Comparison of the Stem Basal Area Increment of Five Coexisting Tree Species with Different Light Demands Growing in Central European Deciduous Forests with Complex Vertical Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is relevant and has a good impact for the journal. The title is sufficiently suggestive regarding what is presented in the article.

The summary should be a little shorter and more concise.

The two questions of the article regarding the influence of light on the growth of the basal area of ​​the trunk, depending on the position of the trees in the vertical plane and the competitive pressure under which a certain tree grows, have, in my opinion, relevant answers that have resulted from other research. Therefore, the subject is not very original, and I do not think that there are gaps regarding the influence of light on the growth of some species, some of which are shade or semi-shade species and others light species.

The place of the research is described and positioned accurately and the research methods are described accurately. However, too much is insisted on and too many details are given. Here too, the authors could present more schematically.

The results, otherwise predictable, are presented correctly, with appropriate graphs. It is normal for the longest-lived species to have larger diameters.

The results expressed for example from line 276 to line 280 were to be expected.

The conclusions are presented in accordance with the results, and answer the two questions posed, demonstrating what was known from other research conducted in mixed deciduous forests where there are species with different light requirements, namely: the increase in the basal area of ​​the trunk of trees that form multi-species and multi-layered stands increases with the size of the trees and decreases with the level of competitive pressure.

The references are adequate and up-to-date. I have not observed any trends or signs of plagiarism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is addressing an ecologically relevant topic: growth differentiation among coexisting tree species with contrasting light requirements in uneven-aged mixed forests. This manuscript presents a solid empirical contribution to understanding tree growth dynamics in multi-species uneven-aged deciduous forests. It stands out for its rigorous field measurements and advanced modelling approach. However, its ecological interpretation and conceptual framing need to be strengthened. A clearer link between light-demand strategies, competition mechanisms, and observed growth convergence would enhance its scientific impact and make it more appealing for readers of Forests or related journals.

 

Major Comments

The study integrates life-history theory (shade tolerance, competition, and growth strategies) with quantitative analysis of basal area increment (BAI), however, in the introduction general growth theory (growth curves, successional position) with hypotheses are mixed without clearly defining mechanistic expectations behind. This

For instance, clarifying how “light demand” mechanistically influences growth–height and growth–competition relationships would be interesting. I could recommend adding an explicit conceptual model to highlight such relationship.

Regarding hypotheses H1 and H2, they relevant however remain descriptive. The reader would expect quantitative predictions. To that, I would suggest reformulating hypotheses in predictive form, possibly supported by a conceptual figure (see my previous comment) summarizing expected outcomes for shade-tolerant vs. light-demanding species.

The competition index is well adapted, incorporating leaf area index (LAI) as a weighting factor, however, the LAI values used for weighting (from literature) may not reflect local canopy conditions or interannual variability. At this level, I suggest to briefly discuss how uncertainty in LAI weighting could affect CI sensitivity.

Please consider clarifying potential consequences of exclusion of trees <7 cm DBH, especially shade-tolerant species. Besides, the authors state they used height as a proxy for social status, which is reasonable, but an additional analysis using DBH or crown ratio could help confirm this assumption.

Please consider discussing whether plot-level variability was indeed negligible or masked by overparameterization after statistical analyses.

The finding that BAI increases with height and decreases with competition is expected, but the lack of differentiation among species challenges the main premise. The interpretation that light demand has “negligible influence” may be too strong. The result could reflect environmental homogenization (e.g., diffuse light, small gaps) rather than biological similarity. Acknowledge alternative explanations (e.g., small-scale heterogeneity, soil moisture variation, stand history).

The discussion is comprehensive but too narrative; it needs sharper focus on mechanistic interpretation.

Please, highlight the implications for coexistence: does growth convergence indicate functional redundancy or stable niche partitioning? Hence, consider linking to Grime’s CSR framework or the leaf economic spectrum, as your study touches life-history traits indirectly through growth rate. The statement that “growth plays a negligible role in differentiation of life strategies” may oversimplify—growth form and temporal niche separation might still underpin coexistence.

 

Minor Comments

Abstract: Condense slightly; focus on main findings and ecological implications.

Line 30–33: “which grows significantly more slowly…”. Consider rephrasing to “which, contrary to expectations, exhibits lower basal area increment under uneven-aged conditions.”

Line 103–108: Clarify “light requirements” ranking, include citations at the first mention.

Discussion (L360–370): Use “response to competition” instead of “incremental response,” for clarity.

English style: Very good overall; only minor syntactic tightening needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments and concerns during revisions. I think the paper is of relevance. Thank you.

Minor comment: Please consider completing the Acknowledgments section.