Long-Term Effects of Forest Management on Boreal Forest Soil Organic Carbon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached review report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Suggestions

• Include a conceptual model or pathway diagram to visually summarize SOC cycling under different forest management treatments.
• Consider use of effect size metrics (e.g., Cohen's d) alongside p-values to convey practical significance.
• Include diagnostic plots for linear mixed models (e.g., Q-Q plots, residuals vs. fitted) in supplementary materials.
• Clarify whether SOC increases in mineral soil reflect translocation from the forest floor or new organic inputs.
• Explore non-linear modeling techniques (e.g., GAMs) if temporal SOC patterns exhibit non-linearity.
• Add a table summarizing differences across soil texture sites in terms of climate, drainage, pH, and organic matter retention.
• Discuss implications of herbicide use on microbial communities and long-term SOC stability, with citations.
• Highlight the broader applicability of findings to boreal regions under similar climatic and edaphic conditions.

• Consider integrating a conceptual model summarizing SOC dynamics across treatments.
• Acknowledge and discuss the statistical and ecological implications of non-replicated soil texture sites.
• Include diagnostic plots and effect sizes in supplementary materials.
• Clarify mechanisms behind mineral SOC gains—translocation vs. accumulation.
• Consider using subheadings in the Discussion to improve readability and thematic clarity.

Language and Style Review (Line-by-line)

• Abstract:
  • Sentence: "We predicted that the site that was harvested and left to revegetate naturally would have the lowest SOC stocks..."
    • Suggestion: Revise for clarity: "We predicted that sites harvested and left to revegetate naturally would have the lowest SOC stocks..."
  • Sentence: "...may reduce the amount of total SOC lost via natural processes at similar sites..."
    • Comment: Consider using "minimize total SOC losses" for conciseness and clarity.
  • Introduction:
    • Sentence: "Soils store more carbon (C) than any other terrestrial source..."
      • Suggestion: Replace "source" with "compartment" or "reservoir" for scientific accuracy.
    • Sentence: "...validated by continued monitoring and research."
      • Comment: You might consider citing an example or standard framework for adaptive management here.
    • Methods:
      • Repetitive phrasing in sampling methodology, e.g., "in the same four randomly selected locations" appears often. Consider consolidating or summarizing.
      • Some sections (e.g., 2.5 and 2.6) are overly technical. A clearer transition or subheadings would help orient readers.
    • Results:
      • Figures are referenced but no visual representation in this version. Ensure all figure captions clearly describe variables and treatments.
      • Use consistent terminology, e.g., avoid switching between "SOC stocks" and "SOC content" interchangeably without definition.
    • Discussion:
      • Strong synthesis of results and literature, but consider trimming repetitions. For example, mechanisms of SOC loss are described multiple times.
      • Sentence: "This suggests that post-harvest silviculture has a lesser net negative effect..."
        • Suggestion: Consider simplifying to: "...post-harvest silviculture results in relatively smaller SOC losses..."
      • Conclusion:
        • Well-written and policy-relevant. Consider adding one sentence highlighting research limitations (e.g., lack of replication across soil textures).

2. Scientific Merit & Novelty

• Novelty:
• Long-term SOC tracking across three distinct soil textures is novel and highly valuable.
• Use of 20-year datasets is rare in forest SOC literature—commendable.
• Experimental Design:
• Design is solid and follows a replicated block structure. However, a limitation is the lack of replication at the level of soil texture (only one site per texture). This should be more clearly acknowledged in the discussion and conclusion.
• Analysis:
• Statistical approaches (LME, ANOVA) are appropriate. Ensure assumptions (normality, homogeneity) are explicitly addressed with visual diagnostics or residual plots.

3. Figures and Tables

• Figures 1 & 2:
• Ensure axes are labeled with units.
• Use consistent colors and legend positions across subplots.
• Consider summarizing some results in a single figure/table to avoid redundancy.
• Table 1:
• Comprehensive but dense. Consider splitting climate and soil data into two smaller tables or using bold for subcategories.
• Table 2:
• Label figure legends to indicate statistical tests used (e.g., Tukey HSD).

4. Structure & Organization

• Introduction and Methods are well-developed.
• Results section is dense; consider using subheadings per horizon type or site.
• Discussion is comprehensive but should be trimmed to improve readability.

5. References

• Mostly recent and relevant.
• A few older references (e.g., Hart 1961, Covington 1981) are still valid but could be supported with newer studies.
• Ensure full consistency with Forests journal format (e.g., capitalization, DOIs).

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf