Tree Advisor: A Novel Woody Plant Selection Tool to Support Multifunctional Objectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS

The paper describes an informatic tool developed to select woody species for planting. The text is readable, the conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. The subject of the study is suitable for the publication on Land.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

• It seems that Figure 3 is double
• I think that in the species box where the user can choose a species in order to check its characteristics, the scientific (Latin) name of plants should be reported.
• Please, explain better how did you collect and analyzed the feedback received from the users and from other collaborators.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and constructive comments. 

 It seems that Figure 3 is double

If we understand your comment regarding Figure 3 correctly, you were asking if the figure was repeated in the manuscript.  We double checked the figures, and each figure is a unique graphic in the manuscript that illustrates different aspects of Tree Advisor. 

 

I think that in the species box where the user can choose a species in order to check its characteristics, the scientific (Latin) name of plants should be reported.

Future modifications of the tool can include the addition of scientific names in this dropdown box. For the target audience (e.g., producers, landowners, and technical service providers), common names are generally preferred based on feedback although the addition of the scientific name next to the common name should be helpful. The scientific name is displayed in the attributes table when a user selects a plant (Figure 5) so that a user can verify the scientific name with the common name if they want.

 

Please, explain better how did you collect and analyzed the feedback received from the users and from other collaborators.

Feedback did not involve rigorous structured collection of detailed response data, but rather was more casual in nature to seek opinions of users to assess usefulness and limitations of the DST. We revised and added additional text at Ln 137-139, Ln 242-250, and Ln 481-483 to help clarify the feedback received.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is  interesting and needed but requires rearranging, especially the Introduction and Discussion sections. The Results section should only contain results.

It misses comments about the importance of biodiversity in a plant selection. 

I have listed the detailed comments below:

116-124 most of the citations should be present in the Introduction section - not in a methodology

129 -132 that part belongs to  introduction section

Table 2 for me, some criteria are not clear, I think sources of information is needed. Maybe more explanations in the table could be useful  e.g.

Z Why such a distinction? Why tall tree is taller than 9,1 m?

G, P citation is needed

O this is the most difficult to accept without doubts – e.g. the depth of the root system depends on the habitat, especially on urban areas.  Requires source  and comments in table ...

W source ? does water use not depend on the plant volume?

F citation is needed

M again, is there not a correlation that the bigger and older plant, the greater the potential?

243-252 the whole paragraph is a discussion - here should be the results

419 -422 it belongs to introduction section

482 - 496 at the beginning of the paragraph is methodology, then results - should be moved into correct part of the manuscript 

497-500 I my opinion results section

508 maybe results should be commented in the context of other available systems - or lack of them

Author Response

The paper is interesting and needed but requires rearranging, especially the Introduction and Discussion sections. The Results section should only contain results.

Thank you for your helpful review and constructive comments.  We have rearranged and revised several sections of the manuscript to improve readability and clarity between the sections.  Specific changes are described below.

 It misses comments about the importance of biodiversity in a plant selection.

Biodiversity is an important aspect in the design and management of a vegetative intervention and should be considered as part of the planning process to identify desired attributes of an aggregate of plant species. Use of this DST would, then, be used to identify a suite of species having the planned aggregate of attributes.  We added a new sentence at Ln 532-534 to note the importance of considering biodiversity during planning process.

 116-124 most of the citations should be present in the Introduction section - not in a methodology

While we understand that cited literature is generally presented in the Introduction section, in this case the information contained in this passage is the Method by which the list of species was developed. Therefore, we believe it best fits in the Methods section.

129 -132 that part belongs to introduction section

The information contained in this passage is the Method by which the list of purposes was developed and hence we feel this information should remain in the Methods section.

Table 2 for me, some criteria are not clear, I think sources of information is needed. Maybe more explanations in the table could be useful e.g.

Thank for bringing this to our attention.  We added a footnote in Table 2 to indicate that most of the attributes and attribute range descriptions were taken directly from the USDA PLANTS Database (reference #16) with additional data provided by regional plant guides and databases found in Appendix B.

Z Why such a distinction? Why tall tree is taller than 9,1 m?

>9.1 m (30 ft) is often used in Great Plains regional databases to distinguish tall trees. We added a sentence in the Notes column.

G, P citation is needed.

Growth rate (G) and foliage porosity (P) are from USDA PLANTS Database (reference #16) which is noted by the footnote for the Attribute heading.

O this is the most difficult to accept without doubts – e.g. the depth of the root system depends on the habitat, especially on urban areas.  Requires source and comments in table.

This attribute is based on the USDA PLANTS Database for minimum soil depth for good growth. We also characterize root system structure in this attribute based on information found in other plant guides (Appendix B) which can be important attribute for soil/streambank stabilization purposes.  We provided comments in the Notes column to enhance clarification for this attribute.

W source ? does water use not depend on the plant volume?

 This attribute corresponds to “Moisture Use” in the USDA PLANTS Database.  Based on the database’s definition, this attribute represents the ability to remove soil water relative to other plants of similar size under similar soil moisture availability. We provided a comment in the Notes column to enhance clarification for this attribute.

 F citation is needed.

 This attribute corresponds to “Anaerobic Tolerance” in USDA PLANTS Database which represents the relative tolerance of anaerobic soil conditions. We provided a comment in the Notes column to enhance clarification for this attribute.

 M again, is there not a correlation that the bigger and older plant, the greater the potential?

 Habitat quality depends on many factors, such as food source, winter cover, reproductive structure, protective structure, etc. Bigger and older can be important if they contribute to these other qualities but it may not be a universal factor.  We provided a comment in the Notes column on the sources for this information.

 The paper requires rearranging, especially the Introduction and Discussion sections. The Results section should only contain results.

 We agree that rearrangement will improve the flow of this paper. Revisions are identified below.

 243-252 the whole paragraph is a discussion - here should be the results.

 This passage is reorganized to split comments on evaluators’ responses (to Methods) from statements about desirable DST qualities (to the Introduction section – see next revision).

 419-422 it belongs to introduction section.

 Yes, this information should be in the Introduction section. We pulled statements on desirable qualities of DSTs (Ln 255-260, Ln 416-419, Ln 423-427, and Ln 534-536) and aggregated these statements into a revised paragraph in the Introduction section (Ln 70-86).

 482 - 496 at the beginning of the paragraph is methodology, then results - should be moved into correct part of the manuscript.

497-500 I my opinion results section.

508 maybe results should be commented in the context of other available systems - or lack of them.

To address these comments, we shifted the location of the Results and Discussion sections. The Results section now begins at Ln 439 which focuses on the description of the tool now available online and the preliminary feedback we have received from users.  The Discussion section was moved to Ln 507 and concentrates on a discussion of the results and implications. Future directions and considerations are also discussed. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Tree Advisor: A Novel Woody Plant Selection Tool to Support Multifunctional Objectives" is a timely topic not only in research but also in practice given the deteriorating climatic conditions and loss of species or inappropriate species which worsen the ecological conditions of certain regions and places.

The organization of the paper, analysis, results, and discussions have been clearly presented. The scientific novelty of the work is indisputable.

After carefully reading the paper numerous times, I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in the current state.

Author Response

The organization of the paper, analysis, results, and discussions have been clearly presented. The scientific novelty of the work is indisputable.

After carefully reading the paper numerous times, I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in the current state.

Thank you for your review and generous comments. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the improvement of your Paper.