A Methodological Approach for the Integrated Assessment of the Condition of Field Protective Forest Belts in Southern Dobrudzha, Bulgaria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors. greetings. The study has been conducted for the protective forest with grate difficulties; however, the following clarities are needed

1. The proposed methodology was tested in 2023 in 190 field protective forest belts in 
   Southern Dobrudzha (Northeastern Bulgaria). Why this place alone selected?? provide its lattitude and longitude details??
2. Is this one year study is sufficient?? how the data was collected?? manual/random samples??which season or throughout the year??
3. is there any standard protocol is available for this study?? if yes how this study improves over the existing one??

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment. The detailed corrections are in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper evaluates the field protective forest belts in southern Bulgaria using two thematic sets: results and functional characteristics as well as health status. It provides important theoretical support for their management. However, parts need revising or further explaining. The specific comments are as follows:

Indicator 2. Permeability of the belt. Are there relevant standards for classifying the permeability of forest belts?

Line 211-212: “The condition of 40 trees was assessed in 5% steps.” As a reader, I don't understand this statement. Please clarify.

Line 213-214: “Depending on the mean value of the defoliation and discolouration.” It is necessary to explain how the average values of defoliation and discolouration are calculated.

Indicator 4 and 5: The classification criteria are not clearly described. It is recommended to add images and provide more detailed explanations.

Line 391-392: “The map shows that the condition of the belts does not depend on their spatial location.” However, the figure only shows the condition of the belts. Please also provide information on species distribution.

Fig. 7: The graphs are not accurately plotted. Fraxinus americana and others have the same data, but different heights in the graph.

Assessment method: Can the proposed method specifically evaluate the protective capacity of forest belts? Also, could the authors offer improvement suggestions for belts with poor protective capacity?

Applicability: Based on the proposed method, please specify its applicable scope. Can it be used beyond Bulgaria?

The research process of the paper is logical and the workload is appropriate. But the research method is not specific enough and the applicable scope is unclear. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment. The detailed corrections are in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

Best regards,

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Methodological Approach for the Integrated Assessment of the Condition of Field Protective Forest Belts in Southern Dobrudzha, Bulgaria

 

The manuscript is clear and well written, providing an assessment strategy linked to the goals/outcomes for the FPFB program.

 

L60. The accepted common name for Lymantria dispar is now spongy moth.

 

L129. First floor? Canopy or stand defining species? Traditional forestry terms would be more appropriate. I assume the authors mean these are the dominant, canopy defining species. Similarly, for accompanying tree species I assume the authors mean codominant, intermediate, or suppressed tree species.

 

L134. Genera Gleditsia and Robinia have not been used yet in the manuscript and need to be included in this first instance. Also, the accepted common name for F. americana is white ash.

 

L151. Grade partially-preserved in the text does not match partly-preserved in Table 1.

 

Figure 2. The caption needs to define the green box in the figure.

 

L287. What is the size range of these sites? What was the survey design? Tenth hectare plots? Circular or square plots? Random or systematic locations in the belt? Number of survey locations proportional to belt length or constant number? Then some information about site size and main species distribution. Does size correlate to permeability or health condition or main species preservation? If all of the FPFBs that are small are also the ones with poor condition, then there may be management implications here beyond species. However, if there is no correlation between size and condition or permeability, that likely extends the usefulness of the methodology to many different types of FPFBs.

 

Figure 6 is poorly labeled. The caption includes Fraxinus excelsior and Quercus cerris but the figure has a label for only F. excelsior. Clarify labels in the figure.

 

Figure 7. How were thinning and reforestation activities assessed? For thinning, was there a basal area goal? How does this relate to midstory/shrub layers? If thinned and canopy gaps created, I would expect midstory recruitment of trees and shrubs which would decrease permeability. If all of the U. minor FPFBs were poor condition due to Dutch elm disease and the loss of the main species (and poor health of retained individuals), why is only 3% needing reforestation? This relates to my previous comment about sizes and relationship with main species. Is that 3% needing reforestation all of the U. minor FPFBs because they make up that percentage of the area studied? This also links with my comment below regarding succession and the stand dynamics at play over the 60 years since the oldest FPFBs were established.

 

One thing that I think is missing from the manuscript is a discussion regarding stand dynamics and the successional progression of the FPFBs. I think permeability touches on this, but a discussion on the importance of developing understory and midstory layers to achieve low permeability is needed. What disturbance/management factors influenced stand dynamics and subsequent permeability in FPFBs? Again, this is touched on regarding silvacultural activities, but a more in-depth discussion is warranted. Also, what is the natural successional process for Ulmus minor stands? Would a natural stand have high permeability due to Dutch elm disease? What species were subsequently recruited following the loss of U. minor and how do they contribute to the permeability? Conversely, what is the successional process at play in the Quercus cerris FPFBs that create low permeability? How does that relate to a natural stand of Q. cerris? I think this may be touched on when discussion the silvicultural activities, but I think it needs to be addressed in more detail.

 

L462. This is the first mention of main and auxiliary belts. To interpret the result that there is no difference between these two belt types, there needs to be a definition of the belts in the methods, some indication of how common each type is within the study, and a results statement of similar conditions between the two belt types.

Author Response

Dear Subject Editor,

Thank you very much for taking the time to edit this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment. The detailed corrections of the manuscript are in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved well

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for the revision.

Best regards,

the Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article titled "A Methodological Approach for the Integrated Assessment of the Condition of Field Protective Forest Belts in Southern Dobrudzha, Bulgaria" presents an in-depth study on evaluating the condition and protective capacity of field protective forest belts (FPFBs) in Southern Dobrudzha, Bulgaria, integrating forestry management and ecological assessment approaches. The research aims to develop and test a new methodology for integrated assessment of FPFBs by analyzing their structural and functional characteristics, as well as the health status of dominant tree species. The methodology identifies five key indicators to assess the protective functions of forest belts and categorizes them into good, moderate, and poor conditions. However, there are certain aspects of the study that require further elaboration and some questions that remain to be answered.

 1. Introduction

1. The "prerequisite" described in the discussion should be elaborated here first to demonstrate the credibility of the subsequent research.
2. How can the dominant tree species suffer from so many diseases? Is it due to improper tree species combinations that affect the stability of the ecosystem?
3. What are the "inappropriate management practices" referred to here?
4. Materials and Methods
5. The format of "2.2. Development of criterion system for assessment" appears to be problematic.

2.2.1. Thematic set А. Structural-functional characteristics

1. What are the respective weights of these five indicators in the comprehensive evaluation of the condition of field protective forest belts?

2.2.2. Thematic set B. Health status

1. Is there any overlap or correlation between the indicators of "defoliation and discoloration of crowns" and "dieback" in the health status assessment, which may lead to redundant results?
2. How can the consistency of different evaluators' judgments on the degree of defoliation and discoloration be ensured in practice?

2.4. Testing the methodology

1. Were all the selected plots containing the dominant tree species?
2. Were the differences in topography and soil conditions among the plots taken into consideration?

3. Results

3.1. Results per tree species

1. Ulmus minor is not a dominant tree species. What caused its poor condition?
2. Is Figure 7 based on the 190 plots selected earlier?

5. Conclusions

1. Can new technologies (such as remote sensing) be considered to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the assessment?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attachment. The detailed corrections are in track changes in the resubmitted files.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of my concerns sufficiently.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for the revision!

Best regards,

the Authors