Annual Tree-Ring Curve-Fitting for Graphing the Growth Curve and Determining the Increment and Cutting Cycle Period of Sungkai (Peronema canescens)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is useful both of scientific and  applied interest. The described statistical (regression) models are with high level of validity. It should be publish in MDPI Forest journal.

noticed error on row 136:  "pi/2<=tita<=pi/2". It seems wrong. By my opinion "0<=tita<=pi/2" is correct

necessary  improvements,

1. On row 111 - more detailed explanation of the formula needs (about parameters, "a", "b", "k" etc). I think that this formula now just "hangs" in the text!

2. Please, change the caption of section 3 from "Discussion" to "Results and analysis"

I think that the main question  concerns the problem for estimation the growth of mass (rate, accumulation) in time  for a specific tree species in Indonesia and Malaysia, which could helps to estimate the age and the time of renewing of the corresponding forests. The models are by my opinion very relevant and could be applied to better planing  of the industrial logging of these trees in the regions for which these models are built.   The topic may not be very original, but very useful for the forest logging business of this tree species. Moreover I think that this methodology scheme could be use for other species and regions. The presented regression  models are very clear and applicable for other cases.
  About specific gap- if the used data are the whole data which exists for this species in these regions it shouldn't to be essential gaps

 

Further regression models could conclude (if there are corresponding data)

The landshaft parameters such as the slope (angle and geographic orientation), soil mineral /petrographic/ composition and structure. plus solar lightning conditions, as well as estimations about catastrophic events (typhoons, floods,windthrows etc )

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and they do address the main question posed.

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

1. The study is useful both of scientific and applied interest. The described statistical (regression) models are with high level of validity. It should be publish in MDPI Forest journal.

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging opinion.

2. noticed error on row 136:  "pi/2<=tita<=pi/2". It seems wrong. By my opinion "0<=tita<=pi/2" is correct

Author’s response:

It shall be “-pi/2<=tita<=pi/2".

The widow format in Microsoft Word made a wrong cutting position. I agree to add spaces before the minus (-) sign to force the right cutting position. 

3. On row 111 - more detailed explanation of the formula needs (about parameters, "a", "b", "k" etc). I think that this formula now just "hangs" in the text!

Author’s response:

We agree to add notation after Equation 1.

Where:   (a, b) is semi-major and semi-minor,

             (r_o, q_o) is ellipse’s center in polar form, and

             kp is the rotation angle about the ellipse’s center

4. Please, change the caption of section 3 from "Discussion" to "Results and analysis"

Author’s response:

We agree change the subsection 3.

3. Results and Analysis

 

5. I think that the main question  concerns the problem for estimation the growth of mass (rate, accumulation) in time  for a specific tree species in Indonesia and Malaysia, which could helps to estimate the age and the time of renewing of the corresponding forests. The models are by my opinion very relevant and could be applied to better planing  of the industrial logging of these trees in the regions for which these models are built.   The topic may not be very original, but very useful for the forest logging business of this tree species. Moreover I think that this methodology scheme could be use for other species and regions. The presented regression  models are very clear and applicable for other cases.

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for your positive comments. Your suggestion encourages us to analyze another species. We prepared a more detailed analysis for Teak. The title is “Volume-, Biomass-, and Price-Based Biological Rotation Age of Community Forest’s Teak (Tectona grandis) by Analyzing Its Annual Tree Ring Digitization.” The manuscript draft is ready to submit to Forest now.

We will be very glad if you can review this draft also.

6. About specific gap- if the used data are the whole data which exists for this species in these regions it shouldn't to be essential gaps.

Author’s response:

Getting the whole data for this species available in the regions is difficult and impractical. I am sorry that I cannot satisfy this recommendation.

7. Further regression models could conclude (if there are corresponding data).
   The landshaft parameters such as the slope (angle and geographic orientation), soil mineral /petrographic/ composition and structure. plus solar lightning conditions, as well as estimations about catastrophic events (typhoons, floods,windthrows etc )

Author’s response:

I am sorry we cannot conduct the further suggested regression because we don’t have the data mentioned.

8. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
   and they do address the main question posed.

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for your positive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have read the manuscript (forests-2533733). Entitle: Annual tree-rings curve-fitting for graphing the growth curve and determining the increment & cutting cycle period of Sungkai (Peronema canescens) written by Effendi Tri Bahtiar and Apri Heri Iswanto, for publication of Forests MDPI.

First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. Overall, I found that the topic of your paper is very interesting. The study design setup and the applied methods are adequate and the analyses were well performed.

However, I found a lack of story connection and some lack of potential references (some are suggested below). Overall after I evaluate and request the author for this manuscript as a “MINOR REVISION”.

In the abstract, I think the aim of the work (purpose) is not very clearly identified. It could be specified more clearly in my opinion.

The introduction is well described, on lines 80-82 I recommend citation.

In the discussions section, line 352 (Volume) change to 3.2.3

The work as a whole is complex and quite well organized. This fact shows and demonstrates the correct and detailed documentation of the authors on the chosen topic.

I also recommend to make a shorth linguistic check.

The bibliography is also complex. 

Dear authors,

I have read the manuscript (forests-2533733). Entitle: Annual tree-rings curve-fitting for graphing the growth curve and determining the increment & cutting cycle period of Sungkai (Peronema canescens) written by Effendi Tri Bahtiar and Apri Heri Iswanto, for publication of Forests MDPI.

First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. Overall, I found that the topic of your paper is very interesting. The study design setup and the applied methods are adequate and the analyses were well performed.

However, I found a lack of story connection and some lack of potential references (some are suggested below). Overall after I evaluate and request the author for this manuscript as a “MINOR REVISION”.

In the abstract, I think the aim of the work (purpose) is not very clearly identified. It could be specified more clearly in my opinion.

The introduction is well described, on lines 80-82 I recommend citation.

In the discussions section, line 352 (Volume) change to 3.2.3

The work as a whole is complex and quite well organized. This fact shows and demonstrates the correct and detailed documentation of the authors on the chosen topic.

I also recommend to make a shorth linguistic check.

The bibliography is also complex. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

General comments:

I have read the manuscript (forests-2533733). Entitle: Annual tree-rings curve-fitting for graphing the growth curve and determining the increment & cutting cycle period of Sungkai (Peronema canescens) written by Effendi Tri Bahtiar and Apri Heri Iswanto, for publication of Forests MDPI.

First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. Overall, I found that the topic of your paper is very interesting. The study design setup and the applied methods are adequate and the analyses were well performed.

However, I found a lack of story connection and some lack of potential references (some are suggested below). Overall after I evaluate and request the author for this manuscript as a “MINOR REVISION”.

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging comments. We agree to revise the manuscript following your suggestions.

Detailed comments:

1. In the abstract, I think the aim of the work (purpose) is not very clearly identified. It could be specified more clearly in my opinion.

Author’s response:

We agree to paraphrase the aim of the work to state this study’s objective more clearly.

This study aimed to propose a solution for this problem by conducting the annual tree-ring curve-fitting to determine a tree’s age related-dimension; then, growth and increment can be generated smoothly.

2. The introduction is well described, on lines 80-82 I recommend citation.

Author’s response:

The below statement is common knowledge in Forestry Science. It does not need any citation because We don’t know who first state it.

When CAI and MAI curves intersect, the current increment equals to the average. The CAI of juvenile stands is higher than its MAI, while the older ones may make CAI smaller than MAI.

3. In the discussions section, line 352 (Volume) change to 3.2.3

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for your careful review. We revised it.

3.2.3. Volume

 

4. The work as a whole is complex and quite well organized. This fact shows and demonstrates the correct and detailed documentation of the authors on the chosen topic.

Author’s response:

Thank you very much for your positive comments.

5. I also recommend to make a shorth linguistic check.

Author’s response:

I made a Grammarly premium Language Check, and receiving 98% overall score.

 

6. The bibliography is also complex. 

Author’s response:

We format the bibliography according to Forest’s author guidelines by using Mendeley.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx