How the Strength of Monsoon Winds Shape Forest Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see annotated pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The response to the comment has been listed in the attached file. And thanks for the comment and effort for this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract. It does not give a proper idea of ​​the work done and the results obtained. The latter are formulated as one sentence: “The two forests demonstrated different dynamic changes under varying environmental conditions within the same region” (line 22-23). It is necessary to reflect in more detail the main results of the study. Introduction. The most general information is presented, especially in the first paragraph (line 29-33) and it not giving a complete picture of the modern state of research on the topic of publication, very little references are given (only 8 works). The third paragraph (lines 46-59) is not clearly included in the introduction, as its place is in the Materials and Methods section. It is necessary to describe in more detail modern state of research using a larger number of publications. Materials and methods. It is necessary to justify the choice for comparative studies of two completely different forest communities (Illicium-Cyclobalanopsis tropical winter monsoon forest and Dysoxylum-Machilus tropical mountain evergreen broad-leaved forest), give a brief description of them and the corresponding climatic conditions in each of the 5 periods and show how they differ. Describe the methods for studying the species composition, the abundance of not only woody, but and for other groups of plants, if they were study. Figure 1 does not carry any useful information and can be removed. Results. The Figures 2 and 3 are not very informative and difficult to understand (their analysis is possible only with a magnifying glass) and it is better to give their data in the other form, for example in Tables. More clearly, when presenting data on the diversity of plant, indicate how many of them are woody and non-woody, if the latter were study. It is necessary to bring inconsistency between  data in Table and in the tex: the text (page 6, line 200) says that “In the Nanjenshan plot I…stem density increase from 3,286 stem ha-1 in census 1 to 3,925 stem ha-1 in census 3…”. However, Table 1 gives different numbers: 3,287 stem ha-1 in census 1 and 4,060 stem ha-1 in census 3. It is need to edit text! Discussion. This section is not well written. This section is not well written. For example, on page 8, lines 255-257 it says: “Our results showed that the density in Lanjenchi plot is 2.5 times that of the Nanjenshan plot I, indicating that wind stress causes higher density …”. This is just a statement of fact, not a discussion! This style is most likely suitable for the Results section when considering the materials of tables and figures! Looks strange and presence in this section references to Figure 2.3, Table S1, and the constant mention of the names of monitoring polygons: Lanjenchi plot, Nanjenshan plot I. It is need to edit text! The section has two parts - 4.1 Different Wind Stress Affect the Forest Composition and 4.2 Stem Density change, Recruitment and Mortality. I the first one discusses the data according the tittle/ but in the second no discussion of Recruitment and Mortality, although they are in the title of the subsection. It is necessary divided this section into several thematic subsections, which should correspond to the subsections of the Results section.  There are some questions and comments on this table. 1. By what principle are plant species listed in the table? In this form, it is very difficult to find the desired view in the table! 2. The text of the article refers to 176 species, and only 132 are indicated in the table! Where are the others? 3. Based on the materials of Table S1, it is necessary to make small tables characterizing certain aspects of the dynamics of the species composition and place them in the Results section. It is necessary to remove from the final part of the Discussion section (lines 328-347), general discussions about global warming and its possible impact on the monsoonal climate. Also it is necessary to introduce Conclusions into the structure of the article and give the main results of the investigation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The response to the comment has been listed in the attached file. And thanks for the comment and effort for this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

It would be helpful to state in the abstract what type of forest was being considered.

The second paragraph is a very cursory account of the large numbers of publications dealing with the dynamics of long-term monitoring plots.

Section 2.2 Just to be clear, were all quadrats surveyed in every census, and was the information recorded by quadrat?

Section 2.3.3. These indices are generated by most software packages, and are often cited. However, they generally involve the loss of huge amounts of information, so their value is strictly limited.

 

 

Specific issues

Line 10. Should be “tree species at a site change under…”

Lines 20-22. This suggests that there might be a causal relationship

Line 31. The correct term for a local extinction is extirpation.

Line 37 and after. It is normal practice not to have a comma between a name and et al. et al. means ‘and others’, so normally one would say Condit et al. The et al. is italicized as it is in a foreign language.

Line 81. What does 220 m by 240 to 300 m refer to?

Lines 113-114. This should be mentioned earlier, since it relates to data collection, not data analysis.

Lines 160-163. I realize that the authors have standardized their taxonomy to the Flora of Taiwan, published in 2003. This means that some of the names that are used are not the most current. For example, Castonopsis cuspidata var. carlesii has been renamed as Castanopsis carlesii, Schefflera octophylla as Schefflera heptaphylla, and Psychotria rubra as Psychotria asiatica. I am not familiar with, and can find no record of, Lasianthus obliquinervisare. Perhaps the authors mean Lasianthus obliquinervis – which has been reclassified as Lasianthus verticillatus.

Line 196 “This revealing to the stem density changed” does not make sense.

Lines 207-212. As in the earlier species names, some of these names are no longer valid. For example, Eurya nitida var. nanjenshanensis is a synonym of Eurya nitida, Symplocos theophrastifolia a synonym of Symplocos cochinchinensis var. laurina, Aglaia elliptifolia of Aglaia rimosa, and so on.

Line 218-219. I think the authors mean “importance values” here?

Line 240. It is unclear what is meant here by vice versa. It would be better to write out what the trend was in the non-wind-affected plot.

Line 256. This statement definitively attributes the higher density of stems as Nanjenshan to wind stress. However, I have not seen a convincing argument for this – that also eliminates all other possible causes of the high stem density.

Line 271. There are only two sites in this study. It is really difficult to see how all the other variables that affect growth could be ruled out other than wind. The results are consistent with the wind hypothesis, but the testing of this hypothesis seems inadequate.

Lines 344-346. I agree that more work is needed to test this hypothesis, especially as no evidence has been presented for a change in the wind stress (or any other environmental variable) at the sites over time.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The response to the comment has been listed in the attached file. And thanks for the comment and effort for this manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This ms is much improved but still needs lots of work on the English, I have made many suggestions on the pdf. I am still concerned that the two sites may differ in their history. Specifically was the one with high density of stems ever subjected to timber harvest or farming in the past, even a century or two ago?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks to the comment. This manuscript have been edited by the English editor under the other reviewer's suggestion. The response to the comments has been attached to the file. Please check it.

Thanks, 

Wei-Chun

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Almost all comments were taken into account  and the manuscript became better both in terms of content and in terms of structure.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks to the reviewer’s comments to improve this manuscript.

Best regards, 

Wei-Chun

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have done a reasonable job of addressing some my comments and concerns. However, the revisions have introduced numerous English language errors, and the manuscript needs to be revised by a fluent English-speaker.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. The English have been edited by the English editor in the revised manuscript.

Best regards, 
Wei-Chun