Traditional Pollarding Practices for Dimorphic Ash Tree (Fraxinus dimorpha) Support Soil Fertility in the Moroccan High Atlas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments in the documents attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We agree with your comments and tried to make changes according to

1. Reformulate the conclusions in a way to emphasize the outcome of the research and please do notrefers to references in this section. It is appropriate to do it in the discussions section.
   
   P. 298 & subs.
   We deleted all references et concentrated our purpose on the outcomes of our research, particularly by precizing which soil's components effects of shaped trees actued on. Also, we emphasized that, in some cases, traditional human practices can boost soil biological activity by, in this case, modifying natural tree port, and by a management that allows higher organic restitutions.
   
   
2. other minor corrections:
   - line 223….. In the present case, gazing could explain…….. should be grazing?
   
   Yes typographical error, corrected
   
   - line 250 … To our knowledge, this is the first time such figure emerges…….what figure are you referring to?
   - line 254 …. but we could not find one that cites such figure…. one reference perhaps?
   
   These sentences were procuring confusion, so we reformulate as "'An' had a distinctive new pattern never previously mentioned in literature, where the three variables: P, M and Sn positively correlated strongly with each other. To our knowledge, this is the first time such a pattern emerges. In the available literature, one or two of these variables commonly correlate negatively with the others, often being spores density and available phosphorus [33–36], although some studies showed sometimes positive correlations [37-39]. One study even showed that P can correlate with either one of M or Sn [40], but we could not find one that cites such case where the three variables simultaneously correlate positively with each other ." L263 & sbs.
    
   - line 268… It also showed that pH, EC and texture evolved independently to the rest of the variables not having any drive on them…..should be control or impel on them?
   
   Sentence was reformulated  by: "It also showed that pH, EC and texture evolved independently of the rest of the variables not having any drive effect on them." L 287"

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript present interesting results concerning the use of impact of traditional shaping and pollarding dimorphic Ash tree stands on fertility.

The subject of this work is interesting but there are some points that need to be clarified and revised:

1. In M&M, authors must give more detailed how the soil chemical and physical analysis is different in this area.
2. Line 217 authors showed that differences between the studies soil types are huge. In is very important to explain if these differences are due to the morphological characteristics of each one, human intervention, edaphic, topographic characteristics.

It is more readable like this:

1. This work presents very interesting results and practice positive impact of the soils. The Experiment evaluation was multidisciplinary (physiological parameters and soil analysis, ext ...). I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration (some graphs at the time of tables, photos of the experiment, photos of the plants at the beginning of the treatment and at the end). The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, we tried to make changes according to them, but we were a little bit in trouble with them because our research is NOT an experimentation but a survey with sampling in an actual situation of a traditional agroforestal system. Hence, it is difficult for us to respond favourably to your request to present 'before' and 'after' photos. The process of the practice of trunk anastomosis has been described in detail in a previous paper (Forest Ecology & Management) with pictures illustrating them. Here, we focalized our study on the effects of this practice on soil properties.

1. In M&M, authors must give more detailed how the soil chemical and physical analysis is different in this area.
   

   We didn't use different methods to compare soils under the different morphotypes of trees. Standardized soil chemical and physical analyses were used on all samples. We have specified in this section the type of soils found in the area as sandy-limestone calcareous skeletal soils (L.101). Also, in order to make clearer the sampling design, we reformulated text as "Ten 1 kg soil samples (Rs) were randomly collected  between 10 and 40cm depth under the tree cover for each morphological type found within a homogeneous edapho-topographic slope. Ten additional samples of non Rs, situated 50m away from  any dimorphic Ash Tree cover were also randomly collected as control (Nr)." (L.105 & sbs).

2. Line 217 authors showed that differences between the studies soil types are huge. In is very important to explain if these differences are due to the morphological characteristics of each one, human intervention, edaphic, topographic characteristics.
   
   We reformulated the beginning of this section in order to make clearer our findings, as: "Differences between the studied soil types are very considerable, considering that they are under the same climatic, topographic and edaphic conditions. Since the only difference relies on whether or not they are located under specific tree morphotypes, we consider that these differences are to be related to human intervention in tree shaping. The shaping of trees seems to lead to an increase in biological activity and nutrient fluxes, and thus to differences in soil properties, as found in an Himalayan context [20]" (L. 230 & sbs).
   Topographic characteristics are the same for all samples, as said before.

•  I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration (some graphs at the time of tables, photos of the experiment, photos of the plants at the beginning of the treatment and at the end). The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained.
  
  Main results (chemical and myccorhizes parameters) are highlighted in figures 3 and 4. Tables concern only correlations between variables, which are synthetized in the graph of PCA (fig.5). In absence of more precise indications, we decided to maintain illustrations (Figures and tables) previously presented.
  As said above, our research is based on a sampling survey and not an experimentation. We have photos illustrating the practice of trunk anatomosis, but they  have already been published to describe in detail the practice, and think that they are a little bit out of the objective of this paper which is focalized on its effects on soil. However, if needed we can provide them.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

overall, the manuscript is very interesting for the scientific community but requires major changes before it is suitable for publication.

General comments

The objective of this study was to investigate the response of some of F. dimorpha rhizospheric soil characteristics found below different tree ports, as a result of contrasted tree exploitation practices. The study hypothesized that aerial improvement of F. dimorpha should be linked to an improvement of its below ground characteristics, since the improvement of the tree aerial parts requires a mobilization of all the rhizospheric components. The findings concluded that shaping and pollarding have a positive impact on soil 29 characteristics of the studied species, and could nurture sound agroforest management schemes. 

Specific comments
Line 91: Please add a map with the study area.

Line 36Q: Please add references in the statistical analysis.

Line 270:  Please write clear only the main conclusions and mention future prospects.

Line 270:  Please don’t use references in the conclusions.

Please improve the English language.

The authors should follow the journal guidelines.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, we tried to make changes according to them. Globally, we reformulated various sentences in order to make our purpose clearer.

Line 91: Please add a map with the study area.

A map with the study location was added

Line 36Q: Please add references in the statistical analysis.

We added two references [18] and [19] related to the part statistical analysis from M&M which were our guides for analyses (L. 151 and 155)

Line 270:  Please write clear only the main conclusions and mention future prospects.

L. 298& sbs. The conclusion was reformulated to be more clear, emphasizing on the main outcomes of our research, and particularly by precizing which soil's components effects of shaped trees actued on. Also, we emphasized that, in some cases, traditional human practices can boost soil biological activity by, in this case, modifying natural tree port, and by a management that allows higher organic restitutions.

Prospects are specified in the last sentence.

Line 270:  Please don’t use references in the conclusions.

References were removed from the conclusion. Since we consider that our work gives arguments in support of  the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis, and in order to contextualize our work in the current ecological debates, we added a paragraph in this sense in the Discussion Section (l.290 & sbs)

Please improve the English language.

English was revised by a Native-English speaker, and improvement of wording was made all along the text.

The authors should follow the journal guidelines.

As far as we understand, we have tried to follow The journal guidelines

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

the manuscript is very interesting, it has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in Land.

Author Response

Thank you for your work