All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
This revised version is suitable for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Significant improvement is evident.
Significant improvement is evident.
Significant improvement is evident.
The authors have significantly improved the revised manuscript in comparison with the original submission and in my opinion, the last revision of the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
The article offers significant information concerning the decline of Acacia trees in the Ha’il area. With suggested enhancements in organization, clarity, literature depth, and model exposition, it possesses significant potential to assist local conservation initiatives and contribute to worldwide research on desertification and biodiversity decline in arid regions.
**PeerJ Staff Note**: Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note**: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
-
-
-
The authors have effectively addressed many of the reviewers' recommendations, and the revised manuscript demonstrates notable improvement compared to the original submission. However, several suggestions remain that should be incorporated to further enhance the academic rigor and quality of the work.
1) Abstract:
Clarify and condense the abstract to better reflect the study's purpose, methodology, and key findings. Term like "Rustle" is most probably a typo and should be corrected or removed.
2) Introduction:
Consider expanding background information on Acacia trees' ecological importance and their role in arid environments, as well as justifying the selection of variables (e.g., drought severity, urban expansion) with references to prior studies. Also, please clearly define Vachellia gerrardii var. negevensis and najdensis and their ecological significance in Saudi Arabia.
3) Literature review:
The inclusion of new references by the authors has greatly improved the comprehensiveness and scholarly value of this chapter (as well as other chapters in this manuscript). However, there is still room for further improvements.
Strengthen the literature review by incorporating more regional and global studies on tree decline due to environmental and anthropogenic factors.
Add recent references (within the last 5–10 years) to enhance credibility and contextual relevance. Are you sure that all the new references you mentioned in your response to the reviewers are included in the updated reference list?
Include more studies from similar ecosystems (e.g., Negev Desert, Sinai, Tunisia, Algeria, and other Saharan regions, India) to support comparative analysis.
4) Methodology:
Provide more details about survey design, sampling technique, and response rate to improve transparency and replicability.
Clarify how data from satellite imagery and meteorological records were integrated into the analysis. Ensure that all the information provided is adequately referenced wherever necessary.
Explain the rationale behind using CHAID decision tree modeling and its suitability for the dataset.
5) Model parameterization, calibration, sensitivity analysis, validation, and uncertainty analysis:
The study indicates the use of regression analysis and CHAID decision tree modeling to identify key predictors of acacia tree deterioration (e.g., drought severity, urban expansion). It reports adjusted R², F-values, and p-values, suggesting some level of parameter estimation and statistical significance.
However, detailed information on model calibration (e.g., parameter estimation techniques), sensitivity analysis (e.g., how input variables influence output), and validation procedures (e.g., split-sample testing, cross-validation) is lacking. There is minimal discussion of uncertainty analysis (e.g., confidence intervals, error propagation), limiting the robustness and transparency of the models used.
While the study identifies significant factors, it lacks the methodological depth necessary for full reproducibility and rigorous scientific validation.
6) Results:
Improve the clarity of statistical outputs such as regression coefficients, p-values, and explained variance. Present results in a more structured format: e.g., separate tables or figures for correlation, regression, and classification tree outcomes. Include confidence intervals and effect sizes where applicable.
7) Recommendations:
Interpret the implications of key findings (urban expansion and overgrazing as main drivers) in relation to previous research. Discuss potential mechanisms linking climate change, soil degradation, and human activity to tree health. Compare findings with studies on Acacia species in other regions to highlight similarities or unique aspects of the Ha’il situation.
8) Conclusions:
Summarize the major findings clearly and succinctly. Emphasize the urgency of implementing evidence-based conservation policies. Highlight the novelty of combining field surveys, public opinion, and advanced statistics for understanding acacia decline.
9) Tables and figures:
Ensure all tables and figures are properly labeled, referenced, and interpreted within the text. Consider adding maps or spatial distribution charts based on satellite data. If necessary, use panel graphs or combine visuals to reduce the overall number of images. Visualize CHAID decision tree outcomes for clearer communication of high-risk segments.
10) Language and style:
Proofread the manuscript before resubmission by a native English speaker or, even more preferably, by a professional academic editor, for grammatical errors and clarity, especially in complex sentences. Use consistent terminology throughout (e.g., “Acacia” vs. “acacia”). Ensure citations are correctly formatted and updated.
The manuscript exhibits a generally logical structure with clear sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Statistical Analysis. However, the text flow is uneven in parts, with occasional repetition and inconsistent paragraph transitions that disrupt smooth readability. The scholarly tone is generally appropriate for an academic audience, but the quality of English is suboptimal in certain areas, with grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and incomplete sentences affecting clarity. Some paragraphs are overly verbose or lack coherence, which diminishes the overall professionalism and may hinder comprehension by some international readers.
11) Additional data inclusion:
Incorporate historical data on land use change and vegetation cover to provide context. If possible, consider including demographic data of respondents (age, occupation, locality) to assess bias or representativeness.
12) Ethical and practical considerations:
Mention ethical considerations regarding surveys and interviews. Address limitations of the study (e.g., self-reported data, sample size). Discuss the scalability of findings to other regions in Saudi Arabia or neighboring Middle Eastern / Northern African countries.
Final recommendations:
This manuscript presents valuable insights into the deterioration of Acacia trees in the Ha’il region. With recommended improvements in structure, clarity, depth of literature, and model description, it has strong potential to inform local conservation efforts and contribute to global research on desertification and biodiversity loss in arid zones.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
1) Basic reporting: The English language of the manuscript is of satisfactory quality. The Introduction and background information are based on too scarce body of scientific literature. More detailed comments are listed below. The structure generally conforms to PeerJ standards; however , the authors are encouraged to consider whether the current division of the text into subchapters is appropriate. The figures are generally relevant and of sufficient quality. Revise the captions of Figure 8 and tables so that a caption does not start with a verb. Some similar figures can be combined into subsets a, b, c etc . in a larger figure so that the overall number of figures decreases ( such as figures 2-5). Raw data have been supplied as required.
2) Experimental design: The research topicis within the scope of PeerJ journal. The Research question is sufficiently well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is stated how the
research fills an identified knowledge gap; however, in the current version of the manuscript, the knowledge gap is stated on the basis of insufficient body of scientific literature reviewed; please see the comments below. Rigorous investigation has been performed to a sufficient technical and ethical standard. Methods are generally described with sufficient detail and
information to replicate. However, the sample of respondents and the principles of sample selection would require a more detailed description.
3) Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, and controlled. Conclusions are sufficiently well stated, linked to original research question and limited to supporting results.
1) Basic reporting: The English language of the manuscript is of satisfactory quality. The Introduction and background information are based on too scarce body of scientific literature. More detailed comments are listed below. The structure generally conforms to PeerJ standards; however , the authors are encouraged to consider whether the current division of the text into subchapters is appropriate. The figures are generally relevant and of sufficient quality. Revise the captions of Figure 8 and tables so that a caption does not start with a verb. Some similar figures can be combined into subsets a, b, c etc . in a larger figure so that the overall number of figures decreases ( such as figures 2-5). Raw data have been supplied as required.
2) Experimental design: The research topicis within the scope of PeerJ journal. The Research question is sufficiently well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is stated how the
research fills an identified knowledge gap; however, in the current version of the manuscript, the knowledge gap is stated on the basis of insufficient body of scientific literature reviewed; please see the comments below. Rigorous investigation has been performed to a sufficient technical and ethical standard. Methods are generally described with sufficient detail and
information to replicate. However, the sample of respondents and the principles of sample selection would require a more detailed description.
3) Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, and controlled. Conclusions are sufficiently well stated, linked to original research question and limited to supporting results.
4) Abstract: The structure is clear, but it lacks key numerical results. In its current form, the abstract is overly descriptive and would benefit from including the most significant quantitative findings of the study.
5) The background section addresses key aspects of the topic but relies on only three cited studies, which is insufficient for a robust scientific foundation. Consider broadening the literature review to offer a more comprehensive and reliable contextual framework. The ecological role of acacias in desert, semi-desert, and savanna ecosystems should be emphasized more explicitly, particularly in relation to soil health, biodiversity, and their position in food chains, as well as in relation of their socio-economic importance. Additionally, including more detailed meteorological data—such as long-term trends in temperature, precipitation changes, and increasing climatic variability over the past 20–50 years—would significantly enhance the context and relevance of the study. The description of the direct human impact could also be more thorough.
6) The problem statement is clear, but again, it is based on only one study cited.
7) The objective and scope of the study are clearly articulated. However, the rationale for conducting the research needs to be more explicitly stated. What pressing issue or gap does this study address, and what are its innovative contributions? The authors are encouraged to present a clear, testable hypothesis (or hypotheses) and to highlight the study’s relevance, originality, and scientific novelty. Emphasis should also be placed on the potential ecological, economic, and socio-political impacts and implications of the findings.
8) Most journals do not divide the introduction into subchapters. This is not a problem, however, as long as it is in line with PeerJ's recommendations for authors. A literature review is also usually presented as part of the introduction.
9) The literature review provides relevant information, but again, it is based on only three cited sources, which is a very meager scientific literature base for the research. The knowledge gap is likewise well articulated but weakly supported on the literature basis.
10) Materials and methods: A more detailed study area description is necessary. The best way would be to show the study area on a map, also geographical coordinates can be provided.
11) As stated before, a detailed description of the respondents sample is necessay.
12) The statistical methods are well decribed.
13) The Latin species names of acacias under observations in this study should be specified.
14) Sources of meteorological data should be specified in the text of manuscript. A short climatological description would be helpful – average temperatures of the hottest and coldest months as well as annual average, average annual precipitation and its variation over a year, also long-term trends in temperature and precipitation changes. The same applies to soil conditions.
15) The sources of satellite observation data should be clearly specified. The same applies to government reports—if these are originally written in Arabic, both the Arabic and corresponding English bibliographic information should be included in the References section.
16) Steraspis speciosa damage should be cited as references in the relevant literature. Species’ Latin names should be written in italic in the text.
17) In the Discussion section, the claims should be more clearly cross-referenced to the corresponding findings in the Results section to enhance the clarity and coherence of the authors' argumentation.
18) Lines 460-462: Appropriate references should be provided.
19) Lines 468-471: Consider showing the identified high-risk areas on a map.
20) Consider including descriptions of agrotechnical techniques recommended in recent works on reforestation in arid climates in the discussion section. Such techniques include, but are not limited to, the use of planting blocks that store individual nutrient and water reserves for the tree seedlings: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/715. Such references can give additional value to this research.
21) The conclusions should include a summary of whether the working hypothesis was confirmed or not.
attached
attached
attached
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.