Evaluation of Multiple Forest Service Based on the Integration of Stand Structural Attributes in Mixed Oak Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editorial Office of Sustainability,
My comments on the manuscript Sustainability-1765506 ( Evaluation of multiple service forest based on the integration of structural attributes) are given below,
The objective of study is to to understand forest services at stand level through the integration of structural 12 attributes. Forest structures of three main stand types were analyzed based on various structural 13 attributes considered to be relevant for the services of habitat conservation, timber production and 14 soil water conservation in Loess Plateau, China.. The subject of submitted manuscript falls within the scope of Sustainability, and special issue.
The paper is well written, the data are of high quality and the results are well defined and discussed according to the approached followed by the authors. The topic is interesting and concerns a high importance issue considering the role of trees in forest based multiple services on the integration of structural attributes of forest. In addition, the manuscript can provide international projection.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and pertinent suggestions on our MS. We will revise it to meet the requirements of the Journal.
Thank you again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
I read the paper. This paper examines the multiple services of mixed oak forests in relation to the structural characteristics of these stands in China. Fundamental improvements need to be made to the research methodology, especially with regard to the estimation of the frequency of CWD. In the results section, the average ± SD and Tukey test results should be given; the type of correlation test should be mentioned and the significant level of correlation coefficients should be written. Details of the parts that need to be corrected are sent in a separate letter.
Good luck
Title: Suggestion,
Evaluation of multiple forest services based on the integration of stand structural attributes in mixed Oak forests
Line 12: Please complete the sentence.
Line 15: Please refer to the data collection method and type of sampling plots.
Line 33 (keywords): Please write one of the following three words as a keyword: Multiple Service Forestry (MSF); ecosystem services; multiple forest services
Line 54: please add space after “[11]”.
Line 57: What is your mean by “due to the spatial incompatibility of forest structural elements”
Line 70: Please revise.
Line 75: I think should be Italic “Quercus”.
Line 94: What is the condition of the ground in terms of roughness and slope intensity?
Line 101: What is the management history of these forests?
Line 102: What is the area of these oak forests?
Line 102: What is your mean by “farm”.
Line 102: Please remove the second “40”.
Line 103: how you classified stands to three age classes: young, middle, and old?
Line 106: Do you have a reason or references to design subplots?
Table 1: In my opinion, “stand” instead of “forest”, and Stand type III, should be “Oak-other broadleaf-conifer mixed stand”. It is better to mention the scientific name of trees species.
Line 110: DBH, 1.30 m
Line111: Please mention to instruments of tree DBH and height measuring.
Line 112: What is your mean by “status”? Do you mean decay class?
Line 114: Was not the diameter and height of the snags measured?
Line 114-117: species and cover of shrubs and herbs were measured in the plots or in the subplots?
Line 122: Where these results?
Line 123: Please explain the method and materials of measuring of each variable.
Line 125: Please provide reference for method (24h at 80℃).
Line 126-127: I did not understand this method.
Line: 129-132: The method of estimating the frequency of CWD is not correct. The transect and sample line method requires a larger number of transects with longer lengths to estimate the frequency of CWD, and special equations are used to generalize the frequency from the sample line to the surface (number per hectare). In this study, the number of CWD in the entire plot area was probably counted and then converted to the number per hectare.
Line 135: Fig. 6? It should be Fig. 1.
Line 144: Stand types mentioned here is different with mentioned in the table 1. Pine is not equal with conifer.
Table 2: Please provide references for equations of species richness, species diversity.
Line 190: How was the standing volume-timber volume calculated/estimated in each plot?
Line 199: Please explain the “R”? Is your mean statistical softwear?
Table 3:
Please add units in the column of structural attributes; for example, DBH (cm), tree height (m), snag density (stem/ha), litter depth (cm or mm)
These results seem to be the mean structural characteristics of the stands. In fact, they are the mean of sampling plots. Therefore, each has a standard deviation. In this case, the differences of these characteristics in different stands can be compared with ANOVA and Tukey test. In my opinion, it is better to include the ±SD and the results of the above tests in this table.
Please correct: height of trees
Please correct: stand volume (m3/ha)
Please explain what is your mean by “dominant trees”?
206: What is your mean by “correlation analysis”?
Line 243: What is the “ESS”?
Table 4: Please add SD and results of Tukey test. Why is the value of P and N not given?; please correct “available”.
Line 266-267: Please revise.
Table 7: Title: What is your mean by “service-service indicators”? Are the results related to Pearson correlation and R value (correlation coefficient)? Which of these coefficients are statistically significant and at what level?
Line 301-335: Please refer to more significant relationships.
Line 337: “stand structural attributes and forest services”
Line 432: diversity of DBH (stand uneven ageness)
Line 439: In addition to their abundance, the size and severity of decay play an important role in the impact and role of dead wood (snag and CWD) on biodiversity.
Line 442: You suggest a selective silviculture approach, but we do not know how these forests have been managed in the past and now. Please mention these in the materials and methods section as well as in the discussion.
Line 484-496: As you mentioned in the introduction, soil erosion is an important problem in the study area. Therefore, it is better to point out a possible solution to the problem in the conclusion.
Appendix 1: What is your mean by sunny/shady slope and N/A?
Appendix 1: What is your mean by “Near-mature oak forest”?
Appendix 1: What is your mean by “Oak low forest from sprouting_operation 01”?
Author Response
We will further revise it to meet the requirements of the Journal
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My primary concern, as is the lack of utility of the results presented in this study. Authors wrote “In loess plateau region, it is even more critical to preserve the forests for preventing soil erosion and other environmental crisis, and timber harvest has been banned in the widely distributed natural forests in this area. For this reason, the local forest man agers didn’t intend to change the forest structure towards a timber-oriented stand”. Therefore, the purpose given by the authors is unjustified. Additionally, some of the results are obvious and you don't need to do any research to find out. Many of the factors analyzed are age-dependent (snags, CWD) .It is known that birch is a short-lived species, unlike oak or pine
My second concern is related to the Discussion section. This excerpt from the manuscript is the results and conclusions rather than the discussion itself. We have references to only 12 articles, most of them quite ancient. This part of the manuscript requires major changes.
After reading the “methods” portion of the abstract several times, I’m still not sure exactly what is meant here. I recognize that it is difficult to be very precise and detailed in abstracts, due to length limitations, but I think readers (myself included!) would appreciate a little more clarity here on these two approach. There is also no information about the 3 types of stands analyzed.
I cannot agree with the statements:
“Quercus is the most important tree genus in the Northern Hemisphere”(l.75-76)- in what aspect is it the most important? It should be italic.
“Oak is also one of the main forest type in the Loess Plateau region [19], however it has not received desirable values for its timber use and habitat supporting (l. 78-79)- should be rather “ Oak forest”, Do the authors mean species or genus?
l. 96- Are these meters above the sea?
l. 103- the authors talk about the age of the stands, but it is not given anywhere
l. 111- it is not clearly described how it was made, I can only assume
In part “Material methods” - the plot description lacks information about the age of stands and conditions prevailing there (sunlight, substrate, humidity). The term heterogeneity used in line 103 is too general. It is extremely important, because now we do not even know if the plots are compared with each other and their ages differ significantly, which affects the obtained results.
Tables will be more readable if units of measurement are included. An example would be tables 3, 6, 7.
l. 135 - there is an incorrect number of Fig.
Some of the results are obvious and you don't need to do any research to find out (e.g. l. 220-238)That species richness in a mixed oak-birch forest was markedly higher than in a pure oak forest is obvious. So is the fact that the proportion of dominant species in the shrub layer in all stand types was clearly lower than in the crown and herb layer. In terms of number of snags and CWD - is age and species dependent. It is known that birch is a short-lived species, unlike oak or pine. Is clear that there will be fewer snags in a pure oak stand than in a mixed stand.
l. 279-280- term should be in discussion rather than results
l.238-239- autors wrote “A number of researches”- and they gave only 3 examples.
In my opinion, the manuscript still needs work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for the corrections you made. Please complete the corrections:
Tables 3 and 4: Please explain that: means ± standard deviation, also the different letters after the means show a statistically significant difference at α=0.05 by Tukey’s test.
Table 7: please refer to the significant level. ⃰ α=0.05 , ⃰ ⃰ α=0.01.
Line 317: please revise: had negative correlation with SCI.
Good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I am glad to see the content changed according to my comments in the new version of the article.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review and suggestions on our MS. We will revise it to meet the requirements of the Journal.
Thank you again.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks
