Stable Leaf Area Index Despite Shifts in Biomass Allocation and Leaf Traits: A Case Study in a Young European Beech Forest Under Intense Tree Competition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done! Just a few grammatical suggestions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Well done! Just a few grammatical suggestions.
Thank you so much for the positive reaction. Some comments inserted in the PDF have been implemented.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
this article: “ Stable Leaf Area Index Despite Shifts in Biomass Allocation 2 and Leaf Traits in a Young European Beech Forest under In- 3 tense Tree Competition” is interesting. It deals with the comparison of biomass, leaf area, LAI (and other parameters) for beech stands of approximately 10 and 20 years of age.
First: I'm a little worried about the strength of the results because they are only from one area.
Moreover, this article has (in my opinion) a number of shortcomings that reduce its quality. Please, would the authors consider my comments on the article.
The abstract contains a part of the methodology (for an idea), presents the results appropriately and shows conclusion. However, I miss one or two senteces about introduction – please, can you add it?
The introduction is readably written and fully describes the issue. However, the sources that are listed are mostly old to very old. It would be advisable to use more sources that are less than five years old.
The hypotheses are set correctly and clearly.
Material and methodology:
L142-145 – you write that you selected trees randomly (please, can you put the appropriateness of the selection (table 1) here and not in the results? The word "randomly" will lead the reader to think of a bad selection. Moreover, table 1 is more of a methodological example than a result.
How were the parameters height and especially thickness measured? Could there be a concern about incorrect measurement caused by defects in the trunk?
Please, trunk is more correct than stem, can you change it for nouns?
Only 15 sheets were taken for processing. Is this value small (it is about 1 scan - max. 2). Why did you take only 15 sheets? Can you state a methodology (not yours) that would justify the small number?
Drying leaves at 90°C - bound water is not released from the leaves, why didn't you dry the leaves the same way as the trunks and branches (at 105°C). How did you know that all the water (even bound water) was released from the branches and trunk?
Could you also include histograms in the results (at least from 11 and 21 year old stands)? - how thick were the trees dying?
The discussion contains 27 sources, of which 5 are of my own creation, and only 6 (the rest) are younger than 5 years. Please expand the discussion thoroughly with current literature.
The conclusion corresponds to the results.
Author Response
Dear authors,
this article: “Stable Leaf Area Index Despite Shifts in Biomass Allocation 2 and Leaf Traits in a Young European Beech Forest under In- 3 tense Tree Competition” is interesting. It deals with the comparison of biomass, leaf area, LAI (and other parameters) for beech stands of approximately 10 and 20 years of age.
First: I'm a little worried about the strength of the results because they are only from one area.
Yes, it is true that this work uses data from only one site. This means it represents a sort of case study (but such studies are often published in scientific journals, such as Forests). On the other hand, the work presents a long-term study, and some of its findings are quite pioneering—for instance, I have not seen any other paper that shows allometric relationships for the same stand at different time points.
Moreover, this article has (in my opinion) a number of shortcomings that reduce its quality. Please, would the authors consider my comments on the article.
The abstract contains a part of the methodology (for an idea), presents the results appropriately and shows conclusion. However, I miss one or two sentences about introduction – please, can you add it?
Yes, we have added an introductory sentence in the Abstract section.
The introduction is readably written and fully describes the issue. However, the sources that are listed are mostly old to very old. It would be advisable to use more sources that are less than five years old.
We agree with the objection—some sources have been added, and older ones have been replaced with newer references.
The hypotheses are set correctly and clearly.
Material and methodology:
L142-145 – you write that you selected trees randomly (please, can you put the appropriateness of the selection (table 1) here and not in the results? The word "randomly" will lead the reader to think of a bad selection. Moreover, table 1 is more of a methodological example than a result.
Table 1 has been moved to the Materials and Methods section. The sample trees were selected randomly; however, at the same time, ¼ of the trees were considered from overtopped trees, with the same proportion from intermediate, codominant, and dominant individuals. This information has been added to the Materials and Methods section.
How were the parameters height and especially thickness measured? Could there be a concern about incorrect measurement caused by defects in the trunk?
We have added information about the instruments used for height and diameter measurements. Moreover, we specified that stem diameter was measured twice—in two perpendicular directions—to mitigate possible stem deformation, although such deformations were rare.
Please, trunk is more correct than stem, can you change it for nouns?
I would like to emphasize the use of the term “stem,” as it is the standard terminology in most forestry studies, especially in European countries.
Only 15 sheets were taken for processing. Is this value small (it is about 1 scan - max. 2). Why did you take only 15 sheets? Can you state a methodology (not yours) that would justify the small number?
Fifteen leaves were taken from each sampled tree, resulting in 600 leaves in the first sampling and 450 leaves in the second sampling—a considerable amount of work to scan, dry, and weigh.
Drying leaves at 90°C - bound water is not released from the leaves, why didn't you dry the leaves the same way as the trunks and branches (at 105°C). How did you know that all the water (even bound water) was released from the branches and trunk?
Drying and various analyses were conducted by professional staff at the Central Laboratory (CL) of the National Forest Centre. The responsible specialist informed me that a temperature of 90°C is sufficient to achieve the stable weight of leaves (but not woody parts). The CL staff has extensive experience with this procedure. I was informed that the results (constant weight) are the same whether 90°C or 105°C is used. They prefer 90°C, as it is also suitable for subsequent chemical analyses of dry matter, with the samples being archived for potential future use in such analyses.
Could you also include histograms in the results (at least from 11 and 21 year old stands)? - how thick were the trees dying?
This is a good idea. However, since the results regarding tree mortality were only a small part of the work, we prefer not to include further details on that. We may use these findings in another study that will focus more on tree mortality.
The discussion contains 27 sources, of which 5 are of my own creation, and only 6 (the rest) are younger than 5 years. Please expand the discussion thoroughly with current literature.
We removed (and partly replaced) our previous works. As a result, only a few of our own works are cited in the revised version of the manuscript.
The conclusion corresponds to the results.
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors of the manuscript "Stable Leaf Area Index Despite Shifts in Biomass Allocation 2
and Leaf Traits in a Young European Beech Forest under Intense Tree Competition":
I find your MS very interesting, although it can not (yet) be published in its current form. In the introduction there is a lot of information not relevant for the paper or that belongs to the method section, it should therefore be re-structured. The objectives are very poor in relation to the work you have done and should therefore be re-written.
Your discussion has a lot of innecesary repititons of results. Try to write it more fluently.
In the attached file I make some other minor observations.
Success!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English could be improved in some parts. (but is in general ok).
Author Response
Dear authors of the manuscript "Stable Leaf Area Index Despite Shifts in Biomass Allocation 2
and Leaf Traits in a Young European Beech Forest under Intense Tree Competition":
I find your MS very interesting, although it cannot (yet) be published in its current form. In the introduction there is a lot of information not relevant for the paper or that belongs to the method section, it should therefore be re-structured. The objectives are very poor in relation to the work you have done and should therefore be re-written.
In the Introduction section, we rewrote some text to eliminate unnecessary sentences, including those that were more suitable for the Materials and Methods section. Additionally, we modified the objectives to better cover all segments included in the paper.
Your discussion has a lot of unnecessary repetitions of results. Try to write it more fluently.
Yes, we removed those parts. In addition, we improved the consistency of the text.
In the attached file I make some other minor observations.
We have implemented nearly all the comments provided by the reviewer in the text, which were inserted as notes.
Success!
Thank you so much for the extensive review, especially the comments inserted in the PDF. They were really very useful.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Congratulations on your work, however, there are some changes that should be made to give greater relevance to this very interesting work that you present. The changes that can be made are outlined in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some grammar comments are outlined in the text.
Author Response
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on your work, however, there are some changes that should be made to give greater relevance to this very interesting work that you present. The changes that can be made are outlined in the text.
Thank you so much for the extensive review, all comments listed in the PDF have been implemented.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for the edits to your manuscript and I respect most of your comments. You are right - the article is interesting (as I wrote in the previous comment) and important.
I have only two things that I cannot agree with.
First:
Consider whether to write "case study" in the manuscript (title) - for completeness.
Second: "Fifteen leaves were taken from each sampled tree, resulting in 600 leaves in the first sampling and 450 leaves in the second sampling—a considerable amount of work to scan, dry, and weigh."
600 (450) beech leaves for research (research year) is not a lot, if it is 15 leaves per tree. If they were large leaves such as teak, catalpa, horse chestnut, plane tree or some species of oak, maple (there scanning and estimation of leaf area are more demanding), but for beech (young beech) it is not enough. Please again, can you state a methodology (not yours) that would justify the small number?
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear authors, thank you for the edits to your manuscript and I respect most of your comments. You are right - the article is interesting (as I wrote in the previous comment) and important. I have only two things that I cannot agree with.
First: Consider whether to write "case study" in the manuscript (title) - for completeness.
Accepted, title was changed.
Second: "Fifteen leaves were taken from each sampled tree, resulting in 600 leaves in the first sampling and 450 leaves in the second sampling—a considerable amount of work to scan, dry, and weigh."
600 (450) beech leaves for research (research year) is not a lot, if it is 15 leaves per tree. If they were large leaves such as teak, catalpa, horse chestnut, plane tree or some species of oak, maple (there scanning and estimation of leaf area are more demanding), but for beech (young beech) it is not enough. Please again, can you state a methodology (not yours) that would justify the small number?
Accepted. Methodology was completed, with concerete reference (Le Goff, Ottorini, 2022).
