Suitability Evaluation and Dominant Function Model for Multifunctional Forest Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
New texts need a little editing. Suggestions are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a very interesting topic of exploring the suitability of forest for sustainable multifunctional management by establishing two models: Multi-functional site quality evaluation model (MSQEM) and Multifunctional management dominant function orientation model (MDFOM). Multifunctional management evaluation system was made for forest resources in Rongshui County by establishing a relationship between forest multifunctional and forest resource investigation factors that were based on principal component analysis and spatial analysis. Presented research developed indexes and scores (e.g. Multifunctional score) for objective evaluation and offered alternative to the traditional methods.
Extensive and very detailed methodology is used with a multitude of steps and results. Therefore, I would suggest to authors to add a methodology flow chart to the paper for easier readability and better understanding of all the steps and their connections.
Some major issues:
- Abstract is a little clunky and extensive so that the main goals and results are hard to follow. Also writing style should be improved (changing of passive and active; plural and singular, etc.)
- Figure 7 with important results regarding the spatial analysis of dominant function is missing / not visible so section 4.2 could not be evaluated
- Summarized results should be presented and discussed in chapter 4. “Discussion”. However, there are some additional methodological steps and results introduced there considering spatial analysis that should be explained earlier - in chapters 2 and 3.
- In chapter 5 main conclusions derived from the research are missing and should be summarized similar to the L 29-38 from the abstract
Some minor issues:
- All members of equations are not described for all equations (e.g., Eq 2, …)
- Table and Figure references in text should be check for mistakes (e.g. L454 Table 9 or Table6 ?; L386 in Table 6 describes rows of a figure, etc. etc.)
- Table 1 expression “main ridge watershed” is not clear. Also main meaning of the ridge is given only in L198-199 (“Ridge line, also known as watershed, can determine the basin of a river.”) and should been introduced at the beginning.
- In section 2.2.1. Site guidance curve is introduced with formula after line 232, and further explanation of continuous form Table 3 and L251. This section should be joined for a better understanding
- Table A1 - Coefficient of determination, or “R-squared” should be denoted as R2, not R to avoid any confusion with the coefficient of correlation
- References formatting should be uniformed
- Writing style should be slightly improved for better readability
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments are addressed (I have marked them in track changes of the word document that is send to the editor)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The publication demonstrates an interesting complex innovative approach to assessing the suitability of forest areas for multifunctional management. Three indices have been defined and proposed - index of ecological status (IEi), productivity index of the stand (IFi) and multi-functional forest site quality index (IMi). Five published models were used, describing the relationship between height growth and age. The authors have developed
Multi-functional management dominant function orientation model (MDFOM) and Multi-functional site quality evaluation model for assessment of the forest territory with dominant species - Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.)Hook, Pinus massoniana Lamb., Eucalyptus robusta Smith. and others, dividing it on the basis of the analysis of separate forest areas for different complex uses. GIS was also applied to visualize the results. The approach is reliable as many parameters measured in forest inventory and taxation have been used. The development of such an approach is important for the multifunctional use of forest territories together with the ecological forest management for the sustainable development of the territories.
Comments:
The keywords are too many, I suggest that some of them to be dropped, as Dominant function, principal component analysis(PCA), because indicated used methods. Multifunctional management is repeated three times in keywords. Let the authors think about how to avoid this repetition. In addition, the phrase is written differently - with a dash and without a dash and unification is needed.
Line 16: Abbreviation DEM is not defined. I suppose Digital evaluation mode, but it is not explicitly given.
In Table 1 as one of Multi-functional type is used water conservation and as other type - soil and water conservation. How are these two types parametrically separated for PCA?
Authors must describe or cite what software was used for PCA - the existing or own developed software application?
Lines 71-22: The text needs of redaction.
Line 80:The term "pro ecological" needs an explanation.
Line 87: Platycladus orientalis - have to be in italic.
Line 191: Ecological Status is a biodiversity index. How that formula (1) is related to the biodiversity?
Is the productivity index calculated only on the basis of tree height sufficiently representative for all types of use? - formula 2
Lines 201 – 205: The selection of Hmax have to be better and more clearly argued.
Line 205: What are the arguments for using the the nine percentile of stand average tree height to construct the index guidance curve?
Formula 3 needs to be proven.
The error estimation in applied Principle component analysis is absent.
The abbreviations R and RMSE in Table 4 have to be explained.
Reviewer 2 Report
Spatially explicit analyses of the suitability of different sub-compartments in a plantation landscape for the delivery of different values (water, timber, soil conservation) are important and the automated protocol presented may be of general use. As I understand it, the delivery of those values is a function of slope, soil thickness, altitude, distance from ridge line, and stand age, which makes sense. What I do not understand is what recommendations can be derived from this sophisticated mapping exercise, in terms of plantation treatment protocols. Similarly, how are we supposed to use the finding that x percentage of the subcompartments have high multifunctional site index values? For example, if a subcompartment receives a high value for water, would it be planted less densely or more densely, harvested less frequently, or perhaps not harvested at all? Furthermore, how can any recommendations for silvicultural practices not consider the financial aspects such as those related to distance from nearest roads and other operational constraints. It appears that the manuscript was prepared for other spatial modelers, which is why it focuses so much on the method itself, and not for forest or plantation managers who might need a tool to guide their allocation of management practices and goals.
One general suggestion is to remove many of the tables (e.g., 4, 6, 7,8, 9) from the body of the manuscript and place them in a supplementary section to which readers who are interested can refer.
Another suggestion is to make sure that each and every table and figure can be interpreted from the information provided, including the legend, without reference to the text. None of the figures or tables currently satisfies this requirement.
One problem is that the prose is extremely hard to follow because of the way terminology is used, often without accompanying definitions. For example (by line number:
12 “suitability” of what for what?
14 “dominant function evaluation” what is that?
17 ‘evaluation index”….not sure what that is.
28 isn’t it obvious that “multifunctional suitable areas” (not sure what that means) are clustered?
30 “compares the planning forest types” not sure what this means. How was “accuracy” assessed.
33 hm2 what is that?
44 forests or plantations?
64 “guangxi contour line” and “second-class survey data”---perhaps I should know what these mean but I do not.
79 ukasz?
111 scientificity?
Table 2: provide scientific names
365-366 I am not sure that this sentence doesn’t just state the obvious.
406-407 help the readers understand your point here.
426 clarify how this exercise might result in changes in management practices.
