Neighborhood Tree Position and Size Had Hierarchical Effects on Korean Pine Growth at Different Opening Degree Levels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

# Title

The title is too long and complex and does not convey the main purpose and findings of the study. It would be better to simplify and shorten the title and use more specific terms to describe the variables and the outcomes. For example, a possible alternative title could be: "Effects of spatial arrangement and size of broadleaved trees on growth of planted Korean pine under forest canopy".

 

# Abstract

It would also be helpful to include a conclusion section that summarizes the main findings.

 

# Introduction

It would be better to shorten and simplify the introduction and focus on the key points and gaps that motivate the study.

 

# Results and discussion

The conclusion and discussion provide a summary of the main findings and contributions of the study and compare them with previous studies on the effects of opening degree, position, and size of adjacent broadleaved trees on the growth of planted Korean pine trees under the canopy of secondary forests.

I would recommend separating the discussion section from the conclusion.

There are some grammatical and spelling errors.

The conclusion and discussion do not provide any suggestions for future research or management based on the findings and limitations of the study. It would be more informative and useful to provide some directions for further investigation or application of the results.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks a lot. We have make a intensive revision according to the three reviewers' comments. Please read the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (MS) deals with important ecological issue of restoring of primary forest with complex species structure. The results presented may be of interest for the readership focused on practical applications of forest restoration.

However, the current condition of the MS is below the standards allowing one to recommend it for publication, largely due to language problems.

General comments

l. 3, 16, 57, 58, 107-113 -> the Latin names of the species should be given together with the names of their authors at the first appearance in the text.

A clear mathematical definition of K should appear before the index is discussed in the MS. The verbal definition found is hard to comprehend.

l. 141: growth of the planted Pinus koraiensis -> in the Materials and Methods section, there was no indication that the pines were planted by someone. This point must be clarified--who and how has planted the pines.

Minor comments

l. 22-24 -> this part of the sentence probably has a grammar problem.

l. 42 -> become?

l. 43 -> of similar?

l. 50-51 -> this part of the sentence probably has a grammar problem.

l. 69, 72 -> Opening Degree or opening degree?

l. 79-80, 121, 145, 424-430 -> font size requires correction.

l. 413 -> Discussions and conclusion?

l. 471-477 -> this sentence probably requires clarification due to a grammar problem.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is comprehensible but below the standards for a high-ranking journal like Forests and requires an extensive editing.

It is not nice to force a reader to go through troubles of reading very long complex-subordinate sentences. There are plenty of such places in the text: l. 19-24, 24-32, 129-136, 189-202, 203-213, 219-231, 234-242, 279-290, 291-299, 303-311, 316-323, 324-332, 340-348, 352-363, 366-375, 376-384, 385-393, 394-402, 403-412, 447-453.

Numerous misspellings do not help to understand the MS.

Author Response

Thanks a lot. We have make a intensive revision according to the three reviewers' comments. Please read the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is rather poor. You have to improove the English language.

 

Regards

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your comprehensive coments. We have make a intensive revision according to the three reviewers' comments. Please read the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my view, the MS has been improved. The authors stick to the style of writing of large sentences but this may not be an obstacle for a publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has been improved. Smaller corrections might be necessary during production phase.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your coments.

We have checked our MS and made some changes of writting.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am still not conviced if you eliminated effect of crown layer and density from your results. since density of your top layer and the compossition could be the main reason of differences. May be this is the next step of your study, but it has to be taken into account.

Also, you added a lot of tables. It is very difficult to read the results presented this way. I would recomend you to introduce figures where possible.

Regards

 

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your comments.

I am still not conviced if you eliminated effect of crown layer and density from your results. Since density of your top layer and the compossition could be the main reason of differences. May be this is the next step of your study, but it has to be taken into account.
Response: You may correct for your consideration of density. But because of the relatively low density of the upper layer and the small size of the Korean pine trees in the investigation stand, stand density may has little influence to the individuals of Korean pine (actually we have checked the density issue, but maybe because of unenough sample plots, the result was not regular). In our succeeding researches, we will check the influence intensity of upper tree species which has different crown properities, and more sample plots for density issues as well.

Also, you added a lot of tables. It is very difficult to read the results presented this way. I would recomend you to introduce figures where possible.

Response: I considered but not changed for the following reason: table 3 to table 14 actually shown three results, each column under different opening degree level showed the growth difference of Korean pine trees where the adjacent trees were on different orientations; each row showed the growth difference of Korean pine trees which their adjacent trees in different size; and the growth difference among different opening degrees were also shown here but did not discussed, because we have talked them in our former papers. Therefore, using figures may be more complex.

Regards