Distribution and Dendrometry Evolution of Gall Oak (Quercus faginea Lam.) Forest Stands in the Region of Murcia (Southeastern Spain) as an Indicator of Climate Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral remarks of the reviewer
This paper investigates the distribution and growth of gall oak (Quercus faginea Lam.) forest stands in the Region of Murcia.
2.Materials and Methods
2.1.Study area
The information on meteorological conditions from Figure 7 has been supplemented in 3. Results and Discussion.
2.2. Methodology
Dendrometric terms have been clarified.
- Results and Discussion
Invalid Table 2 has been removed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and corrections.
Kind regards,
Alfonso Albacete
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my view, the manuscript can now be recommended for a publication in Forests.
Comment
Please, provide English caption for Figure 11 (now Spanish).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We have corrected the caption of Figure 11.
Kind regards,
Alfonso Albacete
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is one more version of a manuscript which I commented already twice.
The manuscript deals with the distribution and evolution of gall oak, and now claims that it is also “an indicator of climate change”.
Please find my comments following:
The Material and methods Section gives more details now, however they are in some places incomprehensible, and in other places reveal that some things have been done wrong.
Lines 152-155: they determined the volume … through “cubic calculation”; whatever “cubic calculation” may be. The give the equation, and that’s enough, why call it cubic calculation? They say that they used the formula … designed by Auvergne. A correct citation together with the refenrnece of Auvergne should be given.
Line 156: “and h (total height) at 1.3 m from ground”? This sentence must be wrong!
Line 162: what they calculated is the crown projection area and not the crown surface. The latter would be the area of the crown mantle. And calculating this area with the arithmetic mean of two diameters is wrong. They should have used the quadratic mean, because they square it in the equation for the CS!
Lines 170 – 175: “published in 2012” – please give the correct citation and reference. Here the authors want to show that the same measures were taken in 2006 and 2022, but they use different terms. Here they measure the trunk height and the trunk diameter, while above they measure the breast height diameter and the total tree height.
Line 198-199: “their publication 2007 and 2013” – give a correct citation and the respective reference. “…is consistent in both figures” which figures?
Lines 238-239: The data given there are error probabilities I assume. So please say that, thus write p=0.0000045. Or even better only say the differences in all three variables, Total height, breast height diameter and volume are highly significant (p<<0.001)
Table 6: If placed in the Result Section, say that these are results of the investigation in 2022.
Lines 310 – 313: Give citations and references for the shown indices.
Generally the authors did not follow my suggestion to give in a few mean stand variables like N/ha, basal area/ha and mean height for the readers who are not familiar with the forest type under investigation.
In the answer to my last comments the authors refers to Lopez et al 2003. This is listed in the references but not cited in the main text!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Maybe some of the errors found in the manuscript are only the result of poor Engslish and especially a lack of knowlege of forest science terms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is my 3th review of several versions of this manuscript. Unfortunately the authors refused to follow my suggestions in most cases.
1st, my impression is that they are not familiar with the international forest science terminology and use their own terms, which may be word for word translations from Spanish. Thy should, instead of referring to Spanish books or congress proceedings, look at any English textbook on forest mensuration.
Their “trunk diameter at 1.3m” is breast height diameter, dbh, measured at 1.3m above ground.
They still keep on using crown surface instead of crown projection area, which is physically wrong
They still use “cubic calculation”, which is simply not necessary, otherwise every equation which calculates any volume should be a “cubic calculation”.
They use a term “crown height whorle”. Probably this is the crown height, which they describe as the height to the first whorle, which they define in another place. Thus, “crown height” would be enough. They can’t have measured the whorle, but the height where a certain whorle occurs.
2nd, for some equations the cite books and congress proceedings with some hundred pages. E.g. the citation of Auvergne: „cited in [24]”. Nobody would read a whole book, only to find the place, where this equation is found. Thus the correct way would be to give the title of the Auvergne paper, and then say cited in [24]. Or at least give the page number, where this citation is given. There are other similar places with similar wrong citation.
3rd Concerning Table 6, I first suggested to give this in the method section, where they describe where their trees were located. They answered that these are results, because they were assessed with their investigation. Then I said, if this is placed in the result section they should at least say that they were assessed during their data assessment. Now they refuse to change anything, because the data were “timeless”.
4th, generally the authors did not follow my suggestion to give in a few mean stand variables like N/ha, basal area/ha and mean height for the readers who are not familiar with the forest type under investigation. In the authors’ opinion “to include more variables would only complicate the study and also, the proposed variables would not give additional information, so we decided to not include those variables”. I do not see what would complicate the study if they added the information I suggested, they have the data, they can calculate the wanted parameters, and the readers would have an idea of the ecosystem under investigation. Especially the density, N/ha and basal area/ha would characterize the visibility of the trees, and thus help better understand the results.
The authors seem not to be familiar with the international standard terminology in fprest mensuration
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, This review is about the revised version of the manuscript entitled "Distribution and dasometric evolution of gall oak (Quercus faginea Lam.) forest stands in the Region of Murcia (southeast-ern Spain) [ID forests-2733955].
The manuscript has been partially corrected and supplemented but still requires some improvements.
1. The introduction has been supplemented with the aim and hypotheses, but the discussion and conclusions do not refer to the formulated hypothesis. No verification of the hypothesis was put forward in the introduction. Please answer the question: in light of the results obtained, can the studied species be a determinant of climate change?
2. Research area. Please show the variability of meteorological conditions. The hypothesis assumes that „the climate will become drier", Please provide information proving that in the years 2006-2022, there was a significant increase in dryness in the Murcia region, some climatic data, e.g. drought indicators, the authors only provided the temperature increase for the years 1941-2019
3. There is still no explanation as to whether the trees selected for the study were representative, the sample of trees was relatively small, so if they were not representative, it is difficult to draw such conclusions regarding the selection of trees - the representativeness of the sample.
4. There is a lack of statistical analysis
Other comments – please refer to my previous comments:
1. Data collected in the research plot concerned 33 trees, which constituted 21% of the trees analyzed in 2006. Since the authors compare tree parameters for 2006 and 2022, I have the following questions:
What was the distribution of tree parameters analyzed in 2022 compared to the distribution of tree parameters in 2006? Were the trees selected in 2022 representative of the 2006 sample? Such information is necessary. Can the parameters of trees obtained in 2022 be compared with the parameters of trees tested in 2006? If the trees selected for analysis in 2022 were not representative of the group of trees analyzed in 2006, then unfortunately the entire analysis was carried out incorrectly. Unfortunately, there is no information in the work confirming the correctness of the study.
2. The article lacks a substantive discussion of the interpretation of the obtained results. the conclusions are also questionable.
3. Please consider whether all Figures are necessary, suggestions were given in the previous review.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral remarks of the reviewer
This paper investigates the distribution and growth of gall oak (Quercus faginea Lam.) forest stands in the Region of Murcia.
The following chapters requires some clarification:
2.Materials and Methods
2.1.Study area
Please show the variability of meteorological conditions.
2.2. Methodology
Use precise dendrometric terms:
d1.3 (DBH), breast height circumference (1.30 m from ground level)[BHC], crown length (CL), crown base height (CBH), CL= H – CBH, crown surface (CS), crown width north-south and east-west.
Determining the volume, measuring the volume only for cut trees using physical methods (xylometric, hydrostatic) and tomographic.
Describe how particular characteristics were measured and what instruments were used.
3. Results and Discussion
Please check the increment calculations in Table 2. The data in the table are not percentages.
There is no statistical analysis of the results.
Technical Notes
Eliminate logical errors and typos.
Details in the attached manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
This paper investigates the distribution and growth of gall oak (Quercus faginea Lam.) forest stands in the Region of Murcia.
The following chapters requires some clarification:
2.Materials and Methods
2.1.Study area
Please show the variability of meteorological conditions.
This is reflected in Table 7 and Figure 12, and we have also included a description of the three aridity indexes used.
2.2. Methodology
Use precise dendrometric terms:
d1.3 (DBH) (BHC), breast height circumference (1.30 m from ground level) [BHC], crown length (CL), crown base height (CBH), CL= H – CBH, crown surface (CS), crown width north-south and east-west.
Thank you for the suggestions. We have revised and corrected some dendrometric terms.
Determining the volume, measuring the volume only for cut trees using physical methods (xylometric, hydrostatic) and tomographic.
Since it is a protected species in the Region of Murcia, it is virtually impossible to obtain permission for logging and carry out its measurement using the felled method. Therefore, the formula V=0.55·d1.302·h was used, devised by Avergnue as recorded in López Serrano, F.R., García Morote, F., & Cerro del Borja, A. Dasometry. The Science of Forest Measurement. Popular Libros, Albacete, Spain, 2003; p. 317.
Describe how particular characteristics were measured and what instruments were used.
Some explanations have been added to the text to clarify the instruments used: the trunk circumference was measured using a measuring tape, and the surface dimensions (north-south and east-west) of the crown were measured using an extendable and graduated pole. The height of the tree was measured with a laser-type hypsometer. The measuring tape was used to accurately determine the radius of the circumference for data collection on soil type and accompanying vegetation, taking the center of the tree trunk as the reference point.
- Results and Discussion
Please check the increment calculations in Table 2. The data in the table are not percentages.
There is no statistical analysis of the results.
The data and calculations have been revised and corrected. We have also incorporated a statistical analysis by correlating the volume of the trunk and the volume of the canopy, applying the Pearson test. The high correlation encountered will be very useful in determining the growth rate of the tree by measuring a simple parameter (trunk volume).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved. Minor flaws have been corrected.
Although I stick to the view that the overall study lacks a scientific progress this probably can't be a critical obstacle for a publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is generally good. In the course of production may be small corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors In my opinion, the manuscript still should be rejected. The authors did not change much and did not at all follow most of my comments and did not respond to them. Attached, please find my original comments and my recent comments on this in red. Kind regardsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER 4
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In my opinion, the manuscript still should be rejected. The authors did not change much and did not at all follow most of my comments and did not respond to them. Attached, please find my original comments and my recent comments on this in red
We have addressed all the comments of the referee in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
