Thinning Response and Potential Basal Area—A Case Study in a Mixed Sub-Humid Low-Elevation Oak-Hornbeam Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find my comments in the attached file

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Title: You have to indicate that this is a case study

RESPONSE: We edited the title to “Thinning response and potential basal area – a case study in a mixed sub-humid low-elevation oak-hornbeam forest”.

 

L68: How it relates to your studies?

RESPONSE: We removed the reference to South America and rearranged the sentence.

 

L72: What is new in this hypothesis what we do not know before?

RESPONSE: We shortened this section and shifted content from the introduction text to the objectives.

 

L81: From your results I got impression that the stand that you used was oak dominate stand with hornbeam in second layer. If so You have to state it clearly

RESPONSE: We added additional details on stand structure and age in L88.

 

L101: What was the age of the stand?

RESPONSE:Ssee above response.

 

L108: Above or below? What was removed from the forests regarding tree species?

RESPONSE: The thinning targetted all diameters, focussing on smaller trees, see L114. We added additional detail on species.

 

L126: It would be useful  to see the presented data regarding tree species. Now it is not clear the heights or diameters of tree species. Does one of them sits in second layer or not?

RESPONSE: We clarify the two-layered stand in L87 (see previous comment). We reference here now figures A3 and A6, where we provide the requested information on height and diameter by species.

 

L130: It is not clear  which tree species proportion are shown here?

RESPONSE: We clarified in L124 that the species proportion represent the entire stand (both layers). We also edited the caption of table 1 to make this more clear.

 

L199: It is not clear why the increment losses were so high in period 2009-2014. this is unexpected result for me. You have to clarify reasons for this.

RESPONSE: We edited the caption to clarify that the losses include the thinned volumes.

 

L204: What was the reason for so expressed change here?

RESPONSE: We edited these sentences. We provide now explanations for this pattern in the discussion sections 4.2 and 4.3.

 

L209: You have to clarify why it happened!!!

RESPONSE: Conclusive explaining the reasons for continuing mortality in thinned stands was beyond the scope of this study. We note now the important observation of continuing mortality in L328.

 

L218: It would interesting to see diameter increment of trees in both measurement periods. Also, You have to indicate diameter increment by tree species.

RESPONSE: We prefer to keep the 10-year diameter increment, as it is more robust than splitting into 5-year periods. We show now diameter increments by species and by stand in the new Fig. A7, referred to in L192 and L265.

 

L339: I think your concussion have to be more related with research tasks. Also what would be the main take home message?

RESPONSE: We focus the conclusions now on the results of this study. We finish the conclusion now with a sentence on carbon sink and management as a take-home message.

 

L383. Why not to show height curves regarding tree species in 2009 2014 and last measurement? The inventory year is not clear

RESPONSE: Fitting height curves was beyond the scope of this study. The data shown in Fig. A6 covers 2009 until 2019. We edited the caption.

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 11 Insert “a” between “as” and “case”

 

Lines 55-57          Esthetic consideration for thinning is relevant here and could be further developed.  The text earlier in the paragraph regarding optimal basal area really doesn’t relate to the study objectives.

 

Line 86  Has the study area been subject to the post-WWII cutting referenced here?

 

Line 107                insert “for” between ”used” and “harvesting”

 

Line 112                replace “until” with “up to”

 

Line 130 replace “cumulated” with “cumulative”

 

Line 173-75         The sentence is unclear and needs to be reworded.

 

Line 199                “Considerable” should be “Considerably”

 

Line 206                “Considerable” should be “Considerably”

 

Line 207                The reference to high forest conversion should be explained in the methods.  In the discussion, a coppice with standards approach is suggested which appears to contradict this statement.

 

Line 215                “lead” should be “led”

 

Line 236                Insert “different” or “increased” after “significantly”

 

Line 260                Insert “than” after :”larger”

 

Line 266               Replace “hollow” with “cavity”

 

Line 273               remove extra “to”

 

Line 279                “Almost” is misspelled

 

Line 279-281       Earlier it is suggested that this study is a high forest conversion

 

Lines 292-294     The statement regarding dead trees and standing dead wood are not clear.  The statement currently suggests that down dead trees were included but not standing dead.

 

Line 307                “is needed” or similar words should be inserted after “research”

 

Lines 326-328     A word other than “consequence” should be considered

 

Page 14, Figure A5           Are negative growth increment driven by bark?

 

Author Response

Line 11 Insert “a” between “as” and “case”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Lines 55-57 Esthetic consideration for thinning is relevant here and could be further developed.  The text earlier in the paragraph regarding optimal basal area really doesn’t relate to the study objectives.

RESPONSE: Thank you. We expanded this sentence regarding esthetic value with an additional reference. We edited and shortened this paragraph, to balance the content with the objectives.

 

Line 86  Has the study area been subject to the post-WWII cutting referenced here?

RESPONSE: Yes. We edited this sentence to clarify this.

 

Line 107 insert “for” between ”used” and “harvesting”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 112 replace “until” with “up to”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 130 replace “cumulated” with “cumulative”

RESPONSE: This caption was edited following a comment by reviewer 1 and the term “cumulated” no longer appears.

 

Line 173-75 The sentence is unclear and needs to be reworded.

RESPONSE: Thanks. We reworded this sentence.

 

Line 199 “Considerable” should be “Considerably”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 206 “Considerable” should be “Considerably”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 207 The reference to high forest conversion should be explained in the methods.  In the discussion, a coppice with standards approach is suggested which appears to contradict this statement.

RESPONSE: We removed this terminology here and elsewhere, as it is an Austria-specific term and can be a distraction in the international literature.

 

Line 215 “lead” should be “led”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 236 Insert “different” or “increased” after “significantly”

RESPONSE: Thank you. We edited this sentence.

 

Line 260 Insert “than” after :”larger”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 266 Replace “hollow” with “cavity”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 273 remove extra “to”

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 279  “Almost” is misspelled

RESPONSE: Corrected.

 

Line 279-281 Earlier it is suggested that this study is a high forest conversion

RESPONSE: See our response to an earlier comment.

 

Lines 292-294 The statement regarding dead trees and standing dead wood are not clear.  The statement currently suggests that down dead trees were included but not standing dead.

RESPONSE: Agreed. We reworded this sentence.

 

Line 307 “is needed” or similar words should be inserted after “research”

RESPONSE: Thanks, corrected.

 

Lines 326-328 A word other than “consequence” should be considered

RESPONSE: We removed “In consequence”.

 

Page 14, Figure A5 Are negative growth increment driven by bark?

RESPONSE: Yes, most likely. We added one sentence in L237.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking my comments into account.

Regards