Effects of Stand Structure of Artificial Shelter Forest on Understory Herb Diversity in Desert-Oasis Ecotone
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear authors. Thank you for your answers. The article has been significantly improved compared to the previous version.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your positive feedback on the article. It is very helpful to me.
Best regards，
Zhou Zhengli
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
I have no further comments. The issues have been addressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your positive feedback on the article. It is very helpful to me.
Best regards，
Zhou Zhengli
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I consider the article important for the publication
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your positive feedback on the article. It is very helpful to me.
Best regards，
Zhou Zhengli
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "Effects of stand structure of artificial shelter forest on understory 2
herb diversity in desert-oasis ecotone" presents a theme of extreme relevance for the desert-oasis transition regions. The work is well written, but there are some notes that I forward below.
General Comments:
1) The introduction is very well written and grounded. However, I did not understand very well why evaluate the relationship between the characteristics of the shelf and diversity. I would expect to test the bookshelf's effect on diversity. For this I would use a regression analysis followed by a selection of models to show which variables affect diversity. This would be far more important for restoration plans than relationships. You see, if I know what affects diversity, I can control those effects in restoration and management plans. Thus, my main consideration for the work is to think about a change in the analysis and interpretation of the relations discussed.
2) Material and Methods is well written and detailed, making it possible to understand the characteristics of the region, even for those who do not know desert regions. I suggest considering, among the measures of diversity, taxonomic richness, which is an important index of diversity.
In the data analysis section, I suggest some changes that will facilitate the discussion and presentation of the results, making them more visual and interesting.
- In the basic characteristics of species diversity index, I suggest comparing between desert and oasis areas, a t test (in fact, on line 218 the word significant appears, but it was not tested, so I could not use this term). I suggest doing the same for the stand structure features. Thus, it is possible to know if the areas are in fact different, if they are different, the effects of the variables on diversity can be tested.
Suppressing canonical analysis would not lose much information if using PCA, and I believe that PCA can make it more visual than canonical. In addition, it is possible to assess the size of the effect of the variables in the PCA, reinforcing the idea of the work.
Finally, why do a stepwise? Wouldn't a selection of models bring more objective information, showing the joint effects of the predictor variables? I think it could be more informative for work.
3) Review the results based on the suggestions above.
4) Discussion: there is a lot of repetition of results in this section, see lines 360 to 392; and 410 and 412. There is no need to show the results again, just discuss the effects.
The discussion is very good, but it can be more objective if you can point out what causes the effects on diversity.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
Line 32: missing a sentence explaining what all the results pointed out bring relevant information to the study.
Keywords: avoid using the same words that are in the title, this will reduce the chances of job search in the database.
Figure 1: What do the yellow dots on the map mean? I believe they are the oasis and desert areas. I suggest putting this in the caption. Also, I suggest you differentiate the dots to show which are desert and oasis (different colors or symbols). This would allow for an easy and quick visualization and understanding of the distribution of points.
Lines 214 and 216: this is the first time that areas A and B are mentioned, I suggest including them in the material and methods, including in figure 1.
Figure 3: I suggest inserting a PCA, with the distribution of points and the stand structure variables. I suggest inserting figure 3 in the article as supplementary material or inserting a table with these data. They end up not bringing much information.
Line 229: check whether it is table 2 or 3 to which the text is referring.
Line 430: You mention some functional attributes of plants, did you not evaluate these attributes to use as a measure of diversity: the functional one?
Line 440: Intuitively? It is difficult to discuss and support intuitive results, so use analyzes that show these effects.
Line 455: Beware of significant differences if not tested.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Forest stand structure is a key element in understanding forest ecosystems and also an important element of stand biodiversity. Effects of stand structure of artificial shelter forest on understory herb diversity will enhance our ability to maximize biodiversity conservation. Information from this quantitative inventory will provide a valuable reference assessment and improve our knowledge by the identification of ecologically, useful species as well as species of special concern, thus identifying conservation efforts for sustainability. Within this context, the present study uses pearson correlation analysis, canonical correlation analysis, and multiple linear stepwise regression to explore the regression between tree layer structure (angle scale, porosity, size ratio, DBH, etc.) and understory herb diversity in the transition zone of shelter forest plots near oases and near deserts. The study also seeks to clarify the dominant stand structure factors affecting herb biodiversity.
I think this study is a progress by deepening and expanding knowledge about effects of stand structure of artificial shelter forest on understory herb diversity. This manuscript highlights the need of more research to be investigated along in desert-oasis ecotone. Generally, some revision suggestions are listed below:
(1) Don't just describe the results, summarize your research significance in your abstract. It's better to add the important findings to Abstract and delete lengthy description (for example, '(1) The Margalef richness index and Shannon–Wiener index of understory herbaceous plants in the shelter forest near the oasis were significantly correlated (via Pearson correlation analysis) with the stand competition index (P < 0.05), and the Pielou evenness and Simpson indices were significantly correlated with stand mingling degree (P < 0.05). There was a significant negative correlation between the Margalef richness index and stand size ratio (P < 0.05). The Pielou evenness index and Simpson index were significantly correlated with stand height (P < 0.05), and the Shannon–Wiener index was significantly negatively correlated with the stand size ratio (P < 0.05). (2) The results of the canonical correlation analysis showed that the first pair of canonical correlation variables of the two types of shelter forest plots passed the significance test (P = 0.000); the canonical correlation coefficients were 1.000 and 0.947, respectively, indicating that the spatial structure of the stand and the diversity index of the herb layer were highly correlated on the whole. (3) The results of multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that the Shannon–Wiener index, Simpson index, Margalef richness index, and Pielou evenness index of the herbaceous layer in the shelter forest near the oasis were significantly affected by the competition index; in addition, the Shannon evenness index and Margalef index of the herbaceous layer in the shelter forest near the desert were significantly affected by the competition index.')
(2) It's better to discuss the implications from effects of stand structure of artificial shelter forest on understory herb diversity in desert-oasis ecotone from the perspective of climate change.
(3) Please suggest the future research directions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I am sending some comments on the article.
It is not necessary to state in the abstract which correlations you applied in data processing. This should be noted in the material and work method chapter.
When commenting on research results and their significance, it is better to state the exact p-value, not p < 0.05.
Line 14 What exactly does the word "porosity" refer to?
Line 15 rephrase the word "seek".
Figure 1, what do the triangles in Figure 1 represent? A legend is required on the map.
The area of the research area, the area of the forest is small, so a small biological diversity is to be expected.
Figure 2 is unclear and what is the purpose of showing that diagram. In the title of Figure 2, the name of the diagram is different from the name in the text of the article, line 131 and line 139!
Line 152, grammatical error in title.
It's a pity that microclimatic research was not done in forest stands, LAI, direct, diffused light!
In the chapter "Dana processing" it is necessary to specify the limit of significance when processing data!
Line 198, how can you use ArcGIS 10.8 to calculate structural parameters?!!
Lines 219, 220, 221 need to be discussed, to explain the deviations in the coefficient of variation.
Line 229, does table 1 or table 2 show the results you mention in the text?
Line 244, does the K index show those results or the mingling degree
In the results section, the exact p-value amount should be specified!
Figure 4 in the title of the picture is "stand structure", and in the text, description of the picture, is "stand competition index".
Figure 4. Which correlation, parametric or non-parametric?
Figure 5, in the description of figure 5 you talk about correlation, and in the title of the picture is "linear equation diagram"
Figure 5, legend is needed, what do the columns (black and white) represent and their different lengths, sizes?
Why do you use both regression and correlation in the analysis of the results?
Lines 396 and 397, reword the sentence.
Line 405 – 410, the passage is unclear, not clearly explained.
Line 421, 422, about which "stand size" the author writes. It is necessary to discuss and explain better.
Line 444 – 446, excellently explained.
Line 452, there should be 12 species
Line 455 - what are the dominant factors?
The page order of the article is mixed up, the page numbers are out of sequence.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors state that their objective is to "...clarify the dominant stand structure factors affecting herb biodiversity tree layer structure...". My concern is that the authors do not present background on these measures, how they are used in previous research, their usefulness, etc. Also, there are places in the manuscript where comparisons are made or results are reported about 'stand structure' or 'plant diversity' while the comparisons and results are actually based on "measures of" or "indices relating to" these characteristics. While seemingly trivial, I believe it is important to clarify throughout.
Introduction:
Lines 69 – 71: ”…angular scale, forest layer index, and openness in spatial structure parameters…” are measures of forest structure; it is important to present them as such.
The authors state that the key factor affecting species diversity of understory is “stand structure” [74-75]. Then state that it is important to the spatial structure [75]. How are stand structure and spatial structure related? I think a short narrative about how this research interprets/applies these terms. How have these measures been used in previous research?
The authors can improve their introduction by presenting and discussing the components of stand structure that are relevant to this study. Such background will assist the readers in their understanding of why the authors employed the measures presented in Section 2.3.1.
The authors can improve their introduction by presenting and discussing the components of understory plant diversity. Such background will assist the readers in their understanding of why the authors employed the measures presented in Section 2.3.2.
Materials and Methods:
Figure 2: For clarification, I suggest the authors expand on the Figure 2 caption to include an explanation of what the readers are viewing (and what the authors want the viewers to focus on).
Line 114: In this study, It is important to know what equipment was used to record the tree coordinates. Is the accuracy of the GPS (I am assuming GPS was used) sufficient to map the micro-environment being studied in this research?
Lines 172 – 179: The Competition Index is not addressed in this paragraph and is missing from table 1 [172]. Use the same description you use in the text as you do in the table. Is ‘uniform angle index’ the same thing as ‘Angle scale’ and is ‘stand openness’ the same thing as “Opening degree”?
For clarity, match the order in which the indices are described in-text and their order presented in Table 1.
Table 1: For clarification, the authors should provide more detail in the Table 1 heading. Provide the abbreviations M, U, CI, W, K next to their entries.
Lines 184 – 196:
The authors present conflicting explanations of P, and do not define H and N.
Line 186: While Ni is defined, Nr is not.
Results:
Line 227 – 236:
- For clarity and consistency, use the same order M, U, CI, W, K as used in Methods and as listed in Table 2.
- CI is ignored when describing levels I – V.
The precision in measurements implied by presenting values with three decimal places is misleading. For clarity, I suggest that the authors review the manuscript and simplify, when possible and appropriate, by presenting numeric and percentage results to the nearest tenth.
Line 262, 264: The meaning of “stand size ratio” is unclear; this measurement/index has not been defined.
Line 266: The authors should clarify “diversity index”. If they are implying that the listed measures were not correlated with ANY of the diversity indices, then for clarity, revise so the readers understand that there were no correlations with ANY of the measures of diversity.
Line 271-272: I believe the authors are describing correlations among variables not how one event affects another. For clarity, this discussion should be presented in context of correlation among indices, not how one variable is affected by another.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Grammar is fine. Specific comments below...
Line 72: I suggest the authors, for clarity, replace the phrase susceptible to with affected by or influenced by.
Line 77-78: The phrase “…was taken as the research area.” is somewhat awkward. I suggest the authors reword this sentence to read ~ “Our study site was the Taklimakan …” or “The study site for this research was the…”
Line 113 and 115: I suggest the authors replace the phrase “set up” with “established”
Line 140: check/fix capitalization
Line 153: Insert space after (W)
Line 280: The authors should consider revising (or deleting) this sentence to reflect the research value of the information displayed in Table 4, not that it displays the results of two sets of correlation coefficients.
Lines 294 – 297: For clarity, I suggest the authors revise this long sentence to two sentences.
Line 348: I suggest the authors rephrase to “……essential for the restoration of the ecosystem…”
