Structural Features of a Post-Clear-Cutting Ecotone between 90-Year-Old Bilberry Spruce Forest and 35-Year-Old Herbs-Forbs Deciduous Stand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

You did a good job with the revisions.

Author Response

The manuscript of the last version is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors,

the manuscript has been resubmitted and I have noticed that it has been significantly improved.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the ecotone complex.

Introduction: the introduction has been revised and improved. English references have been added, terminology has been revised and research objectives have been clarified. My suggestion to the authors is to check the reference numbers, as I noticed perhaps an inaccuracy in Figure 4.

Materials and methods: I appreciated the description of the study area. The experimental design has been improved. The statistical analysis needs to be better explained: were the data checked for normality?

Results: Nothing to add, only formal corrections, indicated in the text and in the list of specific remarks. Please check the number of references in the text of the manuscript as I noticed perhaps an inaccuracy in figure 4: reference 21 should be 26.

Discussion: Reference to tables and figures should be avoided.

Conclusion: Nothing to add.

List of references: English references have been added.

Specific remarks are given in the manuscript and in the following list.

LIST OF SPECIFIC REMARKS

Line 146 Check instructions to authors

Line 161 Table 1 Density: ind. = trees?

Figure 4: Reference 21 has been changed? Probably the correct number is 26.

It is now:

Schmidt M.; Jochheim H.; Kersebaum K.; Lischeid G.; Nendel C. Gradients of microclimate, carbon and nitrogen in transition zones 504 of fragmented landscapes - a review. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017. 232, 659-671. 505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.10.022

In the previous version it was:

Genikova N.V.; Kharitonov V.A.; Pekkoev A.N.; Karpechko A.Yu.; Kikeeva A.V.; Kryshen A.M.; Obabko R.P. Structure of bil-450 berry spruce-grass-forbs aspen forest ecotone in the Republic of Karelia. Rastit. Resur. 2020, 56 151-164. (In Russian) DOI: 10.31857/S0033994620020053.

Line 182 Figure 4: Why 'after'?

Line 222: Did you check for normality ? Please clarify.

Table 2, table 3, figure 5, table 4, figure 7, table 5: The meaning of " CF CFE DFE " should be indicated in a note or caption, in each table and figure.

Lines 232, 241, 249, 259, 263, 271: in each caption, “EC” should be made explicit.

In Table 5 "EC": the meaning should be indicated in a note or in the caption.

Line 320: In the note, add the applied statistical test.

Lines 354, 357, 360, 397, 398 406: Avoid referring to tables and figures.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much! We have changed the text according to your comments. The manuscript of the last version is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Thank you for the reply and for your patience.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General remarks

The aim of this study was to investigate the ecotone complex. The clear cut on a spruce forest led to the natural regeneration of birches and aspen trees after 35 years. The newly formed ecotone was studied by determining four zones, each characterized by vegetation such as dwarf shrubs and by the structure of the epiphytic vegetation. The distribution of fine roots was also investigated. Authors’s focus is the structure of the herb-dwarf-shrub, moss-lichen, and epiphytic vegetation, not the response of the tree layer to clear-cutting and the subsequent natural regeneration, as they declared. A limit of this manuscript is that the authors do not link their study to the motif that created the ecotone, namely the cutting of the forest which is also done to allow stand regeneration after the harvest of the wood. I understand that the article is not aimed at studying stand regeneration, but the study of the presence of shrubs, grasses, mosses and epiphytes in an ecotone should give us crucial information on forest condition and regeneration. Another unclear element concerns the epiphytes in the part that has been regenerated: in the deciduous stand, the epiphytes  have been described as almost insignificant. A less hasty analysis would have been appropriate.

The Introduction needs some interventions. Authors introduced the problem with many references in Russian, making it difficult to evaluate for a wide range of readers. I am sure that authors can find some reference in English that can clarify the topic to a larger audience. The terminology is not always correct. The term “reforestation” connotates other than natural regeneration. The aim of the research is pointed out. It is a narrow topic, the structure of the herb-dwarf-shrub, moss-lichen, and epiphytic vegetation in the ecotone complex between the mature coniferous forest and the deciduous stand regenerated after a clear cut 35 year before.

Materials And Methods The first observation is about paragraph: Study area and Objects should be unified. Moreover, authors add a citation in Russian, about Republic of Karelia. I suppose that there is something more between the Republic of Karelia and the forest analysed. Which is the forest context? The area where the study was conducted should be briefly described (climate, soil, ….), forest management (it seems changed in the last decades). In the methodological section the experimental design should be better explained. It is difficult to understand how many plots were used to obtain table 1. The table 1 seems a result, so should be moved in the appropriate section. An explanation of the choice of two different sampling systems, for the coniferous old stand and the younger deciduous stand, has not been given, but it should be made explicit. In the paragraph named 2.3. Methods, the length of the ecotones is not given, and it is not reported how many transects have been made, in each area (1 and 2). As the transects were split into subplots to estimate the covers of the species of moss-lichen and herbaceous-dwarf-shrub, the method to select the subplot should be indicated or explained that all the transect was sampled.

Citations or more extensive  explanations should be provided on applied indexes, only proposed in the text.

Fine roots were sampled, but it is not clear the context: any information on the part sampled (deepness?) is missing; the soil was not studied (composition, organic matter, bulk density, and so on). The impact after forest logging was not estimated. There is any consideration on it.

A sub paragraph should be devoted to statistical analysis specifying the test and data set used and conditions, or wherever a statistical test is mentioned, the authors must report every possible indication to allow the reliability of the result to be assessed.

 The methods are not sufficiently documented to allow replication studies.

Results, Discussion and conclusion confirm that the research design is not clear. As a general comment, figures and tables should be self-standing, giving all information to understand the data illustrated.  In figures, statistical test applied must be indicated

 

Reference list covers the important literature for the sector, but the article in Russian should be coupled with some reference in English.

SPECIFIC REMARKS are given on the manuscript.

List of the remarks

29-34 These sentences are not clear. Please check the terminology.

36 Please check the teminology.

63 and 65 Please, see the instruction for authors. Please give a complete citation or delete "et cetera".

97-99 Paragrapfs 2.1 and 2.2 Please, consider merging.

116 -119 How long is the edge? How long is each zone from the edge? How did you establish the boundary of each zone?

123-125 What was the shape of the plots? How many have you done?

123- 128 You must justify the difference of sampling methodology

127-129 and table 1 This seems a result. Move in appropriate section or explain

130 Methods A sub paragraph should be devoted to statistical analysis specifying the test and data set used and conditions. The sub paragraph is not mandatory. But wherever a statistical test is mentioned, the authors must report every possible indication in the methodology to allow the reliability of the result to be assessed.

132 How long was the ecotone considered? How many transect were performed in each ecotone?

133 How many? Which was the selection criterium?

137 Add citation in the text

146 Is a figure from your publication or from [21]?

147-151 Citations or more extensive  explanations should be provided on applied indexes

167-168 How did you selected this distance? It did not represent the division of the transects above mentioned about figure 3)

173-178 Authors should explain why and how you sampled the fine roots. Soil characteristics should be given.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I applaud the efforts of the authors with this manuscript.  I find it to be quite informative.  Most of my comments concern understanding what the authors were trying to say.  My comments are based on the line number in the manuscript.

Line 22 - I did not understand what was meant by the "zone formation after tree stand removal."  This needs clarification.

Lines 31- 35 - This is a very long sentence that is difficult to follow.

Lines 37 - 39 - This is a sentence that is hard to understand.

Line 53 - What do you mean by 1.5 heights of trees?

Lines 56 - 57 - What would be the special reference, and why is it important?

Line 63 and several other places in the manuscript - What is the significance of using "etc.: at the end of citations?  If you have additional citations, shouldn't they be listed?

Line 68 - It would be beneficial to explain what you mean by your ecotone complex.

Lines 68 - 71 - These sentences seem out of place.  The mention of other work should be at the end of the manuscript.

Line 85 - What is mire?

Lines 91 - 92 - It would be beneficial to explain the importance of bilberry, especially since it is in the title.

Line 98 - More information should be provided about the study area.  Climate? Soils?

Line 108 - You should provide the scientific names of the species you discuss when they are first presented.

The table and figure headings need more information.  It would be helpful if they were stand-alone, such that if you just saw the table or figure you knew where this happened.

Line 135 - How were the layers estimated?

Line 168 - What is 5 meter step?

Lines 348 - 350 - Is this from your study? As the sentence reads, the citations at the end make this seem like you are talking about other work and not your own.  

Lines 363 - 267 - Any thoughts on why that happened?

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Vegetation changes were presented between spruce forest and adjacent zones after clear-cutting. The value of this work is that the study analysis the edge factor 35 years after clear-cutting. The results could be interesting for ecologists and forest management, but as the discussion is without any interest, the important point of the authors is missing. The discussion has to be rewritten. 

I did not get the point why the fine roots analysis is presented in this paper. No link between the vegetation study and the fine root measurements are presented and I do not get the point, how your roots analysis helps to support your discussion.

Many comments are written directly into the manuscript.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf