Bark Browsing and Recovery: A Comparative Study between Douglas Fir and Silver Fir Species in the Western Carpathians

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

This manuscript aims to asses bark browsing and recovery in conifer species in Slovakia, where overabundance of ungulates seems quite an issue, due to its negative impacts on forest practices and sustainable management. The comparative approach followed; by assessing the magnitude of bark browsing and recovery in two conifer species (a native versus an exotic species) makes the study relevant in the context of central Europe forests.

Overall, the manuscript is well written and well structured. It is noteworthy the author´s efforts to provide clear explanation of their results, as well as the other sections of the manuscript. The following few specific points deserve some clarification.

Materials and Methods

Lines 201-206. Please specify whether you checked any test of normality for the variables used in the analysis of variance. Usually data including ratios, as those referred to total bark area, might require some transformation to meet the assumption of normality, before performing the analysis.    

Discussion

Lines 343-353. Please make sure that these data are comparable, i.e. are the sizes (for aspen, willow and rowan) similar to those of fir species in this study?

Lines 382-387. A few more comments on the usefulness of this model would be interesting. i.e. What is the relationship of the model prediction (forage potential) with the actual “use” of bark for foraging (BATA)? It seems that the whole “forage potential” is not fully use by ungulates (about 1/5, line 341). Are there any factor influencing this situation? Perhaps seasonally variation in bark browsing?     

General comment on the Discussion and Conclussion sections

Although the authors explicitly recognize the importance of management of ungulates population as a complementary control method to decrease damages in forests, it would be interesting a brief discussion on alternative forest management practices (other than species replacement) to overcome the intensity of ungulates bark browsing. i.e. mixed species (and sizes) plantations. Are there any other approaches in managing for this particular issue in the region?

Author Response

General comments:

This manuscript aims to assess bark browsing and recovery in conifer species in Slovakia, where overabundance of ungulates seems quite an issue, due to its negative impacts on forest practices and sustainable management. The comparative approach followed; by assessing the magnitude of bark browsing and recovery in two conifer species (a native versus an exotic species) makes the study relevant in the context of central Europe forests.

Overall, the manuscript is well written and well structured. It is noteworthy the author´s efforts to provide clear explanation of their results, as well as the other sections of the manuscript. The following few specific points deserve some clarification.

Materials and Methods

Lines 201-206. Please specify whether you checked any test of normality for the variables used in the analysis of variance. Usually data including ratios, as those referred to total bark area, might require some transformation to meet the assumption of normality, before performing the analysis.   

Yes, we performed the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to confirm the normality of the data (see the text added in the 2.3 subsection). Since the normality was proved we approached to the ANOVA.

Discussion

Lines 343-353. Please make sure that these data are comparable, i.e. are the sizes (for aspen, willow and rowan) similar to those of fir species in this study?

Yes, the sizes (stem diameters and tree heights) of all tree species were very similar.

Lines 382-387. A few more comments on the usefulness of this model would be interesting. i.e. What is the relationship of the model prediction (forage potential) with the actual “use” of bark for foraging (BATA)? It seems that the whole “forage potential” is not fully use by ungulates (about 1/5, line 341). Are there any factor influencing this situation? Perhaps seasonally variation in bark browsing?

We chose not to engage in extensive discussion on external factors influencing the utilization of forage potential by game. The reason is that our current work does not provide results supporting such analyses.

General comment on the Discussion and Conclusion sections

Although the authors explicitly recognize the importance of management of ungulates population as a complementary control method to decrease damages in forests, it would be interesting a brief discussion on alternative forest management practices (other than species replacement) to overcome the intensity of ungulates bark browsing. i.e. mixed species (and sizes) plantations. Are there any other approaches in managing for this particular issue in the region?

We have added a separate paragraph at the end of the 4.1 subsection, explaining possible measures to mitigate browsing damage. Further discussion might be rather speculative, as we do not have our own results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

‘silver fir’ throughout the manuscript must be edited as ‘Silver Fir’ First letter should be capital. Edit figure legends and footnotes too.

L 42-46- Consider merging the sentences with essential restructuring.

L 55-58- Paraphrase the sentence.

L 71-72- Please remove the sentence.

L 93- The reference number can be added at the end of the sentence.

Please keep study site as a separate sub-heading (2.1 Study site; 2.2 Stand description etc.)

L 112-114- Paraphrase the sentence

L 141-144- Complex sentence. Consider providing the information as a concise statement.

I encourage to keep a study area map to better understand the site.

Authors must be aware about writing common names of the species (Please edit red deer, roe deer, mouflons, fallow deer, wild boar etc. throughout the manuscript). Capitalize the common names written in the entire manuscript.

L 140. Reference number alone is enough. Delete Konôpka et al.

L 192. Edit Sb is stem bark surface (cm²) as S_b is stem bark surface (cm²)

It is better to avoid writing authors name in case of using reference numbers. Please paraphrase the sentences to avoid using both.

The figures lack visual appeal; please enhance them by adding vibrant colors.

Remove unnecessary italics from the sentence in Line 192.

L 456- 457- Better to avoid this statement in conclusion section.

L 457-460- Overly complex sentence. Paraphrase it and also remove “(as an introduced species in Europe)”, since it is already mentioned in the introduction.

Minor editing required 

Author Response

Comments

‘silver fir’ throughout the manuscript must be edited as ‘Silver Fir’ First letter should be capital. Edit figure legends and footnotes too.

The Sustainability journal does not follow a format of capitalizing names of species. Thus, we believe it would not be written in this way.

L 42-46- Consider merging the sentences with essential restructuring.

Thanks, we changed that.

L 55-58- Paraphrase the sentence.

Done.

L 71-72- Please remove the sentence.

Removed.

L 93- The reference number can be added at the end of the sentence.

Done.

Please keep study site as a separate sub-heading (2.1 Study site; 2.2 Stand description etc.)

Separated.

L 112-114- Paraphrase the sentence

Done.

L 141-144- Complex sentence. Consider providing the information as a concise statement.

Done.

I encourage to keep a study area map to better understand the site.

We prefer not to include the map since it was published in the previous work referenced in the text (i.e., Konôpka et al., 2021). Additionally, to avoid the "similarity rate" principle recently demanded by the Sustainability authorities among other reasons.

Authors must be aware about writing common names of the species (Please edit red deer, roe deer, mouflons, fallow deer, wild boar etc. throughout the manuscript). Capitalize the common names written in the entire manuscript.

We have answered this issue upper (as for silver fir).

L 140. Reference number alone is enough. Delete Konôpka et al.

Done.

L 192. Edit Sb is stem bark surface (cm²) as S_b is stem bark surface (cm²)

Corrected.

It is better to avoid writing authors name in case of using reference numbers. Please paraphrase the sentences to avoid using both.

Done.

The figures lack visual appeal; please enhance them by adding vibrant colors.

It could be nice to show it in colors, but black and white diagrams are clear for colorblind person and it is cheaper for printing.

Remove unnecessary italics from the sentence in Line 192.

Done.

L 456- 457- Better to avoid this statement in conclusion section.

Done.

L 457-460- Overly complex sentence. Paraphrase it and also remove “(as an introduced species in Europe)”, since it is already mentioned in the introduction.

Changed.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript titled Bark Browsing and Recovery: A Comparative Study between Douglas Fir and Silver Fir Species in the Western Carpathians , Konôpka et al studied inter-specific comparisons of bark browsing (stripping) between Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and silver fir (Abies alba Mill.)in the context of forest ecosystems being impacted.

The overall structure of the essay is fairly stable, though it would have been preferable if you could have simplified the language a little more. The article as a whole lacks further information about the research-based programme's procedure, as well as a summary.

This research will help to some extent in the development of forestry or other related industries. Two tree species, Douglas Fir and Silver Fir Species, are described in full, in which the degree of gnawing of the bark by hoofed animals is analysed, as well as the degree of recovery of the species after being gnawed. For the potential infection of stems by fungal diseases or wood deformations, we encourage the study to realise. Additionally, the study mentions management practices for managing silver fir, but very little in the way of content.

Authors need to concentrate on localised modifications based on suggestions.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled Bark Browsing and Recovery: A Comparative Study between Douglas Fir and Silver Fir Species in the Western Carpathians , Konôpka et al studied inter-specific comparisons of bark browsing (stripping) between Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and silver fir (Abies alba Mill.)in the context of forest ecosystems being impacted.

The overall structure of the essay is fairly stable, though it would have been preferable if you could have simplified the language a little more. The article as a whole lacks further information about the research-based programme's procedure, as well as a summary.

This research will help to some extent in the development of forestry or other related industries. Two tree species, Douglas Fir and Silver Fir Species, are described in full, in which the degree of gnawing of the bark by hoofed animals is analysed, as well as the degree of recovery of the species after being gnawed. For the potential infection of stems by fungal diseases or wood deformations, we encourage the study to realise. Additionally, the study mentions management practices for managing silver fir, but very little in the way of content.

Authors need to concentrate on localised modifications based on suggestions.

We have considered the comments and nearly all were incorporated into the text. In fact, many of them overlapped with the suggestions from the other reviewers. The changes have been made in the individual parts of the manuscript, as shown in the correction mode.

In addition to other changes, we have added a separate paragraph indicating possible protective measures against browsing of “palatable” tree species.