Canopy Gaps Improve Landscape Aesthetic Service by Promoting Autumn Color-Leaved Tree Species Diversity and Color-Leaved Patch Properties in Subalpine Forests of Southwestern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I thought this paper had a strong experimental design with results and methods that are well presented. I did think that the significance of the results was overstated. While a clear link was established between canopy gaps, autumn colors, and the aesthetic preference of people for those colors that does not necessarily indicate that the landscape should be managed for gaps that maximize autumn colors. Other ecosystem services that may decrease with more canopy gaps (carbon sequestration in particular) should be considered as well. Only one time of year was analyzed, it is possible that gaps would not be preferred when the leaf color is not present. You state in the introduction that the landscape aesthetic ecosystem service is based on biodiversity, but this is not universally supported in the literature you cite or even in your results. Tree diversity was analyzed for the gaps but I don't believe was analyzed for the surrounding forest, and trees are of course only one component of the ecosystem.

A key component of ecosystem services is how they benefit people. As such, more information should be included on how the forest is enjoyed by people and the economic impact of tourism in the area. 

Overall I thought the experiment and analysis was strong, but would like the authors to take more care in how they present the implications of their findings and provide additional context for them. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Canopy gaps improve landscape aesthetic service by promoting autumn colour-leaved tree species diversity and colour-leaved patch properties in subalpine forests of southwestern China” contains a lot of interesting methodological elements. The manuscript requires corrections and reference to the comments. The manuscript's strengths are methodology. That is why I recommend its publication after the supplements recommended in the review.

 

Comments for authors

 

Language

The text requires minor corrections. Sentences tend to be too long – minor problems with punctation.

 

Subject

It is compatible with the content. However, recommendations for the research area are recommended – see notes in the Conclusions section.

 

Keywords

The keywords have been chosen correctly.

 

Abstract

The Abstract partly reflects the content of the manuscript. It does not contain the purpose of the work, only the background. The aim of the study was determined indirectly. The abstract is too long.

 

1. Introduction

It would be good to refer to the direct evaluation methods. A field interview is always the best method of assessing a space. This applies to small areas, but it is an undeniable fact. Apart from visual impressions, there are additional stimuli influencing the evaluation results - smell, sound, touch (multisensory evaluation). The authors did not describe this issue. If there is noise in an attractive (scenic) landscape, the overall aesthetic impression is lower.

The purpose of the work was correctly defined. The study objective should be similarly defined in the abstract.

 

2. Materials and Methods

I have no major objections. I have no objections. Correct justification of selected methods and clear description of the research structure. Below are some doubts:

Lines 213-215 – Why are only 179 questionnaires suitable for analysis? How they eliminated the remaining survey participants?

How were the five gap groups identified? There is no justification. Have they been adopted arbitrarily?

Figure 1 – Picture 1 - Map legend missing. Not all items are explained.

 

3. Results

A very well-organized section. It only contains results and general dependencies. It does not contain discussion elements.

 

4. Discussion

A very well-organized section too. Numerous references to literature are the basis for in-depth and correct conclusions. Correct discussion supported by examples of previous studies.

 

5. Conclusions

Conclusions should summarize the results and discussion, but not repeat them. It should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods or new policies) can the paper contribute to international literature?

 

Literature

A rich set of literature.

 

Others

The case study requires detailed conclusions and recommendations for the research area.

 

Overall conclusion

The manuscript is a valuable methodological study. The results are very interesting and valuable. Despite comments and recommendations, I believe that it deserves to be published in a revised version. I hope that the comments contained in the review will contribute to raising the scientific level of the manuscript.

 

Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires minor changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf