Planting a Linear Vegetation Element in Landscape Using a Forestry and Landscaping Method—Can We Tell Which Deliver Greater Success?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comparing different planting arrangements for the health and vitality of the planting stock is necessary, as there is an increased recognition that this influences ligneous greenery survival rates. 

Improvements needed are as follows:

The English does need improving throughout in order to improve the readability of the article.

A schematic diagram of the methodology will make this simpler to follow and useful for fieldwork. 

There are no discussions on the impact of the different life stages within the different planting types. This will influence the rate of growth, however, the mortality of species is a more important characteristic in the long-term. Comparing the two plots for mortality differences makes more sense as this has financial and ecological implications for the overall schemes. 

Cost implications over time for the different planting schemes would also be a valuable addition. Is it more practical financially to use a forestry planting scheme or a landscape planting scheme? Which scheme is better for establishing a functional corridor more quickly? In other words, what are the benefits of the planting schemes taking into account their different growth and mortality rates.

An explanation is needed on why the forestry planting was fenced and not the landscape planting.  

In conclusion, there is plenty of data on the growth of the different types of plots but not the implications of this research in practice. Making this more explicit will be helpful for future management schemes. 

The standard of English overall is fine, but there are multiple mistakes, for example "Graf". Some sentences do not make sense, for example:  "On one hand, these are forestry seedlings, on the other landscaping seedlings". These kinds of mistakes makes the overall readability and flow of the article difficult or unclear in places. 

Also in the results section the instructions to the authors are still there, "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise 200 description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental 201 conclusions that can be drawn." This should be removed. 

Author Response

Point 1: The English does need improving throughout in order to improve the readability of the article.

Responce 1: Thank you for the comments. We are not native speakers. This article has been translated by a licensed translator. Other reviewers found the English to be "Minor editing of English language required" and "English language fine. No issues detected".

Point 2: A schematic diagram of the methodology will make this simpler to follow and useful for fieldwork.

Response 2: We don't know if we understand the term "A schematic diagram of the methodology" correctly. Is it supposed to be some kind of Chart/Diagram that illustrates the process of measurements in the field and possibly the subsequent data processing?

Point 3: There are no discussions on the impact of the different life stages within the different planting types. This will influence the rate of growth, however, the mortality of species is a more important characteristic in the long-term. Comparing the two plots for mortality differences makes more sense as this has financial and ecological implications for the overall schemes.

Response 3: We particularly agree with the comment that mortality is an important factor for the success of afforestation, also with regard to the financial aspect. On the other hand, the growth dynamics also indicate which species thrive better in the first years after planting. This can also be useful for practice. For example, in combination with mortality, it can be deduced that for some species a significantly higher representation is needed, while for others a lower representation is needed (example: Quercus robur versus Acer campestre).

Point 4: Cost implications over time for the different planting schemes would also be a valuable addition. Is it more practical financially to use a forestry planting scheme or a landscape planting scheme? Which scheme is better for establishing a functional corridor more quickly? In other words, what are the benefits of the planting schemes taking into account their different growth and mortality rates.

Response 4: It's not the subject of the article. It could be the subject of a separate article. At the beginning of the research there was also the idea of economic evaluation of plantations. But because this was not a pure research experiment but an operational experiment, it was not realistic to monitor and influence the actual planting and subsequent care. The tabulated financial costs are different from the costs in the contract (bid price) and especially in the aftercare can be quite different in reality. This would be processing of non-value data.

Which type of planting is better cannot be clearly defined. Forestry seedlings will more quickly establish an established stand and catch up with horticultural ones in a few years, but the species composition may be altered from the plan due to high mortality of certain species. The quality of the work carried out, especially the quality of the aftercare, is very important. Practical experience in recent years suggests (not empirically verified) that forestry seedlings 51-120 cm tall have very good results in the first years after planting, especially when grown in containers (with root ball).

Point 5: An explanation is needed on why the forestry planting was fenced and not the landscape planting. 

Response 5: The text states that the landscaping plantings have individual trunk protection from reed matting. This measure has proved to be sufficient to protect against damage from wildlife, while being no more expensive than fencing the whole area. In addition, a continuous migration barrier has not been created in the landscape. Checking the functionality of the individual log protection is easier than checking the fencing. The danger to the plantations is deer and hare. And it is because of the hare that the fencing needs to be checked very precisely, which is more time-consuming and costly.

Point 6: In conclusion, there is plenty of data on the growth of the different types of plots but not the implications of this research in practice. Making this more explicit will be helpful for future management schemes. 

Response 6: Conclusions have been modified.

Point 7: The standard of English overall is fine, but there are multiple mistakes, for example "Graf". Some sentences do not make sense, for example:  "On one hand, these are forestry seedlings, on the other landscaping seedlings".

Response 7: The words Graph have been removed as redundant in the captions and replaced with Figure). Sentence in abstract modified.

Point 8: Also in the results section the instructions to the authors are still there, "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise 200 description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental 201 conclusions that can be drawn." This should be removed. 

Response: Thank you for the comments. It has been removed.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is overwritten and could easily be reduced by 1/3 or more. Methodology is good, but this section could be refined for easier reading and improved clarity. Conclusions miss opportunities to explore the existing research, especially with landscape trees, stem diameter, and comparisons of vigor.

Most importantly, I recommend direct comparisons using accepted statistical techniques. A simple comparison of averages, especially with the high mortality rates, is not sufficient for a scientific paper because it neglects the within treatment variation that would be very important and interesting in this project. Further, comparisons averaged across species have very little meaning, again with the high variation in mortality.

I am somewhat concerned that we are told about trees planted using the landscape method that were 8-10 caliper cm, but the table from 2016 lists measurements that are substantially smaller and larger than that. Please clarify.

I find myself even more concerned with the vigor comparison, as if we are to be surprised that a much smaller tree had a greater increase in growth when compared to a somewhat mature specimen. I consider this a critical flaw in the author’s argument, as it is presented as an advantage for the forestry method. I would be much more interested in overall tree / shrub size at 4y after planting and 10y after planting.

 

Minor typos throughout. Root bales should be root balls. Please scour the paper for these and correct.

Author Response

Point 1: Paper is overwritten and could easily be reduced by 1/3 or more. Methodology is good, but this section could be refined for easier reading and improved clarity.

Response 1: We are not sure whether a significant reduction is possible. We are concerned that the article might then be incomprehensible and insufficiently technical. The Conclusions suggest the possibility of research that could answer the question of why horticultural plantings have such little height gain.

Point 2: Most importantly, I recommend direct comparisons using accepted statistical techniques. A simple comparison of averages, especially with the high mortality rates, is not sufficient for a scientific paper because it neglects the within treatment variation that would be very important and interesting in this project. Further, comparisons averaged across species have very little meaning, again with the high variation in mortality.

Response 2: Basic statistics in the form of linear regression and linear regression coefficients of determination were added for the comparison of tree vigour of both types of plantations. Linear regression equations and coefficients of determination were added to the trend analyses.

Point 3: I am somewhat concerned that we are told about trees planted using the landscape method that were 8-10 caliper cm, but the table from 2016 lists measurements that are substantially smaller and larger than that. Please clarify.

Response 3: We apologize, but we do not fully understand the remark. The text describes the size of a landscaping seedling, which is defined as a stem circumference of 8-10 cm at 1 m above the ground. The diameter of the trunk was measured in mm at a height of 1.5 m during the survey (page 3).

Point 4: I find myself even more concerned with the vigor comparison, as if we are to be surprised that a much smaller tree had a greater increase in growth when compared to a somewhat mature specimen. I consider this a critical flaw in the author’s argument, as it is presented as an advantage for the forestry method. I would be much more interested in overall tree / shrub size at 4y after planting and 10y after planting.

Response 4: In the Results chapter, the measured values are only stated. Commentary on these is provided in the discussion on pages 16 and 17, where it is discussed why the horticultural plantings had minimal height gain. And again, this is pointed out in the Conclusions on page 17 - 18. Since the increase in stem diameter was clear, the question is raised as to whether the solitary position of each individual in the landscaping planting has an effect on the minimum height gain.

Yes, it would be very useful to follow up with further measurements after 10-15 years, i.e. in 2 years at the earliest (10 years after planting).

Point 5: Minor typos throughout. Root bales should be root balls. Please scour the paper for these and correct.

Response 5: Thank you for the comments. It has been corrected.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The research covers a respectable 4-year time span, focusing on a practical issue of fundamental landscape ecological and ecological importance.

I feel that international literature is scarce among the literatures used, it is rather focusing on regional / national references.

In any case, it is recommended to describe the basic topographic and soil characteristics of the sample areas and their homogeneity/heterogeneity across the sample area. It would be interesting to know whether the planting material used came from different nurseries.

Lines 200-202 are probably left over from formal requirements and should be deleted.

Some of the results are rather evident, whereas some suggest a number of uncertainties that need further investigation to be of real value to practitioners.

I miss a detailed, clear description of the limitations of the study.

Author Response

Point 1: I feel that international literature is scarce among the literatures used, it is rather focusing on regional / national references.

Response 1: We are aware of this handicap, but have been unable to find suitable literature. We therefore try to explain this in the Discussion section on page 13 and return to it at the beginning of the Conclusions.

Point 2: In any case, it is recommended to describe the basic topographic and soil characteristics of the sample areas and their homogeneity/heterogeneity across the sample area. It would be interesting to know whether the planting material used came from different nurseries.

Response 2: The basic pedological situation is added to the text (chapter Materials and Methods). This was not strictly a scientific experiment, but a research on an operational area (the biocorridor was not planted for the purpose of scientific investigation, but as a measure in the landscape to enhance ecological stability). Similarly, there was no grant funding for the research. Therefore, no detailed soil analyses or other investigations were carried out that would have required expensive equipment or processing in the laboratory. For the same reasons, we cannot provide information on the origin of the planting material (the planting took place before the decision on this private research).

Point 3: Lines 200-202 are probably left over from formal requirements and should be deleted.

Response 3: Thank you, it has been removed.

Point 4: I miss a detailed, clear description of the limitations of the study.

Response 4: Thank you very much for that comment. It has been added to the text at the end of the Materials and Methods chapter.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate and accept the changes made in the manuscript.