Assessment of Species Composition and Community Structure of the Suburban Forest in Hangzhou, Eastern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

eneral comments

This paper involved a study investigating the forest community of a subtropical secondary broad-leaved forest. The study can improve the understanding of secondary forest succession of the sub-tropical evergreen broad-leaved forest and provide practical implications. Yet, before considering publication, major revisions are required in various aspects, including the language and the contents of the paper. There is a great room of improvement for the language for publication standard. The materials and methods section mentioned the measurement of soil data but they are not presented in the results section. The study may bring greater impact if the analysis is conducted with the consideration of soil factors. In addition, as mentioned in the abstract, the study would like to evaluate the effect of different interference histories in the community succession process. Yet, the interference histories are not really clearly stated, though slightly mentioned in the discussion section. Also, the paper lacks an obvious section for conclusions. Besides, as mentioned in the introduction, the forest dynamics and the community construction process should guide the biodiversity conservation and vegetation restoration. Yet, not much, or at least not obvious, discussion has been put in these management implications. Some more specific comments are provided below:

 

 

Specific comments

 

Please check the paper carefully to avoid careless mistakes, examples:

L110-112 duplications

L272-277 there are underscores within the species name, please remove it

L307 Cyclobalanopsis glauc -> spelling mistakes

L318 irrigation-deciduous-deciduous-evergreen

L333 Schima superbas -> Schima superba

 

Language:

I suggest the authors to make a comprehensive revision in the language aspect. And below list some examples of key areas of improvement, but they are not exhaustive.

 

1. Some sentences are sometimes too long and make them difficult to be comprehended, examples: L43-48, L244-250, L276-282, L320-325
2. The sentences can be more concise, examples:

L20-21 45 species of evergreen woody plants, 20 species of deciduous woody plants-> 45 evergreen species and 20 deciduous species

L160-162 If they are from 4 families, it is obvious that they are from four genera. It is not necessary to mention that they were from four genera.

L167-170 All the “there are” can be omitted.

3. The use of terms, especially some technical terms, should be more precise, examples:

“importance value” is often misspelled as “important value”

L22 “radial distribution” -> size-class distribution? (also in other places)

L22 “inverted J pattern” -> reverse J shape? (also in other places)

L34 “an ability” -> “a way” should be more appropriate

L146 relative degree=relative density?, relative significance=relative dominance?

L292, L306 “negative” tolerance and “positive” species, which probably should be “shade tolerance” and “light-demanding” species

4. Some terms are difficult to understand, e.g. L108 superior water and heat, L150, 214 individual degrees, L226 trail-grade individuals, L339 near-micropolar
5. Some sentences are problematic in meaning or incomplete, and should be re-written, examples:

L17-19, L59-61 , L284, L335-338

 

Title:

Please consider to specify the forest type of the study, and replace “Zhejiang Province” by “eastern China” for international readership.

 

Abstract:

L20-21 45+48=93?

L20 (DBH ≥ 1cm)-> with DBH ≥ 1cm

L24 of all degrees?

 

Introduction:

L41 ecological system functions and service value of what?

L41-42 what is the key difficulty? and what are promoting the restoration of the urban ecosystem and improving the living environment referring to? is that the functions of urban forests? All there are not clearly demonstrated in the sentence.

L57-59 It is an incomplete sentence. Please re-write it. Meanwhile, I suggest you to demonstrate the ideas of “different forest ecosystem functions between forest types and succession stages” by providing at least two examples of forest types and succession stages respectively.

L64 delete “mechanism”

L68 delete “reflects”

L77 It is not appropriate to mention a specific number here, unless it is proven in past study that "6 ha" is an optimal number.

L86 Please state more clearly the meaning of “not perfect”.

L92 CTFS: please provide the reference

The objective(s) of the study has not been so clearly stated.

 

Materials and methods:

Suggest to provide more background information of the studied forests, e.g. what is the age of the stand, what is the interference history…It can set a better background for the study and for the interpretation of results.

L104 please mention the country, i.e. China

L108 natural condition -> should be a little more specific: e.g. natural hazards?

L121 may consider to provide some key features of this construction standard and provide the citation for the source of this construction standard

L122 The whole sample was divided into 150 20 m × 20 m samples -> The 6-ha site was divided into 150 sample plots of 20 m x 20 m each

L130 What is the meaning of “initiation status”?

Section 2.3.1 Are the meteorological factors used in the analysis?

Section 2.3.2 As your paper did not demonstrate any result related to soil factors. If a result section related to soil factors was intended, please add it back.

L145 Data analyzed -> Data analysis

L146-147 relative degree=relative density?; relative significance=relative dominance?

 

Results:

L156-157 more explanations should be given to “branches and sprouts” as no information has been given in the methods and materials. Besides, the sentence here gave a meaning that the independent individuals excluding branches and sprouts had 5213 branches, and 6154 sprouts, which should be not what you want to indicate. Therefore, please re-write the sentence. And is this important result that will you derive any implications from these number in the discussion?

L164-165 47.4%+51.6%=99%?

L163-174 As you have already provided the percentage of the total number of individuals, it may not be necessary to provide the actual number of plants

L172-173 Maybe just provide the average basal area is ok.

Section 3.2 If some details of species-area curve and species-abundance curve are not important, please omit it. For example, it is not necessary to report all the % at 1 ha, 2 ha and 3 ha.

Fig. 1 Some modifications for the graphs are needed.

1. Remove “s” for “curves”; add back all the interval numbers at y-axis; unit for area is missing at x-axis
2. Remove “s” for “curves”; add back all the interval numbers at y-axis
3. Remove “s” for “curves”

Section 3.3 Please be more accurate in using >,<, ≤, ≥. And please be more consistent in using d.p. throughout the manuscript, which 1 d.p. is more common in your manuscript.

Fig. 2. X-axis: DBH≥1, i.e. 0 should not be included. Also, consider to use 5-cm interval.

Table 1 Some modifications for the table are needed.

-As you have already indicated that it is a minimum DBH, it is not necessary to put the sign (≥) here

- Just put the unit cm in the head row, and omit it in the remaining rows

L210 significant values->importance values?

L215 bigest -> largest

Table 2:

-may add a column for family name to facilitate interpretation

- Abundant-> Abundance; Important values -> Importance value

L220-234 Please be consistent in the tense use. In most parts of the results, past tense is used. But present tense is used here.

Fig. 3:

-If possible, please put the caption of the figure in the same page of the figure.

-What do the numbers at the x-axis and y-axis indicate?

Will the authors consider to include size-class distribution of some dominant species to better evaluate the forest community and dynamics?

Also, while a qualitative analysis was conducted by spatial distribution map to evaluate the effect of altitude, the authors can consider to conduct some quantitative analysis to investigate the effect of altitude on species composition and community structure.

 

Discussion:

L240-241 First in China, or first in the world?

L243 China forest biodiversity monitoring Network -> China Forest Biodiversity Monitoring Network

L256 any supporting citation for the species composition in Gutian Mountain?

L257-258 By comparing the data with only Gutian Mountain, it is an overstatement that the closer the regional location, the high the similarity degree of companion species.

L258 Do you mean the community has a small average diameter? What is the implication of low “diameter structure”?

L261-262 any supporting citations for those diameter data?

L263 What is “whole sample diameter order distribution”?

L264 What is the implication of a reverse J-shaped curve of size-class distribution?

L272 As it is mentioned that there is a large amount of succession pioneer species, could you please provide some more examples in addition to Sassafras tzumu.

L279-280 What is the meaning of the diameter order distribution is more reasonable.

L279 What is meridian tidal mountain?

L277-282 Please indicate more clearly which part is your findings, and which part is from the findings of the supporting citation.

L292 high degree of isolation?

L294 midday tide mountain?

L295 strong water protection -> good water storage/conservation?

L299 forest Windows->forest windows

L300 The species Alniphyllum fortune is not appeared in any other place of the manuscript.

L308 should provide more elaborations here. How same leaf habits contribute to the competitiveness?

L311-315 The article you cited did not mentioned any data support for phosphorus or potassium or soil nutrients. And the discussion here seems to be a bit out of the scope based on your results.

L321 Please provide some examples of the species under Symplocaceae

L329 Cyclobalanopsis myrsinifolia -> Cyclobalanopsis glauca?

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your suggestions and review of the article. I have made detailed revisions to your comments one by one. Seriously replied to each of your questions. See the revised manuscript for details. First of all, I modified the wrong sentences and words in the article. Secondly, as for the unclear language, I also reorganized the language; Finally, I revised the picture and table.

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper presents by my opinion very interesting information’s about natural forest ecosystem in subtropical zone, near of the Hangzhou City, China.

I acknowledge mainly comprehensive and intensive research labour on 6 ha large research area with surveying of all trees. Realized and too new potential analysis can bring more new detailed information’s about forest structure and species composition for selected forests on high scientific level. Presented paper is by my opinion good prepared, authors made meritorious data survey. But I think, that research potential is more as presented results.
Paper is designed only in four chapters, what is not standard. I lack of summarised Chapter Conclusion, I recommend append this Chapter. Abstract I consider as adequate. Introduction is little short, but clear. Used Material and Methods is suitable and adequate. With Chapter Results I´m satisfied less, I recommend in comments below some modifications.  Chapter Conclusion I consider as adequate. Appropriate is too number of references.
To improve final Quality, I have next comments to authors:
1.    What is “hm2” in row 106?
2.    Instead “hottest” I recommend term “warmest” (row 110)
3.    By my opinion would be very suitable information in chapter Methods some Map for illustration 6 hectare large research plot on monitoring size. Shape was 200x300 m, samples were on size 20x20 m. Authors can present this map with grid of all samples I recommend append this map or scheme, and too Map with wider Situation (Country, Region, Locality).
4.    Instead ideal model curve in Figure 1A with only 3 presented values (for size 1ha, 2ha, 3ha), I believe, that comprehensive data source allow append many more values. If minimal sample was 20x20 m, authors can presents too data for size under 1 ha (minimum area is 0.04 ha). I recommend calculate average value for 0.04 ha, and his multiples – 0.08, 0.12, 0.16, 0.20, 0.24, 0.28, 0.32, 0.36, 0.40 etc. with standard statistical analysis (average, standard deviation or standard errors). Simple results with final (ideal, model) curve can enlarged with relation graph with empiric values obtained from individual samples. Final scientific value would be by my opinion higher.
5.    By Figure 2 I recommend modify interval for diameter class from 10 to 5 cm. I believe, that final graph would be more respectable with clearer differences between classes
6.    What are black lines in Figure 3? Append explanations.

7.  I think, that in Chapter Results can authors make more suitable analysis.
8.    I recommend append serial number by references,
I recommend publish this paper as Article in Sustainability Journal only after modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Species composition and community structure of the forest suburban in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province” concerns the problem of species composition and structure of the forest suburban, and will be interesting for Sustainability readers, after revision.

 

Title: The assessment of species composition and community structure of the forest suburban in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province – it will be much better;

 

Aim: lack of aim of the study; What is the scientific problem of this study? in addition to specifying the species composition (%);

Methods – describe in detail these methods, step by step, or give the exact literature.  

Conclusions: lack of conclusions – t should point a few main conclusions connected with the purpose;

The publication is not a simple report (species composition), there must be a cause and effect relationship (what you can expect}.

 

Figure 2 – you could change the scale, for interval 1- 10 with interrupting (25000 – 30000) Number of individuals, and you should show more precious for 10 – 60 (70) DBH/cm.

The structure of the study presented is clear, but what is the novelty of this study? Will the study be continued?

                      

Some specific comments:

Figure 2 – you could change the scale;

l.404: RCTR Null， R Team， RCT Null， T Core Writing， R, N.T.N.C.T.T. – explore the abbreviation, without space.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The responses are satisfied. However, the literature review should be considered to add more south China examples and cited more relevant references. The language should be further polished by a native English expert. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors made some modifications and changes in presented text. But they have ignored my Recommendation nr 3 - recalculate real number from experiment for samples from 20x20 m to 1 hectares. Research plot with size 6 ha make possible evaluation for 150 empirical values of squares with size 20x20 m. In result is mentioned only 1 value, without parameters of variability. I lack of evaluation too parameters of variability, what is background of scientific evaluation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The maniscript appears much more better, but which is the objective of the study?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf