Lichenometric Dating and Its Limitations and Problems: A Guide for Practitioners
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Author represents interesting review and quide paper for lichenometric dating. Paper is well written and it contributes to the field of research on Lichenometry dating limitations and problems. As this is a sort of quide for practioners I understand why it is not submitted to some top Geomorphology journal like Geomorphology. Although there is a certain need of this kind of guide article, but generally I am disappointed by the quality of figures and lack of efforts to update old key table published by Winchester (1989).
I suggest that paper is very interesting and it deserves to be published. My suggestion is that it should be accepted after minor edits, but major edits concerning figures and table (summary table).
Revisions and questions raised:
Figures: 2,3 8, 9, 10, 11
All these figures (some of these are tables) are copied for original articles, the quality of these figures is very poor. They are blurry, text missing half, orientation is twisted.
To editor: the quality is so bad that it would be good reason to reject this paper.
TABLE 1a, b. Synoptic key for the yellow-green Rhizocarpon group.
This is the most interesting part but again the quality is so poor that it is difficult or impossible to ready to read it.
“A synoptic key for the yellow-green Rhizocarpon, giving spore sizes, chemical reac- 69
tions, characteristics of the areoles (islands forming the main thallus of crustose lichens) 70
and apothecia (the fruiting bodies), rock types and locations, has been produced by Win- 71
chester [15] to allow for easy cross-referencing (Table 1, supplementary material online)”
15. Winchester, V. An evaluation of lichenometry: with field studies in Lappland, Britain and the western Alps. DPhil thesis University of Oxford 1989, Vols 1, 2. (British Library, DSC shelf mark D 543 170885).
Table has been published (Winchester 1989). I think it would be good if authors creates new table not a printscreen of that old one. I think it would have been interesting if author would then have updated this table, because a lot of literature has been published since 1989. I hope that author does this work and then it would serve much better researchers working in the lichenometry research theme.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is very comprehensive and valuable review and summary of advantages and disadvantages of lichenometry used a method of dating. Only small comments regarding application lichenometry in mountains. Author do not turn into consideration variability of lichens growth related to altitudinal belts.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I started reading this manuscript with a relatively superficial knowledge of lichenometry, and found it very interesting. In my opinion, it is both a good review of the method and a forward-looking evaluation of its problems.
By the time I got to L. 356, I thought to myself that with all these serious shortcomings and methodological problems, lichenometry is (or should be) dead, since there is no way to trust it. However, the “Ways forward” section made be a little bit more optimistic (albeit cautiously) that lichenometry might still have a future. It would be nice if the author, who is obviously an experienced and leading authority in the field, would address this question directly.
L. 25: It seems logical to start with “Lichenometry”, not “The technique”.
L. 47-35: These seem redundant.
L. 132: Where is the end bracket?
L. 152-188: Please consider devising an illustration to clarify these approaches.
Figure 2 is hard to read.
Figure 4: Is it necessary?
L. 371-416: Too technical and detailed compared to other studies referenced.
Figure 8: Can this be transformed to a modern-style figure? It is nice to be reminded of the 1980s, but not this much.
Figure 10 is unreadable.
Table 1 is unreadable.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Lichenometry is based on estimates of lichen growth rates, but over the last 70 years it has been severely criticised. Therefore, there were doubts about the effectiveness of this method and the expediency of using it. The author's decision to deal with this problem and provide an informed point of view on this issue deserves attention. The paper can be considered relevant.
The scientific novelty lies in provide background information to help practitioners come to a clearer understanding of the technique and suggest possible future directions.
This paper provides guidance on identification procedures and suggests alternative dating methods based on lichen size-frequency distributions and cross-dating with other lichen species, thus avoiding reliance on a single species or support from other methods.
In the introduction, the relevance of the study is well substantiated. The research objectives are formulated clearly and clearly.
The methodology of writing the review is not described. It needs to be fixed, as it is not clear:
1. By what principle were the papers selected for inclusion in the review? How did the search and selection of relevant papers take place?
2. From which sources were the papers selected for the research review?
3. Which papers were excluded from the analysis and why was this done?
4. For what period of time were the papers selected?
5. In what languages were the selected papers published?
6. What is the geographical coverage in the papers selected for research analysis?
7. How was the research analysis conducted? What methods were used for this?
8. What methods are used to visualize the results?
The results are presented clearly and clearly. However, only borrowed figures and photographs were used as visualizations. Thus, the author does not cite his research results, but only cites random (there is no information about the criteria for selecting borrowed figures) results of other researchers. For a journal of a high scientific level, this approach to research is unacceptable. The Results section should be completely revised. The author needs to draw up a research protocol, choose methods that are adequate to the tasks and strictly follow this when writing a review. The author also needs to develop his own visualization of his own research results.
The conclusion will also need to be rewritten after the revision of the results.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The author responded to a number of my comments. I agree with these answers. However, the tip to improve visualization was ignored. This tip is not only mine. Another of the reviewers also advised to do it. Gray figures of poor quality greatly spoil the overall impression of the paper. Of course, this work requires effort and creativity. However, the paper could be significantly improved by good visualization. It is my sincere tip to the author. Most of the published papers in Land have excellent visualization. Therefore, of course, it is very desirable to tighten the paper to this level.
Author Response
I have redrawn the Figures. I hope that you will now find the visualizations sufficiently improved.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
