Distribution of Wood Pastures in Slovakia—Constraints and Potentials for Restoration of Multifunctional Traditional Land Use Form

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found this manuscript well-structured and the core questions clearly stated. In my opinion the manuscript would be improved if:

The objective of the research may be rewritten to be less descriptive and more problem-oriented. 

The results are fine, perhaps figure 4 is a bit rhetorical to figure 3 so that may be excluded. 

Discussion must be more focused to the outcomes. It is currently to large nd some of the points are not related to the manuscript itself bit to the literature review. 

Conclusions also should be straight to the core issue; the objective of the research. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Distribution of wood-pastures in Slovakia – constraints and potentials for restoration of multifunctional treditional land-use form” presents wood-pasture habitat continuity, analyses changes in their 25 distribution over space and time in selected parts of Slovakia. It is a methodological study with conducted experience.

 Comments for authors

 Language

I have no objections to the linguistic correctness.

 Subject

The subject is correct.

 Keywords

Chosen correctly.

 Abstract

The Abstract reflects the content of the manuscript.

 1.   Introduction

The literature review is established in the world literature. However, there is no precise aim of the work. This should be absolutely corrected. In this form, the aim is indirectly defined.

 2.   Materials and Methods

I have no major objections to the text. Correct description of the various stages of the research. Correct presentation of the research area. The data used and their scope are a guarantee of meeting the purpose of the work.

 3.   Results

Briefly and concisely described the results. This makes the text easy to read and understandable. This arrangement does not bore the text and helps in its analysis.

Division of sections in accordance with the methodological assumptions.

 4.   Discussion

Correct discussion supported by examples of previous studies.

 5.   Conclusions

The conclusions partly repeat the content of the previous sections. Conclusions should summarize the results and discussion, but not repeat them. It should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods or new policies) can the paper contribute to international literature?

The manuscript is based on a case study. Recommendations for the study area should therefore be developed.

 References

A rich, up-to-date and correct set of literature.

 Others

The manuscript is a valuable methodological study. It requires suggested additions. The results and discussion are very interesting and valuable. Despite the critical remarks concerning the conclusion part, I believe that it deserves to be published in the corrected version. I hope that the comments contained in the review will contribute to raising the scientific level of the article.

Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires minor changes recommended by the reviewer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled “Distribution of wood-pastures in Slovakia - constraints and potentials for restoration of multifunctional traditional land-use form” presents wood-pasture habitat continuity, analyses changes in their distribution over space and time in parts of Slovakia. The authors have also analyzed relation of wood-pastures to selected environmental and landscape features in the study area. The authors have concluded that these wood-pastures were not established randomly, but were rather set within a certain landscape context, characterized by elevation, soil quality and distance from settlements.

I appreciate the authors effort for this amazing work. I will provide some feedback in order to improve their work. I would like to highlight issues in different sections of the manuscript.

Title: Title looks good and in accordance with the aim of the study.

Authors list: Appropriate and complete.

Abstract: Well written. I would only suggest authors to add a sentence from methodology part to elaborate specific methods for this analysis for example ArcGIS (ArcMAP) etc.

Introduction:

Very well written. Can you add a map of your study area in the introduction section? This allow readers to understand the geography and spatial orientation of the area.

Line 45: Is it Land use or Lan-use, please be consistent.

Line 64: herb layer products (wild edible ...), separate these products

Line 100: Hardly to identify or hard to identify?

Material and methods:

The methodology is very well written. I will only highlight the following points.

Line 159-167: Can the soil categories be presented in the form of a table?

Have you considered other Bioclimatic conditions to be responsible for the distribution of these pastures and old-growth forests?

Results:

Well written.

Line 203: Land use or Land-use?

Discussions: Well written, good connection provided to previously published literature.

Conclusion:

Well written. I would only suggest if limitation to the study design be added. For example, the study only considered physical characteristics of the area but didn’t include Bioclimatic variables in their analysis.

References: Appropriate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors!

Your study aims to present wood-pasture habitat continuity taking into consideration crucial landscapes' features and environmental factors which determine their spatial distribution and to analyze the changes in their distribution over space and time in selected parts of Slovakia. This research is comprehensive and complete, and the manuscript is very well-written. Bravo!

I have just a few general recommendations: 

1. I recommend emphasizing the aim of the study in a summarizing sentence in the last paragraph of the Introduction section.
2. Although the Materials and Methods section explains the methodology process step by step and is informative enough, I suggest dividing the content into two sub-sections: 2.1. Materials - including the information on the study area, materials, and software used; and 2.2. Methods - depicting the pure methodology. 
3. In the Discussion section, I suggest more references to the results obtained (Figures, Tables).
4. I would prefer to see more references to articles from the last 5 years. 

I have some minor suggestions also that you can find highlighted in the text.

Best regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx