Succession as a Natural Tool for Restoration of Oak—Lime Forests on Aspen-Covered Clearcuts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Succession as a natural tool for restoration of oak-lime forests on aspen-covered clearcuts" presents an original research work conducted in the European part of Russia. The objective of the manuscript was to predict and provide silvicultural recommendations for the passive restoration of oak-lime forests that have transformed into pure aspen stands following clearcutting. The authors effectively utilised the chronosequence approach to assess changes associated with natural succession over 60 years.

Objective and Methodology: Analysing the objective of the work and the methodology applied, it can be stated that they are congruent:

• Chronosequence is an appropriate method for studying ecological succession processes.
• DBH measurements and growth modelling provide data on the structure and dynamics of forest stands, essential for formulating silvicultural recommendations.
• Logistic regression helps understand the impact of historical species compositions on current compositions, which is crucial for strategies aiming to restore forests to their historical state.

Methodology: The proposed methodology is robust, especially due to the detailed description of the chronosequential approach and the statistical methods employed. However, I would suggest clarifying a few elements:

• Sampling Methodology: More details on how plots were selected at each site would enhance the representativeness of the samples. It is important to clarify whether random, stratified, or systematic sampling was used, as this affects the validity of the collected data.
• Control of Environmental Variables: The methodology outlines the control of environmental factors, but the manuscript could better explain how these controls were verified throughout the study period. Additionally, it would be beneficial to discuss how other potential confounding factors, such as changes in soil types and microclimatic conditions, were considered or if they were part of the analysis.
• Statistical Analysis: Although the use of generalised additive models (GAM) and other statistical approaches is well justified, the manuscript could more thoroughly discuss the selection of these models, the assumptions checked, and any model validation processes.

Results: The results chapter contains calculations that are presented in a clear and detailed manner, with appropriate statistical analyses and graphical illustrations that aid in the interpretation of the findings. However, I would like to draw attention to two aspects:

• Statistical Analysis: How the fulfilment of the used statistical models was checked and what measures were taken in case of non-fulfilment.
• Discussion of Limitations: The authors could discuss the limitations of their study in more detail, including the impact of potential confounding factors that could have influenced the results, such as changes in forest management or anthropogenic influences.

Conclusion: The conclusion section requires significant expansion. I recommend adding more details about the ecological and environmental mechanisms influencing species composition changes, quantitative data regarding the effectiveness of various regeneration methods, and a discussion of the limitations and challenges associated with the regeneration methods.

In its current form, the conclusion does not provide a comprehensive closure of the discussed research, which could be extremely valuable to readers and practitioners interested in forest management topics.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for Your feedback and comments!

We have answered all Your questions, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objects and methods are selected sufficiently correctly and correspond to the aim set out in the paper.

The results are presented very clearly and it is possible to repeat this research. The amount of presented data is sufficient.

The authors logically interpreted the results of the carried out research. The conclusions arise from the obtained data and their interpretation.

Good luck in the future!

Author Response

Many thanks for Your positive feedback!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions implemented by the authors have enhanced the quality of the publication in my assessment. If feasible, I would recommend a more extensive analysis of the literature relevant to the aspect under study; however, this is not essential for the overall text to be recognized as a commendable research work. I wish you success in your ongoing academic endeavors (...)