Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript “Postwar history of the Pinus genus stand on the bog "Bór na Czerwonem" degraded by exploitation (Orava-Nowy Targ  Basin, S Poland)” - by  Cedro et al

 

The manuscript tried to determine the age of pine stand on the bog "Bór na Czerwonem" and its age structure as well as to identify the factors influencing tree-ring width using a dendrochronological study. This study might be of interest to the readers of Applied Sciences.  Having considered the following concerns, however, I am unable to recommend the acceptation of the manuscript in its current form.

 

Major comments:

1. Title may be modified to more consistent with the study content.
2. The manuscript stated that “the variability in tree age does not support a planned afforestation of the peat bog area”(L341-342), however, the manuscript didn’t exclude a possibility, i.e., a planned clearance of trees, especially saplings, from the bog dome, as did in recent years (L173-175).  
3. The BC chronology based on cores taken from Pinus sylvestrisand xrhaetica growing on the Bór na Czerwonem bog was compiled from 16 individual growth curves. Since this chronology was used to reveal the association of pine growth and climate, why did the authors use two pine species to compile the BC chronology without any comparative study of two species?  
4. “7 Methods”:
5. 1-2.5: some contents maybe adjusted to “introduction”or “Discussion”, five parts seem too long.  
6. L308-314：“Correlation and response function analysis was performed for two 21-year-long periods: 1982-2002 and 2003-2023.”Why 21-year, not 15-year or 29-year? Why 2002/2003, not 1997? the manuscript said that the former period was more stable than the latter period, giving the readers a impression of  authors’subjective judgment, it is strongly suggested that the authors use curves and numerical methods to show the shift year.
7. It is also strongly suggested that the manuscript use a period covering whole BC chronology and a moving window with specific years such as 21-year or 15-year to do the same work, making the statement of the manuscript solid.    

 

Minor comments:

1. L15, L70: species name (italic); double check.
2. L43-53: Put citations into their right places.
3. L105-106:  a Sphagno-Piceetumassemblage?
4. L120-134: No reference.
5. L137: t.
6. L144: Sphagnum, italic
7. L154-157: hypothesis needed to test?
8. L186: Figure 2 was not cited in the main text.
9. L296: EPS, please give a full name at the first appearance.
10. L308: r2, replace it using r² (check all)
11. More editing work needed to be done, please double check the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

revise the manuscript carefully.

Author Response

APPLIED SCIENCES                                                                                Szczecin, 29.04.2025

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

Reviewer 1

All suggestions of Reviewer 1 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

Major comments:

1. Title was changed from: Postwar history of the Pinus genus stand on the bog "Bór na Czerwonem" degraded by exploitation (Orava-Nowy Targ Basin, S Poland), to: History of a Pinus stand on a bog degraded by post-war drainage and exploitation in southern Poland - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;
2. Lines 341-342 - here we describe that the analysis of the age structure of the stands does not indicate planned afforestation of this area in the past, but natural succession (caused by drainage);

Lines 173-175 - here we describe the scope of activities undertaken as part of the peat bog reclamation, including cutting down most of the trees on the dome;

This information concerns other issues;

3. As for the specification of the species, we were initially informed by the Nowy Targ Forest Inspectorate that all the trees left belong to the species Pinus x rhaetica. However, during the study we were informed that genetic studies indicate that some trees belong to the species Pinus sylvestris. These studies are still ongoing and we do not have access to them at the moment, which is why we determined that the BC chronology represents both species (they are very difficult to distinguish based only on anatomical features). As for discs, the species was not specified here (the trees were previously cut down and only their remains were examined).
4. “7 methods” - we don't understand the reviewer's intentions;
5. The reviewer did not indicate which parts of the text should be moved to the introduction or discussion, we do not know the reviewer's intentions, apart from that the other reviewers write that the introduction and discussion are well prepared.
6. Added detailed explanation of why these periods were chosen for analysis (1982-2002 and 2003-2023). In addition, this is a thematic issue of Applied Sciences (Climate Change in the Environmental Impact: Monitoring, Observation and Applications), so the analysis will be performed in two periods to show the differences. Of course it can be done in other periods, using a different method, but the authors decided on this solution (other periods and other methods were tested).
7. the entire BC chronology was used for the analysis, for EPS >0.85, i.e. 1982-2023, the period 1965-1981 does not meet the statistical requirements for response function analysis.

Minor comments:

Lines 15, 70 – in line 15 are address data, line 70 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 43-53 - reference are placed at the end of the sentence;

Lines 105-106 - we checked the spelling, according to the authors it is correct;

Lines 120-134 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 137 - t. = pollen type: including Pinus sylvestris, P. mugo and P. x rhaetica, corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 144 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 154-157 - this is not a hypothesis, just an indication of the age of trees (on the dome and tree stand surrounding) according to various forest studies (indicating the age of trees that have already been cut down on the dome);

Line 186 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 296 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 308 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

Through tree-rings analyses of pine species, the authors studied the development history of stand changes in a degraded bog dome in southern Poland. The study is highly interesting due to two reasons; starting from a drastically modified landscape the authors analyzed current stand age structure as it relates with recorded climatic conditions; and the known history of changes in the study site allows for a robust analysis of findings. Overall, the study is well structured and clearly presented, providing sufficient information in most sections. The following comments are suggestion o questions aimed to further clarify specific points and to improve the manuscript.   

Specific comments:

Materials and Methods

The study area is very well described in terms of biophysics conditions and history of land use, providing widely a good picture of the study site. There are however, a few points of missing information that would be valuable to clarify this section and to have a more comprehensive discussion section.  

Section 2.7 Methods

How many core increments did you obtain for each tree ¿Considering the frequency eccentric piths, ¿could the number of samples per tree be of help in decreasing sampling variability? Did all the 23 core increments included all three species?  

A brief table with descriptive statistic of stand attributes would be valuable for a comprehensive analysis, including basal area, tree density, diameter distribution per species as basic variables to characterize the stands, and enrich the analysis of trees growth, i.e tree competition could be an important factor in explain the observed decreasing increments as tree grows.

Discussion / Conclusions

Overall, these sections are well structured. According to the objectives set by the study, the discussion is around the age structure and climate conditions as driver of tree growth; however, including basic information on stand attributes could help in enriching these sections, as this kind of factors also shape tree growth at the stand level. As mentioned, competition could play an important role by affecting (decreasing) tree increments, as observed in this study, both intra- or interspecific competition. Based on provided pictures (figure 2) it seems that the stand had high tree density, providing conditions for strong competition processes. In addition, including some more information on young trees and seedlings (lines 447-449) (i.e. density and age by species) could provide more insights on trends in stands before clearance.    

English review

Minor reviews required

Line 123, check spelling. Lines 161, 206, etc. Check writing (quotes format)

Author Response

APPLIED SCIENCES                                                                                     Szczecin, 29.04.2025

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

 

Reviewer 2

All suggestions of Reviewer 2 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

Specific comments:

Materials and Methods, Discussion

Added information how many cores were taken from each tree.

Added Table 1 with additional information about the number of samples taken, the number of measurement rays and modified the text.

As for the specification of the species, we were initially informed by the Nowy Targ Forest Inspectorate that all the trees left belong to the species Pinus x rhaetica. However, during the study we were informed that genetic studies indicate that some trees belong to the species Pinus sylvestris. These studies are still ongoing and we do not have access to them at the moment, which is why we determined that the BC chronology represents both species (they are very difficult to distinguish based only on anatomical features). As for discs, the species was not specified here (the trees were previously cut down and only their remains were examined).

Young trees and seedlings were not the subject of this study (too few tree-rings to measure for dendrochronological purposes), the information given here concerns field observations only (line 447-449).

As for competition, the currently left trees do not have neighbors nearby or they are at such a distance that competition can be ignored. It was certainly an important factor earlier, but the studies were conducted after most of the trees had been cut down from the peat bog and this parameter cannot be assessed at the moment.

Line 123 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 161, 206, etc. - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

 

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of applsci-3577535

 

Title: Postwar history of the Pinus genus stand on the bog "Bór na Czerwonem" degraded by exploitation (Orava-Nowy Targ Basin, S Poland)

 

 

General comments:

The authors of this manuscript performed a dendrochronological study of a submontane raised bog in southern Poland which had been drained to enable peat extraction. After this, Pinus sylvestris, P. x rhaetica and P. mugo trees established on the bog, as revealed the age structure shown in this work. The ages of the trees suggest a post-war succession induced by large-scale drainage in 1942. The authors also noted pronounced pith eccentricities at ground level, which indicate substrate instability and the effect of strong winds on tree growth. However, the summer heat and humidity conditions of the preceding growing season have the greatest influence on the growth of trees in the subsequent growing season. The authors stressed that health of the trees that remain in the swamp will probably deteriorate as the water level rises, and the number of seedlings will decrease. The pith eccentricity was quantified correctly from the cross sections of the stem discs where the pith and the longest and shortest branches of the tree are available. My main concern with this work is that there is no guarantee that the longest and shortest tree radii are available in the wood core, only that one radius is larger than another. Then I think the pith eccentricity quantification based on the wood cores is an artefact and should be discarded. Moreover, I think it would be useful to show the average ± SD pith eccentricity by age and size class on the basis of stem cross-sections. This would indicate which age and size groups suffered more from stem instability. I think this paper is a valuable contribution that will be of interest for readers. I consider the manuscript to be well structured, the statistical methods used are sound and reliable and the bibliographic references used are detailed and up-to-date. However, I believe that the work could be significantly improved by considering some suggestions, which are detailed in the specific remarks below.

 

Specific remarks:

- Lines 2-4. Title. Clearly Pinus is a plant genus and therefore does not require separate translation. As it is obvious that the authors are referring to the genus Pinus, I propose to delete the word "genus" from the title and other places in the text where it is unnecessary. I also propose a partial rewording of the title to make it more focused and direct, as “History of a Pinus stand on a bog degraded by post-war drainage and exploitation in southern Poland”.

 

- Line 25. Rewrite: “Pinus sylvestris, P. x rhaetica and P. mugo were the focus of the study, …”. The scientific name Pinus x rhaetica is not correctly written in many parts of the text (the x indicative of a hybrid origin is incorrectly combined with the generic name and I have inserted a space between the two various times throughout the manuscript). I proposed their correction repeatedly throughout the manuscript.

 

- Lines 45-48. I suggest partially rewriting to gain clarity: “This trend has intensified over the last 150-200 years, with the consequent loss of valuable natural habitats, often irreversibly. Wetlands, including peatlands, provide many essential and until recently undervalued ecosystem services”.

 

- Line 70. Please write the scientific names “Pinus sylvestris” and “P. mugo” in italics.

 

- Lines 73-74. I suggest that the first objective be partly rewritten to make it clearer and more focused: “i) determine the age of the trees growing in a stand on the Bór na Czerwonem bog and elaborate its age structure”.

 

- Lines 74-75. Since growth eccentricity has been studied in addition to tree ring width, I propose to replace the word “widths” by “growth “in the second objective: “(ii) identify the anthropic and climatic factors shaping tree ring growth in the studied trees”.

 

- Lines 149-150. Please write correctly the scientific name “Pinus x rhaetica”.

 

- Line 191. Please write correctly the scientific name “Pinus x rhaetica”.

 

- Line 273. The term most commonly used in the literature to refer to dendrochronological samples is “cores”. I suggest replacing the word “drillings” with “wood cores” or “cores” throughout the manuscript: “Wood core samples were collected from trees using Pressler borers, …”.

 

- Line 275. I think that’s more appropriate: “Wood discs in cross-section were taken by ...”.

 

- Line 277. Change “drillings” by “wood cores”.

 

- Lines 286 and 287. Rewrite: “… to base the chronology only on core samples”.

 

- Line 296. Define the acronim for the first time: “The expressed population signal (EPS) coefficient was also computed [38]”.

 

- Lines 315-316. Pith eccentricity was quantified correctly from the cross-sections of the stems where the pith and the longest and the shortest radii of the trees are available. However, in wood cores there is no guarantee that the longest and shortest tree radii are available, only one radius being larger than the other. Then I think the pith eccentricity quantification based on the wood cores is an artefact and should be discarded.

 

- Lines 349-350. Since the longest and shortest tree radii obtained from the wood cores is not guaranteed to be the same as the longest and shortest tree radii, I propose to discard the quantification of pith eccentricity based on the wood cores.

 

- Line 352. Instead of just showing pith eccentricity by individual as shown in Figure 6, I think it would be more useful to show the average ± SD pith eccentricity by age and size class based on stem cross sections. This would indicate which age and size classes suffered more from stem instability.

 

- Line 359. There is no guarantee that the longest and shortest radius of the tree are available in the wood cores, only that one radius is larger than the other. Then I think that the quantification of pith eccentricity, based on the wood cores, is an artefact and should be removed from Figure 6 and from the work.

 

- Line 367. Please write correctly the scientific names “Pinus sylvestris” and “Pinus x rhaetica”.

 

- Lines 415-417. I propose to rewrite more clearly: “Results of correlation (CC) and response function (RF) for pine BC chronology relationships with air temperature (T), absolute monthly minimum temperature (TM), precipitation (P) and insolation (IN). Only significant values are shown (α = 0.05); p - previous year; r2 - regression coefficient of determination”.

 

- Line 442. Change “drillings” by “cores”.

 

- Lines 444-446. I propose to rewrite more clearly: “The cohort of trees that colonized this habitat after 1945 was the most numerous, representing the 90% of the analyzed samples”.

 

- Lines 463, 465, 470, 472, 477, 486, 499, 544, 565. Please write correctly the scientific name “Pinus x rhaetica”.

 

- Line 551. Please write correctly the scientific names “Pinus sylvestris” and “Pinus x rhaetica”.

Author Response

APPLIED SCIENCES                                                                                        Szczecin, 29.04.2025

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks.

  We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

Thank you very much for extending the period to improve the article.

 

Reviewer 3

 

All suggestions of Reviewer 3 have been incorporated. Specifically, these are:

Specific remarks:

Lines 2-4 - Title was changed from: Postwar history of the Pinus genus stand on the bog "Bór na Czerwonem" degraded by exploitation (Orava-Nowy Targ Basin, S Poland), to: History of a Pinus stand on a bog degraded by post-war drainage and exploitation in southern Poland - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 25 - in Polish-language publications it is written Pinus xrhaetica, but in English-language publications Pinus x rhaetica - this has been changed in the entire text, thank you for this comment, corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 45-48 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 70 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 73-74 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 74-75 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 149-150 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 191 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 273 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 275 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 277 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 286 and 287 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 381 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 296 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 315-316 - the part about POC calculated based on cores was removed from the whole article, corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Figure 5 - removed the part about POC calculated based on cores, corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 349-350 - the text was changed according to the reviewer's comments;

Line 352 - Table 2 was added with calculations of SD, minimum and maximum POC values ​​in each age class, the text was changed according to the reviewer's comments;

Line 359 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 367 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 415-417 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 442 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 444-446 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Lines 463, 465, 470, 472, 477, 486, 499, 544, 565 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion;

Line 551 - corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

In our opinion, Your review is very readable and helpful, it can be an indicator of the work of the Reviewer, Thank You very much ?.

 

We are grateful for the insightful analysis of our manuscript, and all the comments, and suggestions provided. We did our best to take into account all the remarks. We hope that the enclosed revised manuscript meets the requirements of the Editors and Reviewers, and is suitable for publication.

We hope that the Reviewers and Editors find the current form of the article  acceptable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,
Anna Cedro and coauthors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the second version of the manuscript applsci-3577535

Title: History of a Pinus stand on a bog degraded by post-war drainage and exploitation in southern Poland

Dear Authors and Editor,

I have examined the revised version of the manuscript and the point-by-point responses to the reviewers' questions, and I can confirm that all the changes I suggested in the original manuscript have been implemented by the authors. The authors have done good job of reworking the manuscript in line with my suggestions, and the final version of the document has been substantially improved. I therefore consider that this latest version of the manuscript is appropriate for publication in the journal Applied Sciences. Congratulations to the authors for this interesting and well-presented paper. Best regards.