Growth Response of Norway Spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) in Central Bohemia (Czech Republic) to Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I think this is an interesting research employing the dendrochronological sample analysis in combination with the climatic conditions to investigate the effects of temperature and precipitation on northern spruce growth. 

The statistical analysis employed looks consistent as well.

The research similarly to the previous research identified the main cause of the growth reduction in decrease of precipitation. However this effect among different cites also coincides with the observed different soil fertility with maximal growth observed on the rich and least growth observed on the poor soils. Would it be possible to clarify this possible issue and distinguish between the precipitation and soil fertility as well?  

Sincerely yours

Author Response

We didn't focus our research on soil analysis so we can't tell it exactly, however we can tell that all research plots have cambisol soils, and in general precipitation is a factor connected to soil fertility; infact the most fertile plots have also higher precipitation 

Reviewer 2 Report

The Norway spruce is a significant conifers tree species in Europe that holds significant economic and ecological value. However, it remains one of the most sensitive to climate change. The authors study the climate-growth relationship, focusing on dendroecology in hilly forests of spruce located in Boemia’s region of Czech Republic during 1950–2018. They found that the highest radial increment was obtained at the localities with the higher precipitation and precipitation as the main factor that affects the growth of spruce at lower altitudes. In short, this is a good article, but it needs to be revised.

Comments:

1. Many paragraphs in the article only have 2-3 sentences, so merge the shorter paragraphs.

2. Precipitation and temperature in Figures 3b and 3c are not clear.

3. What type of tree-ring chronology is the RWI in Figure 4? STD, RES or ARS?

4. Merge the figures 8-10 into one figure.

5. “The time window of the climate-growth correlation function was set from the precedent years (April) to the present years (October) for Cukrak and Karlstejn, and from May of the precedent year to October of the present year for Kostelec.” Why are the seasons different?

6. “In northern Polish sites, [12] found that the Norway spruce’s increment is positively correlated with precipitation from May to July, while [5] reported that diametric increments show only positive statistically significant values …”. This statement is inappropriate and needs to be rewritten. There are many similar statements in the text that need to be modified.

“In northern Polish sites, [12] found that the Norway spruce’s increment is positively correlated with precipitation from May to July, while [5] reported that diametric increments show only positive statistically significant values …”. This statement is inappropriate and needs to be rewritten. There are many similar statements in the text that need to be modified.

Author Response

1) Answer: we improved the text;

2) Answer: we enlarged the figure;

3) Answer: the data we showed in Figure 4 are chronologies indexed a double detrending (negative exp+spline 20 years) through the 'dplr' package in the r-Studio statistical environment;

4) Answer: we merged all figures into one figure;

5) Answer: we inserted the red part in the text;

6) Answer: we changed the text.