Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper documents a recently discovered remarkably old Specimen of Norway Spruce (Picea abies L.). It thoroughly describes the geological, geographical, pedological and biological context of the tree, as well as its growth pattern over 370 years, based on tree-ring cores. The tree is not remarkable by its height or diameter (compared to other trees in its stand or elsewhere), but by its age.

 

General comment

The paper is well written, well documented, and well structured. It doesn’t have any statistical analysis or hypothesis testing. As such, the methods are simple (tree coring and measuring of tree rings) and seem sound.

The topic of the paper seems relevant to the aims and subject areas of the Forests journal. It goes into a lot of details but remains very accessible and pleasant to read, even to a broader audience. The language is good and appropriate. The figures are easy to understand and interpret.

 

Specific comment

The title of the paper does not reflect well the scope of the paper and “>0.35 ka” is more confusing than necessary. Please consider changing your title to something simpler and more relevant.

l. 122 Consider changing “lobbying” to a less negatively connotated word like “advocating” or “urging” or “recommending” etc…

The quotation marks are not consistent throughout the paper sometimes “ (e.g. l. 40), other times " (e.g. l. 106) and more importantly sometimes „ (e.g. l. 70)

Author Response

FORESTS                                                                                 Szczecin, 31.05.2024

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

Reviewer 1

All suggestions of Reviewer 1 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

Title was changed from: Norway spruce (Picea abies L.) evidencing > 0.35 ka long climate variability in the Sudetes, Central Europe to: Witness of the Little Ice Age - one of the oldest spruces in Poland (Śnieżnik Massif, Sudetes, SW Poland);

Line 122 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 40, 70, 106 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 First, I would like to thank you for presenting your results. Overall, I found that your manuscript is very interesting. The study design setup and analysis were well performed. The article is understandably written and well-organized, contains all the components I would expect, and the sections are well-developed. The methodology is clearly explained, the results are well described, and the discussion is carried out very well. A good and sufficient bibliography allows readers with less knowledge of dendrochronology to get a lot of information. In my opinion, very good paper. So, I think you did a very good job.

I only have a few editorial comments as follows:

1.        There is no reference to Figure 5 in the text.

2.         Lines 337-338 Please rephrase this sentence and correct the reference to the bibliography (Kaczka et al).

Best regards,

Author Response

FORESTS                                                                                 Szczecin, 31.05.2024

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

 

Reviewer 2

All suggestions of Reviewer 2 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

1. Figure 5 was add to reference - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;
2. Line 337-338 – this sentence was rephrase - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

 

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

forests, May 2024

Article: Norway spruce (Picea abies L.) …

Authors: Cedro A. et al.

Comments for the authors

General remark

This study has two directions of interest in focus: One is to document a single exceptionally old tree growing in a mire and the other is to describe the special properties of a forest ecosystem which is extremely seldom in Central Europe. Both approaches have their justification. Authors brought mainly that single tree to the fore (Compare ‘Abstract’ and most chapters!).

Although this reviewer would have had preferred the focus on the valuable forest ecosystem as a whole and considering the astonishingly old tree only as a witness for the outstanding importance of the studied forest, the reviewer regrets that he has no other choice to accept that decision of the authors.

Against this background, it makes unfortunately more sense to shorten and delete some of the additional information about geology, soil, phytosociology etc. of the whole ecosystem and only focus consistently and consequently on that ancient tree because all this in the background is not directly linked to the tree ring widths of that tree. (Criticism under ‘Detailed comments’ must be understood according to these considerations.)

In any case, the title must be improved and should not contain a number which cannot clearly be directly derived from the text itself.

Detailed comments

Page 1

Headline: It is recommended to avoid a number in headlines (here ‘>0.35 ka’) and find a better title in total.

Abstract

Line 32: This reviewer is not a language expert. However, would it not be better to write ‘measured radii’?

Line 35: Please avoid this number ‘TM15’ in the ‘Abstract’ and replace it by ‘this oldest tree’.

Line 36: ‘… for the oldest tree.’

Page 2

Introduction

Lines 47-53: Is this already published somewhere (Reference is missing.)?

Line 61: Please avoid abbreviations in the beginning (GPR?)!

Line 66: ‘AD’?

In total, all these data from studies of the biogenic sedimentation and peat development in the selected mire should be published separately (Or was this done already?) and therefore, can be deleted here because it is not directly related to the main content of this manuscript. (In other words, the link to tree ring widths is not documented.)

Material and Methods

Line 117: By reading the ‘Abstract’ one could think that only one tree was studied intensively. Now this reviewer thinks that the tree was compared to other 46 trees in the stand. Is this right? If so, this should be more emphasized in the ‘Abstract’.

Page 4

It is suggested to shorten this part because it is only indirectly related to the tree ring analysis.

Page 5

Figure 2: This graph is clear and informative. However, it should be published in another manuscript about peat profiles. It can be omitted here.

Lines 181-210: It is also recommended to shorten this chapter about the plant cover and plant societies (phytosociological study).

Page 6

Figure 3 C, legend: ‘… in which the oldest spruce (TM15) …’ (or: ‘… the oldest spruce, named TM15) … ‘).

Page 7

Results

Lines 232-233: This belongs to ‘Material and Methods’.

Line 250: One could replace ‘studied’ by ‘selected’.

Page 8

Line 264: ‘… of the oldest spruce in the stand (TM15) … ‘

Page 9, Figure 6: In the opinion of this reviewer, this is a very valuable figure. Please add to the legend: ‘… y-axis: code-names of the trees … ‘

Discussion

Page 12

Line 381: ‘… last ice age (LIA) … ‘

 

Conclusion

In contrast to the ‘Abstract’ and the mean focus of the manuscript and all those data about tree No. TM15, now the mire in total is on focus. (The change in focus is now completed). Why?

Page 13

References

Rather few references are dealing with data from tree ring analyses. Most of them are about the whole region.

Citations were only checked at random by this reviewer. It is recommended that the authors control them again.

For instance, on page 514: ‘… Picea abies … ‘in italics.

 

Author Response

FORESTS                                                                                 Szczecin, 31.05.2024

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

 

Reviewer 3

 

All suggestions of Reviewer 3 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

Detailed comments:

Headline (title) was changed from: Norway spruce (Picea abies L.) evidencing > 0.35 ka long climate variability in the Sudetes, Central Europe to: Witness of the Little Ice Age - one of the oldest spruces in Poland (Śnieżnik Massif, Sudetes, SW Poland);

Abstract

Line 32 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 35 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 36 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Introduction

Lines 47-53 - these are the assumptions of our research in this region, it has not been published anywhere, this is the first article on this topic;

Line 61 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 66 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

In total…: In our opinion, a detailed description of the location, geology, geomorphology, hydrography and climate of this area is very necessary because it affects the plant cover and the examined tree. This is also the first article in this area, so we present these issues in detail, then we will refer to this part in subsequent articles.

Material and Methods

Line 117 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Page 4 - In our opinion, a detailed description of the location, geology, geomorphology, hydrography and climate of this area is very necessary because it affects the plant cover and the examined tree. This is also the first article in this area, so we present these issues in detail, then we will refer to this part in subsequent articles.

Figure 2 - These are very young peat bogs, this is the first publication of these dates and, according to the authors, this information is important for the article.

Line 181-210 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Figure 3C - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Results

Lines 232-233 - this is the description and measurement of our main research object and, in the authors' opinion, should be included in the results;

Line 250 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 264 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Figure 6 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Discussion

Line 381 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Conclusion

References line 514 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the insightful work, that has both theoretical and practical significance.

The complex and comprehensive presentation and analyses of research site, sampling approach, processing methods and clear results are making reading interesting and replicable.

Anyhow I would share a few thoughts that, I think would improve article.

a) the abstract should be revised to demonstrate the major outcomes of results, i.e. outlined clear stages of cold and warm periods.

b) the same way "conclusions" should be revised and extended, as it is not fully represents this research results.

c) I think introduction, that used to be for more relevant literature review- is mostly dedicated on the content of research work. Somehow this part should be revised.

d) At the same time in "Discussion" part 311-357 lines is more discussion on literature analyze, than the results of actual research. This I would move more to "Introduction" part.

e) Also, I think, the aged trees-climate challenge-environmental reconstruction relations could be more clearly presented in the “Discussions”.

d) Line 61- what is GPR?

 

 

 I wish respectful authors good luck!

Author Response

FORESTS                                                                                 Szczecin, 31.05.2024

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

 

Reviewer 4

 

All suggestions of Reviewer 4 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

1. a) abstract was revised - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;
2. b) conclusions were revised - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;
3. c) in the introduction we describe the main assumptions of our research, because dendrochronological analyzes are only part of a larger project;
4. d) part 311-357 - Rejected this proposition because in this section we refer to the other results to discuss the differences in geographical conditions and specific individual sites with Picea abies L.;
5. e) corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;
6. f) (d) line 61 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

 

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx