Long-Term Effects of Thinning in Sub-Mountainous Thermophilic Sessile Oak (Quercus petraea Mill.) and European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Coppices in the Croatian Dinarides

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the effects of thinning on beech and oak coppices in the Central Dinarides (Lika region) through a 20-year experiment. It explores the long-term impacts of thinning on tree growth, species composition, and silvicultural characteristics. The study provides valuable data on the long-term effects of thinning, which is significant for understanding the impact of different thinning intensities on tree growth and silvicultural characteristics. Given the limited existing data, this research holds high scientific value. However, the paper presents several issues that need addressing. Specifically, the current structure of the paper is somewhat loose, and the connections between some paragraphs are not tight enough. Additionally, the manuscript lacks clarity in its exposition, and some results and methodological content could be optimized. Please find my suggestions below:

1. L27-29: The last sentence of the abstract should be moved to the beginning as the second sentence. This sentence emphasizes the importance of the study, and mentioning it later dilutes its effcet.

2. The abstract lacks some other important findings of this study, such as the different effects of thinning on tree species diversity. Do not be stingy with text; this is also a significant result. It reveals the complex impacts of thinning on species diversity and offers new insights for coppice management, particularly in dealing with different species and ecological conditions.

3. L22-24: This section does not need to be so detailed. The conventional data analysis methods can be described in detail in the Methods section. Pls reduce the length of this part.

4. The introduction is thorough, the structure could be improved for better logical flow. For example, the definition of Low coppice in L110-115 should be placed in the first or second paragraph. Conversely, the background information about the study area in L58-74 should be moved to a later part of the introduction.

5. 2.1 Study Area and Experiment Establishment, The content from L153-164 is redundant. It is sufficient to provide a brief description of the climate and habitat characteristics of the study area, omitting unrelated content.

6.  table 1: I suggest converting Table 1 into a visual format such as a graphic. Information such as elevation, slope, and area can be visualized directly, with other details included as text within the image to enhance readability.

7.  For curvature metric, it would be helpful to include three representative real photos, allowing readers to better understand its significance. As you introduced this metric in the introduction L115-117, visual examples would enhance comprehension.

8.  consider representing Table 2 with a pie chart or bar chart, focusing solely on the two tree species studied. This would increase clarity. I do not see the relevance of detailed information about other tree species for this study.

9. Clearly state how this study compares with existing research and its contributions. Specifically, compare results with those from other regions or similar environments to deepen the discussion.

10.  It is crucial to provide a mechanism explanation. Explore how thinning affects tree growth and species composition. For instance, explain why thinning leads to a decrease in species diversity and whether there are specific ecological mechanisms or competition dynamics involved.

11.  Study implications and limitations are also needed. Because, this predicted study might have some drawbacks, so these should be discussed. Please discuss any drawbacks and outline potential future research directions, including unresolved issues or challenges that need further exploration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the language seems good, some sentences are convoluted and may benefit from simplification or rephrasing to improve readability and coherence. 

Author Response

General comment: This paper investigates the effects of thinning on beech and oak coppices in the Central Dinarides (Lika region) through a 20-year experiment. It explores the long-term impacts of thinning on tree growth, species composition, and silvicultural characteristics. The study provides valuable data on the long-term effects of thinning, which is significant for understanding the impact of different thinning intensities on tree growth and silvicultural characteristics. Given the limited existing data, this research holds high scientific value. However, the paper presents several issues that need addressing. Specifically, the current structure of the paper is somewhat loose, and the connections between some paragraphs are not tight enough. Additionally, the manuscript lacks clarity in its exposition, and some results and methodological content could be optimized. Please find my suggestions below:

Answer to general comment: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have followed your suggestions and made corrections accordingly. All changes are marked in the text and our answers are listed below.

Comment 1: L27-29: The last sentence of the abstract should be moved to the beginning as the second sentence. This sentence emphasizes the importance of the study, and mentioning it later dilutes its effect.

Answer 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and make correction in the manuscript accordingly.

Comment 2. The abstract lacks some other important findings of this study, such as the different effects of thinning on tree species diversity. Do not be stingy with text; this is also a significant result. It reveals the complex impacts of thinning on species diversity and offers new insights for coppice management, particularly in dealing with different species and ecological conditions.

Answer 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have included other findings of the study in the Abstract (impact on biodiversity as well).

Comment 3. L22-24: This section does not need to be so detailed. The conventional data analysis methods can be described in detail in the Methods section. Pls reduce the length of this part.

Answer 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The length of this part is reduced.

Comment 4. The introduction is thorough, the structure could be improved for better logical flow. For example, the definition of Low coppice in L110-115 should be placed in the first or second paragraph. Conversely, the background information about the study area in L58-74 should be moved to a later part of the introduction.

Answer 4: Changes were made (in Introduction, References and ref. numberst corrected throughout the text).

Comment 5. 2.1 Study Area and Experiment Establishment, The content from L153-164 is redundant. It is sufficient to provide a brief description of the climate and habitat characteristics of the study area, omitting unrelated content.

Answer 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with you. Changes were made – all redundant content is deleted.

Comment 6.  table 1: I suggest converting Table 1 into a visual format such as a graphic. Information such as elevation, slope, and area can be visualized directly, with other details included as text within the image to enhance readability.

Answer 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Nevertheless, even though this would present better visualisation of the plots, authors believe that there would be no significant benefit to convert this kind of data to graphics (especially since other reviewer asked for data to be added).

Comment 7.  For curvature metric, it would be helpful to include three representative real photos, allowing readers to better understand its significance. As you introduced this metric in the introduction L115-117, visual examples would enhance comprehension.

Answer 7: We have added pictures showing different degrees of stem deformities as you have pointed out. For sure this will increase clarity to the reader. Thank you.

Comment 8.  consider representing Table 2 with a pie chart or bar chart, focusing solely on the two tree species studied. This would increase clarity. I do not see the relevance of detailed information about other tree species for this study.

Answer 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have prepared a graph to be added into manuscript (in pdf version of answers, could not be copied here), even though we think that table provides more accurate data then the figure. Moreover, we still think that all tree species should be presented since there is a benefit for a reader. Coppices are regarded economically, but have other benefits as well, as it is pointed out in the manuscript. If taken only from the silvicultural perspective supporting tree species have many benefits. E.g. the number of supporting (accompanying tree species) have beneficial influence on the possibility of passive conversion at the end of rotation period (seeding of different tree species), maintain diversity of tree species, prevent development of weeds and invasive species (especially at the time of conversion). Some can also positively influence natural pruning of main tree species (raising commercial value) or prevent inflammation of the bark of the of sensitive tree species (e.g. European beech). So, if it would be acceptable to reviewer we would like to keep this data since for silviculturist and botanists who would read the paper this would give more comprehensive picture of the composition and the state of these coppices.

Comment 9. Clearly state how this study compares with existing research and its contributions. Specifically, compare results with those from other regions or similar environments to deepen the discussion.

Answer 9: Changes were made. We have done again more research on published data, but there is limited information on the topic. Authors ask the reviewer to please consider that there are only limited data published for these kinds of comparisons.

Comment 10.  It is crucial to provide a mechanism explanation. Explore how thinning affects tree growth and species composition. For instance, explain why thinning leads to a decrease in species diversity and whether there are specific ecological mechanisms or competition dynamics involved.

Answer 10: Changes were made. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 11.  Study implications and limitations are also needed. Because, this predicted study might have some drawbacks, so these should be discussed. Please discuss any drawbacks and outline potential future research directions, including unresolved issues or challenges that need further exploration.

Answer 11: Changes were made. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 12: The language seems good, some sentences are convoluted and may benefit from simplification or rephrasing to improve readability and coherence.

Answer 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The coauthor of the paper is a native speaker and has done language check. Furthermore, long sentences have been shortened and broken ones rephrased to be more easily understood.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article deals with silvicultural treatments and their long-term effects on the growth of two species. This is an extremely important topic for forestry science, as managing and managing forests depends on adequate space, resources and density conditions to achieve production until the end of the rotation, according to the capacity of each site. This topic has always been important for forest management, and requires adjustments given changes in species genetics, consumer market and demand for forest products. The introduction is consolidated with references on the topic. The methodology, statistical analysis is suitable for the inventory method and process, as well as density reduction through thinning. This allows the experiment to be replicated in other locations. Results are informative and the discussion presents the knowledge generated after analyzing the results. The conclusions adequately respond to the objective proposed in the work. Figures and tables are self-explanatory and necessary in the document.    In this sense, the article can be published as is.

Author Response

Reviewers comment: "The article deals with silvicultural treatments and their long-term effects on the growth of two species. This is an extremely important topic for forestry science, as managing and managing forests depends on adequate space, resources and density conditions to achieve production until the end of the rotation, according to the capacity of each site. This topic has always been important for forest management, and requires adjustments given changes in species genetics, consumer market and demand for forest products. The introduction is consolidated with references on the topic. The methodology, statistical analysis is suitable for the inventory method and process, as well as density reduction through thinning. This allows the experiment to be replicated in other locations. Results are informative and the discussion presents the knowledge generated after analyzing the results. The conclusions adequately respond to the objective proposed in the work. Figures and tables are self-explanatory and necessary in the document.    In this sense, the article can be published as is."

 

Answer: Authors kindly thank reviewer for positive feedback to the manuscript and his/her understanding of the idea, concept and achieved results of the conducted research. Furthermore, the manuscript has been improved according to suggestions of other reviewers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presented an important study to understand the effects of thinning on coppice trees in terms of species diversity, stem growth, and stem/crown shape. I have two major concerns for this paper.

The first one is about the writing. There are many long sentences, and also broken sentences that render it not an easy task to read and understand. Please find a native speaker or a professional English editing service to check and revise the text;

The second concern is related to the experiment/trial design and data analysis. It is unclear how the treatment and control plots were set up in the thinned forest; if the trees in treatment and control plots started from on an equal footing in terms of species composition, DBH and height, and tree growth quality. You want to make sure in this thinning effect experiment the only difference among plots is thinning-induced stem density difference, and you have had proof or evidence that other differences in species composition, plot characteristics (such as slope, aspect, etc) have no or little effect on the growth increment during the experiment period. Your Table 2 shows that for the two plots, the numbers of trees in the thinning and control units are not equal (170 vs. 296 in Beech14 while it is 313:497 in Oak103); neither are the compositions of tree species in these plots. So the differences may also come from imbalanced numbers of trees; and different, unequal tree species in those plots have different growth rates and patterns. These all can introduce varied growth and development effects. You need to filter out these compounding influences and effects to focus only on thinning. Thus a new analysis is needed to account for those factors. Maybe you can use just corresponding Beech and Oak trees for direct comparisons.  

Some other minor issues and/or errors:

Line 40: significantly differ – should be differ significantly;

Lines 77-78: coppice conversion is not a favorable option for small private forest owners on experiencing economic and energy crises… – should be: coppice conversion is not a favorable option for small private forest owners who are experiencing economic and energy crises…

Lines 85-86: past tense should be applied here: argued and proposed as the reference 20 is from 2014;

Lines 126-127: but some studies also stress that it is important for tree health – should be changed to: but also tree health;

Line 133: a right bracket is missing;

Lines 134-136: The traditional aim of thinning, to increase size and quality of remaining trees have shifted towards that of increasing resistance or resilience to drought – could be changed to:  The traditional aim of thinning, which is to increase size and quality of remaining trees, have shifted towards increasing resistance or resilience of trees to drought;

Table 1: add more info about the trees in the plots, such as tree density (how many trees in a hectare), basal area and stem volume; average tree height and DBH;

Line 176: short-term effects of thinning - the title is long-term effect; so is in Line 180. Please explain or clarify;

Line 181: what were done in spring 2020? When was the trial and control plots established, I suppose it was 2002? I am confused in the following paragraphs: how did you maintain the control plots in these already thinned Beech 14 and Oak103 plots?

Section 2.1 Consider using a table to summarize these plot parameters (number of trees, basal area and stand volume, etc.) for the last two paragraphs.

Line 237: Curvature showing how much tree/stem bends – how this feature differs from the first one, Tree/stem straightness? Did you mean stem twisting?

Section 2.4: for these silvicultural characteristics, higher grade means better growth quality? Need to be consistent in assigning grades (orders). Is smaller crown width, or asymmetric crown shape indicator of better tree development?

Lines 250-252: For continuous variables the mean+-+ standard deviation was calculated for categorical frequency and relative frequency variables –check this sentence;

Line 256: conditionsis –should be conditions is;

Line 257 and others: “coppice type” should be tree species; you are referring to beech and oak coppices;

Section 2.5 Statistical analysis: you should add that for the tests, the NULL hypothesis is there is no difference in growth increment from 2020 to 2022 between control and treatment in terms of DBH, Height, silvicultural features; by the way, why not conduct a t-test to see if there are significant differences in DBH and height growth in the thinning and control groups from 2020 to 2022?

Line 294: number is low – should be: numbers ae low;

Lines 300-301: This clearly reveals that when thinning was done this supported more quality trees from seeds – I didn’t find the numbers to support this claim; also this sentence itself is grammatically incorrect;

Section 3.1 [C]: There are various reasons that the numbers N in Table 3 are different: some trees were dead, while others are not measureable due to deformed shape or bent-over. You can also incorporate these numbers in the Table, so readers can see clearly.

Table 4: please add a note explaining what MS is;

Line 358: and coppice type: year and treatment – should be and coppice type and year and treatment;

Figure 1: Is there better way to present the results? I am not sure I can read from the figures directly that for thinning treatments, changes in DBH and height are significant while they are not for those of controls.

Table 5: the caption should provide enough detail. Results of Chi2 and Fisher’s exact test for variables: tree/stem straightness (S), decreasing diameter along the trunk (T shape) and Curvature (C) Forking (F), Crown width (C_width) and Crown symmetry (C_sym) and treatment; also check the format. Why the far right column is not all in bold?

Section 4: Discussion: without conclusion? You should also mention that coppicing is a sustainable forest activity/practice either in Discussion or Introduction.

Section 4.1: this section is dubious. Does thinning affect diversity? Hard to tell or draw convincing conclusion from your data.

Section 4.2: please explain what you observed in your results presented in Lines 352-265. Be more specific in discussing what caused growth differences in DBH and height, along with other factors (years, species and origins, etc.).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see my Comments and Suggestions for Authors, the 1st point.

Author Response

Comment 1: This manuscript presented an important study to understand the effects of thinning on coppice trees in terms of species diversity, stem growth, and stem/crown shape. I have two major concerns for this paper. The first one is about the writing. There are many long sentences, and also broken sentences that render it not an easy task to read and understand. Please find a native speaker or a professional English editing service to check and revise the text;

Answer 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Nevertheless, the author of the paper is a native speaker and has done language check. Furthermore, long sentences have been shortened and broken ones rephrased to be more easily understood.

