The Impact of Salvage Logging on Deadwood Decomposition and Forest Regeneration: A Case Study in Tatra National Park, Slovakia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a good article on an actual topic that is not limited to conservation aspects, but also pays attention to the economic impact of salvage logging. The aim (focus of the study) is well defined at the beginning of the abstract.
L 18. It is confusing the different radius of the satellite plot - in the abstract r= 4 m but in Figure 1. r = 3 m. Please correct.
L 31 “allower” water content - what does that mean, what do you want to say about water content? Please reword.
Introduction.
L 106-114 The paragraph of the aims at the end of the Introduction needs reworking. See the clear definition at the beginning of the abstract. The main aim is vaguely stated only in the last sentence of the Introduction. The paragraph begins with what needs to be estimated in order to achieve the main aim.
Materials and methods
P 5 Fig. 1 What is the radius of the satellite plot? Is it 3 m (Fig 1) or 4 m (Abstract)?
Results
P 8 Table 3. Misprint in word “p value”.
P 9 Fig. 5. The content of Figure 5 has already been described above, I recommend that Figure 5 be omitted.
P11 L35. Please give the formula for calculating Lorey's height.
P11 L35-36. Near-significant difference is an incorrect expression. It is right to write that there is a tendency of bigger mean basal area, and mean Lorey's height in salvaged areas than in unsalvaged ones (p< 0,1).
Discussion
P14 L 499-502 What is “significant decomposition”? “ …the deadwood had not yet reached optimal (?) conditions for forest regeneration.” Confusingly worded statements.
P 14 L515-523. Excellent paragraph as well as the following Conclusions.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank both reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, all of which have been incorporated into the manuscript
This is a good article on an actual topic that is not limited to conservation aspects, but also pays attention to the economic impact of salvage logging. The aim (focus of the study) is well defined at the beginning of the abstract.
Thank you for your positive reaction.
L 18. It is confusing the different radius of the satellite plot - in the abstract r= 4 m but in Figure 1. r = 3 m. Please correct.
Sorry for the mistake, the real radius was 3 m, we corrected that.
L 31 “allower” water content - what does that mean, what do you want to say about water content? Please reword.
Yes, we replaced the “allover” by “total”.
Introduction.
L 106-114 The paragraph of the aims at the end of the Introduction needs reworking. See the clear definition at the beginning of the abstract. The main aim is vaguely stated only in the last sentence of the Introduction. The paragraph begins with what needs to be estimated in order to achieve the main aim.
Yes, we modified the text in the paragraph to be more specific about our aims.
Materials and methods
P 5 Fig. 1 What is the radius of the satellite plot? Is it 3 m (Fig 1) or 4 m (Abstract)?
Sorry for the discrepancy, the correct information is 3 m.
Results
P 8 Table 3. Misprint in word “p value”.
Corrected.
P 9 Fig. 5. The content of Figure 5 has already been described above, I recommend that Figure 5 be omitted.
We prefer to show the figure, since it gives some more detailed information than mentioned in the text.
P11 L35. Please give the formula for calculating Lorey's height.
OK, we described the meaning of the Lorey's height (extra text in the brackets).
P11 L35-36. Near-significant difference is an incorrect expression. It is right to write that there is a tendency of bigger mean basal area, and mean Lorey's height in salvaged areas than in unsalvaged ones (p< 0,1).
Yes, we modified the text according to your suggestion.
Discussion
P14 L 499-502 What is “significant decomposition”? “ …the deadwood had not yet reached optimal (?) conditions for forest regeneration.” Confusingly worded statements.
Thank you – good comment. We used your suggestion in the text.
P 14 L515-523. Excellent paragraph as well as the following Conclusions.
Thank you for your positive comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to the influence of forest management on the rate of decomposition of fallen timber and forest regeneration in places of catastrophic forest fall. The research is done carefully and well described. I have only a few minor comments
Lines 32-34. I suggest to rephrase this conclusion. Negative or positive evaluation of any management is determined by the goals of this management. See the last comment
Lines 164-165. It would be useful to also briefly describe how similar other environmental factors are (e.g. aspect and slope steepness).
Line 184. "This approach was chosen because conducting a terrestrial survey of the entire MP area for deadwood was extremely time-consuming" - This phrase here is a bit confusing in regards to dead wood specifically. I don't think it's needed at all.
Section 2.4. It is necessary to explain why wood samples were collected only from untreated areas. It would have been more logical to collect from both treated and untreated areas so that comparisons could be made.
Line 213. "For this purpose" - it seems like unnecessary words
Lines 375-376. I would not call the effect of logging on Norway spruce inhibiting. Rather, logging removes the inhibiting effect of dead wood on other tree species.
Lines 529-531. If you want to use the definitions of "positive" and "negative" ecological effects, then it is necessary to specify the goals of forest management that determine the positive or negative effect of these processes. For the normal development of the ecosystem, any human intervention is negative, since it disrupts the natural processes. If you set the task of slowing down the carbon cycle, logging has a negative effect, if you set the task of accelerating the carbon cycle and accelerating forest regeneration, logging has a positive effect. As for the accelerating effect of logging on the number of tree species, the positivity of this effect is very controversial. The increase in species diversity at this short stage of succession (as you correctly note) is only the ecosystem's response to the disruption of the succession by humans. An increase in species diversity in itself is not positive. The idea that high biodiversity is always good is false. We must strive to maintain not a high, but a typical species diversity for a given ecosystem and a given stage of succession.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank both reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, all of which have been incorporated into the manuscript
The article is devoted to the influence of forest management on the rate of decomposition of fallen timber and forest regeneration in places of catastrophic forest fall. The research is done carefully and well described. I have only a few minor comments
Thank you for the positive reaction.
Lines 32-34. I suggest to rephrase this conclusion. Negative or positive evaluation of any management is determined by the goals of this management. See the last comment.
You are right. We used the term “forest environment” instead.
Lines 164-165. It would be useful to also briefly describe how similar other environmental factors are (e.g. aspect and slope steepness).
OK, we added information about the aspect and steepness (as limits for our selection of the monitoring plots which were included for the study).
Line 184. "This approach was chosen because conducting a terrestrial survey of the entire MP area for deadwood was extremely time-consuming" - This phrase here is a bit confusing in regards to dead wood specifically. I don't think it's needed at all.
You are right. The sentence was rephrased.
Section 2.4. It is necessary to explain why wood samples were collected only from untreated areas. It would have been more logical to collect from both treated and untreated areas so that comparisons could be made.
In fact, we used the samples from the sites with unsalvaged calamity wood since those areas provided much material for sampling. Actually, it was not necessary to sample on both types of areas (salvaged vs unsalvaged) since we quantified dead wood amount and decay classes within another method of survey performed on both types of sites (20 vs 20 MP). At the same time, the sampling of deadwood for laboratory analyses might be taken from any sites since it has not mission to answer question about differences between the salvaged and unsalvaged plots, but just to manifest deadwood properties regarding decay classes.
Line 213. "For this purpose" - it seems like unnecessary words
OK, erased.
Lines 375-376. I would not call the effect of logging on Norway spruce inhibiting. Rather, logging removes the inhibiting effect of dead wood on other tree species.
Yes, very good point – corrected.
Lines 529-531. If you want to use the definitions of "positive" and "negative" ecological effects, then it is necessary to specify the goals of forest management that determine the positive or negative effect of these processes. For the normal development of the ecosystem, any human intervention is negative, since it disrupts the natural processes. If you set the task of slowing down the carbon cycle, logging has a negative effect, if you set the task of accelerating the carbon cycle and accelerating forest regeneration, logging has a positive effect. As for the accelerating effect of logging on the number of tree species, the positivity of this effect is very controversial. The increase in species diversity at this short stage of succession (as you correctly note) is only the ecosystem's response to the disruption of the succession by humans. An increase in species diversity in itself is not positive. The idea that high biodiversity is always good is false. We must strive to maintain not a high, but a typical species diversity for a given ecosystem and a given stage of succession.
Thank you so much – perfect ideas! We decided to implement your comments in modified version for preparing extract paragraph (the last one in the Discussion section).
