Site Quality Classification Models of Cunninghamia Lanceolata Plantations Using Rough Set and Random Forest West of Zhejiang Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “Site quality classification models of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations using rough set and random forest west of Zhejiang Province, China” reflects the development of applied research, the topic is interesting and the manuscript has an approach innovative. However, objectives, discussion and English need to be improved. Thus, major changes are recommended.
Comments
1) Keywords – Please consider replacing the keywords that are in the title for others.
2) Line 33 – Plantation of plantations of forest species?
3) Lines 85-89 – Please revise English.
4) Line 112 – Please consider explaining in more detail quantity theory I
5) Line 118 – Hypothesis or assumptions?
6) Line119 – variance of what?
7) Lines 143-147 – Please state the objectives clearly.
8) Lines 147-149 – It seems that this sentence are conclusions rather than objectives of the study
9) Line 184 – What do the authors mean by “balance of sample data?
10) Line 186-187 - Please revise English.
11) Lines 201-211 - Please revise English.
12) Line 218 – The reference of software SPSS is missing.
13) Line 219-220 – Are this methods or results?
14) Line 220 – R2 or R2?
15) Line 222 – Please define basal age.
16) Line 232 – types or classes?
17) Lines 233-235 - Please revise English.
18) Lines 277-309 - Please revise English.
19) Lines 337-338 - Visual Studio Code platform. Please include reference.
20) Line 359. Please include the number of site factors.
21) Lines 361-371 - Please revise English.
22) Lines 382-388 - Please revise English.
23) Lines396-408 – This paragraph should be place before Table 5.
24) Lines 411-435 - Please revise English.
25) Section 3.2.1 and following – please standardise scheme A or 1 or I and B, 2 or II.
26) Lines 452-459 Please revise English.
27) Figure 8 – Please use the names instead of the number to improve the reading of the figure.
28) Lines 274-543 – Discussion should be improved. The results of this study are compared with only a few published studies. Discussion with more published studies should be included.
29) Lines 274-543 – It is not clear in the discussion why is the model of this study better than the others published. Please clarify.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my Manuscript . Now I have revised the manuscript based on your comments. the point-by-point response can be seen in the attachment,Thank you very much!
Reviewer 2 Report
Review ms#1836514
The research is focused on the Site quality evaluation of Chinese fir plantations in China. After working on similar issues (including fir species), I found the research really interesting since novel methods are described. However, there are some points that, in my opinion, need further clarification.
General comments
1. From personal experience, the site position (slope position) is the most important factor for SI prediction. This hypothesis is based on natural processes (such as soil loss and deposition) which are evident, even in forest soils. However, our research was conducted in naturally regenerated forests (of both pines and firs). In this case, the current research is subject to serious limitations, since plantations are probably located in specific (pre-selected) locations. If so, it must be clarified explicitly.
2. Some factors’ effects must be evaluated separately. For example, the “non-linearity” effect of the elevation factor is not capturing the true effect of the specific factor and it must be related to the species' optimal growing space, which is changing from one species to another. It must also be clarified.
3. In general terms, two main approaches are currently involved in similar analyses. The first is to evaluate all the potential factors affecting the site's capacity to support forest growth with limited practical value, and the other is to predict forest soil fertility in areas where limited data are available, with increased practical value. In the second case, only some easily derived factors of high influence must be incorporated, which can also be referred on a spatial basis. Since both of these approaches are described in the current research, I suggest authors expand (briefly) 3.2.2 on a GIS basis using raster data (if possible although not essential). This is one of the main reasons to prefer OLS method over other potential methods.
Specific comments
In general terms, the article is well written, in terms of the English language.
L41 Please cite the relevant studies.
L79 Why is this reference with capital letters? Please revise
L122 – 123 I disagree with the statement. If randomness is ensured the bias is eliminated. In addition, the (approximate) t-statistic defines the factor influence and the OLS remains a reliable solution. Please revise.
L194 I suggest adding the “flowchart” word in the figure caption.
L207 The Chapman-Richards must be corrected, unless the age is measured at the base of the tree which is not possible. For example, at 0 age the height of the tree is 0 (biological realism)? That is why the 1.3 factor is used in h/d modeling.
L219 Please add the SE of the reported parameter estimates.
L481 Please replace “Pawlak” with a reference number.
L571 Please check the reference style.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to review my Manuscript . Now I have revised the manuscript based on your comments. the point-by-point response can be seen in the attachment,Thank you very much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “Site quality classification models of Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations using rough set and random forest west of Zhejiang Province, China” has improved in the second version of the manuscript. The authors revised the manuscript according to of the suggestions made. Yet, one minor issue should be improved: “Plantation is an important natural and strategic resource in China” or “Forestation or afforestation through plantation is an important natural and strategic resource in China”. Thus, it is recommended to accept the manuscript after minor changes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have modified the content in line 34 to "Forestation is an important natural and strategic resource in China" after we reviewed the materials and consulted the experts again. This is a more scientific description than the previous one.Thank you very much for your comment.