Comment 2: The second concern is related to the experiment/trial design and data analysis. It is unclear how the treatment and control plots were set up in the thinned forest; if the trees in treatment and control plots started from on an equal footing in terms of species composition, DBH and height, and tree growth quality. You want to make sure in this thinning effect experiment the only difference among plots is thinning-induced stem density difference, and you have had proof or evidence that other differences in species composition, plot characteristics (such as slope, aspect, etc) have no or little effect on the growth increment during the experiment period. Your Table 2 shows that for the two plots, the numbers of trees in the thinning and control units are not equal (170 vs. 296 in Beech14 while it is 313:497 in Oak103); neither are the compositions of tree species in these plots. So, the differences may also come from imbalanced numbers of trees; and different, unequal tree species in those plots have different growth rates and patterns. These all can introduce varied growth and development effects. You need to filter out these compounding influences and effects to focus only on thinning. Thus, a new analysis is needed to account for those factors. Maybe you can use just corresponding Beech and Oak trees for direct comparisons.  

Answer 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, the trees in treatment and control plots started from on an equal footing in terms of species composition, DBH and height, and tree growth quality. This is recorded in the PhD thesis from Štimac since the research begun 20 years ago, when true state of the coppices was recorded prior to thinning. The experimental plots were selected considering homogeneity in terms of these additional influences. As you can see in Table 1 aspect, altitude etc. Are the same on one locality i.e. one tree species monitored. Trial plots were set in a way they are close (spatially connected) to eact other and that they include the same site characteristics. Therefore, the analysis of different influences would not have sense since those are the same and should influence unthinned and thinned plots in the same way. We have additionally explained this in the manuscript (L187-193). Furthermore, in section Materials and methods is stated that stands were quite homogenous prior to the thinning, and we stated the situation on thinned plots after the thinning. Table 2 refers to the state 20 years after the thinning, not prior the differences you are rightly observe are not initial state but already influenced by thining.

Moreover, we would like to highlight the importance of this research since the situation in the whole Dinnarid area in Croatia, when coppices are considered, is such that this kind of thinning is extremely rarely done, while the geographical and terrain features are highly diverse. This was the unique opportunity to set control and thinning plots at the same spot where other influences would be the same at both plots. This leaves us with the clear effect of thinning. Even those thinned coppices were difficult to find since there are no other examples to be included into the research (with restricted interest into financing of such research at the past).

Comment 3: Some other minor issues and/or errors: Line 40: significantly differ – should be differ significantly;

Answer 3: Thank you for your efforts to improve the manuscript. Change was made.

Comment 4: Lines 77-78: coppice conversion is not a favourable option for small private forest owners on experiencing economic and energy crises… – should be: coppice conversion is not a favourable option for small private forest owners who are experiencing economic and energy crises…

Answer 4: Change was made.

Comment 5: Lines 85-86: past tense should be applied here: argued and proposed as the reference 20 is from 2014;

Answer 5: Change was made.

Comment 6: Lines 126-127: but some studies also stress that it is important for tree health – should be changed to: but also, tree health;

Answer 6: Change was made.

Comment 7: Line 133: a right bracket is missing;

Answer 7: Change was made.

Comment 8: Lines 134-136: The traditional aim of thinning, to increase size and quality of remaining trees have shifted towards that of increasing resistance or resilience to drought – could be changed to:  The traditional aim of thinning, which is to increase size and quality of remaining trees, have shifted towards increasing resistance or resilience of trees to drought;

Answer 8: Change was made.

Comment 9: Table 1: add more info about the trees in the plots, such as tree density (how many trees in a hectare), basal area and stem volume; average tree height and DBH;

Answer 9: Change was made.

Comment 10: Line 176: short-term effects of thinning - the title is long-term effect; so is in Line 180. Please explain or clarify;

Answer 10: Short-term effects are referring to the initial research begun in the year 2002. Long-term effects refer to the thinning effects 20 years after. We have changed the text, so it is clearer to a reader. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 11: Line 181: what were done in spring 2020? When was the trial and control plots established, I suppose it was 2002? I am confused in the following paragraphs: how did you maintain the control plots in these already thinned Beech 14 and Oak103 plots?

Answer 11: In spring 2020 we have selected trial plots among more comprehensive research which was set in 2002. The aim of this 2002 research was not only influence of thinning on coppices but also the state of degradation forest types in Lika. We have included localities Beech14 and Oak103, which were already established in 2002. We have selected these since those are the most spread types of coppices in Lika region. On both localities there have already been both control and thinned plots set in 2002. Control plots were left untouched for 20 years (no human influence). We have rewritten the text so this experiment timeline would be more clear. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 12: Section 2.1 Consider using a table to summarize these plot parameters (number of trees, basal area and stand volume, etc.) for the last two paragraphs.

Answer 12: We have added new table with requested parameters. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 13: Line 237: Curvature showing how much tree/stem bends – how this feature differs from the first one, Tree/stem straightness? Did you mean stem twisting?

Answer 13: Actually no. We refer here to the methodology of Perić (46) which is consistent to another similar research in Croatia. This characteristic shows us how many curves stem has. This is important for the quality of logs and their value. Since coppices are also used for timber production this show us the potential value for market. On the other hand, this means that revenue could provide additional money and interest for thinning and maintaining coppices. Tree straightness show us completely different type of stem deformation, usually pointing to the specific timber flaws. We have added explanation to the text. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 14: Section 2.4: for these silvicultural characteristics, higher grade means better growth quality? Need to be consistent in assigning grades (orders). Is smaller crown width, or asymmetric crown shape indicator of better tree development?

Answer 14: This would be difficult to appoint since some characteristics are pointing to the timber quality, while some point to the better properties for growth and development. The example you are stating, crown width has its best value in the middle (not too big, not too small). These features are not comparable, thus grades need not to be comparable. On the other hand, characteristics, which point to the e.g. timber quality, have the same principle of grading.

Comment 15: Lines 250-252: For continuous variables the mean+-+ standard deviation was calculated for categorical frequency and relative frequency variables – check this sentence;

Answer 15: Thank you. Change was made in the text.

Comment 16: Line 256: conditions –should be conditions is;

Answer 16: Change was made. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 17: Line 257 and others: “coppice type” should be tree species; you are referring to beech and oak coppices;

Answer 17: Table 2 (in revised manuscript Table 3) shows species composition, which means these are beech and oak dominated mixed coppices. In this respect it would not be completely correct to refer only to beech and oak but these types of coppices.

Comment 18: Section 2.5 Statistical analysis: you should add that for the tests, the NULL hypothesis is there is no difference in growth increment from 2020 to 2022 between control and treatment in terms of DBH, Height, silvicultural features; by the way, why not conduct a t-test to see if there are significant differences in DBH and height growth in the thinning and control groups from 2020 to 2022?

Answer 18: In the RMANOVA model, each effect that is specified has its own null hypothesis. They are usually that there is no statistically significant difference in the means of effects, and it is not usual to list them all, but to list the model. The effect of the year proved to be statistically significant, and since there are only two years in the analysis, there is no need to do a post hoc test, but it can be read from the descriptive statistics for both DBH and h.

T test cannot be done because it is for independent samples and the experiment was done on the same seedlings for two years. a complete model was created that included all effects with mutual interactions to prove whether the dependent variables (DBH and h) behave equally in terms of the analysed effects. Thus, it turned out that the year*treatment effect is statistically significant for DBH and h, as can be seen from Figure 1.

Comment 19: Line 294: number is low – should be: numbers ae low;

Answer 19: Change was made. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 20: Lines 300-301: This clearly reveals that when thinning was done this supported more quality trees from seeds – I didn’t find the numbers to support this claim; also this sentence itself is grammatically incorrect;

Answer 20: The statement was deleted. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 21: Section 3.1 [C]: There are various reasons that the numbers N in Table 3 are different: some trees were dead, while others are not measurable due to deformed shape or bent-over. You can also incorporate these numbers in the Table, so readers can see clearly.

Answer 21: In section 3.1., c) there is detailed analysis of the number of deformed, bent-over, dead trees. But thank you for pointing this out. It will be clearer for a reader to include it in table, so we have done this change.

Comment 22: Table 4: please add a note explaining what MS is;

Answer 22: Change was made as a note under the Table 4 (in a revised manuscript Table 5). Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 23: Line 358: and coppice type: year and treatment – should be and coppice type and year and treatment;

Answer 23: Change was made. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 24: Figure 1: Is there better way to present the results? I am not sure I can read from the figures directly that for thinning treatments, changes in DBH and height are significant while they are not for those of controls.

Answer 24: The reader cannot clearly see this significance from Figure 1 because we wanted to show all effects in one figure (years, treatments, species). Nevertheless, in Table 4 (in revised manuscript Table 5) the significant differences for DBH and height are shown. We believe this provides more information for reader, so if reviewer would agree we would like to leave this representation of data. Also, please see Answer 18.

Comment 25: Table 5: the caption should provide enough detail. Results of Chi2 and Fisher’s exact test for variables: tree/stem straightness (S), decreasing diameter along the trunk (T shape) and Curvature (C) Forking (F), Crown width (C_width) and Crown symmetry (C_sym) and treatment; also check the format. Why the far right column is not all in bold?

Answer 25: Change was made in caption. Far right column shows statistical significance therefore some results are bolded and some not. We have also made note clarifying this. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 26: Section 4: Discussion: without conclusion? You should also mention that coppicing is a sustainable forest activity/practice either in Discussion or Introduction.

Answer 26: „Coppicing as a sustainable forest activity/practice” is added in the Discussion and conclusions. Conclusions are added, thank you so much for pointing this out.

Comment 27: Section 4.1: this section is dubious. Does thinning affect diversity? Hard to tell or draw convincing conclusion from your data.

Answer 27: Please see prior answers. Also, we have clarified this in a revised version in Discussion part.

Comment 28: Section 4.2: please explain what you observed in your results presented in Lines 352-265. Be more specific in discussing what caused growth differences in DBH and height, along with other factors (years, species and origins, etc.).

Answer 28: Change was made.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the changes made in the revised version. A few more modification or corrections are needed, then the manuscript should be ready for publication.  

Line 197: spacially connected – should be spatially connected;

Line 287, Equation 1: supply information of Yijkl in Model 1.Y can be variables such as DBH, H, or silvicultural features including straightness, curvature, etc.? Please clarify.

Lines 348-361 have significant overlap with Lines 362-374. Make the correction. Maybe you should remove the former part.

Line 383: RMANOVA, not RM  ANOVA;

Lines 431 and 433: the figure number should be 3, namely Figure 3.

Author Response

General comment: I agree with the changes made in the revised version. A few more modification or corrections are needed, then the manuscript should be ready for publication.  

Comment 1: Line 197: spacially connected – should be spatially connected;

Answer 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Change was made.

Comment 2: Line 287, Equation 1: supply information of Yijkl in Model 1.Y can be variables such as DBH, H, or silvicultural features including straightness, curvature, etc.? Please clarify.

Answer 2: Explanation of Yijkl in a model is already given in L: 282-285 to some extent. Dependent variables in the model are DBH and H for effect of years (there have been two measurements on the exact same trees). The measurements have been done on coded trees. That means that we could statistically linked DBH and H for each individual specifical, which means they are dependent variables. Two measurements have not been conducted for silvicultural characteristics since they cannot change in such a short time (significant changes are not possible, especially if thinning has not been done as it is a case in the period 2000 onwards).  L 283 we have deleted „i.e.“, so now it is clear what is referred in the model. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 3: Lines 348-361 have significant overlap with Lines 362-374. Make the correction. Maybe you should remove the former part.

Answer 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Change was made.

Comment 4: Line 383: RMANOVA, not RM  ANOVA;

Answer 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Change was made.

Comment 5: Lines 431 and 433: the figure number should be 3, namely Figure 3.

Answer 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Change was made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf