The Influence of Logging Equipment on the Content, Stock and Stratification Coefficient of Elements of the Mineral Nutrition of Plants in the Soils of the Taiga Zone of Karelia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract is too long. Please rewrite the abstract acoording to instructions for authors (approximately 200 words maximum).
Line 54 – 55 explain in more detail the truth of the given statement: „Selective logging is the standard method 54 of logging in southern tropical forests and European northern forests“.
Line 112 – 113 check the information given in the sentence. Is it true?
Line 121 – 124 duplicate information.
Line 126 mistake in forrmating.
Fig. 1. low quality, resolution of images (min. 300 dpi - check instruction for authors). From the figure is it not clear where the study areas are localized.
Line 132 – 136 describe in more detail parameters of the technologies which were used in harvesting and logging (wheeled or passage?, weight, etc.) Which type of logging method was used?
the size of harvested area is not stated.
Fig. 2 correct mistakes in the image.
Line 147 conventional logging did you mean „clear cut“? Add information about harvested volume of timber on harvested area or areas.
Line 150 „supervised logging with climber cutting“ please explain the given definition in more detail. It is not clear to me what kind of technology it is.
Line 152, 153, 155 check formatting.
Line 178 frame size was 20 × 20 cm or 20 cm2 ?
Chapters 2.5 and 2.6 are too short, this information could be assigned to other chapters.
2.7 Statistical analyses - before using ANOVA and t-test, was the normality of the data tested?, It would also be necessary to describe in more detail among which variables which statistical analyzes were used.
Line 242 – 243 authors stated that „Statistical analysis (ANOVA) showed statistically significant differences in the volume weight of soils of different sites“ however the results in table 2 do not correspond to this (p>0.05).
What does the sign ± shown in table 2 and 3 mean? Is it Standard deviation?
Please check the results of p-values (ANOVA) (Table 3) when claiming the significance of differences between variables (line 262 – 264; line 275 – 277; line 286 – 287).
Fig. 3 add the graphs into one image with the appropriate labels: a), b), c).
Fig. 3 c contains formatting errors.
Chapter 2.6 mentions the t-test in which analyzes it was used?
The numbers shown in the graphs as well as in the text should be rounded to a certain number of decimal places, most often to one or two.
Chapter discussion could be shorter with a closer confrontation of the achieved results with other authors.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Reviewer!
Thank you so much for the comments you made when reading the article. We have redone everything, made adjustments, corrected in the text. We really hope that everything was properly designed taking into account your comments!
Our answers are as follows:
Abstract is too long. Please rewrite the abstract according to instructions for authors (approximately 200 words maximum).
- made changes
Line 54 – 55 explain in more detail the truth of the given statement: „Selective logging is the standard method 54 of logging in southern tropical forests and European northern forests“.
- made changes
Line 112 – 113 check the information given in the sentence. Is it true?
- made changes
Line 121 – 124 duplicate information.
- made changes
Line 126 mistake in forrmating.
- made changes
Fig. 1. low quality, resolution of images (min. 300 dpi - check instruction for authors). From the figure is it not clear where the study areas are localized.
- made changes
Line 132 – 136 describe in more detail parameters of the technologies which were used in harvesting and logging (wheeled or passage?, weight, etc.) Which type of logging method was used?
- made changes
the size of harvested area is not stated.
- made changes
Fig. 2 correct mistakes in the image.
Line 147 conventional logging did you mean „clear cut“? Add information about harvested volume of timber on harvested area or areas.
- made changes
Line 150 „supervised logging with climber cutting“ please explain the given definition in more detail. It is not clear to me what kind of technology it is.
Line 152, 153, 155 check formatting.
- made changes
Line 178 frame size was 20 × 20 cm or 20 cm2 ?
- made changes
Chapters 2.5 and 2.6 are too short, this information could be assigned to other chapters.
- An interesting suggestion. Fixed
2.7 Statistical analyses - before using ANOVA and t-test, was the normality of the data tested? It would also be necessary to describe in more detail among which variables which statistical analyzes were used.
- made changes
Line 242 – 243 authors stated that „Statistical analysis (ANOVA) showed statistically significant differences in the volume weight of soils of different sites“ however the results in table 2 do not correspond to this (p>0.05).
What does the sign ± shown in table 2 and 3 mean? Is it Standard deviation?
- made changes
Please check the results of p-values (ANOVA) (Table 3) when claiming the significance of differences between variables (line 262 – 264; line 275 – 277; line 286 – 287).
- made changes
Fig. 3 add the graphs into one image with the appropriate labels: a), b), c).
Fig. 3 c contains formatting errors.
The numbers shown in the graphs as well as in the text should be rounded to a certain number of decimal places, most often to one or two.
- If this is a recommendation, is it possible not to do it?
Chapter discussion could be shorter with a closer confrontation of the achieved results with other authors.
- Thanks for the recommendations! It was possible to remove the diagram drawing! However, we read it again and realized that every specialist in his field can find answers to his questions, so we could not shorten it. At the same time, it seems to us that the drawing complements very well the main ideas that are in the work.
In the end, I would like to thank you once again for the time spent on our work, checking the article. We hope that in the new version it will be more interesting, it will "find" a place on the table of scientists. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal: Forests
Manuscript ID: forests-2373888
Type: Article
Title: The influence of logging equipment on the content, stock and stratification coefficient of elements of mineral nutrition of plants in the soils of the taiga zone of Karelia
My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1. It is suggested to supplement the scientific questions in this paper, and present the contents around the scientific questions.
2. What are the goals you want to achieve through this study? I propose to add and discuss.
3. Why didn't element P be involved in this study?
4. Among the elements studied, is element C a mineral nutrient element?
5. It is suggested to reorganize the writing structure of discussion, and make it as clear and definite as possible.
6. It is suggested to revise the conclusion, which should be concise in content and directly answer the key results and conclusions of this study.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Editor! Thank you so much for reading our work, for analyzing the data and for the valuable comments you made. Everything was correctly noted, we agree with you completely. In the process of work, we have changed a lot in the article, according to your suggestions. We hope that in the new version the article will meet your requirements. We answer your questions.
- It is suggested to supplement the scientific questions in this paper, and present the contents around the scientific questions.
We changed the "Abstract", tasks and made the research objectives clearer. Made an adjustment to the "Objects and methods". The drawings were made clearer. The discussion was made in more detail, the proposals were expanded.
- What are the goals you want to achieve through this study? I propose to add and discuss.
This work is aimed at solving a specific goal: to evaluate the properties of soils exposed to logging equipment in the conditions of Eastern Fennoscandia. The specific goal assumed an integrated approach, soil analysis. In the article, we have refined this point and present it in a modified form.
- Why didn't element P be involved in this study?
As is known, soils with a low pH value contain chemically active forms of iron and aluminum, which absorb the phosphate ion and keep it in a hard-to-reach state. In this regard, it seems to us that the study of other macronutrients was more interesting. In further research, we hope to analyze changes in the phosphorus content in the soil of anthropogenically disturbed ecosystems.
- Among the elements studied, is element C a mineral nutrient element?
As is known, in model experiments, all the elements of mineral nutrition necessary for the normal growth and development of plants were determined. Depending on their content in the plant, they are divided into macronutrients and trace elements. Macronutrients are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur. Trace elements are iron, copper, zinc, manganese, chlorine, boron, molybdenum, they make up < 1 g / kg of dry weight. Non-mineral elements: H, O, C.
- It is suggested to reorganize the writing structure of discussion, and make it as clear and definite as possible.
Thanks for the comment. We conducted a thorough analysis of the chapter "Discussion" on the basis of which we made changes.
- It is suggested to revise the conclusion, which should be concise in content and directly answer the key results and conclusions of this study.
Thanks for the comment. We made it more concise and understandable, answering specific questions of the work.
We would like to thank you once again for your valuable comments, as well as the opportunity to get acquainted with the manuscript!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The theme of the MS could be interesting for the readers of forests, but the presentation and structure of the MS are inadequate and not at all ready for publication in the present state. My main concerns are: The research goals given at the end of the introduction are too general and not explicitly justified. Thus the readers cannot fully understand why these goals are chosen. this applies especially for goal 2. The description of the methods in chapter 2 are confusing and not substantial. The description of the study design and its statistical characteristics (e.g. homogeneity of study plots, number of independent repetitions etc.) does not provide the information needed for justifying the reliability of the study. The treatments and technical methods are not defined in their technical details. Often unusual terms are used and must be adapted that they will be understandable in the international community (e.g. use the terms of soil description in the WRB). The discussion must compare the results of the study with studies from other regions e.g. from Central Europe in order to eluciate the peculiarity of the logging impact in boreal regions. I made a lot of comments directly to the MS. Tese are not complete. The authors should take them as hint for problemes that should be corrected all over the MS.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
the English is very poor. Several sentences are not comoplete. Lots of unusual words and terms are used. I urge the authors to let revise the English laguage by a professional proofreading agency.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Reviewer!
Thank you so much for the valuable comments to the article! Everything is very correctly marked. Your comments have been corrected, and corrections have been made in the article.
The response to the comments is as follows:
The theme of the MS could be interesting for the readers of forests, but the presentation and structure of the MS are inadequate and not at all ready for publication in the present state.
My main concerns are: The research goals given at the end of the introduction are too general and not explicitly justified.
– made changes.
Thus the readers cannot fully understand why these goals are chosen. this applies especially for goal 2.
– made changes.
The description of the methods in chapter 2 are confusing and not substantial.
– made changes.
The description of the study design and its statistical characteristics (e.g. homogeneity of study plots, number of independent repetitions etc.) does not provide the information needed for justifying the reliability of the study.
– made changes.
The treatments and technical methods are not defined in their technical details.
– made changes.
Often unusual terms are used
-biophilic elements?...why not...removed
and must be adapted that they will be understandable in the international community (e.g. use the terms of soil description in the WRB).
– made changes.
The discussion must compare the results of the study with studies from other regions e.g. from Central Europe in order to eluciate the peculiarity of the logging impact in boreal regions.
– made changes.
I made a lot of comments directly to the MS. Tese are not complete. The authors should take them as hint for problemes that should be corrected all over the MS.
– made changes, we tried to fix it!
Thank you again for your hard work, very polite attitude to our work, accuracy to the chosen words. We really hope that in the new version the article will be better, more interesting and clearer to readers from different countries.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
‒ line 15 Abstract: climbing logging?
‒ line 59 – 60 Selective logging is the standard method of logging in southern tropical forests and European northern forests... It is not clear waht do you mean under term: Selective logging as a standard method of timber logging? I mean that selective logging is the most delicate management approaches in order to achieve a differentiation of vertical stand structure. And I am not sure that this method is broadely used in tropical forests and European northern forests...
‒ line 118-119 and 135-137 contain duplicate information.
‒ Fig 1 contains mistakes (Remaining stand 235M3/ra ..correctly - 235 m3/ha) and as well tree species in figure 9Picea85 1Birch85 ???
‒ line 167 conventional logging (CL).. considering that it is a 100% removal of the remaining trees, it should be clear cutting.
‒ line 247-248 the Spearman test is usually used to test correlation between non-parametric data and not to compare the data distributions.
‒ commas must be replaced by dots when separating decimal places (in english) of numerical values ​​in the text and also in graphs.. please do it in graphs also.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Reviewer! Thank you so much for taking the time to get acquainted with our manuscript, to make a review. I fully agree with your comments. Everything was fixed according to your recommendations. Thanks to your work, the article has become even more interesting and it will be useful to everyone who works in this field. We did everything, fixed it completely. Thank you so much for your work!
Once again, many thanks for your hard work, careful reading of the manuscript, very friendly reviews. We really hope for a positive decision!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article has been well modified, and I recommend it to be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Reviewer! Thank you so much for taking the time to get acquainted with our manuscript, to make a review. I fully agree with your comments. Everything was fixed according to your recommendations. Thanks to your work, the article has become even more interesting and it will find its reader. Thank you so much for your work!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made a lot of revisions. Unfortunately most of them are as superficial and unspecific as the answers on my comments ("made changes"). I still see a lot of inconsistencies in the methods chapter. The choice of target variables was not justified. And the discussion is as arbitrary as in the 1st version. I am drawn between "reject" and giving the authors a second chance to substantially revise the MS. In the present state it is still confusing and very poor in its scientific value. Moreover the English language must be enhanced by a professional proofreader.
I added once again lots of comments to the text
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English is very difficult to understand. Several sentences are incomplete.
Author Response
Dear Mr. Reviewer! Thank you so much for the help you provided us with the design of the article. Thank you so much that your correct and valuable comments allowed us to make our work more interesting and attractive. Everything has been corrected according to your valuable comments. There is no doubt that the article will become a "reference book" of scientists who are engaged in similar research in other countries. We really hope that in our age of technogenesis, the industry does not stand still and there will soon be new technologies in forestry. I would like to thank you also for a very friendly attitude to our article, a "soft" review letter. Thank you again for your comments, for your careful work.
25- This sentence is written with an error - eliminate the hint of doubling the stratification coefficient. Moreover, the reader cannot know at this point what the "stratification index" is.
57- Could you elaborate here on the specific damage caused to forest soils by heavy logging machines, which is the main subject of your article?
+
71- which means "continuous logging". If you mean "clear cut", always use this term to avoid confusion.
+
72-there is no verb in this sentence
+
The concentration of 92-SR seems to make no sense, since the diet cannot be concentrated
+
98 is not a specific argument to justify the goal
+
125 - study variables. This is too generalized.
do you mean "10°C"?
+
139-I don't understand this sentence.
Agree, corrected
140 – tree
+
144 - "controlling cutting" is also an uninformative term. Above, the authors introduced and explained "selective pruning". I believe that the authors also mean selective pruning here. I urge authors to always use the same term to refer to the same subject!!
+
150 - I still believe that the description of harvesting and skidding methods does not contain the technical details necessary to understand the mechanical effect on the soil. the weight of vehicles with insufficient load, as well as the distance between the skidding tracks, etc.
+
211-meter
+
292-ascending?
+
314 - I still feel that this unusual and very general term is more confusing than informative, nominally N and K are indicated as macronutrients
+ added information
326-write what are the confidence values intervals. Why are confidence intervals not included in this graph for nSR N?
+
354-please describe the meaning of the colors added information
+ completed
396-garbage?
+
475-I do not understand and cannot keep track of this vague sentence
+ We agree, but sometimes it's hard to understand what the authors write, and then quote them! It is clear that they write, and then you need to write in a different way! We hope everything is clear and clear, like in chess (I play with the whole world online!)
Once again, thank you so much for your hard work, scrupulous reading of the manuscript. We really hope for a positive decision!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
