Aboveground Biomass of Living Trees Depends on Topographic Conditions and Tree Diversity in Temperate Montane Forests from the Slătioara-Rarău Area (Romania)
, Ionuț Barnoaiea 1,3,*, Daniel Avăcăriței 1,4, Cătălina-Oana Barbu 1,2, Vasile-Cosmin Coșofreț 1,2,3, Iulian-Constantin Dănilă 1,2,4, Mihai-Leonard Duduman 1,2, Anca Măciucă 1,2 and Marian Drăgoi 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a quite interesting analysis of aboveground biomass of trees in relation with topographic conditions and tree diversity in temperate forests of Romania.
The results aim to bring a better understanding of how the woody biomass is influenced by tree diversity and environmental factors like solar radiation, elevation, slope and aspect, mainly in order to improve the management of second-growth forests and the need to protect fragile complex natural fragile habitats.
The originality of the subject and the method followed is not so high but there is a large amount of data collection that can be considered as interesting and valuable by itself, such this kind of research is not so frequent.
The manuscript is written clearly and concisely.
The subject is logically presented and developed. The flow of the paper is logical and clear, it includes sufficient details on the background importance.
The objectives are clear and meaningful.
The approach is experimental and the proposed method is validated on study sites and can be generalized.
Conclusions are logical, mindful and sufficient at that stage of the demonstration.
Tables and figures are sufficient and necessary. The review of the literature is adequate.
The length of the presentation is appropriate in order to provide enough elements in the description of the methods.
The paper is original and well written.
The strong point is the analysis of a large amount of data collection in situ and the correlation made between aboveground biomass and tree diversity and environmental factors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abstract: I suggest authors figure out the highlights of this study. The importance of the scientific question that this study want to solve should be concise as the first sentence; The research gap which you want to solve in this study should be reported in the second sentence; The explanation of the results should be added; And the last sentence should be the explicit contribution of this study, which is also the solution degree of the research gap that you reported in the second sentence.
- Keywords: I suggest authors figure out the highlights of this study, and then re-write this part. The existing Keywords are lack of information. If the contribution and innovation of this study are the complex ecological relations within the temperate intact forests, these relationships should show in Keywords.
- Introduction: Page 1 Line 39, conventionally, a paragraph should contain at least two sentences, this problem also showed in Page 2 Line 57, please revise thorough the manuscript; The related literature review is insufficient, and advantage on methods this study used showed be briefly mentioned.
- Materials and Methods: The introduction of the study area is insufficient, and biodiversity and topography should be reported detailed in 2.1; The DEM can be drawn in Figure 1 as Figure 1(b); The methods should divide into several parts, do not list in 2.2 DATA PROCESSING.
- Discussion: The reason of these relations should be discussed deeply, and the contribution of those findings to other researches about temperate intact forests should be discussed. Th uncertainty of this study should be discussed.
- Conclusions: I suggest authors figure out the highlights of this study, and then re-write this part. Do not repeat the content that reported in above parts. Pleas highlight the contribution of this study, and cautions about the application this methodology or findings in other temperate intact forests.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper represents a valuable contribution to our understanding of processes governing factors affecting tree diversity in montance forests. However, there are problems with the analysis and style of writing, outlined below.
The use of short, even one-sentence, paragraphs makes the Introduction fragmented. Use each paragraph to discuss one idea, with a logical flow from one paragraph to another.
There is almost no information given on the history of logging in the plots. Please provide information on forest management in the sites in the site description. How many were logged and when? Why was this factor not included in the analysis? This certainly will affect the diversity.
How does a 500m2 plot fit in a 100m2 grid?
How did slope affect horizontal plot size and did this affect the results. Also, trees with the same size will be indifferent canopy layers on a steep slope.
line 189 – “summing the of” ?
A PCA assumes linear relationships, and the analysis in e.g. Fig. 5 shows that they are not linear. Therefore, a PCA should not be used.
As the authors chose analyse results in categories, the correlation analysis in not valid. It is appropriate to test for relationships between the classes, and show significant difference using letters on the plots. In addition, if Pearson's correlation was used, then even more inappropriate as linear trends are not seen. Also and very important, do not mention non-significant differences – focus on significant differences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All the comments have been addressed.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made modifications as requested.
