Historical Changes in Urban and Peri-Urban Forests: Evidence from the Galați Area, Romania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear Authors,
in my opinion, the resubmitted article still needs major changes. The introduction has been corrected, the research hypotheses have been added. However, finding answers to research hypotheses should not be the purpose of the paper. The research goal can be to identify, evaluate or determine the level of change. In order to achieve the stated goal, research hypotheses were set, of which
Research methods are still insufficiently described. The research scheme was unnecessarily removed. The stages of the research work are still not described. It would be advisable to describe each of the 4 stages of the study separately, indicating the data sources and how the analyses were performed.
Author Response
Please see the response to the Reviewer#1 as attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
In general, the second version of the article is much better than the previous one.
However, I would advise you to take into account the following remarks:
General remarks
1. I think that English of document should be very carefully revised, namely with regard to 3 main aspects: correct all grammar errors; there are very long sentences that make reading difficult; there are words that are repeated too many times in the same sentence or in similar sentences.
2. Please improve the article abstract. It is not clear from the text why your study is important.
3. The 'Conclusion' part is too long and includes information that can be moved to 'Results' and 'Discussion'. The "Conclusion" of the paper should: (i) provide a summary of key points; (ii) highlight the important takeaways from the study; (iii) point out the problems and doubts that arose during the study; (iv) indicate future directions. In addition, although the authors end the "Conclusion" with a strong final sentence, it is more general than it applies to the results of a particular study.
4. Note, repeated from my previous review: Acacia sp. plantations are mentioned several times in the text of the article. Robinia pseudoacacia L., does not belong to the Acacia genus. Such cases are known when a plant is classified as a species of the wrong genus, using a local rather than a Latin name (e.g., Castanea sativa Mill. e Castan sălbatic ( Aesculus hippocastanum)). Therefore, it is necessary to carefully present the information to the reader so as not to confuse.
I recommend that you study more carefully which acacia was planted in the areas studied by the authors. If these are plantations of Robinia pseudoacacia L., then the authors should indicate that Acacias (in this case regular font) is the common name and indicate the Latin name of the species. This is a scientific paper, which includes the description of species in the Galați urban and peri-urban forests, therefore, the rules for writing their common and/or scientific name must be followed.
Small remarks:
10 - past centuries, but especially
15 - changes of the urban → changes in the urban
17 - intensification and intensification ←?
23 - led to a significant
23 - forest covered → forest-covered
75-76 It seems that the authors do not quite correctly interpret the main results of the article [24]. The article states that UPUF have the potential for mitigating and adapting to climate change. This certainly emphasizes the role of these forests in mediating climate change but does not make it central.
82 – into
82 – the human
82 – increase → increased
91 - Romania has experienced
92 - between → of
94 - driven by the resulted → resulting
95 – have → has
98 – have → has
100 - mitigation of which?
102 - to the climate change mitigation
108 - and especially
109 - of studies is → are
119 - to → for a series of environmental
125 - provide quantitative → provide a quantitative
126 - on urban → of urban
127 - delete ":"
134 - tive ←?
140 - forest →forests
142 - longer → long
143 – substitute → substituted
176 - Local Administrative Unit → the Local Administrative Unit
181, 184 – evidences → evidence
191 – though → through
199 – cross border → cross – border
209 – administrative - territorial units
214 - (max. alt. 200 m) → (max. alt. 200 m above sea level)
246 - has become more → have become more
255-257 - 4.1. Historical overview of urban and peri-urban forests (from the 16th century until the beginning of the 21st century) Urban and peri-urban forests from the 18th century until the 20th century. → 4.1. Historical overview of urban and peri-urban forests. Urban and peri-urban forests from the 15th century until the 20th century.
264 - fishermen → fishermen's
265 - later seat → later the seat
269 - and as house-heating source →and as a house-heating source
2788 - visited Principality → visited the Principality
283 - on the request → at the request
294 - on forest land → of forest land
299 - order came → the order came
Figure 2. Forest bodies on the map of Moldavia by [62]
Figure 4. Forest-covered area at the level of by administrative units in 1892, processed after 334 Pacu (1892) [5665
313 – on Pechea estate → on the Pechea estate
315 - mentioned:
326 - in the northern → at the northern
326 - with the terrains → of the terrains
348 - scale 1/50,000 → scale of 1/50,000
349 - had existed only
352 - in 22 small wood →of 22 small kinds of wood
364 - so that by 1938
364 were → was
368 – study-region → study region
370 - were 647 fores → was 647 fores
371 - and 25-year-old
371 - (oak and Black locust respectively) → tall trees of the same species.
384 – oak-trees → oak trees
385 - over 1893-1938 → over the 1893-1938
389 - after
389 - Forest covered → Forest-covered. Please indicate the source of the information in figure 9.
390 - few small communal woods → a few small communal kinds of wood
390 - have been planted by the by the former Galați
391- silvicultural projects that.
399 - in the peri-urban
403 - that is → which is
407 - bordering on the banks
412 – Accacia → Acacia
412 - If was planted Robinia pseudoacacia L. , ← so, you cannot call it Acacia plantation.
418 - In the mid-1950s
424 – Accacia → Acacia
438 - (Fig. 1213) - Confusion with the figures.
447 - approximately around 7200 ha.
458 - and density
464 - with a dominant
474 - 75 years old.
494 – 10 and 30 years old
517 - of the Cluj University
518 - Tuluceşti to be protected
521 - north-west of the forest → northwest forest
545 - 8,247 ha, ,
545 - study-area → study area
547 - as Special Avifauna → as a Special Avifauna
558, 685 - study-area → study area
575 Accacia plantation → Acacia sp. Plantation
588 - is proved → is proven
589 - forest-place → forest place
594 - tree-species → tree species
596 - and and
607 - few centuries → a few centuries
608 – empirically → empirical
609 - forests dynamics → forest dynamics
609-612 It's a very long and confusing sentence.
614 - By its position → Of its position
620 - underwent to significant
622 – settlements expansion → settlement expansion
626 - streets → street
629 - the Western Europe
623 - intensification and intensification
641 - forests require → forests require
648 - decision making → decision-making
649 - provide an effective → provide effective
643-646 - It's a very long sentence.
649 - Of the urban, peri-urban, or metropolitan systems. - It's a very confusing sentence.
657-665 - A sharp transition in the timelines. The reader is lost in the text without understanding where the general trend is described and where the trends in the studied area are indicated.
663 - in-between the Roman Times
663 - period; it was larger than → period and which was larger
673 - accurate, yet they can give
676, 678, 684 surface-area → surface area
677 – in mid-19th → in the mid-19th
682, 692 - Accacia sp. Pplantations
693 - oak-trees → oak trees
693 - has been mainly → have been mainly
713 - being integrated → where integrated
716 - activities, increasingly → activities, and increasingly
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the response to the Reviewer#2 as attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
No further processing was carried out as requested in the first revision. In the study, things are affirmed without having scientific proof based on specific analyzes such as the fragility of habitats.
In paragraph 4.2 Forest structure we do not speak of forest structure but only of specific composition and surfaces.
Dynamic urban vegetation should be correlated to the dynamics of urbanized surfaces over time.
Author Response
Please see the response to the Reviewer#3 as attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear Authors,
good job! The manuscript is much better now and it's ready for publication now.
Author Response
The response to Reviewer 1 is included in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Line 662 states that the quality of the data is difficult to correlate data relating to forest dynamics with urban sprawl. While in 686 you state that "Throughout time, these processes have significantly and differently impacted the function, structure and integrity of forest ecosystems.
The claims contradict each other.
The conclusions continue to state that "these processes have significantly and differently influenced the function, structure and integrity of forest ecosystems" (line 686-688) but there are no data in the study that refer to function, structure and integrity of forest ecosystems.
Line 713: you cannot claim that there was an altered stand structure, there are no dendrometric data to prove it. You can claim to have an altered / different forest specific composition.
Author Response
The response to Reviewer 3 is included in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Received for review an article entitled "Historical changes in the urban & peri-urban forests. Evidence from the area of Galați, Romania" fits perfectly with my research interests. The article describes many scientifically interesting issues, but requires major revision to make it publishable. The following are my comments:
1) The introduction addresses many aspects of changes within forest areas relevant to the purpose of the research. It ends by stating the main aim of the study. However, the authors do not set any hypotheses that may or may not be confirmed by the study performed. Nor do they ask any research questions that the study can answer. The hypothesis or research questions should appear right after the main aim of the study.
2) The methods are not clearly described. In the methods and materials section, a research scheme is presented. While for the first stage of the research - historical overview - the authors indicated the sources of data, for the other stages these sources are no longer present. The method of analysis was also not specified. Was the data from the source materials compared? If so, how, what was compared with each other, how changes within forest areas were determined? It would be advisable to describe each of the 4 stages of the study separately, indicating the data sources and how the analyses were performed.
3) Study area section - it would be advisable to show the location of forests on the background of the DEM and the distribution of major rivers or on the background of a hypsometric map, which would make it easy to determine the nature of forest areas.
4) Results section only descriptively shows the development and changes within the forest areas. It lacks statistical summaries of the transformations taking place or an attempt to determine their driving forces. From the point of view of a non-Romanian, the data of this case study, presented only in a descriptive way, are not interesting and do not offer any possibility of comparison with changes occurring in other parts of Europe. It would be advisable to show in time diagrams for each of the periods described the changes taking place and the reasons for the processes taking place. This would make it easier to perceive the changes described. It would also be advisable to complete statistical summaries of the changes taking place (to what type of land cover and to what extent the forest areas changed).
5) The discussion and conclusions section should be presented separately. In its current form, the manuscript practically does not contain a discussion, which should present a comparison of the obtained results with those of other researchers from other parts of Europe, especially other post-communist countries like the Czech Republic or Poland. For this purpose, it would be useful to refer to publications such as:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.026
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124526
https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3576
In this section, it would also be useful to point out the limitations of the research, the pros and cons of the proposed methods, and identify possible future research directions.
6) The discussion section begins with some text from the manuscript template.
7) Similarly, the blibligraphy begins with some text from the manuscript template.
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID: land-1885413. Review.
Urban & peri-urban forests are an interesting and relevant topic for research. Research that presents and compares quantitative and qualitative data in the same field is always welcome as it helps to better understand complex research questions. However, this opportunity was not taken full advantage of by the authors of the manuscript. The weakest points of the document are: (i) absence of hypothesis; (ii) lack of support as to the importance of the study; (iii) poor quality of the collected data analysis and presentation of its results; (iv) unsatisfactory discussion of the results obtained and lack of comparison of these with those of other studies. In addition, some parts of the document reveal a negligent approach of the authors in terms of text quality during its preparation for submission to the journal.
Abstract
The abstract does not fully comply with the structuring style proposed by the journal. In particular, the 3) Results and 4) Conclusion parts are missing. The allowed word limit for the abstract was not fully used. We recommend using this margin to improve this part of the manuscript according to the journal rules.
1. Introduction
The introduction describes the current state of the field of study and cites some of the main publications. The key aim of the study is established, but the time frame under analysis is not specified. In addition, no hypothesis or indicators are described, the analysis of which would confirm or refute it. It is also not clear to what extent the results of the study can contribute to fill knowledge gaps at the regional, national, and/or international levels.
2. Materials and Methods
Materials and methods are described in sufficient detail. However, it is still unclear to the reader why the area under study was chosen and whether the adopted methodology is innovative or has already been used by other authors in other studies.
There is no description of the program used to create the maps.
It is unclear whether the information used by the authors in this study is in the public domain or if its access requires some form of authorization from public institutions.
The description of the study area lacks a description of edaphoclimatic conditions and main types of land use, as well as some important demographic statistics.
The next part of the manuscript, which contains the results, is presented in the form of subsections, but the logic of this division is not explained.
3. Results
The results section is very sparse, confusing and difficult to read. The logic behind the presentation sequence in this section is not clear. Additionally, the authors do not offer any interpretation of the results obtained, nor experimental conclusions.
For instance, the information in section “4.2. Structure of the Forest" can be presented in the form of tables or graphics, followed by a discussion of results. The scientific names of the described flora and fauna species needs to be confirmed, as there are some spelling errors. In general, there is some carelessness in writing the names of different species, as well as in understanding the main forestry concepts.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
The "Discussion" section starts with rule sentences taken from the journal and carelessly forgotten in the text of the manuscript. The same can be observed at the beginning of the "References" section. This suggests that the authors did not reread the manuscript before submitting it to the journal.
The vague description of the goal of the study in the manuscript and the lack of hypotheses in the "Introduction" section makes it difficult to analyze the "Discussion and Conclusions" section. Furthermore, the section is poorly structured and weak in content.
In addition, it is recommended to make changes in the following lines:
25 - add the latest research citations
Sentences of the same paragraph, between lines 91 and 95 are a little contradictory.
110 - clarify the concept of “forest structure”.
133 - Here and further in the text, the Moldavian State and the Moldavian Forest are often mentioned. The mention of this state and its forest is confusing since the title of the manuscript is about Romania. Please explain about Western Moldavia or Romanian Moldavia.
140 - describe the analyzed statistic data in more detail. If possible, organize the information in the form of a short list of the main groups of variables or a table.
142 - Remove (Fig.2) at the end of the sentence. Next paragraph, reflect on this map. The first reference (Fig. 2) seems more logical there.
150 - Add source of information about the Galaţi City
163 - Correct (Fig.1) to (Fig.2).
166 - Add source of information
191 - Please indicate the time period covered in this review
192-203 - There is a leap of more than 1000 years between these lines in the presentation of history. It seems that in the period from the 1st century BC. until the 15th century AD nothing important happened in the forest cover of this area.
197 - According to the rules of the journal, pages of cited documents should be enclosed in brackets. For example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105). Please correct this error throughout the document.
235 and 23 - (Rosetti, 1907, p. 481) the bibliographic reference formatting does not correspond to the journal's rules
256 - Specify, if possible, the species of oak. If unknown, add Quercus sp. in Latin.
257 – the same for poplar - Populus sp.
252- 259 and 260-266 – Paragraph-sized sentences. It is advisable to change to simpler and shorter sentences.
278 - Citations from documents should be written in Italian-style letters.
299 - Specify the type of acacia and correct the misspelling in this word. Most likely, this refers to the planting of Robinia pseudoacacia, which does not belong to the genus Acacia. Replace Accacia with Black locust
306-307 – Citations from documents should be written in Italian-style letters.
312 - (Enculescu, 1924) [60] - the styles of the two cited bibliographic references differ.
314 – correct for Quercus sp. and Ulmus sp.
324-328 and 355 – 364 Is there any additional information about this afforestation phase/project? Who was the author of this afforestation if the woods were considered as communal? Was the afforestation carried out by state forest services or by the municipality? Were these forest areas occupied by the state, or were they private or communal areas? What tenure rights did local communities have to these areas?
345-349 – What does "Eng" mean? - forest engineers who reforest the described areas? If yes, who were these specialists and on what basis was the afforestation carried out? Was it state engineers who carried out a state plan or on their own initiative?
388 - Describe in more detail the concept of sylvosteppe forests and leave a reference. Explain why this type of forest is important in this study.
401 - Figures and tables should be placed immediately after the first reference to them in the text.
405 - Quercus frainetto – fix spelling letters style
415 - Robinia pseudoacacia - the name is spelt wrong
429-433 - Very confusing and incomprehensible paragraph, especially the significance of names and years.
434 - it's strange to see "Forest mammals of hunting interest" within the "Forest structure" section. Please consult the meaning of the concept "Forest structure".
443-450 - please use the same style for displaying the amount of fox harvest in administrative units. To facilitate reading, information on hunting species can be presented in tables or graphs.
522 - The importance of this subsection to the study is unclear.
553-556 - Erase these phrases taken from the rules of the journal
563-570 - This part should be placed in the "study area" section
600-602 - This climate information is part of the "Study area" subsection.
607 - 612 - The attempt to compare the quality of trees in a natural forest with the quality of an artificial plantation is incorrect.
614-622 - A very confusing paragraph.
The attempt to compare the quality of trees in a natural forest with the quality of an artificial plantation is incorrect.
A tentativa de comparar a qualidade das árvores em uma floresta natural com a qualidade de uma plantação artificial é incorreta.
Attempting to compare the quality of trees in a natural forest with the quality of an artificial plantation is incorrect.
Tentar comparar a qualidade das árvores em uma floresta natural com a qualidade de uma plantação artificial é incorreto.
Furthermore, they are different species
Figures
Confusion with the numbering of figures and their references in the text of the document.
Figure 4 - Confusing figure title, especially its ending.
Figure 7 - [60] (Enculescu, 1924) - the styles of the two cited bibliographic references differ. Besides that, it is not clear why the same photo has two references
Figure 9 - Indicate what exactly on the map indicates the areas covered with forest. The area outlined by the orange line.
Figure 10 - the end in the name of the figure is confusing.
Figure 14- Use this figure in the introductory part of the sub-section "4.3. Protected natural areas" and describe the diversity of protected areas and their size within the study area. What do SPA and SCI mean in the legend of this figure?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work that has been done, even if it is a lot in terms of historical research, georeferencing and vectorization, is not original and does not use any methodology of analysis of the maps produced. There was no general account of the changes in the entire period analyzed.
There is no real analytical assessment of changes.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript presents various historical materials to illustrate the historically long-term changes in the urban and peri-urban forests (UPUF) in a Romanian region. The topic of the manuscript satisfies the interest of the journal fairly well, in terms of land use changes. Revisiting historical materials and reconstructing the past of urban landscape must be a fascinating work to widen the knowledge of land use changes. The manuscript, however, doesn’t meet the standard of Land journal.
First, I am concerned that readers who are not familiar with Romanian geography and history will face serious difficulties in following the main idea of manuscript. In Figure 4, for example, non-Romanian readers will fail to figure out the meanings and values from the difference of forest-covered area among the Romanian administrative units. What could the historical changes of Romanian UPUF inform to international readerships.
Second, the manuscript doesn’t clarify research questions or hypothesis. As a result, the manuscript valuable findings and implications for the UPUF issues. In other words, current manuscript seems to like a local assessment report rather than an academic paper. Key findings are even missing in abstract.
Third, the results seem to be a mixture of historical materials with few original analyses by the authors. Originality and novelty of the study should be strengthened to be published.
Last but not least, lots of efforts are asked to correct the manuscript formatting. I found lots of formatting errors such as italic, citation, referring to figure, and punctuation, across the manuscript.
