Quantifying the Probability of Decline in Quality: Implications for Selection Management in Northern Hardwood Forests
, François Guillemette 3 and John Caspersen 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
line 37 Cavities may be of biotic origin
line 48 due to their decline
line 70 the rate at which
line 71 decline in quality or adding new defects ?
line 87 wrong symbol for degrees
line 88 throughout the manuscript use the space separator between thousands, which you did in the tables
line 88 "2" should be in exponent
line 106. 3s or 4s
line 161 time since manageent could be used
line 163 are these means over the assessment period during which there may have been variations.
line 215 Was the DBH effect analysed as a continuous variable. Some sites of lower quality may have a smaller threshold for the appearance of defects...
line 219, 220 this might depend on the qualityo f the marking and respect of tree markig during operations.
line 223 not clear to me the difference between decaying defects, canker and fungi
line 263 dbh classes
line 264 sugar maple trees
line 300 May be an incentive to do diameter-limit cutting which is a form of higrading.
line 314 financial analysis takes into account the time impact on value. Your discussion should differentiate the loss of value from the loss of actualized value. Trees on sites with similar influence of size on quality but higher growth rates can be grown bigger without losing value than on a slower grwoing site.
line 317 Management has among others, two different effects on quality: 1) lowering density thus improving growth and vigour, and 2) retaining the trees of best quality for the future. Can you decipher which is which in your results?
line 381 in the introduction, you asked the question whether the progression of a defects or the addition of new defects is the driving factor in tree quality. It is not clrea to me if you have answered the question.
line 390 should consider time and actualization of value.
line 397 do these results mean that tree marking performed by assessing tree vigour through observtion of dieback is sufficient and that identification of species of fungi and cankers is not necessary ?
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in making detailed and constructive comments.
Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is well done and well written. However there are major issues with the paper. Firstly, the main results provide nothing new, except for the effect of temperature on the so-called defects. The study is one-sided which is not acceptable for sustainable forest management. The so-called defects are actually tree-related microhabitats, which have vast importance in conservation of biological diversity. A search for the literatures for “tree related microhabitats” would provide much information on factors that are related to increased number and diversity of these habitats (so-called defects). The authors would then see that most of the main results are nothing new. For example, it is easy to find studies that relate tree size to these “defects”, as opposed to a statement in the paper. It is clear that selection of trees with defects (microhabitats) is contradictory with the aims of conservation of biological diversity. Therefore a review of the pertinent literature is needed with integration of the idea of tree selection for wood production versus conservation of biological diversity. For example, retention of trees with microhabitats/defects is needed for conservation of biological diversity.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort of the reviewer in making detailed and constructive comments.
PLease see the attachement for the response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Pleas check spelling and grammar in the corrections made in the revision - for example correct: concidered, continous, refered as (correct to referred to as).
