You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Andrey I. Tatarintsev*,
  • Valentina V. Popova and
  • Pavel V. Mikhaylov*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Sergio Ayvar-Serna Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Imran Ali

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Following a detailed review of the manuscript titled "Incidence of stem rot in forests dominated by Betula pendula Roth. in the central group of regions of Krasnoyarsk Krai", I have identified several relevant findings, including:

  • The identification of five wood-decaying fungal species as causal agents of stem rot.
  • Statistical evidence showing a higher incidence of rot in sprout-origin stands compared to seed-origin stands.
  • The proportional impact on trees of different diameters, suggesting a non-selective distribution of the disease.
  • The negative effect of rot on forest health, as indicated by the Kav index.

However, it is recommended to improve the clarity in describing the criteria for plot selection, as well as to expand the discussion on the lack of significant correlations between rot and forest structural characteristics. This would help strengthen the interpretation of the results and their connection to anthropogenic impacts.

Additionally, to enhance future research, we suggest considering the following aspects:

  • Incorporate molecular techniques for fungal identification, such as DNA sequencing.
  • Evaluate environmental variables such as soil moisture, altitude, and sunlight exposure.
  • Include spatial analysis of infection hotspots using geographic coordinates or thematic maps.
  • Estimate the economic impact of rot in terms of commercial timber volume loss.
  • Consider the temporal dynamics of the disease in multi-year studies.

Detailed, point-by-point comments are provided in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their valuable contribution to revising the article.

 

Comments 1: SE SUGIERE ESPECIFICAR EN EL TITULO EL GRUPO DE PATÓGENO INVOLUCRADO. POR EJEMPLO:

Incidence of stem rot caused by wood-decay fungi in Betula pendula Roth-dominated forests in the central regions of Krasnoyarsk Krai

 

Response 1: Given that the only factor causing the stem rot is the activity of wood-decay fungi, the authors wish to leave the title of the article unchanged.

 

Comments 2: Recent findings indicate that fungal diversity in forests includes mutualistic fungi, saprotrophs, and pathogens, all of which play key roles in the carbon cycle, plant nutrition, and forest health. This holistic perspective is not reflected in the introduction.

 

Response 2: The reviewer is absolutely right to point out the various ecosystem functions of fungi in forests. In the introduction, we emphasised the ecological importance of wood-decay fungi (the causative agents of stem rot) in the destruction of wood detritus. However, in the context of the issues considered in the article, we do not believe that it is necessary to go into this aspect.

 

Comments 3: The intensive management of boreal forests affects the richness and abundance of wood-decaying fungi, which is relevant to the context of the Krasnoyarsk Krai.

 

Response 3: Intensive forest management undoubtedly impacts the diversity of wood-decay fungi species in the Krasnoyarsk Krai region. However, this issue was not included in the research objectives at this stage.

 

Comments 4: fungi stem rot

 

Response 4: We believe that there is no requirement for this clarification, given that the activity of wood-decay fungi is the only possible direct cause of stem rot.

 

 

Comments 6: The use of basidiomata as an identification technique may underestimate fungal diversity.Future studies are suggested to complement this approach with molecular techniques, such as DNA sequencing (e.g., ITS rDNA).

 

Response 7: We did not set out to study the full diversity of wood-destroying fungi species in the birch forests of the study area. However, we will definitely take this remark from the respected reviewer into account in future studies of this issue.

 

Comments 7: Mention the statistical method used to determine the representative sample size and the statistical sampling method applied within each study site.

 

Comments 8: How many trees were selected in each study plot (31 in total).

 

Response 8: Paragraph 2 of subsection 2.2 has been updated to include additional information

 

Comments 9: The Kav index is based on visual health classes, without physiological validation (e.g., chlorophyll content, growth rate). Future research is suggested to include physiological or dendrometric indicators to validate forest health status.

Ecological variables that could influence the prevalence of rot are not analyzed. t is suggested to Incorporate data on soil, moisture, sunlight exposure, etc.

No geospatial information is provided on the location of the rot hotspots. It is suggested to include maps or geographic coordinates to visualize spatial patterns.

 

Comments 10: Include the bibliographic reference.

 

Response 10: Added a link (before formula 1).

 

Comments 11: This information is part of the Materials and Methods section.

 

Response 11: The criteria used to assess the relationship between the studied features are explained at the end of subsection 2.3 (Data Analysis). However, the information provided by the reviewer at the beginning of the paragraph before Table 5 in section 3 should be retained when presenting the results of the correlation analysis (Table 5)

 

Comments 12: It is suggested to discuss the impact of environmental factors (soil moisture, substrate type, altitude) on the incidence and severity of the infection. Additionally, include information on how rot affects functions such as carbon sequestration, habitat, or timber production.

