Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents the results of the dendrochronological analysis of Chamaecyparis pisifera tree-rings from five locations in Poland. Authors compared ring width chronologies with various climatic parameters and analyzed pointer years occurrences as well as false and frost rings formation. Authors applied adequate methods to the considerable data set and got results that definitely deserve to be published in the Forests journal. There are some minor corrections that authors may wish to consider.

Line 15 – Missing rings are listed among studied tree-ring anomalies but data of their occurrences were not presented and discussed. Did authors observe them or not? If yes, missing rings deserve discussion.

Line 113 – WULS-SGGW Forest Experimental Station – better to decipher the abbreviation.

Table 1 – Column designated as “Time span”. Better to call it “Habitat” or something like this.

Line 133 – tree-ring sequences were dated using cross-dating methods – please, specify methods or provide references.

Line 158 – shared period – better to call it “common period”, doesn’t it?

Line 177 – we used data… – is not it better to present this information in a table?

Table 2 – may be it would be more informative if this table had two columns with chronologies time spans, one with total chronology length, and the other with EPS>0.85? For example, in Drawsko they are 1896-2020 and 1932-2020.

Line 314 – (e.g., 1989, 1992, 1995 czy 2008) – ?

Figure 7 – The information concerning false and frost rings is very interesting. However it is presented as a single plot of only one site and a very short text description. Is not it better to provide a table with years of false and frost rings occurrences as rows and sites as columns with the number of anomalous rings in cells?

Author Response

MDPI Forests                                                                              Szczecin, 13.07.2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 1

All suggestions of Reviewer 1 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

1. We added information about missing rings in line 212-213, within section 3.1. Ringwidth chronologies.
2. The abbreviation WULS-SGGW is now spelled out in full – line 122-123.
3. Table 1. “time span” column is replaced with “habitat” column.
4. Old Line 133 (now 139) references are added.
5. Old Line 158 (now 163) “shared period” is replaced with “common period”.
6. Line 177 - Table 2 is now included according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
7. Table 2 from the original submission (Table 3 in the revised version) includes two new columns with data for total chronology according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
8. Line 313 - overlooked Polish expressions were replaced with English text.
9. Figure 7 - There are a lot of false rings, 509 in total, and they appear in different years. It is very difficult to show all relevant data in a table or in a picture. However, we are planning to pursue this issue further, and prepare a separate publication on this subject. Frost rings, however, are fewer (only 54), but they are found mainly in juvenile wood, which, according to the authors, should not be analyzed (only frost rings in mature wood are analyzed here).

Reviewer 2

All suggestions of Reviewer 2 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

1. We added new information and references to research on the impact of introduced species on biodiversity.
2. We changed keywords according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
3. Old Line 63 (now 64) references are now added.
4. Old Line 135 (now 141) we changed “signal”.
5. All Latin species name were changed according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
6. The language accuracy was re-checked, and corrected where required.

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
the authors

Anna Cedro, Grzegorz Nowak and Halina Kowalewska-Kalkowska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript entitled Climate response in tree-rings of Sawara cypress (Chamaecyparis pisifera Endl.) in Poland presents the results of the dendrochronological study on introduced to Poland coniferous species. 

It is a rarely cultivated species in Poland and currently not considered for a broader introduction in developed forests. However, due to the ongoing climate changes, which increase mortality and susceptibility to biotic threats, research on alternative species is justified.

The Introduction does not raise my major concerns. The aim of the research is well specified. In my opinion, five research stands spread over different locations in Poland are sufficient for such analysis. The authors used standard dendrochronological methods in the research, schematically repeated in many other publications. The novelty of this research is not the strongest point of this manuscript. However, the obtained results, their presentation and their discussion do not raise any major reservations.

However, writing that it is an alternative species, the authors should refer to the research on the impact of introduced species on biodiversity and the properties of forest habitats.

Specific comments:

In Key Words, the words from the title of the article are repeated, which means that they lose their function of providing supplementary information about the publication's content. Also, I recommend replacing them with other ones for better positioning of the article in web browsers.L.63: Citation is needed at the end of the paragraph.

L.135: Sygnał->Signal

According to the standards adopted in the International Plants Names Index or The Plant List databases, the species Latin names should be given to appropriate authorities.

Chamaecyparis pisifera Endl. and Picea abies L. are incorrect, see http://www.theplantlist.org

Moreover, the first time the species name appears in the manuscript, it should be given together with the correct authorities (author abbreviation), i.e. Chamaecyparis pisifera (Siebold & Zucc.) Endl.

Each subsequent time, please use the abbreviated form Ch. pisifera.

Author Response

MDPI Forests                                                                              Szczecin, 13.07.2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 1

All suggestions of Reviewer 1 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

1. We added information about missing rings in line 212-213, within section 3.1. Ringwidth chronologies.
2. The abbreviation WULS-SGGW is now spelled out in full – line 122-123.
3. Table 1. “time span” column is replaced with “habitat” column.
4. Old Line 133 (now 139) references are added.
5. Old Line 158 (now 163) “shared period” is replaced with “common period”.
6. Line 177 - Table 2 is now included according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
7. Table 2 from the original submission (Table 3 in the revised version) includes two new columns with data for total chronology according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
8. Line 313 - overlooked Polish expressions were replaced with English text.
9. Figure 7 - There are a lot of false rings, 509 in total, and they appear in different years. It is very difficult to show all relevant data in a table or in a picture. However, we are planning to pursue this issue further, and prepare a separate publication on this subject. Frost rings, however, are fewer (only 54), but they are found mainly in juvenile wood, which, according to the authors, should not be analyzed (only frost rings in mature wood are analyzed here).

Reviewer 2

All suggestions of Reviewer 2 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

1. We added new information and references to research on the impact of introduced species on biodiversity.
2. We changed keywords according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
3. Old Line 63 (now 64) references are now added.
4. Old Line 135 (now 141) we changed “signal”.
5. All Latin species name were changed according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
6. The language accuracy was re-checked, and corrected where required.

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
the authors

Anna Cedro, Grzegorz Nowak and Halina Kowalewska-Kalkowska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf