The Growing Dynamic of Pure Scots Pine Stands Using Different Thinning Regimes in Lithuania
, Benas Šilinskas 2, Lina Beniušienė 2, Marius Aleinikovas 2 and Almantas Kliučius 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the effort and research you have put into this study and would like to provide my comments and suggestion for further improvements:
1. I am unsure of the intended meaning of "continuous 30 m observations" (lines # 12, 54)
2. The description regarding climate change's impacts on forest growth dynamics, particularly in cooler regions, conveys a positive rather than negative outlook (line # 41-48). However, in the following paragraph (lines # 49-52), it is mentioned that thinning is a contemporary approach to mitigate climate change impacts. As a result, there appears to be a contradiction between these two sections.
3. "Mäkinen et al." instead of "H. Mäkinen et al." (line # 44)
4. The introduction can be enhanced by emphasizing key knowledge gaps regarding the influence of thinning intensity on Scots pine's growth.
5. Better to mention the average width of the buffer zone (lines # 82-83)
6. There are inconsistencies in using abbreviations for various variables and thinning experiments/treatments throughout the manuscript. E.g., "DBH", "dbh", and "d_bh" for diameter at breast height; "D_q" and "Dq" for quadratic mean diameter; "H_q" and "Hq" for mean height; "1-2" and "1,2", "3-4" and "3,4",… for thinning variants/intensities and so on.
7. The notation used to represent different thinning intensities (e.g., 1-2, 3-4, etc.) appears unconventional and may benefit from a simpler approach. Consider using straightforward notations like "I," "II," "III," and so on to represent the various thinning intensities, as this can enhance clarity and ease of understanding for readers.
8. Again, the authors are encouraged to maintain consistency while naming the experiment throughout the manuscript. It appears that "experiments 201" and "object 201" refer to the same entity, as do "experiment 206" and "object 206." Please ensure uniformity in naming conventions for clarity and consistency.
9. I recommend using commonly used terms such as "thinning treatments" instead of "thinning programs"
10. While I appreciate the inclusion of a future plan, it is not essential in the methodology section (lines # 89-90)
11. The terms "quadratic mean diameter" and "mean diameter" are distinct, yet the authors have used them interchangeably (e.g., lines # 105 and 115). I recommend using the appropriate term consistently throughout the document to ensure consistency.
12. I highly recommend providing a citation for equation 1 (line # 110) and carefully reviewing its explanations (lines # 108-109). Specifically, please verify if "q" represents the 'tree growth area' mentioned in line # 109. Moreover, all equations must be presented in their final forms, with the minimum use of symbols
13. I'm unsure the intended meaning of "….object design was performed …." (line # 149): this needs to be explained
14. Line # 135-137: The given description for Mean Annual Increment in diameter implies that the calculated value was the total (i.e., not annual) increment for the period. The description needs to be revised to accurately reflect what was calculated. Again, if the total increment for a period was divided by the years within that period, I recommend using the term 'periodic annual increment' instead of 'mean annual increment'.
15. The y-axes for both Fig. 3 and Fig. 6 are currently labeled with the same title- "Volume m3/ha". To improve clarity and avoid confusion, I suggest editing the labels so that they accurately reflect the specific information being presented in each figure.
16. The figure legends provided are not clearly defined, specifically regarding the representation of "S=1,0" in Fig. 2 and 3, as well as "H100=30" and "H100=28m" in Fig. 5.
17. Captions for figures 2-6 and Tables 2 and 3 imply that differences among thinning treatments have been presented, which I believe is treatment-wise mean; please revise accordingly
18. Conclusion regarding diameter/height ratio (line # 379-380) can be supported by including an analysis of the height-diameter ratio over the period. Relying solely on separate analyses for diameter increment and height is not enough to draw this specific conclusion. You might also consider using the more widely used term "height-diameter ratio" instead of "diameter/height ratio"
19. My general recommendation is to present the results for diameter increment, height increment, and competition index first, followed by the results for volume. This sequencing can enhance the logical flow and comprehension of the findings.
English language editing is highly recommended
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled “The growing dynamic of pure Scots pine stands using different thinning regime in Lithuania” is the result of applied research. there are a number of issues in methods, results and discussion need to be improved. Therefore, major changes are recommended.
Comments
1) Line 79 – thinning method is missing. It should be added.
2) Lines 79 – thinning method is the same in both plots?
3) Line 105-106 – mean diameter or quadratic mean diameter?
4) Methods – the software used in the analysis is missing.
5) Results section – As thinning method was not included it is not possible to fully evaluate the results.
6) Results section – the results should be redone. It should be placed more emphasis on the statistical tests.
7) Results section – the results should also include the analysis of the combination of the parameters evaluated.
8) Along the text – thinning programs or thinning variants? Please standardise along the text.
9) Line 222 – “From the figure, there is an obvious difference between these two objects.“ Which figure? Which two objects?
10) Line 224 – If object 206 was younger than 201 than they cannot be compared directly. The authors should consider redoing the analysis.
11) Table 2 and 3 – please include the meaning of the letters A to D in the figure caption.
12) Line 264-265 – “and various other scholars.” The authors should include references.
13) Lines 287-295 – please clarify the text.
14) Lines 296-304 – the authors are comparing their study with published references regarding thinning from below. Yet, as thinning method was not defined. Thus authors should include thinning method of this study and revise the comparison with the published references.
15) Lines 315-323 – this paragraph is related to wood properties and seems out of context. Please clarify the text.
16) Line 345-346 – mean diameters of 4045 cm?
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate your efforts in refining the manuscript. There are few more aspects that might require consideration.
Periodic annual increment are better abbreviated as "PAI" rather than "MAI" : Line#129; 169, 326
Line # 87: verify 7.140 seedling per ha; is it 7140 instead?
I suggest to maintain consistency in the units of measurement, using either "m3/ha" or "m3 ha-1," but not both. Also, ensure this consistency for other terms used throughout the document.
Line# 141-142: "… Mean height was estimated using Lorey’s height formula, the measured DBH and the measured DBH and measured and modeled heights of every tree." This sentence seems incomplete or redundant.
Figure 3: I'm uncertain about the suitability of the "100% sloppiness model curve". Adding a brief explanation to the figure caption, describing how it was generated and its relationship to other treatments, would enhance clarity. Additionally, please verify the spelling of 'model curve,' as you have been using another term 'modal curve' that might cause confusion.
Figure 4 (caption): A brief explanation on "projected model curves by site index" would enhance clarity
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our answers to the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has improved in the second version and all the questions were addressed by the authors. Thus, publication is recommended.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our answers to the attached file.
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
