Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Ryudai et al. (forests-2768433) clarified the vegetation history of planted forests using classifications based on afforestation rates. This study calculated the afforestation ratios for towns and municipalities, classified municipalities into the 10 categories, analysed spatial heterogeneity of afforestation in Japan’s Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Kinki regions. Overall, this manuscript is informative. I provide some comments below, which may be helpful for the authors to further improve the paper. I would suggest a minor revision of the paper.

Specific comment:

L22 Keywords: please give the whole wording, without abbreviation.

L80: please give an explanation of the abbreviation when first used (GIS).

L148. “Kyushu had 1,307 municipalities”. However, the number was 1306 in table 1. Please check your data carefully.

L178. It should be “Figure 2”. L239. Figure 3!!

In Section 2.2, the data from the 1960 World Census of Agriculture and Forestry was used to quantitatively assess the vegetation history of planted forests. However, I would suggest the authors further describe the datasets used in this manuscript, which may help readers understand the study. For example, what is the data name, data type, and data volume? How do you calculate the afforestation ratio? Please specify in the section.

Discussion section: please add limitations of the study and future plans. In addition, the logic of the discussion section is not strong enough. So I suggest reorganizing this section to make it more readable. For example, the vegetation history of the three regions (Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Kinki) can be described in three paragraphs to explain the spatial heterogeneity in afforestation.

Conclusion section: The conclusion section is not concise enough. I suggest simplifying the second paragraph of the conclusion section or placing it in the discussion section.

Please check all the figure captions. The figure number is very confused because there are two figures named “Figure 4”.

The quality of the figures and tables should be greatly improved. Please unify the format of the last three figures, especially the ternary graph. Also, figures require higher resolution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and for providing constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your suggestions for improving our paper. Please find below our responses to each of your comments, along with the revisions we have made to the manuscript. They are expressed in red markers in the manuscript.

 

Specific comment on Keywords (L23):

Response: As requested, we have revised the keywords to present the complete terminology, eliminating abbreviations.

 

Explanation of GIS abbreviation (L84):

Response: We have now provided a full explanation of the abbreviation "GIS" (Geographic Information System) when it is first used in the manuscript to ensure clarity.

 

Discrepancy in the number of municipalities in Kyushu (L154 and Table 1):

Response: We have carefully rechecked our data and found an error in L148 of the manuscript. The correct number is 1,306. This has been corrected.

 

Incorrect figure numbers (L182, L242):

Response: We have corrected the figure references to ensure that "Figure 2" and "Figure 3" are accurately cited in the text.

 

Description of datasets in Section 2.2:

Response: We have expanded Section 2.2 to provide a more detailed description of the datasets used, including the data name, type, volume, and the specific methodology used to calculate the afforestation ratio.

 

Suggestions for the Discussion section:

Response: We have taken your valuable advice and have added a subsection outlining the limitations of our study and indicating potential directions for future research. Additionally, we have restructured the Discussion section to present the vegetation history and spatial heterogeneity in afforestation of each region (Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Kinki) in separate paragraphs, enhancing the logical flow and readability.

 

Recommendations for the Conclusion section:

Response: Following your suggestion, we have simplified the second paragraph of the Conclusion section to make it more concise.

 

Check of figure captions:

Response: We have revised all figure captions to correct the confusion with figure numbers. We have also ensured that there are no duplications and that each figure is correctly referenced in the text.

 

Quality of figures and tables:

Response: We have unified the format of the last three figures and particularly focused on improving the clarity of the ternary graph. All figures have been updated to a higher resolution.

