The Impact of Visual Defects and Neighboring Trees on Wind-Related Tree Failures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Several references in 3.1 are not results or analysis, as they refer to situations that occurred years ago, such as references to risk assessment methods.
In Figure 2, it should be clear whether it refers to the 2015 inventory or to the review conducted in 2018.
Note that between 236 to 240 are references for the introduction, it is suggested that they be treated there.
It is suggested to incorporate in the comparative analysis the 2015 data, even if they have been made with ISA/BMP, so as to have a better understanding of the effect of the hurricane.
Unfortunately, the most interesting part fails to explain the effects from a spatial perspective, but it is undoubtedly a contribution to reach this conclusion.
Author Response
Comment: Several references in 3.1 are not results or analysis, as they refer to situations that occurred years ago, such as references to risk assessment methods.
Response: We feel that the references are still relevant to the text in 3.1, therefore we left the references in the section.
Comment: In Figure 2, it should be clear whether it refers to the 2015 inventory or to the review conducted in 2018.
Response: We added text to the figure caption to make it clear that the figure is constructed from the 2018 data.
Comment: Note that between 236 to 240 are references for the introduction, it is suggested that they be treated there.
Response: We feel that these references are still relevant for this section, so we have left them in place.
Comment: It is suggested to incorporate in the comparative analysis the 2015 data, even if they have been made with ISA/BMP, so as to have a better understanding of the effect of the hurricane.
Response: The results of the 2015 survey are implicitly compared to the post-hurricane 2018 survey because the 2018 data are a record of changes that occurred between the two surveys. We added the following sentence to clarify the relationship between the two tree surveys:
“The 2018 data represent changes in the trees originally surveyed in 2015 that were attributed to the hurricane.”
Comment: Unfortunately, the most interesting part fails to explain the effects from a spatial perspective, but it is undoubtedly a contribution to reach this conclusion.
Response: We added a paragraph to address the non-significant windbreak results. In addition, we added a sentence to recap this important point to the conclusions section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Wherever you measure something add units of measure. The conclusions are too general, I suggest adding your most important results. References 52 to 54 are missing in the text, added or deleted from the references. Proofread the all references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment:Wherever you measure something add units of measure.
Response: Units of measure were added to the ‘Size’ attributes in table 1.
Comment: The conclusions are too general, I suggest adding your most important results.
Response: We added a paragraph to expand and interpret the results of the non-significant windbreak effect.
Comment: References 52 to 54 are missing in the text, added or deleted from the references.
Response: The missing references were removed from the reference list.
Comment: Proofread the all references.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their careful check of our references. We proofread the references and removed excess spaces, removed extraneous italics, etc.
