Biodiversity and Soil Jointly Drive Ecosystem Multifunctionality in Larch Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors compared three types of forest stands with respect to EMF compliance. They compared three types of forests: Betula monoculture, mixed stand and Larix monoculture.
The work is called "Ecosystem Multifunctionality" although it only deals with the influence of three types on the soil environment, or rather. On chemistry and its dynamics in the broader sense of the word.
The soil environment is not described at all in the work, it is not clear whether it was evaluated only on three plots, or data from other plots were also used.
The soil environment must be described with respect to soil taxonomy and humus character. It must also be documented in pictures.
It is not clear in the work which ecosystem service does the different state of forest stands affect, the dynamics of soil? It must be specified, the hypotheses do not give the reader an idea of ​​what the study is supposed to confirm or refute.
In the table with the description of plots, the soil characteristics must be included.
The authors do not mention the state of the canopy layer on the areas, which is crucial for the access of light and for the further dynamics of both vegetation and soil properties.
Were only forest stands aged 33-40 years examined? For the given purpose, the study concludes, this is insufficient. It is clear that the measurement is demanding, but to answer the questions it must be supplemented with medium-aged and old forest stands (i.e. 33 - 60 - 100 years), at least.
The authors do not describe the interventions that were historically carried out on the areas, they do not describe the origin of the stands (artificial planting), what are the current interventions. The authors write that these are near-nature forest stands. What would be the composition of the forest stands, for comparison, in a natural state?
From the number of 3 areas, conclusions on EMP cannot be generalized. This is speculative.
Minor comments:
- It is advisable to indicate the area (ha) in whole numbers
no comment
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe importance of the ecosystem services provided by forests is now widely recognised. Initially, only the wood production function was studied. However, due to increasing environmental problems, the environmental, climate regulating, water protection, soil protection and recreational functions have been increasingly appreciated and studied. However, there are still many unresolved issues in this scientific problem. The multifunctionality of forests and the factors that determine it are particularly poorly understood. This paper is dedicated to this problem and it is a relevant one.
I have had the opportunity to review the previous version of the paper. And now I would like to point out that the current version of the paper is much improved. The authors have done a good job on the paper. Now I have no serious comments.
However, I would like to point out that the title of the paper needs to be improved. Now the name reflects a generally accepted postulate. This postulate needs no proof. Therefore, the title should be clarified in the context of the novelty of the study.
The novelty itself should also be more clearly defined. The null hypothesis tested by the authors during the study should also be formulated more clearly. This will improve the understanding of the paper and make it more interesting and useful for readers.
The aspect of practical recommendations for the use of research results can also be improved. At the same time, geographical and other limitations should be specified. Forestry throughout the world is conducted on a forest typological basis. It is therefore desirable to "link" the practical results and theoretical conclusions to some kind of forest ecological classification. Perhaps a modern systematic review will help the authors: Overview of the Application of the Braun-Blanquet Approach in Research. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15060937. Incorrect conclusions may be drawn and the most appropriate practical applications may not be proposed without a reliable forest classification.
I have no comments on the research methodology. The authors used modern methods that fully meet their goals. This guarantees the validity of the conclusions.
However, I can advise authors to provide a detailed research scheme in the form of a visual figure. This will make the research design and methodology easier for readers to understand.
Overall, the paper makes a good impression. The scientific level is quite high. The paper will be of interest to a very wide range of readers whose research interests are related to environmental problems and ecological functions of forests.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have finalised the paper according to my comments. The paper now meets the highest standards for a scientific article. I have no further comments.
