The Configuration of Romanian Carpathians Landscape Controls the Volume Diversity of Picea Abies (L.) Stands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This study has as its basic title "The configuration of Romanian Carpathians landscape controls the volume diversity of Picea Abies (L.) stands" and has been submitted to the journal Land, in Section: Landscape Ecology and in Special Issue: Landscape Ecology and Wildlife Conservation. I didn’t find any relationship of the Picea’ s stand volume and diversity with configuration of Carpathian landscape in the MS, moreover how this MS can be host under the section of Landscape Ecology and Wildlife Conservation. As much as I tried, I couldn't find any in this MS, that even remotely, matched to the journal and thematic session it was sent to (it should be sent to a regional forestry focused Journal).

But beyond this issue, the essential problem with this MS is its entire organization and structure. Most of the texts do not have coherence and continuity between them and this in the introduction is particularly pronounced.

The methodology is hopelessly detailed (as if they are so analytical notes like for 1st year students in a University Department), but from the other hand, there are also data in the Results section that are not described how analyzed in the Methodology section.

E.g. how the analysis “Influence of altitude and age on volume” is described in the MS and the model presented to have df =10, or the model “Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Dependent Variable: T5_South_Volume_m3” with “df=11”?

In rows 271-272, they refer to an analysis of "Influence of Altitude (ALT) and Age (AGE) on volume with Tests of Between-Subjects Effects", but the table 6 is qualitative and similar in structure to Table 4: “Volume differences”, which is probably based on the previous correlation test (Table 3), but which only has one correlation and numbers which are not understandable (e.g. 230 to 234 what exactly are they)?

There are 16 rows (119-134) for a description of the sampling sites that are nicely presented in Diagram 1. Why so much analysis was needed? In row 141, what exactly are the eight databases, which were analyzed as a preliminary analysis of the recorded data?

12 lines (Lines 152 – 163) for a detailed listing of codes with numbers. How much it was necessary?

How are the 3D diagrams analyzed in the study (to show the covariation among altitude, volume, and ages)? For example, in Figure 4. “The volume of spruce stands on different altitudes: (a) 700 m; (b) 800 m.” the scatter plot shows the relationship of volume with ages and altitudes in a more understandable way (although the title on the diagram wasn’t again so accurate).

I could write a lot more (e.g., in line 445, the data is not from Australia but from Austria), but on most pages there are issues of coherence, understanding and scientific correctness in what the question is and how you answer it from this work.

Although both the basic questions of the paper and the data that exist are very important for the Forest science of Forest Ecology, the main problem of this paper is what the authors also described at the beginning of the results (Lines 195-197 : "In order not to excessively increase the volume of the study, we decided to present only the data that were significant from the comparisons between the groups made within the two mountain ranges"). It seems that there are many data in their datasets, useful for the forest management of their area and tried to "clothe" many of them with a “cloak” of international scientific paper, but not very well done and so I do not recommend this MS for acceptance of publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your observations. Changes have been made. We hope that we finished all our tasks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The relationship between landscape and forests is an important area of research in forest ecology. Identification of regional and landscape features of forest structure and biodiversity is necessary for the organization of sustainable forest management and conservation of forest resources. From this point of view, this paper is relevant, as it draws attention to an important problem.

The scientific novelty lies in the identification of the influence of habitats of the Eastern and Southern Romanian Carpathians on the growth of the Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.).

The research results are important for the organization of sustainable forest management in Romanian Carpathians.

 In my opinion, the relevance of the research topic is not sufficiently substantiated. In addition, the introduction begins with a description of the features of the research area. This should be moved to a separate sub-item in the section "Materials and Methods". The description of the problem state should also be improved. The research aims are clearly formulated. However, there are additions to the research aims. Forestry in all countries is conducted on a forest-typological basis. Therefore, the identification of forest typological features is very important for the organization of sustainable forest management. This is due to the fact that the relationship between forest vegetation and the exposure of the mountain slope, as well as the altitude above sea level for different forest types can not only differ, but also be opposite. There is a lot of information in scientific journals on this issue. For example:

Ivanova, N.; Fomin, V.; Kusbach, A. Experience of Forest Ecological Classification in Assessment of Vegetation Dynamics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063384

Pfister, R.D.; Arno, S.F. Classifying Forest Habitat Types Based on Potential Climax Vegetation. For. Sci. 1980, 26, 52–70

It would be ideal if the authors use a forest typological approach in this paper. At a minimum, it is advisable to discuss this problem in the introduction and indicate limitations on the interpretation and application of the results.

The research methodology is described acceptably. The authors use generally accepted methods of data collection and analysis. The choice of methods is reasonable and quite sufficient to achieve research aim.

The research results are illustrated by 9 figures and 11 tables that do not duplicate each other. I recommend the authors to formulate the titles of figures and tables more clearly. In its present form, it is unacceptable.

 Conclusions follow from the results and are reasonable.  The paper will be of interest to a wide range of readers whose scientific interests are related to forestry. I recommend that the authors clearly formulate the scientific significance of the research results, as well as the field of practical application of it.

Author Response

Thank you for the observations. Changes have been made in the text and we hope that we finished all tasks given.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I feel that the paper is well written. However there are some points to be revised.

1. How about making literature review section for research design. It will be the strong basis for your study analysis.

2. How about making the daigram about research process? I feel that your methodology could be difficult to some readers. The diagram will help readers understand your study methodology easier.

3. Please make the table about research materials. It will be beneficial to understand your analysis.

4. Please show the key points in result section. There are too many tables and figures in result section. 

Author Response

Thank you for the observations. Changes have been made in the text and we hope that we finished all tasks given.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded satisfactorily to the comments I had made and now their work clearly has a better structure and presentation of their results. Based on the new MS, I propose that it be accepted for publication

 

Author Response

Thank you for the observations and your constructive advices.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have significantly improved the paper. But the authors did not answer all my questions fully enough. It is desirable to formulate more clearly and in detail the theoretical and practical significance of the research in the conclusion. And it is also desirable to indicate the forest typologies that are used in the forestry of Romania. It will be interesting if the authors discuss the relationship between the principles of forest type identification in Romania and the criteria chosen by the authors for analysis.

Author Response

Thank you for the observations and your constructive advices.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx