Effect of Micro- and Macro-Mechanical Characteristics of Jujube Bark on Jujube Girdling Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General remarks
An interesting topic presented with several reflections and measurements. The storyline and the organisation of the paper need to be revised profoundly. Improve the introduction and integrate parts from material and methods. This will allow to better describe the process of girdling and to better explain and formulate the research questions.
The discussion is more a second abstract but not a discussion.
Introduction:
Which parts of the bark have to be removed by girdling? Is it the goal to remove the whole phloem without any parts of the xylem? What are the reasons for “bark tear”. You need to describe this in details as readers which are not familiar with girdling of jujube (the great majority!) it’s not clear what the problem is.
Wouldn’t it make sense to move the paragraph 3.1 to the introduction. This is not a real scientific result and would allow you to describe which layers of the bark need to be cutted and harming which layers will kill the tree. The major problem seems to be to tear off the bark (which parts of the bark?) in the longitudinal way causing extra damage to the tree.
There you could explain, where the cambium is located and how you develop your tension model, based on the structure of the tree trunc.
Include 3.2.1 into the introduction too.
L 149. How can you confirm the assumption that “… but generates tensile stress along the axial direction and compressive stress in the tangential direction in the newly grown external wood materials” Any literature confirming this? Link of this approach to the girdling process?
Material and Method
3.2.2 This description of the occurring stresses could evt. be moved to the introduction as this is a description of how the growth of the tree is influencing the bark characteristics. Do you have any assumptions how the different tensions are influencing the cutting process? Anyway, this paragraph needs to be introduced in the Introduction. It’s not clear how these stresses are influencing the girdling process. The chain of logical arguments needs to be properly closed.
As it’s purely a theoretical analysis, which is not linked to the other investigations it has to be questioned whether this part has to be removed from the paper. A better integration of this paragraph in the storyline is needed!
Results
Results are a mixture of Methods and Discussion. Don’t discuss results in this paragraph and be very clear in splitting off Methods too.
Discussion
This is not a discussion. Please discuss your results in detail. What can you derive from the different tests? Did they help to better understand the problem? What about the comparison with other materials, what about the used cutting blades? Which knife could be most appropriate for cutting the bark? Other reflections putting in value your results? Like this the reader has the impression that you analysed some technical characteristics which are not really usefull to further develop the girdling process..
What is further needed to avoid “bark tear”? How could you control the cutting depth as the different barks show very different thicknesses?
Make sure that you reply the research questions here which you formulated in the introduction. Up to now, this is not the case.
Detailed remarks
L 46. Please precise which layers have to be cutted. As I understood, the phloem has to be removed without harming the xylem. Is this right? It’s important to show to the reader which layers have to be cutted and which not.
L 53 “it is easy to cause jujube bark tear” Can you explain what you understand with “bark tear” and what the reason for this is? Does it happen when the epidermis or phloem are not cutted properly? As this is the main process you would like to analyse, you have to explain this to the reader. Very few people are familiar with girdling…
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction should provide more detailed information on the investigating topic. Scientific novelty must be highlighted.
It is not clear how many examples of jujube bark have been studied. Only 6?
The methodology is presented very shortly. The methodology should be presented in a clear and comprehensible manner. The reader should not look for methodologies in other references.
The given results should be compared with the other authors studies in the discussion section. The information is discussed very shortly. It would be necessary to widen the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some improvements have been done, but it seems that the authors are not very familiar in scientific writing. The structure and story line still need to be deeply improved. As the results are interesting I advise to revise the whole document with an experienced author. A profound revision and not a quick one needs to be done! Sorry, but in the present form the paper is not acceptable.
I made several remarks which may help you to improve the paper, but keep in mind that these remarks do not cover all needed changes. Writing a paper needs a deep reflection and is a big work to put all the puzzle pieces together to get a good final paper.
Material
Very strange start. Explain what and how you did it.
L 82 You explain that you took 20 samples. Why only 6 samples are listed on table 1.?
Don’t describe material and methods and results within this paragraph but only describe where and when you took how many samples and which characteristics these bark samples hat. Please describe a clear experimental design.
L 140 If you took samples from 6 trees, how many repetitions per tree have you done?
L111-L 139: This is introduction and not material and methods. Please explain all the basic principles including the literature in the Introduction and only indicate on which basis you developed your growth model. This fits very well to the explanation of the girdling methods. It makes sense to show your microscopical investigation in the introduction as these are only qualitative measures and allow to better understand how the stem is built.
Material and method of the growth model:
Your basis is the assumption that new cells are built. Please explain in material an methods the assumptions you made and under results you present the calculated results based on these assumptions. A separation of this aspect in introduction (existing knowledge), material and methods (your assumptions) and results (results of your calculations) should be feasible.
L 154 Please indicate which kind of cutter blade (blade angles, material, references for this cutter knife) à Repeatiability of this measure is very important!
Explain here the formula you applied to calculate the cutting strength – this is material and method again and not results!
L 160-171: This is “Material and method” of your modelling work. Based on the information you described, you can build the basic assumptions of your model work in material an methods. Is the basic unit a fiber or a single cell or did you just include the change of circumference etc. on which basis you calculate the stress? Didn’t the elasticity of the bark play a role? Make sure, that this well comprehensible. Explain this clearly step by step otherwise it’s very difficult to understand what you described with your formulas.
L 217 Is fig B representing the average or median?
L 219-228 belongs to material and methods
Used tools are still not cited correctly please indicate type then in parenthesis (brand, location, state)…
2.2.1 This paragraph belongs clearly to the introduction is not material and method.
Discussion
The discussion needs much more care and reflection!1
Nearly no links to existing know-how have been established. This is poor! How do your findings match the actual knowledge and where it goes beyond?
L346 “… and to make the blade sharp enough…” What is sharp enough? Can you cite any literature, which cutting angle, material etc. would be optimal to cut such a material? Would it help to clean or oil the knife to get a lower force? What else could be done to optimize the cutting process around the tree? As the force for cutting is increasing linearly with the bark thickness, what could be deviated from this? And much more reflections and links to literature could be done!
As this is the core of your paper, please invest more time and brain to link your findings to literature and existing knowledge. A profound revision is needed here!! You need to profoundly revise the discussion with an experienced scientific author!
L358-363 This should be presented in the introduction as you have chosen another method for girdling. Instead of discussing other methods discuss what the crititcal point of girdling is.
It seems that a proper cut, which is not pulling bark fibers out of the trunc, works well.
You showed, that high cutting forces are needed. What do you conclude? Do the farmers use the right knife and the correct technique…
If you deepen these reflections, then you will directly get good conclusions!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
