Quantifying the Effects of Stand and Climate Variables on Biomass of Larch Plantations Using Random Forests and National Forest Inventory Data in North and Northeast China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, I thought this manuscript would benefit estimating the biomss of larch plantation on large scale. I have two commences to the authors:

1) I did not find any test work to be done to confirm the accuraty of the RF methods;

2) I would suggest the authors to add one section of Uncertainty analysis in the discussion section;

3) In general, the cliamte variables only have less than 2% contribution to the RF methods, if the authors could provide another choice（or another RF model） when it is impossilbe to get the climate variables.（in my common sense, the error from the measurement of stands variables will be greater than 2% involved in estiamting the AGB or TB）.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is in accordance with my field of research and an interesting topic and I therefore accepted to review this manuscript. 

The introduction section is much focused on chineese leterature. The paper contains some sloppy/careless mistakes. The study methodology could not be applied for large-scale because the performance of applying RF for large-scale stand biomass estimation has not been tested with the input of both stand and climate variables. Also, the study suffers from a narrow perspective (discussion section)  and need for reorganization of some parts. 

Please find all my comments and suggestions in the attached file.
Kindly

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations! Fantastic job!

Most of my remarks are minor spelling/wording issues. Please, threat these as suggestions, rather than demands. 

Please improve the resolution / quality of graphs and figures - these are often hardy readable. 

Apart from that - perfect manuscript!

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

Thank you for your work and efforts to respond the reviewers comments and  improve your paper. however, I am convinced that the methodology used in this study lacks solid scientific arguments : 

1) What is the added value of RF method compared to the conventional methods for biomass assessment, in prticular for large scale uses ? what a novelty in terms of precision ? we do not see it through the manuscript (results and discussions)---->this should be measurable/quantifiable.

2) According to the authors "Only trees with dbh ≥ 5cm are measured according to the National Forest Inventory Guideline in China. So, our study did not consider the biomass of trees with DBH less than 5 cm". Woody biomass less than 5 cm plays is nutrient-rich and  a major role in soil preservation and biogeochimical cycles. Small and fin wood represents between 20 and 30 % of total biomass....this is one of the big limitations of your study. Please see : 

• Kaarakka, L.; Tamminen, P.; Saarsalmi, A.; Kukkola, M.; Helmisaari, H.-S.; Burton, A.J. Effects of repeated whole-tree harvesting
  on soil properties and tree growth in a Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stand. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 313, 180–187.
• Aherne, J.; Posch, M.; Forsius, M.; Lehtonen, A.; Harkonen, K. Impacts of forest biomass removal on soil nutrient status under
  climate change: A catchment-based modelling study for Finland. Biogeochemistry 2012, 107, 471–488
• Augusto, L.; Achat, D.L.; Bakker, M.R.; Bernier, F.; Bert, D.; Danjon, F.; Khlifa, R.; Meredieu, C.; Trichet, P. Biomass and nutrients
  in tree root systems—Sustainable harvesting of an intensively managed Pinus pinaster (Ait.) planted forest. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7,
  231–243

Finally, there is a serious lack in the international literature in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The assumptions and methodology have many limitations (see previous revisions). The hypotheses have many practica limitations. the authors have defended their methods well but it lacks scientific soundness especcialy at large-scal uses.

 Woody biomass less than 5 cm plays is nutrient-rich and  a major role in soil preservation and biogeochimical cycles. Small and fin wood represents between 20 and 30 % of total biomass....this is one of the big limitations of your study. It must be taken into account to have precise comparaisons.

Kindly