Review Reports - Urban Parks Hydrological Regime in the Context of Climate Change—A Case Study of &Scaron;těpánka Forest Park (Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with the assessment of water balance (precipitation and runoff) in a forest park though appropriate modeling and respective simulations, comparing the results of the current conditions to the ones of the worst-case scenario (deforestation) under climate change predictions.

Since “the aim was to analyze the hydrological regime” of the forest park it should be included in the title of the manuscript. Reading the title I expected vegetation treatments to increase its adaptation to climate change impacts.

Moreover, climate change mitigation refers to measures taken to increase carbon sequestration and reduce emissions. Throughout the manuscript sentences are used with “measures to mitigate the effects of climate change”, a misleading notion, since they are adaptation measures.

Another clarification needed is the character of the forest park. In the materials and methods section it is referred that vegetation is composed of an ad-mixture of economic trees and trees that have been introduced for economic reasons. Also, in the discussion and conclusions section, reference is made to harvesting of trees. Is the forest park managed for wood production? In the description of the area it is presented as a recreation park with natural and introduced species.

In the methods section, nothing is referred about the assumed future conditions of the forest park, which define the simulation conditions. I think that lines 130-144 of the introduction should be moved to materials and methods.

Most of the conclusions are not directly linked to results (some of them contradict to the results, e.g. “The natural tree species can cope with the changed conditions”, l. 329 – “it is problematic to maintain forest communities, particularly in the oak woodland in the southern part of the area”, l. 453), but they are mainly general recommendations to favor local forest species and their adaptation potential. I would suggest to support these recommendations with relative literature and adapting it to the forest species and conditions of the specific forest park.

Some comments on the uncertainties of the climate change scenarios and the potential vegetation changes should be given in the discussion because these uncertainties can influence the results.

Apart from the above general remarks the following points should be improved, in my opinion:

L. 56-57: “The importance of urban greenery in mitigating the effects of climate change has been demonstrated in many studies”. Please provide references. Only 2 cases from Czechia are mentioned, but they differentiate among functions of urban forests, NOT about the role of them in mitigating climate change.

L. 74-75: “Forests are threatened by climate change [4]. Anthropogenic influences will continue to contribute to climate change in the future [5]. On the other hand, forests also help mitigate the effects of climate change”. Again only Czech references are given, while the subject is universal.

L. 320: “3.1 Assessment of the current changing habitat and forests characters due to climate change”. You have assessed the current situation. In my opinion “changing” undermines your results. I would suggest “Assessment of the current habitat and forests in view of the impacts of climate change”.

Finally, I cannot see why not to have English legends in all figures.

Author Response

Comment: We corrected a title of the article.

Comment: We added word „adaptation“ where needed.

Comment: The forest park has an original park core, which is surrounded by forest stands originally established for timber production. It is not currently used for this purpose, however, production trees are still part of its constitution.

Comment: We removed the text as recommended.

Comment: Thanks for this comment. In line 329 and the following lines, we present the results of our own observations received within the field survey in the forests of the locality. The mentioned sentence is irrelevant in this place and because of that was in the new version removed. Why we do expect that just the oak woodlands will be affected (l 453) is the fact that cited authors (especially the Czech ones) have presented models which count the vertical shift up of vegetational zones in CR so, that so-called oak´s vegetational zone will not be longer suitable for the oak’s forests, but only for grass communities. (e.g. Buček, A.; Vlčková, V., 2012) – the same was added into the text.

Some comments on the uncertainties of the climate change scenarios and the potential vegetation changes should be given in the discussion because these uncertainties can influence the results.

Comment: We added in the discussion - For the purposes of the study, an "average" climate change scenario was chosen. Clearly, if climate change were above these average values, then the results would not be affected.

Apart from the above general remarks the following points should be improved, in my opinion:

56-57: “The importance of urban greenery in mitigating the effects of climate change has been demonstrated in many studies”. Please provide references. Only 2 cases from Czechia are mentioned, but they differentiate among functions of urban forests, NOT about the role of them in mitigating climate change.

Comment: We added more references.

74-75: “Forests are threatened by climate change [4]. Anthropogenic influences will continue to contribute to climate change in the future [5]. On the other hand, forests also help mitigate the effects of climate change”. Again only Czech references are given, while the subject is universal.

Comment: We added more references.

320: “3.1 Assessment of the current changing habitat and forests characters due to climate change”. You have assessed the current situation. In my opinion “changing” undermines your results. I would suggest “Assessment of the current habitat and forests in view of the impacts of climate change”.

Comment: We corrected as recommended.

Finally, I cannot see why not to have English legends in all figures.

Comment: We corrected as recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks of the reviewer

The work has currently the right structure and appropriate content proportions.

Title of the article is accurate and directly relates to the purpose of the research.

Abstract gives a good overview of the work.

Keywords are specific to the topic under study.

Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results

The sequence of content is preserved, from the introduction, which, based on the reference to the most important publications, is a good introduction to the subject of the work. The methodology is clearly presented and it is translated into the analysis of the results.

Discussion and Conclusions are constructive.

References

The subject literature is sufficient.

Summary of the review:

The article exhausts the presented issue.

Recommends that the Land Editorial Board publish the article in present form.

Author Response

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Figure 5, 6, 7 - Maybe another color system for a better understanding of what the figures expresses.

Author Response

We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

Figure 5, 6, 7 - Maybe another color system for a better understanding of what the figures expresses.

Comment: We see this color system as readable and connected with the color of water.

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic under discussion is interesting and the paper defines it. Nevertheless, in my opinion, there are some weaknesses the authors must deal with in order to increase the interest of the research.

Abstract

I think it needs to be rethought and rewritten. For example, I do not understand the relationship between the two realities in the planning measures in peri-urban forests, and the aim of the study that was to analyze the hydrological regime of the Štěpánka Forest…What is the connecting link?

Introduction

The introduction is a mixture of results, methodology, presentation of the place of study, …. And all that information is presented, moreover, in a very disorderly and inconsistent way. But the main objective of an introduction is to briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. For this reason, I consider that it should be rewritten as explained in the previous line.

Materials and Methods

Figure 1: It should be replaced or improved so that it presents the exact location of the study area.

Figure 2: Legend must be translated in the image itself and not in the footer. What is the grey area? The figure provides little information.

Results

Methodology is mixed with the results. This epigraph should be reviewed together with Materials and Methods and presented in a much clearer way. If possible include a methodological scheme. Results should be presented in a more analytical way. Figures should help to clarify the text but that currently does not happen. Figures 4, 5, and 6 are very difficult to understand. The colours of figure 8 are impossible to interpret.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion and conclusion should be separated, presenting, on one hand, the discussion of what happens locally in the park under study from those results that could be applied to other sites.

The conclusions do not establish any limitation to the proposed model. Is there none? Please, provide it and discuss it.

Author Response

Abstract

Comment: We work with an idea that - it is a well-known fact that forest communities (of any kind) are on the one hand affected by the impacts of climate change, but on the other hand are able to mitigate its effects on their surroundings.

Introduction

Comment: We tried to do our best, we we would like to keep there all the important info.

Materials and Methods

Figure 1: It should be replaced or improved so that it presents the exact location of the study area.

Comment: Corrected

Figure 2: Legend must be translated in the image itself and not in the footer. What is the grey area? The figure provides little information.

Comment: Corrected

Results

Comment: We tried to do our best and corrected what was needed. Figures were reworked to be more understandable. The structure of the text was changed a little bit to follow the requirements mentioned in the comment. The methodological scheme was added to present the methodology clearer.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion and conclusion should be separated, presenting, on one hand, the discussion of what happens locally in the park under study from those results that could be applied to other sites.

Comment: We would better keep Discussion and conclusion together.

The conclusions do not establish any limitation to the proposed model. Is there none? Please, provide it and discuss it.

Comment: The model used is essentially standardised and widely accepted, but there may certainly be some differences in local conditions in the results as well as in their interpretation. The authors are aware of this fact, but given the nature of the case study, they have accepted this level of uncertainty and consider it acceptable.

We added this statement in the discussion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The title is still misleading. You are not investigating how urban parks mitigate climate change. I would suggest the title “Urban parks hydrological regime in the context of climate change – a case study of Štěpánka Forest Park (Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic)”.

Please remove the parenthesis “(rotation)” in lines 27 & 549. Rotation time is different from regeneration period.

Author Response

Comment: We agreed the suggested title and would like to thank reviewer for this big help.

Please remove the parenthesis “(rotation)” in lines 27 & 549. Rotation time is different from regeneration period.

Comment: We removed "(rotation)" from the text.

Reviewer 4 Report

My overall evaluation of the paper is positive.

Author Response

We would like to thank a lot reviewer for help. We are sure that reviewer´s comments helped us to improve our article.

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

General remarks of the reviewer

Title: The current title of the article is accurate and directly relates to the purpose of the research.

Abstract: The Abstract needs to be rewritten, it is an exact repetition of the first sentences of the Introduction.

Keywords: The keywords are specific to the topic under study.

Introduction: The introduction should be redrafted, defacto in its current form is its end covering the purpose and scope of the article. I propose to move here the fragment from the chapter: Material and methods (marked in the attached manuscript), which in fact is a literature review and does not directly concern the research object and methodology.

Materials and Methods: Edit with the note indicated for the Introduction.

Results: The results are correctly processed. I suggest presenting the most important of them using charts, following them in extensive tables is not very user-friendly.

Discussion and Conclusions are constructive.

References: The subject literature is sufficient.

Technical Notes

The description of the literature item needs to be corrected as required by the publisher: articles, books and other sources - italics of journal titles, year in bold, correct pages of journals and the access link and date of access in English. According to MDPI standard.

Details in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Title: The current title of the article is accurate and directly relates to the purpose of the research.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

Abstract: The Abstract needs to be rewritten, it is an exact repetition of the first sentences of the Introduction.

Comment: The abstract has been rewritten.

Keywords: The keywords are specific to the topic under study.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment. We redrafted introduction as the reviewer recommended.

Materials and Methods: Edit with the note indicated for the Introduction.

Comment: We edited this chapter according to the comments of reviewer.

Results: The results are correctly processed. I suggest presenting the most important of them using charts, following them in extensive tables is not very user-friendly.

Comment: We edited the tables and let there just the most important parts.

Discussion and Conclusions are constructive.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

References: The subject literature is sufficient.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

Technical Notes

Comment: We corrected References according to MDPI standards.

Details in the attached manuscript.

Comment: We followed the comments of reviewer and corrected what was needed.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focused on changes in precipitation as a factor of environmental changes associated with climate change. Then the authors predicted the impacts on urban forests. However, the description of the essential research method was scarce, so that I couldn't understand the contents and significance of this paper as a whole. In Materials & Methods, the authors give a redundant overview of climate change factors which I think is not adequate to describe in this section. Nevertheless, little information is given on the research and analysis methods. Moreover, the scientific bases for the range of fluctuations in meteorological factors (particularly precipitation) assumed by the authors are not shown. Although the slope of the target area is mentioned, little information on soil conditions and vegetation is given. Therefore, I think the readers cannot understand the scientific and logical basis of how changes in precipitation could affect runoff. In addition, although deforestation has been pointed out as a vegetation change, the content of deforestation assumed by the authors has not been described at all. Therfore, no specific discussion or examination has been reached in this paper. Regarding the runoff coefficient obtained as the calculation result, it seems that the important part of how the value was determined is not described. As a whole, this paper merely describes the results of trial calculations for the combination of precipitation and runoff factors. The authors should describe the process and scientific bases on the simulation they made.

Author Response

In Materials & Methods, the authors give a redundant overview of climate change factors which I think is not adequate to describe in this section.

Nevertheless, little information is given on the research and analysis methods. Moreover, the scientific bases for the range of fluctuations in meteorological factors (particularly precipitation) assumed by the authors are not shown.

Although the slope of the target area is mentioned, little information on soil conditions and vegetation is given.

Comment: We followed the comments of reviewer and corrected what was needed.

Therefore, I think the readers cannot understand the scientific and logical basis of how changes in precipitation could affect runoff.

Comment: We followed the comments of reviewer and corrected what was needed.

We just would like to point - it's not all about the change in rainfall, it's about how the same rainfall changes runoff over the same area that has different vegetation cover resulting from the breakdown of native forest due to climate change. We hope that after our corrections is it now more visible in the article.

In addition, although deforestation has been pointed out as a vegetation change, the content of deforestation assumed by the authors has not been described at all. Therfore, no specific discussion or examination has been reached in this paper.

Comment: We followed the comments of reviewer and corrected what was needed.

Regarding the runoff coefficient obtained as the calculation result, it seems that the important part of how the value was determined is not described.

Comment: We followed the comments of reviewer and corrected what was needed. We added comments and figures that show the basis for coefficients calculations.

As a whole, this paper merely describes the results of trial calculations for the combination of precipitation and runoff factors. The authors should describe the process and scientific bases on the simulation they made.

Comment: We followed the comments of reviewer and corrected what was needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a case study of an urban forest that may have its values impacted by droughts that are exacerbated by climate change. The primary impacts of the drought are projected to be tree mortality, which could impact the hydrology and erosion on the site as well as degrade other urban forest values.

The introduction provides an overall summary of some of the values of urban forests.

The primary focus of the analysis appears to be the generation of runoff and erosion in different areas of the park.

I found the paper difficult to follow. Some of this is probably due to the English translation, but some is also due to the organization of the paper. It was difficult for me to determine the relationship between the runoff modelling and the recommended actions in the conclusion. I think this paper could be improved by providing a tighter link between the changes in vegetation and the changes in runoff. For example, using the existing species composition in the urban forest and some estimates of the reduction in basal area due to drought mortality, this could better inform the magnitude of the changes expected in runoff and erosion. This could provide a tighter link between the biological aspects and the physical aspects of the paper.

There is a fair amount of information in the discussion that should have been mentioned in the Materials and Methods. Lines 390-396 and 416-420, for example. A table with drought-hardiness rankings of the tree species currently growing on the site vs. the species recommended in the conclusion would also be helpful to provide context and a link between the existing forest composition and a more drought-tolerant future forest composition.

There are also some terms that did not translate well - "skeletal" forest, for example. Perhaps the term "structural" instead of "skeletal" would be more appropriate?

Author Response

The introduction provides an overall summary of some of the values of urban forests.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

The primary focus of the analysis appears to be the generation of runoff and erosion in different areas of the park.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

We changed the structure of the article to make it easier to follow and make better sense. We hope so.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment. We changed the text to point these ideas too.

There are also some terms that did not translate well - "skeletal" forest, for example. Perhaps the term "structural" instead of "skeletal" would be more appropriate?

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment. We have used “matrix forest stands” instead of skeletal.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to almost all of my comments. Currently, the article has improved in quality.

When finalizing your manuscript, eliminate typos for example: "R-2" - "R²".

Recommends that the Land Editorial Board publish the article taking these changes into account.

Author Response

The authors responded to almost all of my comments. Currently, the article has improved in quality.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

When finalizing your manuscript, eliminate typos for example: "R-2" - "R²".

Comment: Corrected.

Recommends that the Land Editorial Board publish the article taking these changes into account.

Comment: We would like to thank a lot the reviewer for the comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the section "Deforestation status", how did the authors decide the value of 0.30 for runoff coefficient? I cannot understand the quantitative relations between the intensity of deforestation and the value of "runoff coefficient". Otherwise,it is difficult to understand or imagine the difference of deforestation status as expressed by the values 0.10 and 0.30. This might be an important point related to the following content of this paper. In order to evaluate water balance, I think it is necessary to consider not only precipitation and runoff, but also soil storage, underground infiltration, and river discharge. For example, output of groundwater varies considerably with soil type oand soil structural properties. However, since only precipitation and surface flow are considered in this paper, it would be hard to say that the water balance can be evaluated appropriately. As a whole, it seems that the content described in this paper only showed the calculation results for different parameter values using the already developed model. Of course, if new data and scientific evidence are logically developed with respect to the coefficient values used, the value as a scientific report is positively evaluated. However, such scientific rationale was scarcely mentioned in this paper. It is unfortunate. Specific Comments Numbers added to figures are mistaken, so that the description in the text and the figure do not match. Legends in figures have to be in English. Line 39: there is no description of "water regime of the site". Line 57: why are the authors consider "car manufacturer" in this paper? Due to insufficient information in Introduction, the readers cannot understand why they consider such topic. Line 285: what are "C and P factor"? There is no explanation. Line 288: what are "individual raster" and "raster calculator"? For me, I have no idea for them. Line 292-307: should be stated in "Materials & Methods". Line 308-319: should be stated in "Introduction". Line 320-328: this would be a discussion, not a result. Line 371: what's the definition of "specific runoff value"? Table 1: it is ddifficult for me to understand. Needs more explanation.

Author Response

We are very grateful for the review, as it allowed us to make our article very clear and improved.

Comment:

value 0.30 - This results from the method used, especially ČSN 75 6101 Sewerage networks and sewerage connections and TNV 75 9011 Rainwater management, as well as from the analysis of the slope gradient and other variables in the studied area.

The choice of this parameter was preceded by an analysis of the hydrological soil groups (which define the infiltration capacity). From the authors' point of view, the parameters mentioned by the opponent are therefore included in the solution, although due to the scope of the presented case study the solution is somewhat simplified.

Specific Comments Numbers added to figures are mistaken, so that the description in the text and the figure do not match.

Comment: Corrected.

Legends in figures have to be in English.

Comment: We added translation in the figure description. We hope that this is sufficient for editors.

Line 39: there is no description of "water regime of the site".

Comment: The meaning of sentence mentioned has been changed. Thank you for this correction.

Line 57: why are the authors consider "car manufacturer" in this paper? Due to insufficient information in Introduction, the readers cannot understand why they consider such topic.

Comment: The original idea was that the park essentially compensates for the temperature and humidity extremes that large parking areas and manufacturing halls apparently cause. We are not „car manufacturer“. So as not to confuse readers, we have excluded this information.

Line 285: what are "C and P factor"? There is no explanation.

Comment: Corrected.

Line 288: what are "individual raster" and "raster calculator"? For me, I have no idea for them.

Comment: Corrected.

Line 292-307: should be stated in "Materials & Methods".

Comment: Agreed and corrected.

Line 308-319: should be stated in "Introduction".

Comment: We would better leave it here, as this is partly result.

Line 320-328: this would be a discussion, not a result.

Comment: We would better leave it here, as this is partly result.

Line 371: what's the definition of "specific runoff value"? Table 1: it is ddifficult for me to understand. Needs more explanation.

Comment: Specific runoff means the reference comparative value of runoff which is calculated in litter per second and hectare. Generally, it serves for making the comparison of water retention parameters among the watersheds with different types of vegetation cover, soil types, geomorphology etc. depending on the required conditioned characteristic of the watershed.

The runoff coefficient is taken from the standard quoted above. Precipitation values work by being certain durations of precipitation with certain probabilities of occurrence. The same is then valid for all other variables, because they are calculated from those precipitation and runoff coefficient. So, for example, a runoff of 2 years 10 min means a runoff that will occur in a collision of duration with an intensity that occurs once every 2 years. The balance is what is retained in that basin and is essentially the difference between Volume of precipitation and runoff. Specific runoff is described above, but is taken from runoff that is converted from volume and duration to park area. The concrete and detailed description is in the standard and we did not want to copy long texts in the article. We did not see this efficient.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

There are many questions in this paper. Since the critical questions I pointed out so far have not been answered or corrected, I will not repeat the points. However, I would like to point out one more. As described in line 365-366, the value of runoff coefficient “0.30” was obtained by the simulation for the deforestation caused by drought. It should be stated what would be the situation of the forests affected by severe drought condition, which the authors expected as typical climate change in this area. How much do the authors imagine the forests are destroyed due to drought. In other words, please tell us about the correlations between the coefficient 0.30 and deforestation. By the way, The word “deforestation” the authors used in this paper is “forest degradation”, isn’t it? By the way, since this manuscript was only partially modified according to reviewers' comments, structure of the paper is considerably disturbed. The authors should rearrange the paper throughout. It is very difficult for the reader to read as it is.