Community Structure and Growth Rate of Korean Quercus mongolica Forests by Vegetation Climate Zone
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done a lot of field investigation to collect data. The topic is interesting and is suitable for the readership of the Sustainability. However, the content of the paper lags the author's plan. The authors did not fully analyze the data. Therefore, I could not recommend it publish on the Sustainability in its current state, and substantial revisions are needed.
Two major suggestion:
1. As they mentioned in the introduction (“The Q. mongolica forest is a representative forest type of the deciduous forest zone on the Korean Peninsula and belongs to the intermediate stage of succession in which the biodiversity is the highest.” ) One of purposes of analyzing the community structure is to analyze the diversity within the community. The authors collected so many data, however, they did not calculate any indexes of biodiversity.
2. The comparisons between the three vegetation climatic zones are necessary. The authors did not compare the indexes of community structure between them. Testing the significance of their differences and analyze them are firmly suggested.
Other comments:
1. The statistics of “Total” in the Table 3, 4 and 5 were difficult to understand, especially the total appearance of rate.
2. The figure is not clear. Histogram is better than line chart here.
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed review. I have made revisions based on your comments. During the revision process, quite a lot of content has been added.
Please see the attachment. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and provide your feedback.
Two major suggestion(1, 2) : The biodiversity index was calculated and statistical analysis was performed. Please refer to the attached file.
Other comments 1: The relative frequency was calculated using the sum of the appearance rates. However, it was deemed unnecessary to mention in the 'Total' section, so the sum of appearance rates in the 'Total' section was removed.
Other comments 2: This was corrected by using a histogram
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors report the woody species composition in Quercus mongolica forest in different vegetation climatic zone in Korea. The composition of tree species was compared between northern, central and southern temperate zones and some characteristics were proposed in the study.
However, the content of the research is not quite suit to the goal of the journal. It is more related to the field of biodiversity or plant community ecology, but there is less related to sustainable forest management for human being. There is no any conclusion in such application raised in the draft.
The authors mentioned about warming index (WI) in introduction, and also listed “thermal climate” in table 2, but no explanations for the way the value acquired and why “the relationships among the distribution of vegetation, climate, and environmental variables were still not significant”. For the authors took the system for comparison, and also concluded the results “The warmer the area,……..”. It seems the authors think the temperature is still the important role for the vegetation composition.
The data explanation in table 1 is not sufficient. What is the meaning of the last “%” show in table 1? Q. mongolica is a kind of deciduous species. Why the forest composed major with Q. mongolica, such as “Q. mongolica community”, but classified in the coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest? What is 85.15% represented for?
When analyzing the companion species of Q. mongolica forest in Table 3, 4,5, the information of Q. mongolica should not been included, For Q. mongolica is not the companion species of Q. mongolica. I think the authors want to present the “composition of woody or dominant species” in Q. mongolica forest.
Figure 1 is very unclear and with low resolution.
The values of basal area growth rate of Q. mongolica show in table 6 are the main evidence the authors made their almost all conclusions. However, the authors have not done any statistic examination. For example, the rate of 26.73% and 28.85% may have no significant difference, also 21.33% and 22.15% in age class 5.
The authors have no any discussion with the application of the results. The authors show other “companion species” without analyzing or discussing their influences on the Q. mongolica. The patterns of the growth rate higher in younger trees and warmer regions are quite predictable for many other species. What is the importance and the novality of the finding? According to the results, Q. mongolica is much fewer in the south region, how to judge the species is healthy and superior in south region?
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed review. I have made revisions based on your comments. During the revision process, quite a lot of content has been added.
Please see the attachment. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and provide your feedback.
- The conclusions have been revised. This study is the result of analyzing the growth of Q. Mongolica forests over a 10-year period. I believe it will be beneficial in predicting future growth for sustainable forest management.
- It appears that my previous description was unclear and confusing. Page 1~2 have been modified.
- The '%' in Table 2 represents the relative distribution ratio. The table has been corrected. And It is a classification of the newly established vegetation climatic zones (as seen in Figure 1)
- The title of the table has been modified.
- The content has been modified.
- A new statistical analysis was performed to make comparisons.
- The conclusions have been revised. Although this trend aligns with the general principle I believe it is significant as it provides quantitative data on the growth rate of Q. mongolica forests
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
I have had the opportunity to review your article "Community structure and growth potential of Korean Quercus mongolica forests by vegetation climatic zone" Overall, I found the piece to be well-written and informative.
