Effects of Stand Density, Age, and Drought on the Size–Growth Relationship in Larix principis-rupprechtii Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the comments below. I hope this helps.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please give little more time and improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
See reply for responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Editor
Forests
The manuscript entitled “Effects of Stand Density, Age, and Drought on the Size-Growth Relationship in Larix principis-rupprechtii Forests” is well written. The authors studied the size-growth relationship with stand density, stand age, and drought severity, and found that stand density and tree Age increase larch stoutness against warming and drying effects. The study also reveals that stand age, density, and drought index exerted varying degrees of influence on the growth dominance coefficient and size-growth relationship of larch forests. The manuscript fills the gap between the stand-density age and drought index and the size-growth relationship of the forests and is scientifically sound for international research. The overall comments are as follows:
· The title of the manuscript is written well and readable.
· The abstract of the manuscript is written well.
· Please remove the keywords similar to those words written in the title and add some different words.
· Add the author citations in the scientific name of the species written in the manuscript.
· Please add more recent references in the introduction sections.
· Please add the detailed methodology and name of instruments used for measurements of DBH, tree height, and crown.
· Please add the make and name of the company that made the increment border used in the study.
· Please add some photographs of the finished core samples.
· Please describe how the statistical analysis of the study data has been done.
· Please add some photographs of the study area.
· In the discussion, a few references are mentioned; please add more new references in this section.
Author Response
See reply for responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is extremely important for forest science, as it refers to analyzes that contribute to the understanding of the management and management of forest ecosystems.
However, the introduction does not present the problem or a clear objective of the study. There are gaps or missing points in the description of the methodology and its presentation in the results that do not allow for a final understanding of the work.
Results must be fully presented. This made it difficult to develop a discussion that reflects the importance of the study as a tool to assist forestry science. The discussion was vague presenting logical facts that occur in the development of a forest and the conclusion does not have a purpose to the importance of this study.
108 - what is the stratification criterion?
109 - Are pure forests homogeneous forests, or natural?
115 - at least one sample tree per diameter class was selected - which criteria?
117 - two colors for trees? In total, 416 trees were sampled? diameter classes are not presented in the methodology or results.
Table 1 - the values in table 1 are not confusing, e.g.: average dbh is 11.82 cm corresponds to a gi of 0.01097 m²/tree, multiplied by the number of trees per ha, represents a total of 24, 9m²/ha, which divided by 18 years, represents a BAI of 1.38m²/ha/year. The BAI corresponds to 0.000763m²/tree/year x 18= 0.013734m²/tree/year x 2270 tree/ha= 31.18m²/ha? Are these forests managed? Does this increase correspond to all the trees in the forest? which species specifically?
153 - Until then there is no definition of the object tree?
154 - DBHss Around the object tree?
174 - 𝑠𝑖 and 𝑠𝑖−1 are the cumulative proportional basal area of tree i and tree i-1; 175 - 𝜑𝑖 and 𝜑𝑖−1 are the cumulative proportional basal area increment of tree i and tree i-1.
187 - There is no way to define a model using both criteria, as the weighting of R² and AIC are different, especially in the R² sum value when covariates are added to the model.
195 - Stand density exhibited a significant impact on GI (p < 0.01), which tended to increase with stand density - is this logical?
trees·hm-2 - what is it?
195 - significant 1% impact?
Figure 4. to a discrepancy in the number of samples, 416 grubbed trees, why in the adjustment are there only 55 points around the regression line?
227 - R² with AIC are different criteria.
Table 3 - p value, if it is for the coefficients of the equation, these values are not significant, which makes their use unfeasible.
250-251. Competition was not assessed in the study. All trees were measured, so could it be interspecific competition as well?
275-282. It is not discussion but comparison of results.
284-285. No values were presented for this statement.
286-287. This is the only factor.
289-290. Decline was shown for age not by diameter class.
291-299. It's not a discussion, it's a logical reference.
331. Different periods were not evaluated.
333. It's a result.
Author Response
See reply for responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Editor
Forests
The author has done good work in revising the manuscript. The author has made all the modifications to the revised manuscript. Now the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review and accept this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The modifications were complied with and the article is of scientific importance for the forestry sector.Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review and accept this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
