First-Year Mortality of Four Early-Successional Species on Severely Degraded Sites in Eastern Canada as Influenced by a Factorial of Site Preparation Treatments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents results on the effect of different mulching material on young tree performance. Although the results are useful they do not represent a novel discover. A better literature review can be made and o thorough comparison of the results with the current knowledge on the topic might be a more robust contribution
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggested the manuscript needs minor revision. The Abstract section needs to contain: background objectives and summary, at the moment, it is just a presentation of the results. The objectives and hypothesis they mentioned in the introduction need to be centered around that in the discussion, the discussion is not in depth enough. There is a lot of work, but the summary and discussion section is not thematically clear enough, it needs to be tightly centered around their questions and hypothesis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWell-written.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper “ecological restoration using four early-successional species on severely degraded sites using a factorial of three site preparation treatments: 1. Summer, winter, and spring frost heave mortality”, the findings suggest that using straw as a site Preparation and treatment can improve survival rates during ecological restoration efforts on severely degraded sites and mitigate some of the challenges associated with summer heat stress and winter fungal presence or frost heave conditions.
The article topic is interesting.
There are some limitations of this study that need be addressed:
1. Generalizability: The study focuses on a specific set of early-successional species and site preparation treatments, which may limit its applicability to other species or restoration contexts.
2. Timeframe: The study only measured mortality over a one-year period, which may not capture longer-term effects or provide a comprehensive understanding of ecosystem recovery.
3. Sample size: The passage does not provide information about the sample size used in the study, so it is unclear how representative the results are.
4. Site conditions: The barren sites used in this study were specifically selected for their severe degradation and long period of barrenness (25 years). This may limit extrapolation to less degraded sites or different ecological contexts.
5. Other factors influencing mortality: While straw treatment was found to have significant effects on reducing summer and frost heave mortality, there might be other factors that were not considered in this particular research that could also influence survival rates.
6. Lack of control group: The study did not include a control group without any site preparation treatment, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of each treatment in comparison to natural regeneration or no intervention.
Detailed comments
Abstract: OK
Introduction: OK
Materials and Methods:
The authors should describe the environmental characteristics of the study site.
Results:
The authors must enhance the presentation of the graphs and their closed captions.
Discussion: Ok
Conclusions: NA
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the authors (Ms: Forests-2738012)
The present study is about “Ecological restoration using four early-successional species in a multiple degraded sites”.
The manuscript has many errors, vague, which needs to be improved. English and interpretation is needed to be improved.
Specific comments:
The title is too long.
Abstract- The abstract should be a comprehensive details and combination of different components of the manuscript.
Introduction-
The authors have not written about ecological restoration while adapting the global examples.
The last paragraph of the introduction, title of the Ms and objectives does not match, the objectives is specifically on mortality of the seedlings while title of the Ms is about ecological restoration.
Method-
Study area
Site selection and preparation
Sampling and Experimental design.
Data collection and analysis
and so on
The methodology section should provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of the study design and data analysis methods. The equations should be clear and detailed.
Results
Use the pattern in the writing.
I found, there is problem in the interpretation of the data at many places, which needs to be corrected. I think, too much variables in the tables and figures makes it difficult to understand sometimes. A clarity is needed while developing the tables and figures to understand it easily.
Discussion- This section needs to be supported with a current citation. The age old citations were used to support the findings. It is better if authors could cite the current literature from 2015-2023. It is not clear that which season (summer, winter, and spring frost heave) have more effects on seedling survival and mortality.
L-343- See below where to?
Tables and figures- check the tables for their arrangements and validity.
I strongly encourage you to revise the manuscript to address the issues mentioned above.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIts okay, but minor improvement is needed.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has not been revised precisely. If the Ms is about the mortality/survival as mentioned by the authors, thus, the title should be on the same.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
