Ecological Dynamics of Forest Stands with Castanopsis argentea (Blume) A.DC. in a Mountain Ecosystem: Vegetation Structure, Diversity, and Carbon Stock Under Tourism Pressure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the study is well-grounded with a solid foundation in vegetation survey and floristic composition, indicating a well-structured and carefully designed approach.

It would be helpful to clarify the overall area and distribution pattern of the Saninten (Castanopsis argentea (Blume) A.DC.) community. Most species of Castanopsis are known to reach heights exceeding 30 meters. In general, the size of the quadrat in vegetation surveys is determined based on the height of the canopy layer trees.

1. The study states that a large plot of 20 m × 500 m was selected and 25 subplots were established. In such cases, the slope gradient and aspect of the site should be taken into account when determining the plot locations, but this information is missing from the manuscript and needs to be clarified.

2. The Growth Stage Criteria were categorized into three stages based on tree size. However, this classification is generally applied to temperate deciduous forest vegetation. It should be verified whether this criterion is also suitable and valid for tropical vegetation.

3. Figure 1 still contains text in Indonesian, which should be revised.

4. The study applies Chave’s equation to estimate above-ground biomass. It should be checked whether this equation is appropriately applicable to tropical canopy trees.

5. Regarding regeneration of the Saninten community, is it influenced more by soil or climatic conditions? Is it possible to make such predictions? The study states that regeneration is active in CC2 and suggests it is a result of both anthropogenic disturbance and natural dynamics. In this case:

   • What exactly constitutes the anthropogenic disturbance?

   • Do anthropogenic disturbance and natural dynamics occur separately, or simultaneously?

6. The “Conclusion” section is overly general. It lacks in-depth analysis of the vegetation survey and results. A more detailed and thorough explanation is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments to the manuscript. 

This manuscript has been revised according to all reviewers comments and the language has been edited by MDPI Author Service.

 

Best regards,

I Wayan Susi Dharmawan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article characterises the current status of stands in which endemic tree species are present, located in a national park in West Java. Among other things, the species diversity of the trees, their developmental stage, the role they play in the stand, and the degree of threat were taken into account. However, the title's link between these parameters and local tourism development is only fragmentarily documented, with - in accordance with the title - the focus actually intended to be on a single tree species. I note quite a few discrepancies between the title, the methodology and the results. I rate the discussion of the results fairly well; it is correctly structured and convincing, although incomplete. However, there are too many shortcomings, omissions and ambiguities throughout the article, there are results for which the description of the methodology is lacking, and it is therefore unfit for print in its current form. Below are my detailed comments on the text

 

Title

I recommend shortening the title to the current colon. It is difficult to talk about biodiversity, composition and structure in relation to a single species, it is rather the characteristics of the ecosystem in which that species occurs. These elements should be included in the scope of the study. An even better solution (more fitting to the content of the article) would be to add in the title ...dynamics of FOREST STANDS WITH Castanopsis....

Why is the term ecotourism used in the article instead of tourism? Ecotourism, by definition, should not have a negative impact on nature, and since the authors write about a negative impact, it is not ecotourism and the term tourism should be used. In this situation, as a conclusion, one should just propose the development of ecotourism as a solution to the problems associated with ordinary tourism. I recommend reworking the article from this angle.

 

Authors

Please check for correctness - there should be first and last names of authors, whereas I see single words Pratiwi, Denny, Dodo

 

Introduction

L42 - scientific names should be written in italics

L43-44 - ‘also known as C. argentea’ - this is not a different name, but the same name written in an abbreviated version

58 - what did the authors mean by mentioning predation? In the case of plants it is more likely to refer to damage, grazing etc.

L58-59 - these next two sentences contradict each other a little, please rephrase them so that they are not in doubt

L60-61 - which species?

L74-78 - I propose to move this to Discussion as a proposed alternative to tourism that negatively affects nature, including Castanopsis. Here, instead, it would be appropriate to describe how tourism negatively affects nature (what threats and damage it brings to geological sites, plants, animals, fungi and plant communities)

L118-121 - these are generalities, please write more specifically, what environmental factors? Is this about changes to the idea of ecotourism or its practical implementation? Etc.

L124-126 - same comments as to the title of the article

L127-130 - it is worth adding here the possibility of assessing the impact of tourism on species (through comparative studies after a period of time)

 

Materials and Methods

L133-134 - what rules of behaviour apply to tourists in the ecotourism development concession area? This has a decisive impact on possible damage to the forest ecosystem and individual tree species

L136 - why do the abbreviations used not correspond with the English names?

L136-137 - it is difficult to understand this string of words: ‘the State Plantation Ltd (PTPN) 1 Regional 2 Tea Plantation area’. - is this really one area? Or is there a comma missing here?

L137 - ‘the Barubolang utilisation zone’ - is this some other area? Is it the one that was mentioned in L135? Please describe this clearly and unambiguously as the reader gets lost in it

L137 - what is it disturbed by? By tourism? Please describe it in detail

L138 - what is Perhutani?

L140-143- the plural should be used in this paragraph as there are three study plots

Fig. 1 - please enlarge as details are illegible and add explanations of what the different colours and symbols mean

Subchapter 2.2 - this would need to be set from general to specific, i.e. move L159-161 to the beginning. It would be useful to add more information as to why the authors chose these three locations, on what basis they selected them for study and give a brief description of them. L161 - ‘Cirembes Natural Forest’ - this is inconsistent with the information in L140-141, where it says disturbed primary forest. Is it finally disturbed or natural?

L161-162 repeats what has gone before, so is redundant

L167 - only on belt transect? this is inconsistent with information from L156-157 and Table 1

L172 - please add information that this is about DBH

Table 1 - parameters for 2x2m plots are not in English. Instead of ‘endemic’ it would be better to read ‘endemism’

L185-187 - this should rather be the first sentence in this paragraph, as this is the starting point for further analysis

L187-189 - please check the correctness of the construction of the beginning of the sentence (the wording used), as I think there is a problem (however, I am not a native speaker). Where in the results are the diagrams (drograms? dendrograms?)? Because I don't see them

L189-191 - these two sentences contain the same information. In this paragraph, it would still be useful to add information on the basis of which conservation status was determined.

L192 - what were the criteria for declaring a species a major?

L193 - unnecessary repetition (IVI)

L195-197 and below - formulas for individual IVI parameters are given, but another formula for IVI, based on these three parameters, is missing

Equation 3 - is the word ‘total’ set in the correct place?

L198 - please unify the nomenclature, here it is Shannon index and in the results it is index of Shannon-Wienner

Equation 4 - please check its correctness, as it deviates from the classical version. Also, shouldn't the ‘i’ be as the lower index?

Equation 5 - instead of the symbol rho there is p

L208-209 - this does not sound professional (from any references), casts doubt on their quality and reliability

L214 - year per year?

 

Results

Subsection 3.1 - there is no word in the methodology about conducting soil characteristics surveys, so this subsection should not be included in the results at all, it is unjustified

Table 2 - in the first column there are different terms for the different plots than what was given earlier (L160), inconsistency. Also, they have been identified as ‘natural forests’, whereas they were previously described as disturbed forests. Title of last column - I think it should be fractions. What does water level mean - shouldn't it be humidity? L224 - it would be useful to make abbreviations corresponding to English names, then you can get a quicker idea of what is meant. Also missing some brief descriptive analysis of the information in the table.

L230-232 and Table 3 - in the methodology the authors did not describe the use of the ‘species richness index of Margalef’, so there should not be this information here

Table 3 - please unify the names of the stages, it is different in the methodology (the same also applies to L297-300, Table 5, discussion). Also, please recalculate the values for all sites combined again, as I have doubts. For example, the R values are the same as for CC3. In the further text there is a comment only for H, but missing for R - then why are R values indicated?

L237 - according to the methodology, ‘the importance value of each species’ was taken into account; ‘an increase’ - the authors did not study the change over time, so it is not possible to talk about either increase or decrease

L242 - rather: from 2.1 to 2.3

Table 4 (and further in the text) - why an IVI value exceeding 100%? IVI should be in the range 0-100%

L260 - Litsea sp. (Huru) should also be mentioned here

L271-272 - ‘The histogram of tree diameter distribution for each site indicates natural regeneration’ - this is not shown in the article, there is only a summary histogram (Fig. 3)

Table 5 - why doesn't the species list match the one in Table 4? There is a lack of consistency here. IVI 202.48%? There is also a lack of textual analysis of this table

Figures 4 and 5 - please enlarge as they are not very legible

Subsection 3.6 - this does not fit here at all, it should be in the introduction and/or description of the study site. In addition, there is a lack of specifics here - how and to what extent are these areas affected by tourism?

 

Discussion

Subsection 4.1 - its presence is not justified by the description of the methodology

L345 - ‘except for the plot’ or subplot? The current construction of the sentence rather suggests some sort of distinct subplot within the Plot Cirembes. The lack of a description of the methodology creates considerable doubt here

L346 - in addition Pine liter acidifies the soil

L355-359 - very long sentence, worth splitting into two

L365 - there are other fractions in Table 2: sand, ASH and clay, please decide what the authors ultimately studied

L376-377 - ‘The absence of clay content in two locations of the plots (CC2 and CC3) and the minimal amount present in the Pinus forest plantation and Cirembes plot’ - I don't understand, from this sentence it appears that there were 4 plots (cc2; cc3; Pinus plantation; Cirembes natural forest), meanwhile there were three - please correct/clarify this as it is inconsistent

L387-388 - I understand that the authors are referring to site Cirembes, then please add this

L403 onwards - shrubs were not surveyed, only trees, at different stages of growth

L418-430 - this was not in the survey methodology, so this text is unsubstantiated

L429 - this is a copy of the results for CC3, rather unrealistic that it also applies to the sum of all three plots

L431 - in the tables cc3 was listed as the second plot, not the third plot

L431-443 - this passage repeats the same content that was in the previous paragraphs. Please remove it and move any additional information from it to the matching paragraphs above

L452 - is greatly favoured - by whom?

L458 - 102.82%?

L461-463 - repetition of the same thing that was a few lines earlier (L454-456)

L463-464 - is the history of this woodland not known so that it is clear that this was a plantation? If it was a plantation, it is not related to the impact of tourism, so why was this area taken for the study?

L466-468 - this section should be moved to the end of the paragraph as it artificially splits the information about Puspa

L471-472 - this sentence should be corrected

L476-478 - should add that it is about the cc2 area

L485 - stablelity?

L503-505 - not very precise - the word decrease suggests that the authors have studied the proportion of thicker trees over the years and this is a one-off study. Rather, it is about a smaller proportion of thicker trees, not a decrease in the proportion of these trees

L519-554 - literature references are missing

L527 - scientific names should be in italics

L537 - [IVI] = 202.48%?

L555-564 - the same information as before is repeated. Please split this text between the previous paragraphs so that the content is not repeated

L566 - please check the correctness and construction of this sentence

L575-576 - the citation should be after the parenthesis (165 - 202.5 tons C/ha) and the value from the article authors' research should be recalled in place of the citation

L578 - ‘were influenced by the variance in basal area in the three sites’ - this is something the reader is unable to confirm as the authors did not include this data in the results

L579 - this citation should also not be here, but probably at the end of the previous sentence

L597 - conducted when? This is important to e.g. relate the authors' own results to this information

L598 - incorrect citation format

L600 - same species repeated as in an earlier line

L610 - some literature reference, citation would be useful here

L620 - the word ‘appropriate’ is subjective, it means nothing, please be specific here

L627-630 - how does this theory relate to the situation in your study plots?

 

Conclusions

First sentence - I don't think this article fully shows the impact of tourism on the ecosystems studied (and trampling of vegetation? The introduction of alien species? The disturbance to animals? Vandalism? Unification of vegetation associated with anthropopressure? Etc.). Because, in fact, it was not one species that was studied, but all the trees in that ecosystem. This, by the way, can be seen in some of the summaries provided.

Please remove (or make more concrete by referring to the results obtained) those statements which are extremely vague or repeat each other. Some of the statements are not justified by the research, e.g. h - this was not investigated by the authors. Conclusions should follow directly from the research results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments on the language were made as part of the specific comments on the text

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments to the manuscript. 

This manuscript has been revised according to all reviewers comments and the language has been edited by MDPI Author Service.

 

Best regards,

I Wayan Susi Dharmawan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Ecological dynamics of Castanopsis argentea (Blume) A.DC.) facing ecotourism development in mountain area: Biodiversity, composition, structure and carbon stock status" investigate the biodiversity, composition, structure, and carbon stock of Castanopsis argentea (Blume) A.DC. in connection with the development of ecotourism in mountainous regions, particularly in Gunung Gede National Park, West Java, Indonesia. Overall the article is well written and addresses a critical issue—balancing ecotourism development with biodiversity conservation—using a multi-faceted approach (biodiversity, forest structure, carbon stocks). The nested subplot design and use of standardized ecological indices (IVI, Shannon-Wiener) are robust. I think, Focus on C. argentea, an endangered species, and its role in ecosystem services (carbon sequestration, habitat provision) is timely for conservation planning. Moreover, Clear tables and figures (e.g., carbon stock distribution, diameter classes) enhance readability. I have some minor suggestions to improve the article. For example.

1. Define acronyms (e.g., IVI, CEC) at first use.
2. In introduction section, Reduce redundancy in ecotourism definitions (e.g., overlap between paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Introduction).
3. In introduction section, Highlight the study’s novelty earlier (e.g., gap in understanding  argentea’s response to ecotourism).
4. In methods section, Specify the sampling timeframe (November 2023–March 2024) in the abstract for consistency.
5. In methods section, line 208, Clarify how wood density (φ) values were sourced (references [37,38] are listed but not contextualized).
6. In discussion section, Soil Characteristics: Link soil properties (e.g., low phosphorus) more explicitly to  argentea’s adaptability.
7. In discussion section, Species Diversity: Contrast CC3’s high diversity with Cirembes’ low diversity more clearly—are anthropogenic factors at play?
8. In discussion section, Carbon Stocks: Emphasize practical implications (e.g., how 560.47 tons C/ha compares to global averages).
9. In discussion section explaining Ecotourism Impacts, Expand on specific mitigation strategies (e.g., controlled visitor access, habitat corridors) beyond general recommendations. Also, Reference successful ecotourism models (e.g., Costa Rica) to strengthen the conservation framework.
10. For Conclusion section, Condense the 10 bullet points into 3–4 overarching takeaways. Highlight actionable recommendations (e.g., "Prioritize  argenteaenrichment planting in CC3").
11. Regarding Language errors, please proof read carefully for Minor grammatical edits (e.g., "Saninten" vs. " argentea" consistency). Avoid passive voice where possible (e.g., "Data was analyzed" → "We analyzed data").
12. Discussion section is too long, reduce it and concise it where possible please.

Other specific comments:-

1. In the abstract, line 17 – to line 26, contains the background, and least focus is on the findings of the article or results, please reduce the background information and add more results in the abstract section to improve the significance of this section.
2. There are some formatting errors, see extra spaces line 43, 108 and 46 etc.
3. Introduction section between line 53 to 71 contains specific information related to the plant species but is supported by only 2 references. Add more citations here to prove your point please.
4. Line 118-119 should included 2-3 references as authors state, previous studies indicate ? which previous studies ?
5. Line 135, please provide GPS coordinates for the sampling sites.
6. Line 222, on what basis the soil physical and chemical properties were selected? Only CNP why others neglected ? Should be mentioned for significance or relevance?
7. See formulas in table 2, P2O5, write correctly in the header of the table
8. Discussion section, line 387 to 398, support with references to prove your point please. Similarly between line 431 to 443, between line 519 to 564, these sections simply are the repetition of results, either discuss them properly with context to recent findings of other researchers or simply reduce the information to few lines, donot add statistical information again here that looks a simple repetition of results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments to the manuscript. 

This manuscript has been revised according to all reviewers comments and the language has been edited by MDPI Author Service.

 

Best regards,

I Wayan Susi Dharmawan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the manuscript needs to be reviewed. For example, the Introduction is ripetitive, unclear, and especially too "ecotourism".

In the first two pages, I have inserted some suggestions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable comments to the manuscript. 

This manuscript has been revised according to all reviewers comments and the language has been edited by MDPI Author Service.

 

Best regards,

I Wayan Susi Dharmawan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many errors, doubts and shortcomings have been corrected by the authors, but there are still many or new ones have appeared. Below I provide detailed comments on the text, the line numbers are from the version of the text with all changes visible.

 

Abstract (and further)

I think the word ecotourism should be changed to tourism or nature-based tourism, especially in the first part of the article. This will be consistent with the title and the fact that the negative impacts of this human activity are felt, so it can hardly be called ‘eco’. I think it will only be interesting in the discussion to recall the theory of ecotourism and to note that theory does not always agree with practice, as the results of the authors' research and those of others presented in the Introduction prove. And that it would, however, be appropriate to go back to the sources and modify current ‘ecotourism’ towards this theoretical model.

L20 - should be plant, not plants

 

Introduction

L74 - there is a different name for the national park here than in L21, please be consistent throughout the article

L90-91 - this sentence is redundant, especially as the authors have already started writing about environmental factors earlier

L94 - from here on I propose a new paragraph only about anthropogenic threats (L96 - the word ‘additionally’ is redundant, because only in this sentence the authors start to mention these threats)

L127-180 - as I wrote in my comments on Abstract, it seems to me that it would be valuable to move this text into the discussion. This would shorten the rather long introduction and in addition there would be an interesting, multi-faceted text in the discussion showing the discrepancies between theory and practice of ecotourism, also in relation to the authors' results. At the same time, I propose to give the sentence from L157-159 (Ecotourism development can lead to a decline in environmental quality, particularly when it disturbs vegetation and disrupts local ecosystems [16]) as the first one in the current paragraph starting with L206

L206 - following on from the previous comment, I propose to remove ‘In order to accomplish the aforementioned ultimate objectives’

L210 - and species composition of FOREST STANDS WITH C. argentea....

 

Materials and Methods

The response to my review included the following text referring to the choice of CC3 plot: ‘Plantations can provide insights into how human agricultural practices affect local ecosystems, the biodiversity of Berangan. That's why we chose this site for research’. This is inconsistent with the main focus of the article, the impact of tourism on nature. That is what should have been the basis for selecting the study plots, not the impact of agricultural practices on this nature.

Subsection 2.1 - there is currently chaos in the order of information, please sort this out. Additionally, recommendations for the future (e.g. L261-262) should be in the discussion rather than in the description of the study site

L233-234 - it is not possible for the same area to lie in the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time. Please write ‘research area’ rather, as the exact research locations are given further on in the text

L241-245 - forests from the part belonging to MGPNP (Barubolang) are characterised here, another sentence on forests in State Plantation Ltd is missing

L244 - instead of ‘disturbed primary natural forest’ it should rather be ‘disturbance’

L251 - after ‘Cirembes location’ there should be a reference to Table 1, as it is not clear what the abbreviations and names are in this sentence

Table 1 (there is a wrong number 6 in the article) - it should be added in the title that these are also survey plots. One other point I don't understand - the locations ‘affected by ecotourism’ are given here, and further on in L290 - ‘cable car stations are planned for construction here’. So are they already affected or just potentially affected?

Fig. 1 - still please enlarge, especially the bottom map. There is still no explanation of what the different colours on the bottom map mean and the lettering is completely illegible

L320 - please remove ‘in each subplot’ as it is confusing as some of the measurements were only carried out on parts of the subplots. This is explained in Table 2 ( in the text it is erroneously Table 1)

L322 - this is not ‘natural’ forest

L323 - ‘under each plot’ 20x20 m? please add, as it is not clear whether this is the whole 20x500 m strip or a single 20x20 m plot, or perhaps a smaller section of it?

L334 - should be fractions, not factions

L347-349 - please shorten the first two sentences to: ‘All species names of the trees, saplings and seedlings were recorded’. After all, the measurements are mentioned in the next point

L359 - remove the word belts, it is unnecessary here

L362-363 - this is Table 2, please correct the numbering of the tables (and references to them) throughout the article as there is chaos. Further on I am not paying any more attention to these errors and using the wrong numbering.

Table 1 - for better clarity and understanding of this information by the viewer, please make four separate rows: 20 m x 20 m? (Soil), 20 m x 20 m (Trees), 5 m x 5 m (Saplings), 2 m x 2 m (Seedlings), with independent listing of all parameters and types of analysis tested at this level

L367 - typo in R package name

L375-376 - reference to source of information is missing. Also, is this about conservation status or rather threat status?

L390 - should be Equation 5, not 4, please also check this throughout the article, I see that further equations and references to them have not been corrected

L393-395 - Equation 4 and its description - please check its correctness as it is not a classical equation! In the classical one there is no power exponent, ni is the number of individuals of a ith species and N is the number of individuals of all species. Anyway, the validity of my remark is indicated by the text in L445-448, where there is a description of the correct version of the formula

Equation 5 - the authors misunderstood my previous comment - I pointed out that there is an error in the formula and instead of rho there is p and it should be rho, as it was in the formula description. The symbol for density is rho, not p

L409 - here the authors also misunderstood my intentions, I was not questioning the quality of the data, just the unprofessional wording ‘from ANY references’. Therefore, please remove the word ANY

 

Results

Table 2 - column 3 - there was no reference to water content testing in the description of the methodology, this should be completed. Title of fourth column - I think it should be ‘organic’

L425-426 (and Table 2) - the authors did not understand what I meant, so I provide a ready-made solution that is more consistent with the description: a = acidic; va = very acidic; h = high; vh = very high; m = medium; l = low

L427-430 - some brief descriptive analysis of the information in the table is still missing

Table 3 - please replace the words ‘belta’ with ‘sapling’ as it was also used in the methodology, be consistent in terminology. The last row of the table is unnecessarily separated from the earlier section

L449 - rather than ‘an increase in’ it should be ‘A higher value of’

Table 4 and further in the text - I apologise profusely for my error in my previous comments, IVI can have a range of 0-300%, not 0-100%. In the title of Table 4 (and also Table 5), rather than conservation status it should be threat level

L467 - in Table 1?

L513-515 and Table 5 - instead of belta please use sapling

Table 5 - some brief descriptive analysis of the information in the table is still missing

 

Discussion

L552 and further – Cirembes NATURAL forest?

L562-563 - this sentence is now completely out of context, it is not clear how it relates to the surrounding text

L736-771 - some of the information is repetitive, please reduce this, tidy up the text from this angle

L819 - shrub?

L820 - why is there a citation here? After all, this is the original result of the authors of the article not cited to anything

L821 and L825 - belta replace with sapling

L834 - remove first word, after all there is no previous text

L854 - natural?

L873 and further - incorrect abbreviation of national park name

L890 - tourst?

L908-912 - please correct the construction of this sentence. Still no comment on how this theory relates to the reality seen in the three survey plots

 

Conclusions

Scientific names of species should be written in italics

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the text of the review I drew attention to typos or problems with sentence construction

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#2

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript as suggested. The responses matrix has been made as attached.

 

Best regards,

I Wayan S. Dharmawan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf