Microhabitat Conditions Influencing Ground Vegetation Dominants in an Ecotone between a Spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.) Forest and Clear-Cut Site during Ten Post-Logging Years

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors represent new facts in forest ecology. The authors present very important and new facts of European level and the paper is acceptable for publication. The objects and methods are selected sufficiently correctly and correspond to the aim set out in the paper. The results are presented very clearly and it is possible to repeat this research. The amount of presented data is sufficient. The authors logically interpreted the results of the carried out research. The conclusions arise from the obtained data and their interpretation.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for the feedback on our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Please consider the following. Thank you for your research and this article.

Title

The aim of this research is plant succession in the ecotone, which is not mentioned in the title. In the title, mention the forest under study.

Abstract

The research method and conclusions should be added to the abstract. The research method and conclusions should be added to the abstract. The results related to plant height and Pielou index should be added to the abstract.

Introduction

It is better to divide the introduction into paragraphs and follow a specific topic in each paragraph. The importance and reason of conducting the present study should be more visible. The objectives of the research should be stated more clearly. The terms "study the succession of the ground vegetation" and "identify the principal factors influencing the abundance and development of its main dominants" are general and not exactly clear to me.

Materials and methods

In my opinion, divide this section into separate subsections, including the study area, data collection, and data analysis.

Please provide more complete explanations about the studied area so that a better description can be visualized in the reader of the article. For example: structural characteristics of the studied forests, silviculture and management of these forests, logging systems and machines.

Please indicate the distance of the transects from each other.

Please explain the data collection method more clearly. For example, what is the relationship between Figure 1 and ecotone complex? Does Figure 1 show the distance from the edge of the forest? What do you mean by bringing the image of a fallen tree as downed deadwood (Figure 1b)?

The classification method of the studied factors is unclear to me. Why is it divided into less than 30% and more than 30% in all cases?

Line 56: You mentioned earlier that the study period is 10 years, but here 3 years are mentioned. Please check the date.

Line 61-64: Please add scientific name of trees.

Line 95: Please specify for which data each test was used. Because these two tests, one is a parametric test and the other is a non-parametric test. Please write in capital letters (ANOVA).

Line 140: Please change the word "bilberry" from bold to normal.

Results

Table 1: It seems that you used one of the post hoc tests to separate means with significant differences, such as Duncan, etc. Please indicate the type of test and significance level. Also add this item in the section on how to analyze the collected data.

Table 2: It's too long. It seems better to divide it into shorter tables or to present parts of it with diagrams. Does this table show the results of the ANOVA test or the chi-square test? Why did you use the chi square symbol instead of "F" in this table?

Table 3: Please indicate the post hoc test type and significance level. Please correct “standard error”.

Conclusion

Please add the main conclusion of the obtained results.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for his (or her) attentive attitude to the article and valuable comments that allowed us to improve the material and make its presentation more accessible to the reader. We hope that we have correctly understood the reviewer's comments and made appropriate changes to the text. The answers to specific comments are below.

Title

The aim of this research is plant succession in the ecotone, which is not mentioned in the title. In the title, mention the forest under study.

Thanks for the remark. You are right about the plant succession. We didn't want to make the title voluminous, so we specified only microhabitat conditions. Indirectly, the succession is indicated by the mention of the study period (“ten post-logging years”). In the abstract, we write that the time factor has also been investigated. In the title, we have added the forest type.

Abstract

The research method and conclusions should be added to the abstract. 

The results related to plant height and Pielou index should be added to the abstract.

According to the 200-word limit, we tried to fit into the annotation what we considered necessary. We have added a brief description of the research method and the results on the height of the subshrubs.

Introduction

It is better to divide the introduction into paragraphs and follow a specific topic in each paragraph. The importance and reason of conducting the present study should be more visible. The objectives of the research should be stated more clearly. The terms "study the succession of the ground vegetation" and "identify the principal factors influencing the abundance and development of its main dominants" are general and not exactly clear to me. Corrected.

Materials and methods

In my opinion, divide this section into separate subsections, including the study area, data collection, and data analysis. Done.

Please provide more complete explanations about the studied area so that a better description can be visualized in the reader of the article. For example: structural characteristics of the studied forests, silviculture and management of these forests, logging systems and machines. We have added a reference to our previous article on the same objects of research, where there is a description of the sampling sites in the form of a table and a layout.

Please indicate the distance of the transects from each other. Done.

Please explain the data collection method more clearly. For example, what is the relationship between Figure 1 and ecotone complex? Does Figure 1 show the distance from the edge of the forest? What do you mean by bringing the image of a fallen tree as downed deadwood (Figure 1b)?

We referred to the Figure 1 incorrectly. That's probably why there was some confusion. We have corrected the link to the Figure and added a sentence to the data analysis text. The Figure 1a shows one particular sample plot (adjacent site of a bilberry spruce forest and a clear-cut). This figure and the others show what the sample plots look like (with fallen trees, ground vegetation and wood regeneration). A picture's worth a thousand words.

The classification method of the studied factors is unclear to me. Why is it divided into less than 30% and more than 30% in all cases?

In all cases, we conventionally divided all subplots into 3 groups according to the impact of the factor: no impact, less than 30% participation, more than 30%. 30% was chosen subjectively based on our work experience. 

Line 56: You mentioned earlier that the study period is 10 years, but here 3 years are mentioned. Please check the date.

Everything is correct. Over these years (2014-2017), we have surveyed clear-cuts of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 years old. On some sample plots we carried out repeated observations (2, 3, 4, 5 years), on others (5 and 10 years after logging) we worked once. It is written below in the data collection section.

Line 61-64: Please add scientific name of trees. Added.

Line 95: Please specify for which data each test was used. Because these two tests, one is a parametric test and the other is a non-parametric test. Please write in capital letters (ANOVA). Done.

Line 140: Please change the word "bilberry" from bold to normal. Done.

Results

 Table 1: It seems that you used one of the post hoc tests to separate means with significant differences, such as Duncan, etc. Please indicate the type of test and significance level. Also add this item in the section on how to analyze the collected data. Added in the table 1 note and in the data analysis text.

 Table 2: It's too long. It seems better to divide it into shorter tables or to present parts of it with diagrams. This table also seems large to us, but this is the main result of our research. 

Does this table show the results of the ANOVA test or the chi-square test? It is Kruskal-Wallis test.

Why did you use the chi square symbol instead of "F" in this table? Since this is a Kruskal-Wallisl test (we performed it in R), we use the χ2-value.

 Table 3: Please indicate the post hoc test type and significance level. Please correct “standard error”. Done.

Conclusion

Please add the main conclusion of the obtained results. We have slightly corrected the conclusion text.