Impacts of Downed Dead Wood Poplar Trees on Forest Regeneration in the Semi-Arid Region of Northern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Since the changes to the text are more cosmetic than in-depth -
I insist on rejecing the article.  

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,
Thank you for processing and reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated. We addressed your comments to improve our paper. All changes and revisions are incorporated in the revised manuscript. Detailed responses are summarized below. Reviewer’s comment is cited in red color font, our response/reply is in plain and black font.
Please note that the comments of Reviewer 3 have been addressed in the latest submitted manuscript. Our previous responses and revisions might not be proper or thorough. We worked on these comments again and revised the manuscript again. Detailed response/revision regarding Reviewer3’s comments are provided below. A new version of revised paper is submitted too. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript and corrected all my comments and recommendations.

The article fully complies with the subject matter of the journal and can be published in its present form.

Author Response

thanks for your comments

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the current form of the article for publication in Forests.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

thanks for your comments

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments.

Author Response

no more reply here.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General remarks of the reviewer

This study investigated the distribution of fallen trees and their impact on forest regeneration in an area of ​​northern China.

The following chapters requires some clarification:

Keywords:

Line 38-39:  Use lowercase letters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Research area

 

Line 86: Please add information about the directions of prevailing winds (wind radar).

 

2.3 Field Survey

2.3.1 Field investigation methods

Line 111: At what level of the trunk was the diameter measured?

Technical Notes

Make the Figures  clearer if possible.

The description of the literature item needs to be corrected as required by the publisher: articles, books and other sources - italics of journal titles, year in bold, correct pages of journals and the access link and date of access in English. According to MDPI standard.

Details in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript under review with great pleasure. The authors have worked out the text quite well, but I have some significant remarks (see the attached file).

In general, the work is relevant and makes some contribution to the knowledge of the influence of woodlots on regenerative processes in forest ecosystems, as well as their important ecosystem functions of decomposing wood in the study area. The region is interesting for its climatic and orographic conditions.

The tabular and graphic material is representative, giving the reader an idea of the work done to collect primary material for analysis as well as its discussion. The results are statistically processed and their reliability is not questionable.

The results are in line with the objectives, but some minor revision is required.

The manuscript can be published in Forests, after minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Forest decline and the subsequent necessity for its regeneration is an extremely serious and current issue. Therefore, this field is very important, and in this way, the manuscript might be welcome in the Forests journal.

 However, there are too many weaknesses in the manuscript, and I am really sorry to reject it for publication. The main reasons for this decision are especially:

- incorrect academic writing,

- mistakes in forestry (forest ecology) terminology,

- clumsy English language,

- many flaws in the methodology and interpretation of results.

 Specific comments:

 The terminology used in many cases is incorrect or not standard in forestry/forest ecology. For instance, the term “downed dead wood” should be used instead of “fallen wood”, “decay class” instead of “decomposition level” or “decomposition grades”, and “hectares (ha)” or “km²” instead of “hectometers (hm²)”.

Additionally, “forest regeneration method” does not sound suitable, since method typically relates to a type of human activity, etc.

Moreover, the terminology used in the text is sometimes inconsistent (e.g., “decomposition level” vs. “decomposition grade”).

 The principles of academic writing were not sufficiently utilized throughout the text, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections. Some sentences are too long and difficult to understand (e.g., lines 49-52, 52-55, etc.). It is also not correct academic style to refer directly to the authors within the sentences (e.g., lines 49, 52, 61, 62, and many others).

 Tables 2 and 3 are rather confusing due to unsuitable terminology and/or linking unrelated phenomena (specifically in Table 3, "Plants growth vs. dead wood stages").

 The results in the paper are described in the present tense (“is”), but they should be in the past tense.

 I think that forest regeneration is closely related to light conditions, which is not estimated or at least commented on in the manuscript.

 Figure 8 must be a part of the Results section. In fact, the upper diagram shows no changes in the long-term development of precipitation (the authors stated that it manifested an increasing tendency).

 The Conclusion section is too focused on local aspects without any strong generalization or message for the scientific community.

 There are also some more weaknesses which compel me to reject the paper. I think the paper should be deeply revised and offered to a country scientific journal to provide outputs for local users.