I did have a few suggestions for improvement. First, some of the transitions between sections were abrupt and a bit jarring. Smooth transitions would help the reader follow the logical flow of the article more easily. Second, while you covered a lot of ground in the article, I found myself wanting more detail in a few places. Expanding on certain points, especially in the conclusion, introduction, methodology and abstract would add further depth and understanding to the reader.
Some additional remarks;
"It would be helpful to include a clear and concise statement of the research question or hypothesis in the introduction."
"The methodology section could be more detailed in explaining the specific techniques and methods used in the study."
"Using higher resolution images or figures to enhance clarity and detail."
"Consider including references from the past 5-10 years to ensure the work is current and up-to-date."
"Include maps to illustrate the geographical context of the research."
Overall, I believe that with a few revisions, your article has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Thank you for your detailed review. I have made revisions based on your comments. During the revision process, quite a lot of content has been added.
Please see the attachment. I would appreciate it if you could take a look and provide your feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made some changes according to the reviewer’s opinions.
The vegetation climate zones of new classification are separated to 5 zones. According to Figure 1, the authors combined to 3 categories. The name applied the same as the previous conventional classification as in Yim and Kira (1975). The authors emphasized that the analysis is based on the newly established vegetation climate zones but through the context based on the 3 categories, northern, central and southern temperate zones. It is confused of the introduction with the study methods and aims. Why not determine the community structure and growth rate in each 5 vegetation climate zones according to the new classification? The authors separated the forest actually by WI<85; WI= 85-100 and WI>100. It looks no relationship with the results of newly vegetation climate zones.
The data explanation in table 1 is still not sufficient. What is the meaning of the last “relative distribution ratio (%)”? What is the 100% mean of the range? Q. mongolica is a kind of deciduous species. Why the forest composed major with Q. mongolica, such as “Q. mongolica community”, but classified in the coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest? What is 85.15% represented for? I didn’t see the explanations in the revised version. Also the description at the page 4, Line 145-Line 150 could not be examined in Table 2.
The species description in Line 155-165 is largely redundant to Table 3-5 and no any extended description of the major dominant species composition. What is the criteria of the species chosen in Table 3-5? Why Acer pictum subsp. mono is listed in the text but not listed in the Table?
There is not clear of the results of post-hoc analysis in table 7. What is the meaning of “a”, “b”, “c” and “b>a” for the Scheffe? From the common understanding of the symbols, it is not matched with the description in Libe 208-212. I suggested to apply the different letters to present the post-hoc results. Also in Table 8.
The authors confused “basal area growth rate of Q. mongolica” and “basal area growth rate of Q. mongolica forest”. It should be clarified in methods and results. If the authors mean the “forest”, then all the companion tree species should take into account.
The authors analyzed the different basal area growth rate in different age class for Q. mongolica without distinguishing the vegetation climate zone. For the Q. mongolica in north is larger than in south based on basal area, the higher growth rate in south could be not only due to temperature but also for the tree age. The authors should apply their data to analyze and clarify this. Their data should be sufficient to do the analysis.
The authors have no concrete discussion with the application of the results. The authors only analyzed the growth rate of Q. mongolica, how to apply this to forecasting the growth of whole forest community and to maintain the biodiversity of the forest? What is the growth rate with succession? For the authors want to apply the results on the restoration and forecast of the forest, the discussion should focus on these dimensions. At the end of conclusion, the authors criticized the less of height data of trees in NFI’s survey. However, tree height is not good parameters for indicating the growth of trees especially mature trees. The authors didn’t mention any part of this parameter in introduction or discussion. It is not very adequate raise this opinion in conclusion. Since it has no connection with the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
There are comments for the second review,
The resolution of the added map should be increased and the distribution should be clearly shown by giving Temperate zones more detailed.
The characteristics of Temperate Zones should be explained to the reader. What are the basic features of these climate zones, how they are classified.
The questions answered by the publication and the contribution to the literature should be transferred in more detail in the input section.
In order to express spatial characteristics more clearly, geospatial statistics and other GIS analyzes should be added.
The conclusion section should be detailed.
It would be useful to add a discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors;
There are comments for the third review,
The questions answered by the publication and the contribution to the literature should be transferred in more detail in the introduction section. How this paper filled a gap in the literature. When another researcher from another country or city, how this paper will be used for similar research topic. Can you please describe if this model is transferable?
In order to express spatial characteristics more clearly, geospatial statistics and other GIS analyzes should be added. Which kind of GIS analysis examined?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
