Landscape Variables Influence over Active Restoration Strategies of Nothofagus Forests Degraded by Invasive Castor canadensis in Tierra del Fuego
, Juan M. Cellini 2, María V. Lencinas 1, Yamina M. Rosas 1, Jonathan J. Henn 3 and Pablo L. Peri 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript addresses an important issue and reports interesting results. The manuscript is well organized and well-written, and as far as I am concerned, can be published after a few minor revisions. Going through the manuscript, I have noticed a number of typing/grammar errors that need the authors' attention.
- All scientific names should be presented in italic type.
- Line 54: Correct "than" to "to".
- Line 71: Correct "with" to "to".
- Line 83: Delete the extra “the”.
- Line 99: the main
- Line 103: a better
- Line 104: quick
- Line 113: years old
- Figure 1 needs a coordinate system.
- Line 155: a proxy
- Line 184: correct were to was
- Line 198: the number
- Line 236-237: Dominant height, as a proxy of site quality, did not change in areas impacted by beavers compared to OGF. however, it was …..
- Line 254: the C/N ratio
- Line 286: correct arriving to arrival
- Line 287: correct though to through
- Line 366: a higher
- Line 369: at the northern
- Line 455 and 471: at the landscape level.
- Line 486: influences
Author Response
Review 1:
This manuscript addresses an important issue and reports interesting results. The manuscript is well organized and well-written, and as far as I am concerned, can be published after a few minor revisions. Going through the manuscript, I have noticed a number of typing/grammar errors that need the authors' attention.
AN: Thanks for your comments.
- All scientific names should be presented in italic type.
AN: Our mistake, we corrected them.
- Line 54: Correct "than" to "to".
AN: It was changed.
- Line 71: Correct "with" to "to".
AN: It was changed.
- Line 83: Delete the extra “the”.
AN: It was changed.
- Line 99: the main
AN: It was changed.
- Line 103: a better
AN: It was changed.
- Line 104: quick
AN: It was changed.
- Line 113: years old
AN: It was changed.
- Figure 1 needs a coordinate system.
AN: It was added in the Figure.
- Line 155: a proxy
AN: It was changed.
- Line 184: correct were to was
AN: It was changed.
- Line 198: the number
AN: It was changed.
- Line 236-237: Dominant height, as a proxy of site quality, did not change in areas impacted by beavers compared to OGF. however, it was…
AN: It was changed.
- Line 254: the C/N ratio
AN: It was changed.
- Line 286: correct arriving to arrival
AN: It was changed.
- Line 287: correct though to through
AN: It was changed.
- Line 366: a higher
AN: It was changed.
- Line 369: at the northern
AN: It was changed.
- Line 455 and 471: at the landscape level.
AN: It was changed.
- Line 486: influences
AN: It was changed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript, Landscape variables influence over active restoration strategies of Nothofagus forests degraded by invasive Castor canadensis
in Tierra del Fuego, is an interesting study into forest regeneration.
The experiments seem well planned and executed by considering a number of factors that could influence the results.
Few minor comments;
- Overall aim/objective and justification for the research are not clear. I see bits and pieces throughout the introduction but it would be better if you could state them clearly at the end of the introduction with your study questions.
- You could include a bit more general detail on the vegetation types and characteristics of your study area to give readers a bit of an idea.
- Consider adding a table showing the plant/environmental/soil metrics, their definitions, and measurement method. I see them cluttered in the text but a summary table would be more clear.
- Have you thought of showing the range of variables as boxplots or some other meaningful graphics? I personally think presenting results as graphics delivers a clear idea than a table full of numbers.
- Revise your conclusion to show clear answers to the questions you mentioned in the introduction section.
Author Response
Review 2
The manuscript, Landscape variables influence over active restoration strategies of Nothofagus forests degraded by invasive Castor canadensis in Tierra del Fuego, is an interesting study into forest regeneration. The experiments seem well planned and executed by considering a number of factors that could influence the results.
AN: Thanks for your comments.
Few minor comments:
1) Overall aim/objective and justification for the research are not clear. I see bits and pieces throughout the introduction but it would be better if you could state them clearly at the end of the introduction with your study questions.
AN: We not understanding your request. The objective was presented in lines 82-84. Also, we defined three specific questions for our research, and we justify why they are stated (lines 84-93). Finally, in lines 94-108 we presented our hypotheses and work framework, and justify why we proposed this draft for the Special Issue. The previous introduction (lines 39-78) presented the state of knowledge and justify the study of most of the variables included in our analyses. We try to summarized here most of the relevant literature, and I check your comment but not find how to improve it.
2) You could include a bit more general detail on the vegetation types and characteristics of your study area to give readers a bit of an idea.
AN: We add a couple of sentences in materials and methods as was suggested.
3) Consider adding a table showing the plant/environmental/soil metrics, their definitions, and measurement method. I see them cluttered in the text but a summary table would be more clear.
AN: It was added as was suggested as Annex 1.
4) Have you thought of showing the range of variables as boxplots or some other meaningful graphics? I personally think presenting results as graphics delivers a clear idea than a table full of numbers.
AN: Indeed, we think to present the data in this way at the beginning of our draft! However, there is a lot of analyses that we want to summarize in one paper, and the number of graphs was huge, and we think that the ANOVAs bring more information reducing the number elements (number of treatments x locations x meadows). In fact, we only present in the figures few variables showing the time-line. We felt that the F of the ANOVAs give the necessary information about the deviation of each metric. In brief, the problem is the space in the draft. Thanks for the comment.
5) Revise your conclusion to show clear answers to the questions you mentioned in the introduction section.
AN: We add a couple of sentences in the conclusions as was suggested. We clarify the answer of the questions mentioned after the objectives
