 59 I can think of at least two papers describing software packages to define the seasonal patterns of radius variation that the author says are still lacking. In fact, one is cited by the author (11)!!!
Response 13: A few new references were added.
Point 14: Van der Maaten, E., Van der Maaten-Theunissen, M., Smiljanić, M., Rossi, S., Simard, S., Wilmking, M., et al. (2016). DendrometeR: Analyzing the pulse of trees in R. Dendrochronologia 40, 12–16. doi:10.1016/j.dendro.2016.06.001.
Response 14: This manuscript is included into the list of references.
Point 15: L 66 In the last decade there is a growing interest in cambial activity and xylogenesis. There are studies in multiple environments and species and even global analysis on the environmental forcing on cambial activity and wood formation. Please see:
Response 15: Huang, J. G., Ma, Q., Rossi, S., Biondi, F., Deslauriers, A., Fonti, P., et al. (2020). Photoperiod and temperature as dominant environmental drivers triggering secondary growth resumption in Northern Hemisphere conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 20645–20652. doi:10.1073/pnas.2007058117.
Response 15: These manuscripts are included into the list of references.
Point 16: L 75 Please mention that you are comparing band dendrometers with point dendrometers.
Response 16: Amended.
Point 17: L 80 Remove this sentence or move it to the discussion.
Response 17: Amended.
Point 18: L 85 Please mention the forest species.
Response 18: Amended.
Point 19: L87 – 92 I do not understand what the author means. If sapflow is analysed in the manuscript the introduction should mention it. Please include a paragraph presenting sapflow and how it will be used to complement this study.
Response 19: Amended.
Point 20: L 94 This is the first time that the author mentions that it will compare coniferous with deciduous forests. There is no mention to the potential differences between the two groups of trees in the introduction.
Response 20: Amended.
Point 21: Materials and methods.
Besides comparing two distinct functional groups of forest trees, the author is also comparing trees growing in different sites, with different soil types. These should have been mentioned in the introduction.
Response 21: Amended.
Point 22: Figure 1. The three areas identified in red in the map correspond to the three study sites? Please include this information in the caption.
Response 22: Amended.
Point 23: Table 1 Replace “Number” by density (if I understood correctly).
Response 23: Amended.
Point 24: L142 Please provide a reference.
L148 Please provide a reference.
L155 Please provide a reference.
Response 24: These are results of our earlier studies.
Point 25: Figure 2. Where does the data presented in Figure 2 comes from? What do the roman numbers represent?
Response 25: It was explained.
Point 26: L170 How did the author determined that the beginning of the vegetation period was above 5ºC?
Response 26: It is the beginning of vegetation period in our latitude.
Point 27: L171-174 Move to results section.
L175-183 Move to results section.
Response 27: Amended
Point 28: The methods used in this manuscript are not explained. I do not understand what methodology was used to divide the automatic dendrometer data into shrinking, swelling and irreversible increment.
Response 28: Amended.
Point 29: L232 Stem radius increment, not intra-annual stem ring formation.
Response 29: It was taken into account.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. I found that the work is very interesting. In my opinion, your research on intra-annual variation of stem circumference of trees on the hourly scale in relation to meteorology, solar radiation, and surface ozone fluxes is very valuable and attractive to a wide readership. I read it with great interest. In my opinion, the research was done very well. The study design setup and analysis are very good, with a sufficient sample size. The article is understandably written and well-organized, contain all the components I would expect, and the sections are well-developed. The methodology is clearly explained, the results are well described, and the discussion is carried out very well. Good and sufficient bibliography allows the readers with less knowledge in this field, to get to a lot of information.
I think that the manuscript presents high scientific soundness. I also highly appreciate the originality of your research and the quality of your presentation. So, I think you have done a very good job. I congratulate you on a very good article, an interesting and important research topic, and very good presentation.
My overall recommendation for your paper is, therefore " Accept in present form"
Author Response
Answers to third reviewer comments:
Point 1: My overall recommendation for your paper is, therefore " Accept in present form"
Response 1: Thank you for a very good evaluation of the presented manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Indeed, the article was rewritten, bringing to the fore meteorological factors and ozone.
I consider this to be an improved form and may be a work of interest to those who read the Atmosphere journal.