We hope that these revisions meet your approval.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Studies of the historical development of forest vegetation are of some interest if they are based on the analysis of original data and include a comparison of several historical stages as well as the current state of vegetation cover. In this manuscript, the authors performed a primitive processing of information from a historical fao atlas and overlaid it on a map of municipalities in Japan. There is no comparative aspect with the current state of the vegetation. The authors do not involve geobotanical or forest surveys, do not analyze satellite data. I believe that in this form the manuscript cannot be accepted for consideration in the FORESTS journal. Perhaps the results presented will be more interesting to the audience of a more specialized or regional journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some parts, the text looks heavy and difficult to understand

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

We would like to extend our sincere thanks for your constructive critique of our manuscript and for highlighting the significance of incorporating a comparative aspect in the historical analysis of forest vegetation. Upon reflection, we recognize that our manuscript falls short by focusing solely on a primitive processing of historical data from the FAO atlas without incorporating a comparison with the current state of vegetation. Furthermore, the absence of geobotanical and forest survey data, as well as satellite imagery analysis, limits the comprehensiveness and relevancy of our study. Recognizing the importance of your feedback, we commit to enhancing our future research in the following ways:

 

Comparative Analysis with Current Vegetation:

We will integrate a comparative analysis using the most current vegetation data, comparing it with our historical data to show the changes and continuities in forest vegetation over multiple time points.

 

Incorporation of Geobotanical and Forest Surveys:

In our ensuing research, we will incorporate geobotanical and forest survey data.

 

Use of Satellite Imagery Data:

Satellite imagery was not available in 1960. Therefore, we are considering the use of aerial photographs as an alternative to analyze the reforestation status of that year. In addition, we plan to use satellite imagery to analyze the current deforestation status of the planted forest in 1960.

 

Refinement and Focus of Research Aims:

Following your recommendation, we will consider presenting our research to more specialized or regional journals.

 

We will take your essential input as a foundation for a significant redirection and advancement of our research. We believe that with these proposed enhancements, our future studies will provide valuable insights into forest vegetation dynamics, meriting publication in scholarly journals such as FORESTS. We again thank you for the time you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we look forward to evolving our research to achieve greater depth and broad relevance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Afforestation projects in Japan first started after the rebuilding that followed World War II. In efforts to restore the country's infrastructure after the war, large areas of forest were clear-cut for timber and to create pastures to attract immigrant farmers. A new management plan for the forests of Japan was instated after many pastures were abandoned and there was a recognized massive decline of old growth and secondary forests. The Japanese government recruited villagers to plant millions of trees in an effort to both rebuild the country’s wood stocks for future development and protect villages from landslides and rain runoff. Forest plantations were created to increase the health of Japanese forests and to sustain the nation's timber industry. Afforestation was combined with changes in logging practices that called for reduced clear-cutting and low impact logging over a larger area. As such, this study aims to clarify the vegetation history of planted forests that are still in use today by comparing the types of land afforested in 1960 with the post-war afforestation period in Japan’s Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Kinki regions. The results show that the vegetation history in Kyushu, even within the same municipality, was frequently mixed in 1960; in Hokkaido, the afforestation ratio for deforested areas resulting from natural forests was extremely high, while the afforestation ratio for deforested areas resulting from planted forests was low.

I think this study is a progress by deepening and expanding studies focused on ecosystem management from afforestation projects in Japan. Generally, some revision suggestions are listed below:

1) It's better to add background of planted forests in Japan in Abstract since readers is not so clear with this topic.

2) Describe the inadequacy of your study, and based on such inadequacy discuss the future research directions rather than current description of data-based directions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you for your insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript. Below, please find our response to your suggestions.They are expressed in green marker in the manuscript.

 

 

Addition of Background in Abstract:

Response: As you recommended, we have revised our abstract to include background information about planted forests in Japan. The revised abstract now provides some information such as area of Japanese planted forest, the rate of planted forest, and the relationship between planted trees and climate zone in Japan.

 

Describing Study Inadequacies and Future Research Directions:

Response: We have taken to heart your suggestion to describe the limitations of our study more effectively. In doing so, we have revised the relevant sections to acknowledge these inadequacies transparently. Additionally, we have reframed our discussion of future research directions to address these gaps rather than only presenting data-based directions.

 

 

We are implementing your recommendations as an opportunity not only to refine this manuscript but also as guidance for the design of our future research projects. We thank you again for your thoughtful review and look forward to the possibility of our study contributing to the pages of the journal.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Vegetation History Characteristics of Planted Forests in Japan:  Analysis of the 1960 World Census of Agriculture and Forestry” is scientifically correct. The structure of the manuscript is well organized. The authors have processed a big amount of data.

I would like to draw author’s attention to the following comments:

-        Line 78. Please include a short explanation of HYDE data model.

-        In Figure 1. Japanese region the title above the middle map – Please correct the name of the region: I suppose the authors meant Kinki, nit Kini. Please clarify and correct if necessary.

-        In figure 1 the left map – Please insert a legend for the coloured regions.

-        Please insert the source of information  presented in table.2 (page 4)

-        Line161-163:What does mean "I" in the sentence:”  I The data were saved in the CSV format. Each land classification in the 60-year census was designated as (1) natural forest clear-cut land, (2) planted forest clear-cut land, and (3) non-mountainous forest.”

-        Line 257-262: Please include the exact number of the percent in the sentence:  “ Based on these findings, the following characteristic features of Hokkaido's vegetation history are proposed: first, there is a large percentage of Section…….”

-        In Figures 3- 5: I suggest that the authors indicate the regions and include their names  in the maps legend.

-        In section 3.4. Comparison of the percentage of grassland in three regions please insert the time period (years) again.

-        Line 389: Please include a short explanation for the abbreviation WW2

-        Please consider improving the results  explanations in section  "Results" and also the possibility in  the same section to present and generalize  the obtained figures/percent that you compare in a separate table. 

The manuscript it is relevant for the Journal Forests MDPI after minor revision.

Good luck to the authors!

Reviewer #

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

 

We are grateful for the positive feedback and constructive suggestions you have provided on our manuscript. Your comments are invaluable in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work. Please find our responses to each of your comments below. They are expressed in yellow marker in the manuscript.

 

Line 81 - Explanation of HYDE Data Model:

Response: We have included a concise explanation of the HYDE (Historical Database of the Global Environment) data model

 

Figure 1 - Correction of the Region Name:

Response: We apologize for the oversight and have corrected the region's name from 'Kini' to the correct 'Kinki' in the title above the middle map of Figure 1.

 

Figure 1 - Legend for Colored Regions:

Response: A legend has now been inserted for the colored regions in Figure 1, clearly indicating what each color represents to aid the reader's interpretation of the map data.

 

Source of Information in Table 2:

Response: The source of information for the data presented in Table 2 on page 4 has now been duly cited and detailed for verification and referencing.

 

Line 165-167 - Clarification of "I" in CSV Format:

Response: The letter "I" appears to have been a typographical error. It has been removed for clarity.

 

Line 261-267 - Inclusion of Exact Percentage Numbers:

Response: We have revised this section to include the exact percentage numbers.

 

Figures 3-5 - Indication of Regions and Map Legend:

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments on the representation of regions and the map legends in Figures 3-5.We have updated the legends in Figures 3-5 to indicate the regions clearly and have included the names within the map legends for ease of identification.

 

Section 3.4 - Insertion of Time Period:

Response: We added the time for the comparison of the percentage of grassland in the three regions.

 

Line 392 - Explanation of WW2 Abbreviation:

Response: A brief explanation of the abbreviation 'WW2' has been added to the manuscript to denote its meaning as 'World War 2'.

 

Improvement of Results Explanations and Presentation of Data:

Response: We have enhanced the explanation of the results in the 'Results' section as you suggested, for a clearer understanding of the study findings. Additionally, we have considered your recommendation to present and generalize the obtained figures and percentages within a separate table to aid in comparative analysis.

 

Thank you again for your valuable contribution to our manuscript’s refinement process. We look forward to the possibility of being published in the journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be published in the present form.