Review Reports
- Dávid Sütő1,*,
- Sándor Siffer2 and
- János Farkas1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: John Groninger
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
please make changes to the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviwer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached document and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsL 18 Include taxonomic name(s) for primary oak species
L25 reword “better manage”
L 32 “are Quercus” or “are Quercus and closely related” or “are closely associated with Quercus”?
L40 “possessed” should be “posed”
L44 What is the role of sprouting/asexual regeneration in this ecosystem? Doe this statement need to be qualified to reflect the role of asexual reproduction or is that not significant relative to that provided by acorns?
L60-61 rewrite “Wild boar Is such a generalist species”
L 64 rewrite “and their populations grow steadily and simultaneously with…”
L 70, as written, this sentence suggests that acorns are associated generally with Fagaceae. Acorns are exclusively associated with the genus Quercus.
L 84 Rewrite as “Are there any patches used more frequently…”
L 96. Further description of the soil and site would be helpful for relating this work to other contexts. Specific information regarding surface stoniness, soil depth, particle size distribution/texture, percent slope would be especially helpful.
L 98 Please provide a citation for this forest cover classification scheme to benefit an international audience.
L 103 cca. can be abbreviated as ca.
L 150 Replace “settle” with “geolocate’ and “precise” with “precisely”
L 154 should “slit” be “split”?
L 158 and L 161 remove the phrase “on the other hand”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Although the quality of writing is sufficient to convey information, editing is needed as the style and grammatical errors detract from the overall effectiveness of this work. My comments address some of these but they are too extensive for my part as a technical reviewer.
Author Response
Dear Reviwer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached document and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf