Bark Stripping Damage Caused by Red Deer (Cervus elaphus L.): Inventory Design Using Hansen–Hurwitz and Horvitz–Thompson Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a problem that is relevant to Europe, both in economic and in environmental terms. It is a novel proposal and as a first approach it is sufficient.

However, it is necessary to present a map of the study area to give an idea to readers who are not familiar with the location. In addition, there should be a detailed description of how the bark stripping damage was measured and categorized, at least pictures of the categories and an example of their measurement. What does new and old damage look like?

As the manuscript is presented, it seems to me to be a very thorough exercise in statistics to demonstrate your hypothesis. Also, your conclusions are honest, that ACS is a promising approach to more efficient and accurate assessment of bark damage.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

 Comment:     The manuscript addresses a problem that is relevant to Europe, both in economic and in environmental terms. It is a novel proposal and as a first approach it is sufficient. As the manuscript is presented, it seems to me to be a very thorough exercise in statistics to demonstrate your hypothesis. Also, your conclusions are honest, that ACS is a promising approach to more efficient and accurate assessment of bark damage.

Response:      Thank you for the general positive comment on our manuscript. We are particularly glad that you see the potential of ACS as a promising approach for achieving more efficient and accurate assessments of bark stripping damage. We hope that the following corrections/additions improve our work.

Comment:     However, it is necessary to present a map of the study area to give an idea to readers who are not familiar with the location. In addition, there should be a detailed description of how the bark stripping damage was measured and categorized, at least pictures of the categories and an example of their measurement. What does new and old damage look like?

Response:      Thank you for this comment, which closely corresponds to comments by Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3. We have now added a map showing the location of the stands within the forest company “Wasserberg” in the northern part of Styria, Austria, to the methods section. Additionally, a description of the different types of damage summer vs. winter damage and old vs. new damage has been included. Furthermore, we now reference the work of Reimoser and Reimoser (2017), which provides photographs of all damage types (Line 233-262).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the use of adaptive cluster sampling (ACS) for estimating bark stripping damage by red deer in spruce forests in Austria. I find it well constructed and offer the following suggestions for improvement:

1) Ln. 13: Indicate what types of stands. Where are they located?

2) Ln. 14: Define “SE” (standard error)

3) Ln 20: Define “rare damage types”

4) Ln 39-40: What about the effects of bark stripping on tree susceptibility to colonization by Ips typographus? Discuss.

5) Ln. 40-41: Mean spread rate correlates negatively with time since bark stripping. Revise.

6) Ln. 51: Delete “typically”

7) Ln. 51: What is meant by “evenly distributed”.

8) Ln. 182: Delete “land”

9) Ln. 234-235, 461: I realize the reference provides more detailed information on the methods, but please indicate the criteria used to separate “summer damage” from “winter damage”.

10) Ln. 392: Replace “precise” with “more precise”

11) Ln. 394-395: Is there a difference in the amount of time/effort to obtain each estimate? If so, discuss.

12) Ln. 458-459: Delete sentence

13) Ln. 497 (and elsewhere): The data in this study are based on 0.3-1.8-ha “stands”. In my mind, these are plots (not stands).

14) Ln 498-499: Revise to “...assessing bark stripping damage caused by red deer.”

15) Throughout: In several locations the manuscript (e.g., literature cited) fails to follow the journal’s conventions. Revise.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

 

Main statement

 

Comment:     This study investigates the use of adaptive cluster sampling (ACS) for estimating bark stripping damage by red deer in spruce forests in Austria. I find it well constructed and offer the following suggestions for improvement.

Response:      Thank you for your positive feedback on our study and for recognizing its structure and focus. We appreciate your acknowledgment of our investigation into the use of adaptive cluster sampling (ACS) for estimating bark stripping damage by red deer in spruce forests in Austria. We are grateful for your suggestions for improvement and carefully considered each of them to enhance the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We have made detailed revisions as described below.

 

Detailed Revisions

 

Comment:     1) Ln. 13: Indicate what types of stands. Where are they located?

Response:      Thank you for this comment. As also noted by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 3, the data was not presented clearly enough. We have now provided a more detailed description of the type of stands and their locations in the revised manuscript and have added a map of the study area (Lines 234–262).

 

Comment:     2) Ln. 14: Define “SE” (standard error)

Response:      We have now defined "SE" as "standard error" at its first mention in the manuscript (Line 14) to ensure clarity for the readers.

 

Comment:     3) Ln 20: Define “rare damage types”

Response:      We have clarified the term "rare damage types" in the revised manuscript by providing summer and new bark stripping damage as examples (Line 20).

 

 

 

Comment:     4) Ln 39-40: What about the effects of bark stripping on tree susceptibility to colonization by Ips typographus? Discuss.

Response:      Thank you for raising this important point. In the revised manuscript we have now included a discussion on the topic in the introduction and added a reference to a relevant paper (Line 43-45).

 

Comment:     5) Ln. 40-41: Mean spread rate correlates negatively with time since bark stripping. Revise.

Response:      Thank you for pointing out this mistake. It has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment:     6) Ln. 51: Delete “typically”

Response:      We have deleted the word "typically" from Line 51 as suggested.

 

Comment:     7) Ln. 51: What is meant by “evenly distributed”.

Response:      "Evenly distributed" in this context means that the characteristic is uniformly present across the stand area. Examples, particularly in pole stands, include tree volume (m³/ha) or basal area (m²/ha). This has now been clarified in the manuscript (Line 55).

 

Comment:     8) Ln. 182: Delete “land”

Response:      We have deleted the word "land" from Line 182 as suggested.

 

Comment:     9) Ln. 234-235, 461: I realize the reference provides more detailed information on the methods, but please indicate the criteria used to separate “summer damage” from “winter damage”.

Response:      Thank you for highlighting this important point, which has also been raised by the other reviewers. In the revised version of the manuscript we clarify the criteria for distinguishing between "summer damage" and "winter damage," as well as "new damage" and "old damage" Specifically, we now describe that:

• Summer damage occurs during the vegetation period (spring and summer) when the bark can be peeled off easily, resulting in larger bark strips (possibly over 1 m in length) with jagged wound edges and minimal or no visible tooth marks.
• Winter damage occurs during the vegetation-free period (autumn and winter) when sap flow is absent, making the bark harder to remove. This results in smaller wounds, often grouped together, with clearly visible tooth marks.

Additionally, we define:

• New damage as damage not older than one year, characterized by little to no wound healing, minimal callus tissue, and often fresh resin (especially in Norway spruce).
• Old damage as damage older than one year, with visible wound healing, significant callus tissue, and largely dried resin.

These details have been added to the methods section (Lines 251-262) to ensure clarity

 

Comment:     10) Ln. 392: Replace “precise” with “more precise”

Response:      We have replaced "precise" with "more precise" as recommended.

 

Comment:     11) Ln. 394-395: Is there a difference in the amount of time/effort to obtain each estimate? If so, discuss.

Response:      The sampling effort required to characterize only the damage types and ages is minimal, as the classification is performed visually. More detailed assessments, such as measuring wound length and width, would be more time-consuming but are not necessary for the analysis conducted in this paper.

 

Comment:     12) Ln. 458-459: Delete sentence

Response:      We have deleted the sentence as suggested.

 

Comment:     13) Ln. 497 (and elsewhere): The data in this study are based on 0.3-1.8-ha “stands”. In my mind, these are plots (not stands).

Response:      Thank you for your comment. In Austria, the stand size in managed forests is typically small compared to other countries. For this reason, we used such stand sizes in our study. However, further scientific research could be conducted for larger stands or areas in other countries.

 

Comment:     14) Ln 498-499: Revise to “...assessing bark stripping damage caused by red deer.”

Response:      Done as suggested.

 

Comment:     15) Throughout: In several locations the manuscript (e.g., literature cited) fails to follow the journal’s conventions. Revise.

Response:      Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript, including the literature section, to ensure that it adheres to the journal's conventions. All formatting inconsistencies have been corrected in accordance with the journal's guidelines.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript under the title “Bark stripping damage caused by red deer (Cervus elaphus L.): Inventory design using Hansen-Hurwitz- and Horvitz-Thompson-approach” is well structured and written. However, there are some minor issues that should be addressed (see comments). Thus, minor changes are recommended.

 

Comments

1) Line 241 – the numbers of the figures could be included.

2) Line 268 – annex or appendix?

3) Lines 326-330 – a short summary of the study of Hahn and Vospernik [31], would improve understanding the sampling design.

4) Please provide the software used.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

 

Main statement

 

Comment:     The manuscript under the title “Bark stripping damage caused by red deer (Cervus elaphus L.): Inventory design using Hansen-Hurwitz- and Horvitz-Thompson-approach” is well structured and written. However, there are some minor issues that should be addressed (see comments). Thus, minor changes are recommended.

Response:      We appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions for improvement. We have carefully addressed each of the minor issues you raised and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. A detailed point-by-point response to your comments is provided below, outlining the changes made.

 

Detailed Revisions

 

Comment:     1) Line 241 – the numbers of the figures could be included.

Response:      We have revised the text to include the corresponding figure numbers.

 

Comment:     2) Line 268 – annex or appendix?

Response:      Thank you for this comment. The wording was corrected to appendix.

 

Comment:     3) Lines 326-330 – a short summary of the study of Hahn and Vospernik [31], would improve understanding the sampling design.

Response:      Thank you for this comment. As also noted by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 the data section was not clear enough. In the revised version of the manuscript  we have added a map showing the location of the stands in the forest company “Wasserberg” in the northern part of Styria, Austria, as well as details about the measurement of tree characteristics and bark stripping wounds to the Methods section. Additionally, a description of the different damage types (specifically summer vs. winter damage and old vs. new damage) has now been included. (Lines 232–262)

 

Comment:     4) Please provide the software used.

Response:      The calculations for this paper were all performed using R statistical software. The scripts were specifically programmed for this project by the authors. This has now been mentioned in the Methods section (Lines 279–280).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have included the sentence "Detailed information on the measurement procedures can be found in Hahn and Vospernik [12]" on lines 265-266. My question is, did you repeat the procedure exactly, or did you make modifications?

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1:

Comment: The authors have included the sentence "Detailed information on the measurement procedures can be found in Hahn and Vospernik [12]" on lines 265-266. My question is, did you repeat the procedure exactly, or did you make modifications?

Reply: The same data and assessement procedure was used in both studies.