A Comparative Study of Stem Rot Severity in Mature Deciduous Trees in Latvia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address an interesting topic for the maintenance and evaluation of the conservation status of forests and its possible medium and long-term implications for forest protection and management strategies.

As they indicate, it is a topic that, although it has been addressed in different works, needs a greater number of studies that help to understand the dimensions of this problem and allow us to establish which variables can be considered: species, state of maturity, combinations of species, etc.

The article, in general, is well written, supported by a sufficient bibliography and adjusted to the topic. However, I would like to make some comments and suggestions that the authors can take into consideration.

Introduction

It is sufficient and correct, but since the authors do not give results that allow to evaluate the impact of the severity of stem rot on carbon stock reduction, they should change the orientation of those points in which they refer to this. Moreover, the authors clarify in the conclusions that this is not among their objectives.

Material and methods

Figure 2 should be improved since its quality is poor and, although it is a direct output of a measurement, it should be adequate for the reader to understand it and see its content exactly. It also happens with equation (line 155) and figure 3, in which the contours do not differ correctly. In the latter case, it would be of interest to enlarge the images or make a different composition.

In this section, “Data Collection” needs to be drafted more clearly, especially the first paragraph (132-138) since it is not clear.

Results

The wording is confusing in distinct parts of this section (e.g., Line 204 ¿P. tremula or all species?; lines 239-243) or includes statements that are not clear in the results (Line 288-289, 298-299 or 302-303).

To see the presented results clearly, it is necessary to improve and enlarge Figures 5 and 6.

Tables are split between different pages, which makes it impossible to follow what is in each column.

Discussion

It is adequate, although it would reorient the discussion elements that highlight the usefulness of this study to evaluate the carbon stock.

In my opinion, the authors should make these modifications so that the study could be published.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Below, we provide responses to the questions you raised.

Introduction

It is sufficient and correct, but since the authors do not give results that allow to evaluate the impact of the severity of stem rot on carbon stock reduction, they should change the orientation of those points in which they refer to this. Moreover, the authors clarify in the conclusions that this is not among their objectives.

Response: While our article does not present models for assessing carbon reduction in standing trees due to stem rot, our focus has been on providing a broader understanding of the subject. Specifically, we highlight the necessity for a more precise assessment of the anticipated expansion of protected forest areas on the carbon budget. In doing so, we aim to draw attention to the research gap concerning the impact of root rot on forest carbon stock. We appreciate your feedback, and in response to your concerns, we have taken steps to clarify the orientation of the important points you raised. We carefully incorporated all the suggested changes into the first two paragraphs of “Introduction” section, and these revisions are highlighted using the 'track changes' feature. We believe that these revisions enhance the overall coherence and focus of our article, addressing the specific issues you highlighted.

Material and methods

Figure 2 should be improved since its quality is poor and, although it is a direct output of a measurement, it should be adequate for the reader to understand it and see its content exactly. It also happens with equation (line 155) and figure 3, in which the contours do not differ correctly. In the latter case, it would be of interest to enlarge the images or make a different composition.

Response: We made slight modifications to Figures 2 and 3, enlarging them to improve readability for the reader. Additionally, the equation (1) was formatted according to journal guidelines. Furthermore, we added high-resolution images to the article for the editorial board to incorporate into the final version.

In this section, “Data Collection” needs to be drafted more clearly, especially the first paragraph (132-138) since it is not clear.

Response: We made modifications to the first paragraph in the “Data Collection” section with the aim of enhancing the text's comprehensibility. We believed these changes would address the concern raised by the reviewer about clarity, particularly in the initial paragraph (132-138). Without specific instructions for clarification, it was challenging for us, as the authors, to entirely paraphrase the text. We hoped that the adjustments made would then render the content more accessible to readers.

Now we state “Data were obtained from destructively sampled trees to explore trends in the severity of stem rot. The tree stems were cross-cut into 1-m logs from the stem base to the tree top. The presence of stem rot was evaluated by visually inspecting the logs at their ends and at 1.3 m high. Stem discs were collected from the affected logs if signs of stem rot, such as discoloration, decomposed wood, or hollow, were observed. Two discs were obtained from each log, one from each end. Later in the laboratory, the area of stem rot was measured according to previously defined external decay indicators [17]:”

Results

The wording is confusing in distinct parts of this section (e.g., Line 204 ¿P. tremula or all species?; lines 239-243) or includes statements that are not clear in the results (Line 288-289, 298-299 or 302-303).

Response: We have carefully addressed your feedback and made numerous corrections to the results section. The specific changes can be found in the final document, highlighted using the 'track changes' function. We sincerely hope that these modifications contribute to a clearer and more accessible presentation of the results.

To see the presented results clearly, it is necessary to improve and enlarge Figures 5 and 6.

Response: We have enhanced the quality and increased the size of the images in Figures 5 and 6. Additionally, high-resolution copies of the images have been included in the submitted manuscript.

Tables are split between different pages, which makes it impossible to follow what is in each column.

Response: This issue of tables being split between different pages has been carefully addressed in the final document. We have restructured the tables to ensure that each one is presented in its entirety on a single page.

Discussion

It is adequate, although it would reorient the discussion elements that highlight the usefulness of this study to evaluate the carbon stock.

Response: This research is directly relevant, and the knowledge gained from it will be utilized to assess the effect of stem rot on carbon loss. As outlined in the discussion section, once we have collected sufficient decay incidence data, we plan to develop tree and stand-level models to comprehensively evaluate the impact of decay on biomass and subsequent carbon reduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work analyzes the severity of trunk rot of different species in a hemiboreal forest

 

The sampling design seems consistent with the proposed objectives, so I have no comments in that section.

In the data analysis I would include a table explaining the nature of the variables and the role that each one plays in the evaluated models.

 

The results are explicit and clear, they are perfectly understood and easy to interpret, they are concise and focused on explaining their hypothesis.

 

In the discussion they use their results as a counterpart to some other studies carried out in similar contexts and with the same species, which helps to interpret the scope of the work.

 

In the conclusions, I recommend including a paragraph on the state of management of the forest where the trees were sampled and concluding a paragraph on the economic impact that this type of damage has on mature hemiboreal forests.

 

Some general considerations:

L181 missing bibliographic citation from package lme4

L190 the same with the car package

L195 same with MuMln package

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Below, we provide responses to the questions you raised.

The work analyzes the severity of trunk rot of different species in a hemiboreal forest

The sampling design seems consistent with the proposed objectives, so I have no comments in that section.

In the data analysis I would include a table explaining the nature of the variables and the role that each one plays in the evaluated models.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. While incorporating a table detailing each variable's nature and role in all the models might be challenging due to the number of models and variables involved, we will ensure to provide concise and clear descriptions of the key variables and their significance within the text of the data analysis section. We appreciate your understanding and will ensure the necessary information is effectively communicated in the revised manuscript.

 

The results are explicit and clear, they are perfectly understood and easy to interpret, they are concise and focused on explaining their hypothesis.

In the discussion they use their results as a counterpart to some other studies carried out in similar contexts and with the same species, which helps to interpret the scope of the work.

In the conclusions, I recommend including a paragraph on the state of management of the forest where the trees were sampled and concluding a paragraph on the economic impact that this type of damage has on mature hemiboreal forests.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have incorporated additional information into the “2.1. Study Area” section regarding the management of the forest where the trees were sampled. Specifically, we note that “All selected stands had no documented history or evidence of silvicultural activities, which involve controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests to meet specific objectives.” Undoubtedly, stem decay also has an economic impact. However, based on our data, we cannot assess and draw conclusions about the economic impact of stem rot on mature hemiboreal forests.

Some general considerations:

L181 missing bibliographic citation from package lme4

L190 the same with the car package

L195 same with MuMln package

Response: We have added references to the packages used.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

One typo to be corrected. Line 64, should read "heart rot" not "hearth rot."

The abstract was complete, excellent. As with the abstract, the introduction was again excellent: complete, succinct, and the goals of this research were clearly stated.

Materials and methods. Excellent distribution of study sites, species, and replicates. Your techniques for assessing stem decay/wood loss are on par with the best techniques available at this time. Statistics were very appropriate for this study. 

Results. Clear presentation of results and confirmation of Populus tremula's propensity for weak compartmentalization, especially wall 1, the vertical wall. All results were clearly stated and visualized with the tables and figures.

Excellent and complete discussion section. Your caveats regarding how management practices, site characteristics, related species, and the limitations of currently employed techniques for assessing wood loss were on the mark. Also, your suggested ideas for future research were again well-founded.

This manuscript demonstrated a complete master of the English language.

Finally, I review more than 20 manuscripts a year from different journals. This submission ranks within the top 1% of all manuscripts I've reviewed in terms of command of the language, research design and analysis, a realistic discussion of the study and its implications, as well as its superb organization. Congratulations, at least from me.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you sincerely for your thoughts and insightful review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing your feedback. We have addressed the typographical error on line 64, correcting "hearth rot" to "heart rot" in accordance with your observation. Once again, thank you for your positive assessment and encouraging words. Your feedback inspires us to maintain a high standard in our research and writing.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their understanding of my comments and for the modifications they have made to the manuscript. From my perspective, the manuscript has been improved and can be published in its current state.

Thank you very much again.