Evaluating the Legacy Effects of the Historical Predatory Seed Harvesting on the Species Composition and Structure of the Mixed Korean Pine and Broadleaf Forest from a Landscape Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper examined the impact of seed harvesting in Korean forests using a forest landscape model. Overall, the experimental design was clear. However, the methodology and result sections need statistical analysis and more descriptions as follows.
Overall: The difference between scenarios seems to be small (Figure 3, 4, 6, 7). It is better to conduct statistical analysis to support the discussion about the difference between scenarios.
L22, L107, L276, L363: Please clarify the framework that the authors established. The current manuscript seems to be an application of LANDIS Pro to a specific problem rather than establishing a new framework.
L203, L258, L260, L263, Figure 7, Figure 8: Please describe the term “importance.” The reviewer could not find the definition.
Figure 3: It is not clear that the figure shows the variance between 1) five replicates or 2) “all cells disturbed by predatory seed harvesting through subtracting basal area in the BH scenario from that in the PH scenario at each time step for the first 20 years of the simulation.”
Figure 3: The definition of short-, medium-, and long-term did not exist. Please define the time slice of each period.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for possibility to review this manuscript.
Here I am pointing out some sudgesstions for improvement of the manuscript.
I sudgest to double check the terminology used in the manuscript. The objectives of the study need to be formulated more comprehensible. Also the Methods should be presented more detailed. Authors are refering to previos publications for detailed descriptions of the methods, hovewer, not allways the neccesery information can be found.
Many references are are only available in Chinese. This makes even more difficult for the international reader to judge the soundness of the study.
Please see the comments in the attached manuscript for details.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In this revised manuscript, the methodology and results are clearer than in the original manuscript. The reviewer has only a few minor comments.
Response 2: We appreciate this comment. Reviewer is correct, we apply LANDIS PRO to investigate the impacts of seed harvesting from a landscape perspective. We corrected the statements throughout the manuscript.
Please correct line 22 in the abstract.
Response 3: Thanks for this comment. Importance value (IV), one of the outputs from LANDIS PRO, is described as follows: IV = [individual species density/total density + individual species basal area/total basal area]/2. We added the definition of important value in the revised manuscript. (Page 6, Line 214-216)
I understand the IV shows the degree of dominance (= importance) of each species.
Please use the mathematic equation function of your editor software.
Author Response
Point 1: “Response 2: We appreciate this comment. Reviewer is correct, we apply LANDIS PRO to investigate the impacts of seed harvesting from a landscape perspective. We corrected the statements throughout the manuscript.” Please correct line 22 in the abstract.
Response 1: Sorry for this mistake. We have corrected it in the line 22-23 in the abstract section.
Point 2: “Response 3: Thanks for this comment. Importance value (IV), one of the outputs from LANDIS PRO, is described as follows: IV = [individual species density/total density + individual species basal area/total basal area]/2. We added the definition of important value in the revised manuscript. (Page 6, Line 214-216)” I understand the IV shows the degree of dominance (= importance) of each species. Please use the mathematic equation function of your editor software.
Response 2: Thanks for this comment. We have added the equation of IV in the line 219, and then cited the equation in the line 215.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been corrected in a proper way, I have no objection for publishing this manuscript.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments, which have greatly improved this paper.
