Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is good but some comments in attached file are important to address.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. Please see the attached file for our detailed point‑by‑point responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

My comments on your article are stated below.

Abstract

- The future perspective of the study should be given shortly at the end of the Abstract part.
- Some numerical data should be added for the "yield returned to pre-thinning levels" or etc.
- Lines 27-30 "However, existing studies have reported mixed findings regarding the effects on annual runoff yield, and most have over- looked potential changes in flow regimes throughout the year, particularly as captured by flow duration curve analysis." may be removed from this part to be added to the Introduction part to reveal the importance of the study or hypothesis.

Introduction

 -Some sentences, such as L61-65, should be shortened for clarity.
- The linkage words as "in addition, moreover or etc" should be used between the paragraphs for continuity

-The introduction section emphasizes the importance, purpose, and originality of the study. Hypotheses are presented item by item. However, a few concluding sentences should be written to support the validity of the hypothesis and its purpose.

 

Materyal and Methods Part

- How can the proportion of steep slopes affect the study? Its reason should be given in this part according to L118-119.
-How was the thinning density determined? Why was the 40% thinning in tree density applied? This information should be given in the materials and methods part.
-The reason for choosing these catchments can be briefly highlighted. The A1 and A2 should be defined for clarity. How were these areas divided into two sections? What were the criteria? What about the soil properties and elevations of these areas? The sentence "The elevation of the area ranges from 580 to 644 m above sea level" is not enough. Shortly, these findings should be given more clearly

-A brief overview of the morphology and root structure of Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa) can be provided

-The authors reported that the drainage areas of catchments A1 and A2 were 2.27 ha and 1.45 ha, respectively. They also stated that the tree density of both catchments was 2,100 trees per hectare. So, why are the drainage areas of both catchments unequal?

- Please check this sentence "only three years of complete daily discharge records (2017-2019)..."  Is it 2017 or 2016?

-The needed references should be given for this part, such as "Hydrological measurements, Annual water yield estimation or others".
- The statistical analysis method should be separated from the "Storm-Event hydrographs" and it should be given in a new title and subsection.

Results Part:

-Is it the average precipitation of 8 years or the 8-year average of the total annual precipitation? please check (line228-230)

-The title of the Tables should be given at the top of the Tables.
- The subsection "3.2. Water yield response to thinning" should be rewritten by giving important results. All parameters in Table 1 should be discussed and compared. Similarly, the subsection "3.3. Flow duration curves based on Observed/Estimated ratios" should be discussed more

Discussion Part:-

In my opinion, the discussion and conclusion sections are well written.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. Please see the attached file for our detailed point‑by‑point responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

This study focused the runoff and catchment change before and after forest thinning. It is an interesting topic, and the manuscript was well structed, the written is clear. However, there are several points need to be clearly addressed.

 

Specific comments

1. The thinning method was cutting off trees as planned, however, from the photo shown in figure 1d, stem and leaves were completed removed, however, tree roots remain in the forests, which could still maintain soil water and keep influencing the runoff. How did the study distinguish the impact of these tree roots on hydrological properties?
2. what is the reason to keep the thinning year separately analysis in the Figure 3 but not in other figures? It should be briefly explained that in the how long it lasts to thinning the forest in the main text? Was it mainly in the rain season or dry season?
3. Thinning intensity is a key factor influencing soil and hydrological properties of forest ecosystems. What was the reason to select 40% of tree density was reduced in this study?
4. Section 3.3: what is the standard to set up these four exceedance classes?
5. Results section: Besides runoff and flow data shown in this section, has the study concern any soil structure changes?
6. Reference format should be unified, for journal names either using full name or abbreviated ones.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. Please see the attached file for our detailed point‑by‑point responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf