Integrating Tree Species Identity and Diversity in Particulate Matter Adsorption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents the influence of tree species identity and mixture on the adsorption of PM. I consider that the topic of the manuscript is meaningful for evaluating the effect of forecast ecosystem on air quality. Some points, however, require further clarification. Below are my specific comments.

 

1. The authors did not present the environmental PM concentrations during the test. The PM concentrations could be useful to evaluate the absorption rate. If possible, I invite the authors calculate the deposition velocity of particulate matter on leaf surface. The deposition velocity was an important parameter in the air quality model.
2. The authors mentioned there are no significant differences in the amounts of PM removed in Line 318 and 328. It was very confused, because the values in Table 3 were so various.
3. The conclusion section is too brief and many of the observation results should be included in the conclusion.    

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I like this paper a lot. I have learned a new term that I will use in my own writing – “data wrangling”. The results have the potential to influence urban-forest management decisions regarding species and their relative placements in the cityscape. Here are some suggestions for improvements.

1. The paper needs a thorough proofreading for proper use of English (especially commas) and to catch errors, of which there are plenty.
2. Instead of making up new abbreviations for the four tree species (i.e., Ap, Tc, Qr, Cb), why not use the USDA Forest Service four-letter abbreviations, which in my opinion have now become internationally recognized (therefore, ACPL, TICO, QURO, CABE). And then, the abbreviations should be used consistently after first definition.
3. I am unable to comment on the methods for leaf collection and analysis, but I find the details of the field site to be less than adequate. Perhaps going to the B-Tree website would reveal what I want to know, but such details should be in the paper. My questions are these: (a) was the block layout random; (b) where is North on Figure 1; (c) what was the size of trees at planting; (d) what was the density of trees at planting and at the time of measurement; (e) what was the basis of the choice of the two species in the two-species plots?

With these improvements, the paper will be welcomed by readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review: The manuscript is a good supplement to the knowledge of several important tree species that constitute important trees in Europe's forests. However, I have some serious points that should be taken into account. I see great potential to shorten the work and the need to expand it with specificities. 

The title of the work is strange. It is obligatory to delete the first part of the sentence. Better, add important information that you are working on small stands of young specimens.
The first two sentences of the abstract are redundant - remove them. Better add something about the hypothesis, a sentence about methods, etc.
You can shorten the first paragraph to 2-3 sentences. These are known general matters and not so important for the sake of work.
The species selected for research as well as the experimental setup should be explained in the introduction. You do not mention what we already know about the species you have studied. You did not explain why you chose these genres. e.t.c. Complete the introduction and use the latest results of PM research in your selected species. See for example: https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2017.1328394     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07672-0 
The hypothesis is general. You could expand it or show in detail what your goals are.
(L149 and L359 examples)When you enter any Latin names, remember that they must be spelled correctly. This applies to the entire work to correct the record by completing it in the first place with the names of the authors of the descriptions. Use a shortcut after the first mention.
Methodological descriptions should be shortened and methodological details should be transferred to the appendices. This is my suggestion. Short and concise works are better to read.
L259 There must be some formatting error here ???
L287 P value is better written like this P = 0.50505
Table 3 - it is big and hard to understand at first
Re-edit your discussion to better respond to your goals at work. Go back to the newly created detailed hypotheses and answer what you discovered. I don't like the multi-faceted nature of the lack of in-depth focus on what you really did.
Requests should be rewritten to get rid of unnecessary sentences in the beginning. Moreover, only refer to the general conclusion and some specific ones.          

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not present the environmental PM concentrations during the test. The PM concentrations could be useful to evaluate the absorption rate. If possible, I invite the authors calculate the deposition velocity of particulate matter on leaf surface. The deposition velocity was an important parameter in the air quality model.

Author Response

There seems to be an error here. This is the same comment as made in the first review. We answered this as follows.

The reviewer orginal comment: The authors did not present the environmental PM concentrations during the test. The PM concentrations could be useful to evaluate the absorption rate. If possible, I invite the authors calculate the deposition velocity of particulate matter on leaf surface. The deposition velocity was an important parameter in the air quality model.

 

Our answer in the first review. At the time we carried out the study we did not have any PM ambient air background pollution data at the site. We provided the PM air concentration of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 of the nearby measuring station Dürnrohr for the test duration (L124-127) to provide background to the study. We agree with the reviewer that deposition velocity is an important parameter, however for this study we cannot calculate it.

Anwser to new comment: Again we can only say the same thing. We measured PM only at a near by measuring station, but this is 12 km from the site (as written in lines 123-125). So as much as we agree with the reviewer that this could be a useful parameter to calculate, on the data that we have we cannot calculate it. Not because we do not wish to calcuate it , but because to use the data from the station 12 km away would not be scientificially valid, we would need measuremenst of above canopy PM concentrations.  We are sure the reviewer agrees with this.

We have written in lines 123-125 that the PM was determined 12  km from the site.

We have extensively checked the English. We hope the reviewer is now satsified, and that the manuscript can now be accepted.