 

Comments 13:  Mention the potential usefulness of the results of this research regarding: forest management and mitigation strategies, adverse impacts on ecosystem services and productivity, biodiversity or ecosystem resilience, temporal projections, and how the incidence of rot could evolve under climate change scenarios or intensified land use.

Response 13: Added at the end of the Conclusions section.

 

In general, you can view the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General assessment

The manuscript presents the results of research on the occurrence and determinants of stem rot in birch forests in the Krasnoyarsk region. The authors carried out extensive fieldwork (31 research plots), applied appropriate phytopathological methods, and performed statistical analyses. The study makes a significant contribution to understanding the health condition of birch stands in Siberia and is relevant both theoretically and practically.

However, in its current form, the text requires substantial substantive and editorial revisions before potential publication.

Research aim and hypotheses

The aim of the study has been defined, but the research hypotheses are not clearly formulated. I suggest adding them in the introduction, for example:

  • H1: Stem rot occurs more frequently in shoot-origin stands than in seed-origin stands.
  • H2: Recreational disturbance increases the prevalence of stem rot in birch forests.

Methods

It is unclear how the plots for analysis were selected. In the current version of the text, there is no information on whether the choice of research plots was random or purposive – this should be clarified.

Discussion

The discussion section in its present form repeats much of the information from the results. The focus should be more strongly on interpretation and comparison with the international literature (e.g., studies from Scandinavia and Canada). It would also be appropriate to emphasize more clearly the economic and ecological aspects (loss of timber quality, threats to stand stability).

Style and language

The language is correct but at times too heavy, with many sentences exceeding 40 words. I suggest dividing them into shorter units. Repetitive phrases should be avoided (e.g., “in the study area” appears frequently).

In addition, during the review I noticed several minor editorial issues, such as the missing period at the end of the abstract (line 40), and the lack of italics in the description of Table 2 (line 170). The authors should carefully proofread the entire document once again with these aspects in mind before final submission.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

We are grateful to You for Your time and Your suggestions. We tried to follow Your comments when worked on manuscript. Here we submit the results.

The aim of the study has been defined, but the research hypotheses are not clearly formulated. I suggest adding them in the introduction, for example:

H1: Stem rot occurs more frequently in shoot-origin stands than in seed-origin stands.

H2: Recreational disturbance increases the prevalence of stem rot in birch forests.

 

Added to the Introduction: «The following working hypotheses have been postulated: the incidence of stem rot is elevated in trees of shoot-origin; a direct correlation exists between the prevalence of rot and both age and forest recreation intensity; stem rot exerts a detrimental effect on the health of birch forests. In accordance with the stated research aim and hypotheses, the research objectives comprised the following: the identification of the main pathogens causing stem rot in birch forests; the determination of the incidence rate of stem rot in stands considering their origin (seed, shoot); the analysis of the relationship between the prevalence of rot and both characteristics of forest stands and the level of recreational disturbance; the establishment of intracenotic features of tree damage by rot; and the assessment of the impact of stem rot on the health of birch stands.»

It is unclear how the plots for analysis were selected. In the current version of the text, there is no information on whether the choice of research plots was random or purposive – this should be clarified.

 

Additional clarifications on this matter have been added to the text of subsection 2.2 Field research methods.

The discussion section in its present form repeats much of the information from the results. The focus should be more strongly on interpretation and comparison with the international literature (e.g., studies from Scandinavia and Canada).

 

We cannot fully agree with the esteemed reviewer's comment. In Section 3, we present factual information in the form of tables and graphs on the results of the studies performed, along with brief text comments, including those on the mathematical processing of the data. Section 4 (Discussion) provides an analysis and interpretation of the obtained data, incorporating information from the works of other researchers. The results of the analysis of the relationship between the prevalence of rot and the taxation indicators of forest stands (particularly age) are compared with those of other specialists.

It would also be appropriate to emphasize more clearly the economic and ecological aspects (loss of timber quality, threats to stand stability).

 

The negative impact of stem rot on the sanitary condition of birch stands has been established and is discussed in the article. However, economic aspects associated with reduced quality and commercial timber losses were not included in the research objectives.

The language is correct but at times too heavy, with many sentences exceeding 40 words. I suggest dividing them into shorter units. Repetitive phrases should be avoided (e.g., “in the study area” appears frequently).

 

We tried to eliminate this shortcoming by shortening sentences and avoiding repetition wherever possible.

 

In addition, during the review I noticed several minor editorial issues, such as the missing period at the end of the abstract (line 40), and the lack of italics in the description of Table 2 (line 170).

Made some edits.

 

In general, you can view the changes made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a detailed study of stem rot incidence in Betula pendula forests in the central Krasnoyarsk Krai. The topic is relevant for forest pathology, silviculture, and ecosystem health, especially in boreal regions where birch is ecologically and economically significant. The authors collected valuable field data (31 research plots) and performed statistical analyses to assess the role of stand origin, recreational disturbance, and other factors. 

  1. The manuscript highlights stem rot incidence in Krasnoyarsk birch forests, but the novelty compared with previous Russian and international studies is not sufficiently emphasized. The introduction should more clearly position how this work advances knowledge beyond descriptive surveys.
  2. While the survey and diagnostic methods are described, there is limited explanation of sampling design (e.g., representativeness of 31 plots, selection criteria, and spatial distribution). Clarification is needed to ensure reproducibility.
  3. The manuscript often implies causal relationships (e.g., shoot-origin stands having weaker immunity and higher rot incidence). While plausible, these interpretations should be framed cautiously, unless supported by direct physiological data.
  4. The discussion reiterates results rather than critically analyzing them in a broader ecological and forest management context. It should better integrate findings with international studies on decay fungi and forest resilience.
  5. Figure 2 and Table 7 are central for understanding disease distribution but are difficult to interpret without clearer legends, axis labels, and descriptions.
  6. The manuscript is readable but contains awkward phrasing, redundancies, and long sentences. A careful language edit is needed for clarity and conciseness.
  7. Keywords: Add “forest pathology,” “boreal forests,” and “disease ecology” for broader discoverability.
  8. Increase resolution and font size for Figure 1
  9. Conclusions: Add management implications 

Author Response

Dear colleague!

We are grateful to You for Your time and Your suggestions. We tried to follow Your comments when worked on manuscript. Here we submit the results.

 

The manuscript highlights stem rot incidence in Krasnoyarsk birch forests, but the novelty compared with previous Russian and international studies is not sufficiently emphasized. The introduction should more clearly position how this work advances knowledge beyond descriptive surveys.

Additions have been made to the text of the Introduction.

 

While the survey and diagnostic methods are described, there is limited explanation of sampling design (e.g., representativeness of 31 plots, selection criteria, and spatial distribution). Clarification is needed to ensure reproducibility.

Additional clarifications on this matter have been added to the text of subsection 2.2 Field research methods.

 

The manuscript often implies causal relationships (e.g., shoot-origin stands having weaker immunity and higher rot incidence). While plausible, these interpretations should be framed cautiously, unless supported by direct physiological data.

We agree with some of the comments made by the reviewer. The patterns we have identified are interpreted according to the data presented in the work of our colleagues. In our opinion, this approach is acceptable when discussing the results.

 

The discussion reiterates results rather than critically analyzing them in a broader ecological and forest management context. It should better integrate findings with international studies on decay fungi and forest resilience.

We cannot fully agree with the esteemed reviewer's comment. In Section 3, we present factual information in the form of tables and graphs on the results of the studies performed, along with brief text comments, including those on the mathematical processing of the data. Section 4 (Discussion) provides an analysis and interpretation of the obtained data, incorporating information from the works of other researchers. The results of our analysis of the relationship between rot prevalence and forest stand taxation indicators (particularly age) are compared with those of other specialists..

 

Figure 2 and Table 7 are central for understanding disease distribution but are difficult to interpret without clearer legends, axis labels, and descriptions.

Figure 2 shows six graphs reflecting similar information on different test plots. To avoid repetition of axis labels, explanations of their designations are provided under the figure for all graphs together. All explanations for the information provided in Table 7 can be found in the top section of the table and, in our opinion, are sufficient.. 

The manuscript is readable but contains awkward phrasing, redundancies, and long sentences. A careful language edit is needed for clarity and conciseness.

 

We tried to eliminate this shortcoming.

 

Keywords: Add “forest pathology,” “boreal forests,” and “disease ecology” for broader discoverability.

"Boreal forests" added to keywords.

 

Increase resolution and font size for Figure 1

Increased the size of the image for better reading of the text.

 

Conclusions: Add management implications

Added at the end of section 5 Conclusions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS WERE MADE PROMPTLY IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT REVISION