Excluding Large Wild Herbivores Reduced Norway Spruce Dominance and Supported Tree Species Richness in a Young, Naturally Regenerated Stand
Ivaylo Velichkov
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the research was done correctly and the manuscript is well written, I couldn't find the novelty in the research.
The paper showed how the tree community changed after 10 years in the fenced area compared to the unfenced plots. Fencing is probably the best-known measure of reducing forest damages due to the forage of large herbivore species, which prefer young shoots of deciduous trees compare to conifers. This leads to the conclusion that conifer species would be higher and more frequent in areas of large herbivores foraging.
I think the most interesting part of the paper is the topic of tree biomass. I suggest the authors rewrite the paper and focus on that topic, using other measurements in this context.
As I wrote, the paper is really well-written but I couldn't find dates and duration when the research was done in the field.
I'm very sorry, but I can't recommend the publishing of the paper in Forests.
Author Response
We are very grateful for the comments from the reviewers, it helps to improve the manuscript! However, we can't agree with the comment from the Reviewer No. 1 about novelty of the paper! Thus, we explain our reasons for this reaction lower.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Although the research was done correctly and the manuscript is well written, I couldn't find the novelty in the research.
We are very sure that our paper is novel. We can state that since it is not any other work which shows anything like our manuscript, specifically:
- a) exact quantification on total tree biomass stock including tree species contribution for parallel unfenced and fenced plots,
- b) using Clark-Evans and Gini index expressing vertical structure and spatial distribution of trees for parallel unfenced and fenced plots,
- c) performing such experiment in the conditions of undesired spruce dominance and strategy of foresters to build mixed forests. Our experiment is really important for this kind of natural and forest management conditions (not only for the Slovak forests)!
The paper showed how the tree community changed after 10 years in the fenced area compared to the unfenced plots. Fencing is probably the best-known measure of reducing forest damages due to the forage of large herbivore species, which prefer young shoots of deciduous trees compare to conifers. This leads to the conclusion that conifer species would be higher and more frequent in areas of large herbivores foraging.
I think the most interesting part of the paper is the topic of tree biomass. I suggest the authors rewrite the paper and focus on that topic, using other measurements in this context.
As I wrote, the paper is really well-written but I couldn't find dates and duration when the research was done in the field.
- Not true! We clearly explained that measurements were performed in the growing season of 2020 (please see the first sentence of the subsection 2.2).
I'm very sorry, but I can't recommend the publishing of the paper in Forests.
Sorry, we do not agree with this suggestion of the reviewer – we explained about novelty of the paper (see upper).
Reviewer 2 Report
Page 3, row 11 ...
forest beech ... - could be replaced by "European beech" as used elsewhere in the paper
Page 3, row 14 ...
since about 200 ... - please, specify which year exactly
Page 3, row 18 -
calculation is not precise - 2850 is not equal to 2000 + 859
Author Response
We are very grateful for the comments from the reviewers, it helps to improve the manuscript! However, we can't agree with the comment from the Reviewer No. 1 about novelty of the paper! Thus, we explain our reasons for this reaction lower.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Page 3, row 11 ...
forest beech ... - could be replaced by "European beech" as used elsewhere in the paper
- corrected.
Page 3, row 14 ...
since about 200 ... - please, specify which year exactly
- specified.
Page 3, row 18 -
calculation is not precise - 2850 is not equal to 2000 + 859
- corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors report a study based on two separated plots in Kysuce, one with fencing around to protect against large herbivores and another without. The main outcome is that herbivores retards growth of broad-leaved trees, which is somehow expected, however in addition authors calculated aboveground biomass, which is unequal (even not statistically significant). The results are very important for posing strategies for converting freshly cut forests previously dominated by N. spruce into broad-leaves forest of rich tree species. The paper is written in excellent English and is easy to follow by reader. Here are only minor remarks that need to be addressed before publishing in Forests.
There are no lines numbered, so that I take always a part of the text which should clarified:
"attributed to historical air pollution" - which air pollution? Acid rain, sulphur deposition, tropospheric ozone? Please specify and specify when it happened. I suggest to include 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.491 dealing with O3 air pollution in the same Kysuce region.
"The climate is cold and humid, with an average temperature of up to 16° C in July and down to -5° C in January, with a yearly average of 6° C." - then you do not report average temperature when the maximum is 16 and min -5.
"annual precipitation reaches 1000 to 1200 mm" - where are the data from? Better would be to report average from some years and SD. Please include a citation where the information comes from.
"RDE have been declining since about 200" - 200 of what? Years? Possibly you mean since year 2000.
Figure 2: please distinguish between a)-d) as different parts of the figure and a-d as stem base diameter and fenced and unfenced plots. Better would be to use different symbols so that it will not confuse a reader
"tree biomass sequestrates carbon" - please rephrase, it is not accurate. Better would be to write: trees sequestrate carbon. Not all the parts of the tree biomass are directly involved in carbon uptake.
"By reducing palatable tree species, herbivores created space for the growth of Norway spruce, which was very productive at the site" - isn’t the production only temporary? Is there any assumptions that could be made that maybe in future this larger biomass dominated by N. spruce will suffer by bark beetle outbreaks? The forest stand was harvested due to bark beetle calamity. It would be good to include something like this into the discussion.
Author Response
Authors report a study based on two separated plots in Kysuce, one with fencing around to protect against large herbivores and another without. The main outcome is that herbivores retards growth of broad-leaved trees, which is somehow expected, however in addition authors calculated aboveground biomass, which is unequal (even not statistically significant). The results are very important for posing strategies for converting freshly cut forests previously dominated by N. spruce into broad-leaves forest of rich tree species. The paper is written in excellent English and is easy to follow by reader. Here are only minor remarks that need to be addressed before publishing in Forests.
There are no lines numbered, so that I take always a part of the text which should clarified:
"attributed to historical air pollution" - which air pollution? Acid rain, sulphur deposition, tropospheric ozone? Please specify and specify when it happened. I suggest to include 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.491 dealing with O3 air pollution in the same Kysuce region.
-we explained more about the pollution.
"The climate is cold and humid, with an average temperature of up to 16° C in July and down to -5° C in January, with a yearly average of 6° C." - then you do not report average temperature when the maximum is 16 and min -5.
"annual precipitation reaches 1000 to 1200 mm" - where are the data from? Better would be to report average from some years and SD. Please include a citation where the information comes from.
-we have added citation, which shows the meteorological data.
"RDE have been declining since about 200" - 200 of what? Years? Possibly you mean since year 2000.
-corrected.
Figure 2: please distinguish between a)-d) as different parts of the figure and a-d as stem base diameter and fenced and unfenced plots. Better would be to use different symbols so that it will not confuse a reader
-we think that the diagrams (with distinguishing letters a), b), c), d) plus different markers for unfenced and fenced plots) are clear to readers in present form.
On the other hand, we will include the figures in higher quality in the author's proofs.
"tree biomass sequestrates carbon" - please rephrase, it is not accurate. Better would be to write: trees sequestrate carbon. Not all the parts of the tree biomass are directly involved in carbon uptake.
-corrected.
"By reducing palatable tree species, herbivores created space for the growth of Norway spruce, which was very productive at the site" - isn’t the production only temporary? Is there any assumptions that could be made that maybe in future this larger biomass dominated by N. spruce will suffer by bark beetle outbreaks? The forest stand was harvested due to bark beetle calamity. It would be good to include something like this into the discussion.
We have added extra sequence in the Conclusion section (the second paragraph): “…(the species in mature status would be again very prone to damage by harmful agents, especially wind and bark beetles).”
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author's reply on review is satisfactory and shows that authors are experts in their field. My previous doubts are dispelled. The authors are right that the time of field studies was written in the previous version of the manuscript. I hadn't further comments, therefore I support publishing the manuscript in its present form.
