Effects of Slope and Strip-Cutting Width on Bamboo Shoot Emergence, Culm Formation, and Understory Vegetation Diversity in Moso Bamboo Forests in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My Comments (plants-4086135)

The authors have addressed all of my concerns and revised the manuscript in accordance with my comments and suggestions. I appreciate the efforts made in improving the revised version, and the overall scientific quality of the manuscript has been substantially enhanced. Thus, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication in ‘Plants’ after the following minor issues are addressed.

1. The terminology used to describe the harvesting method should be unified throughout the manuscript. At present, the terms of ‘strip-cutting’, ‘strip clear cut’ and ‘strip cut’ are used inconsistently. For example, the three terms are used within the ‘Abstract’. A single and consistent term should be adopted across the entire text.
2. Several figures and tables appear to be missing numerical labels in the main text. For example, the phrase ‘As shown in Figure’ appears in Line 94 without a corresponding figure number. Similar issues are observed in Lines 100, 120, 163, 196, and elsewhere. The authors should ensure that all figures and tables are correctly numbered and consistently referenced in the text.
3. The revised ‘Introduction’ section consists of two paragraphs, with the second paragraph being excessively long. For improved readability and logical flow, it would be better if this paragraph could be divided into two shorter paragraphs, with the last paragraph focusing on the purpose of this study and specific objectives of the study.

Author Response

1. The terminology used to describe the harvesting method should be unified throughout the manuscript. At present, the terms of ‘strip-cutting’, ‘strip clear cut’ and ‘strip cut’ are used inconsistently. For example, the three terms are used within the ‘Abstract’. A single and consistent term should be adopted across the entire text.

Response: We have revised the entire manuscript and unified the terminology by using “strip-cutting” consistently throughout the text, including the Abstract, Introduction, Results, Discussion, Tables, and Figures. All occurrences of “strip clear cut” and “strip cut” have been replaced accordingly to improve clarity and avoid confusion.

 

2. Several figures and tables appear to be missing numerical labels in the main text. For example, the phrase ‘As shown in Figure’ appears in Line 94 without a corresponding figure number. Similar issues are observed in Lines 100, 120, 163, 196, and elsewhere. The authors should ensure that all figures and tables are correctly numbered and consistently referenced in the text.

Response: We have checked and corrected all figure and table references throughout the manuscript to ensure that each citation in the main text now includes the appropriate numerical label. We note that the figure and table numbering appeared correctly in uploaded versions of both the Word and PDF files, and this issue may have been introduced during subsequent cross-referencing or formatting revisions. In the revised manuscript, all figures and tables are now consistently numbered and correctly cited in the text.

 

3. The revised ‘Introduction’ section consists of two paragraphs, with the second paragraph being excessively long. For improved readability and logical flow, it would be better if this paragraph could be divided into two shorter paragraphs, with the last paragraph focusing on the purpose of this study and specific objectives of the study.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have divided the second paragraph into three shorter paragraphs. The final paragraph of the Introduction now specifically focuses on the purpose of this study and clearly states the research objectives.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Yes, the manuscript has been revised in accordance with the suggestions. However, the chapter numbering has been changed. Chapter 4, Materials and Methods (line 390), must be moved to line 90 and designated as Chapter 2. This is necessary.

Author Response

Yes, the manuscript has been revised in accordance with the suggestions. However, the chapter numbering has been changed. Chapter 4, Materials and Methods (line 390), must be moved to line 90 and designated as Chapter 2. This is necessary.

Response: We would like to clarify that the current placement and numbering of the Materials and Methods section were revised in accordance with the official MDPI Plants manuscript template as well as recently published articles in Plants. In these papers, the Materials and Methods section is consistently placed as Chapter 4, following the Results and Discussion. Based on this formatting practice, we revised the structure of our manuscript accordingly. Nevertheless, we fully respect the editor’s instruction and are prepared to reorganize the manuscript and move the Materials and Methods section to Chapter 2 if required.

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S):

This manuscript (plants-4086135) explored the influence of slope and strip-cut width on moso bamboo, and it seems to have undergone a revision, resulting in a significant improvement in the quality of the manuscript.

However, before its official publication, there are still some details that need to be further refined.

Here below are the detailed comments:

1. Line 24-25: Please standardize the formatting of diversity indices by adding a space between index names and symbols and simplifying wording, for example revising “Shannon-Wiener(H′), Simpson (D), and Margalef species richness (R) indices” to “Shannon–Wiener (H′), Simpson (D), and Margalef richness (R) indices.”
2. Line 49-88, this paragraph is so long that the key points are not clear. It is suggested that the Line 75-76 after "Fundamentally", this paragraph be divided into two paragraphs, highlighting the key points respectively.
3. In Section 2.1, adding a brief transition word such as “Overall” or “Taken together” at the beginning of the summarizing sentence would strengthen the synthesis of results without altering the interpretation.
4. Line 321: In the Discussion, the phrase “5 m strip-cutting width create balanced canopy openings” should be revised to “5 m strip-cutting width creates balanced canopy openings”.
5. It is suggested that the discussion section be divided into sections and subheadings be added to highlight the key points.

Author Response

Line 24-25: Please standardize the formatting of diversity indices by adding a space between index names and symbols and simplifying wording, for example revising “Shannon-Wiener(H′), Simpson (D), and Margalef species richness (R) indices” to “Shannon–Wiener (H′), Simpson (D), and Margalef richness (R) indices.”

Response: We have revised the formatting of all diversity indices to ensure consistency and clarity.

 

Line 49-88, this paragraph is so long that the key points are not clear. It is suggested that the Line 75-76 after "Fundamentally", this paragraph be divided into two paragraphs, highlighting the key points respectively.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have divided this paragraph into three shorter paragraphs at the position indicated (after “Fundamentally”).

 

In Section 2.1, adding a brief transition word such as “Overall” or “Taken together” at the beginning of the summarizing sentence would strengthen the synthesis of results without altering the interpretation.

Response: We have revised the summarizing sentence in Section 2.1 by adding an appropriate transition word (L152) at the beginning to improve synthesis and readability, without altering the interpretation of the results.

 

Line 321: In the Discussion, the phrase “5 m strip-cutting width create balanced canopy openings” should be revised to “5 m strip-cutting width creates balanced canopy openings”.

Response: We have corrected the phrase to “5 m strip-cutting width creates balanced canopy openings” in the revised manuscript.

 

It is suggested that the discussion section be divided into sections and subheadings be added to highlight the key points.

Response: We have reorganized the Discussion section by dividing it into clearly defined subsections and adding appropriate subheadings to highlight the key points. We removed general background descriptions on slope effects and disturbance ecology that were repetitive with earlier sections, allowing the final subsection to focus more clearly on the interpretation of our results and their management relevance.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article is interesting and addresses an important issue in bamboo forest management, focusing on the balance between maintaining biodiversity and achieving economic efficiency in bamboo cultivation.

The introduction is well written; however, the authors should consider formulating a clear research question or explicitly stating testable hypotheses to strengthen the scientific framework of the study. Add information what is new in this research?

The methodology is described in detail, but the rationale behind the selection of the strip-cutting widths (3 m, 5 m, and 8 m) is not explained. The authors should clarify the criteria or previous evidence that guided this choice.

The results are very well presented and clearly demonstrate under which conditions Moso bamboo regenerates most effectively, as well as how strip cutting influences species diversity. However, Figure 4 (lines 212–213) is not legible and should be improved. The figure effectively illustrates changes in diversity, but the font size must be increased to ensure readability. Table 2 is clear but excessively long; it could be divided or shortened, retaining only the most important species.

The discussion is logical and well connected to the existing literature. The authors cite numerous relevant studies, including those examining the effects of slope gradient on biodiversity. Although the discussion is coherent, it should include a brief paragraph on the limitations of the study, such as the short post-harvest observation period and the limited number of replications. In the future, it would be valuable to compare these findings with studies from other regions that differ in soil type or slope characteristics.

The conclusions are well formulated and clearly supported by the results. The authors successfully translate their findings into practical recommendations for sustainable bamboo forest management.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

The introduction is well written; however, the authors should consider formulating a clear research question or explicitly stating testable hypotheses to strengthen the scientific framework of the study. Add information what is new in this research?

Response: In the revised manuscript, we now formulated two key research questions: (1) How do variations in strip-cutting width and slope influence recovery of bamboo stands, including shoot emergence and culm formation? (2) How do harvesting intensity and slope affect understory plant diversity and what is the optimal combination of cutting width and slope for moso bamboo management? Previous strip-cutting studies in bamboo forests have largely focused on flat or gently sloping terrain, with limited attention to mountainous and hilly landscapes where most managed moso bamboo forests are distributed. This study integrates strip-cutting width and slope within a single experimental framework and evaluates their combined effects on post-harvest recovery of bamboo stands and understory diversity. By linking harvesting intensity and topography to multiple recovery indicators and understory vegetation metrics, this study provides new insights into recovery dynamics and understory diversity in mountainous bamboo forests and offers a mechanistic basis for optimizing strip-cutting design under different slope conditions.

 

The methodology is described in detail, but the rationale behind the selection of the strip-cutting widths (3 m, 5 m, and 8 m) is not explained. The authors should clarify the criteria or previous evidence that guided this choice.

Response: We agree that the rationale for the selection of strip-cutting widths should be clarified. The strip widths were designed based on the lateral extension capacity of the rhizome system of Phyllostachys edulis. Previous studies indicate that the annual horizontal growth of bamboo rhizomes is typically around 2 m. In our experimental design, we adopted a slightly more conservative estimate of 1.5 m as the effective rhizome support distance on one side of a cut strip, in order to avoid overestimating belowground connectivity. Based on this assumption, the narrowest strip width was set to 3 m, corresponding to rhizome support from both sides (1.5 m + 1.5 m). To examine potential threshold effects associated with increasing separation from adjacent uncut stands, the effective one-side distance was gradually expanded. Specifically, adding 1 m to the initial 1.5 m resulted in a one-side distance of 2.5 m, corresponding to a strip width of 5 m (2.5 m × 2). Further increasing the one-side distance to 4.0 m (2.5 m + 1.5 m) yielded a strip width of 8 m. This stepwise design (1.5 m → 2.5 m → 4.0 m per side) allowed us to establish a gradient of strip widths representing progressively reduced belowground rhizome connectivity, from relatively strong (3 m) to transitional (5 m) and weak (8 m) connectivity conditions. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly describe this rationale in the Methods section.

 

The results are very well presented and clearly demonstrate under which conditions Moso bamboo regenerates most effectively, as well as how strip cutting influences species diversity. However, Figure 4 (lines 212–213) is not legible and should be improved. The figure effectively illustrates changes in diversity, but the font size must be increased to ensure readability. Table 2 is clear but excessively long; it could be divided or shortened, retaining only the most important species.

Response: We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Regarding Figure 4, we have improved its readability by increasing the font size of all text elements. Regarding Table 2, we agree that the original version was overly long. In the revised manuscript, we have shortened and reorganized the table by retaining only the most important and representative understory species (i.e., those with higher frequency and importance value).

 

The discussion is logical and well connected to the existing literature. The authors cite numerous relevant studies, including those examining the effects of slope gradient on biodiversity. Although the discussion is coherent, it should include a brief paragraph on the limitations of the study, such as the short post-harvest observation period and the limited number of replications. In the future, it would be valuable to compare these findings with studies from other regions that differ in soil type or slope characteristics.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have added a brief paragraph in the Discussion section addressing the main limitations of this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments and suggestions

The manuscript entitled “Effects of Strip-Cutting Width and Slope on Bamboo Shoot Emergence, Bamboo Culm Formation, and Understory Vegetation Diversity in Moso Bamboo Forests” addresses an important topic related to balancing ecological and production objectives in Moso bamboo forestry. The methods are generally sound, and the calculations for the diversity indices appear correct. The content also fits well within the scope of ‘Plants’. However, there are several issues in the current version that should be addressed before publication. I recommend major revision. My detailed comments and suggestions are provided below for the authors’ consideration during revision.

General Comments

The study is relevant and well structured, but the Introduction needs a clearer rationale and research gap.

 

The Results section often blends interpretation with description, which should be separated. Greater clarity and consistency are needed in figure descriptions, terminology, and formatting (e.g., italics for species names).

 

The Conclusion should better emphasize the ecological and management significance of the findings.

 

Specific Comments

 

L15–16: If the authors are aware of the benefits of strip cutting for the Moso bamboo industry, why do authors conduct this research? Please clarify the motivation for conducting this research. It would strengthen the Introduction section if the first sentence identified the motivation, a specific knowledge gap, or research need driving the study.

 

L45–52 and L53–66: These two paragraphs could be combined for a more concise and coherent background section.

 

L67–73 and L74–81: These two paragraphs also address similar points and could be merged into one.

 

L84–89: I don’t think procedural details (e.g., sampling months, indices) are appropriate for the Introduction section, especially in the last paragraph in the Introduction. The final paragraph should instead state the study’s objectives or hypotheses clearly. Thuse, it would be better if the authors could provide specific questions or develop hypotheses for this study.

 

L94 (Section 2.1, Study Site): Please include basic soil information for the study site (e.g., soil type, texture, pH, organic matter content).

 

L108–109: Ensure that all scientific names of herbaceous species are italicized.

 

L111: Please indicate the ages of the Moso bamboo stands used in this study.

 

L112: Avoid repeating “in Anji County, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province” multiple times in the same section (L95).

 

L133 (Figure 2): Clarify the difference between the middle and right subfigures of Figure 2. Provide a clear description, including the numerical dimensions represented.

 

L149: The section title “Data Calculation” could be revised to “Data Collection and Index Calculation” to better reflect the content.

 

L154: Please explain how 5 m × 5 m shrub quadrats were established in the 3 m strip-cutting plots. There appears to be a mismatch between quadrat width and plot width.

 

L155: Clarify what is meant by a “greater-than (>)–shaped arrangement.” The current phrasing is unclear and should be rewritten for precision.

 

L171: Specify which response variables were tested using ANOVA.

 

L175: Clarify which data sets were used for the PCA analysis.

 

L177: The Results section mixes descriptions with interpretations (e.g., phrases such as “indicating…,” “suggesting……,” or “highlighting…”). These interpretive statements should be moved to the Discussion section. The Results section should present only the observed outcomes.

 

L186–187: The sentence “The area exhibited relatively high species richness, with a balanced composition of 186 species across families” belongs in the Discussion section.

 

L193–195: The statement “73 species belonging to 59 genera and 43 families” already appears at L180 and should be deleted to avoid repetition.

 

L207–210: This sentence also contains interpretation and should be moved to the Discussion.

 

L223–225: Italicize all herbaceous species names.

 

L292–294: This sentence should be moved to the Discussion; interpretive comments do not belong in the Results section.

 

L325: Please clarify what this figure represents and ensure it is properly referenced in the text.

 

L344–348: These sentences include interpretation and should be relocated to the Discussion.

 

L427–430: The authors conclude that a 5 m cutting width on moderate slopes is optimal for Moso bamboo growth, but the mechanistic basis is not fully explained. Please provide ecological reasons for why this combination promotes both regeneration and reduced competition.

 

L467: In addition to suggesting future studies, it would strengthen the paper to include broader management or conservation implications of the findings.

 

L468 (5. Conclusion): The Conclusion currently re-states the main results but does not highlight their broader significance. Please emphasize how these findings contribute to the sustainable management of bamboo plantations, biodiversity conservation, or climate adaptation.

 

L469–472: The first two sentences both state that cutting width and slope influence vegetation and bamboo growth. These can be merged for smoother flow and to reduce redundancy.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General Comments

The study is relevant and well structured, but the Introduction needs a clearer rationale and research gap.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have refined the Introduction to highlight the research gap and motivation of this study. Specifically, we emphasize that although strip-cutting has been applied in moso bamboo forest management, previous studies have focused on flat or gently sloping terrain, with limited attention to mountainous and hilly regions where moso bamboo forests are predominantly distributed. Moreover, the combined effects of strip-cutting width and slope on post-harvest recovery of bamboo stands and understory vegetation have rarely been examined within a unified experimental framework.

To address this gap, we clarified the rationale for jointly considering strip-cutting width and slope as interacting disturbance factors and stated the research questions guiding this study at the end of the Introduction. These revisions strengthen the logical flow of the Introduction and clearly position the present study within the context of existing research.

 

The Results section often blends interpretation with description, which should be separated. Greater clarity and consistency are needed in figure descriptions, terminology, and formatting (e.g., italics for species names).

Response: We have carefully revised the Results section to improve clarity and consistency. Specifically, we have:
(1) removed interpretative statements from the Results section and relocated them to the Discussion, ensuring a clear separation between result description and interpretation;
(2) revised the descriptions of figures to make them more concise and consistent;
(3) standardized terminology throughout the Results section to ensure consistent use of key terms across text, tables, and figures;

(4) checked and corrected formatting issues, including the use of italics for all scientific species names.

 

The Conclusion should better emphasize the ecological and management significance of the findings.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Conclusion to highlight the ecological significance and management significance of strip-cutting width and slope as interacting drivers of bamboo stand recovery and understory vegetation dynamics.

 

Specific Comments

L15–16: If the authors are aware of the benefits of strip cutting for the Moso bamboo industry, why do authors conduct this research? Please clarify the motivation for conducting this research. It would strengthen the Introduction section if the first sentence identified the motivation, a specific knowledge gap, or research need driving the study.

Response: Harvesting Moso bamboo requires substantial manual labor and is characterized by low operational efficiency. As management costs rise and economic returns decline, the quality and quantity of Moso bamboo in poorly managed stands have dropped sharply, severely constraining the sustainable development of the regional economy. In contrast, the strip cutting method of Moso bamboo management enables concentrated production, facilitates mechanized operations, and significantly reduces harvesting costs. High-intensity strip cutting causes substantial anthropogenic disturbance to bamboo forest ecosystems, thereby affecting the growth and development of moso bamboo. The canopy gaps formed by harvesting significantly alter soil properties, litter dynamics, and understory vegetation, disrupting the hydrological balance of the ecosystem. Previous studies on strip cutting have mainly focused on flat or gently sloping areas, with limited attention to mountainous and hilly terrains where most managed Moso bamboo forests are located. Under such operational conditions, these disturbances inevitably influence local ecohydrological processes. Although the rapid growth of Moso bamboo mitigates immediate productivity losses, repeated harvesting in mountainous areas may weaken water conservation capacity and induce post-rainfall soil property changes, potentially compromising the long-term productivity of bamboo forests. Therefore, the motivation for this study is to address this critical knowledge gap by examining how strip-cutting width interacts with slope to influence post-harvest recovery of bamboo stands and understory plant diversity. We have revised the opening of the Introduction to state this motivation and research need.

 

L45–52 and L53–66: These two paragraphs could be combined for a more concise and coherent background section.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have merged the two paragraphs originally presented in L45–52 and L53–66 into a single, integrated paragraph.

 

L67–73 and L74–81: These two paragraphs also address similar points and could be merged into one.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have merged the two paragraphs originally presented in L67–73 and L74–81 into a single, integrated paragraph.

 

L84–89: I don’t think procedural details (e.g., sampling months, indices) are appropriate for the Introduction section, especially in the last paragraph in the Introduction. The final paragraph should instead state the study’s objectives or hypotheses clearly. Thuse, it would be better if the authors could provide specific questions or develop hypotheses for this study.

Response: We agree that procedural details, such as sampling periods and specific indices, are more appropriate for the Methods section rather than the Introduction. Following this comment, we have revised the last paragraph of the Introduction by removing methodological details and refocusing it on clearly stating the objectives and research questions of the study.

 

L94 (Section 2.1, Study Site): Please include basic soil information for the study site (e.g., soil type, texture, pH, organic matter content).

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have added basic soil information to Section 4.1 (Study Area and Experimental Design) to provide a more complete description of the environmental context of the experiment.

 

L108–109: Ensure that all scientific names of herbaceous species are italicized.

Response: We have carefully checked the manuscript and ensured that all scientific names of herbaceous species are correctly italicized.

 

L111: Please indicate the ages of the Moso bamboo stands used in this study.

Response: We have added information on the ages of the moso bamboo stands used in this study in Section 4.1.

 

L112: Avoid repeating “in Anji County, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province” multiple times in the same section.

Response: To improve clarity and avoid redundancy, we have revised the manuscript to remove repeated mentions of “Anji County, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province” within the same section.

 

L133 (Figure 2): Clarify the difference between the middle and right subfigures of Figure 2. Provide a clear description, including the numerical dimensions represented.

Response: To address this concern, we have replaced Figure 2 in the revised manuscript. The new figure 6 clearly illustrates the layout of strip-cutting plots with cutting widths of 3 m, 5 m, and 8 m, including their spatial arrangement relative to the reserved strips. The numerical dimensions of each strip width are indicated in the new figure.

 

L149: The section title “Data Calculation” could be revised to “Data Collection and Index Calculation” to better reflect the content.

Response: We have revised the section title from “Data Calculation” to “Data Collection and Index Calculation” to more accurately describe the content presented in this section.

 

L154: Please explain how 5 m × 5 m shrub quadrats were established in the 3 m strip-cutting plots. There appears to be a mismatch between quadrat width and plot width.

Response: We agree that the description of shrub quadrat size required clarification. In the revised manuscript, we have corrected this inconsistency. Due to the narrow width of the 3 m strip-cutting plots and the small stature of shrub species occurring within these plots, 5 m × 5 m shrub quadrats were not feasible in the 3 m strip-cutting treatment. Therefore, all shrub surveys were conducted using 3 m × 3 m quadrats, which were fully accommodated within the strip-cutting plots and appropriate for capturing shrub community characteristics. We have revised the Methods section to clearly state that 3 m × 3 m quadrats were used for shrub layer investigations across all strip-cutting treatments, ensuring consistency between plot dimensions and sampling design.

 

L155: Clarify what is meant by a “greater-than (>)–shaped arrangement.” The current phrasing is unclear and should be rewritten for precision.

Response: The description of a “greater-than (>)–shaped arrangement” was unclear and could lead to misunderstanding. To improve clarity and avoid ambiguity, we have removed this phrasing from the manuscript. In the revised version, we now clearly state that 1 m × 1 m herbaceous quadrats were randomly established within the shrub quadrats.

 

 

L171: Specify which response variables were tested using ANOVA.

Response: Response variables including bamboo shoots, new-bamboo, density, DBH, canopy closure, herbaceous and shrub layer diversity indices were tested using ANOVA.

 

L175: Clarify which data sets were used for the PCA analysis.

Response: Data sets of DBH, Shoots, Degraded-shoots, New-bamboo, Density, Canopy-closure, herbaceous and shrub layer diversity indices were used for the PCA analysis.

 

L177: The Results section mixes descriptions with interpretations (e.g., phrases such as

“indicating…,” “suggesting……,” or “highlighting…”). These interpretive statements should be moved to the Discussion section. The Results section should present only the observed outcomes.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have carefully reviewed the Results section and removed or rephrased interpretive statements such as “indicating,” “suggesting,” and “highlighting.” These statements have been relocated to the Discussion section, where the implications and interpretations of the results are more appropriately addressed.

 

L186–187: The sentence “The area exhibited relatively high species richness, with a balanced composition of 186 species across families” belongs in the Discussion section.

Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have removed this sentence from the Results section and relocated it to the Discussion section.

 

L193–195: The statement “73 species belonging to 59 genera and 43 families” already appears at L180 and should be deleted to avoid repetition.

Response: We have removed the duplicated sentence to avoid redundancy and improve clarity in the Results section.

 

L207–210: This sentence also contains interpretation and should be moved to the Discussion.

Response: We have removed this interpretive sentence from the Results section and relocated it to Discussion section.

 

 

L223–225: Italicize all herbaceous species names.

Response: We have carefully revised the manuscript and italicized all scientific names of herbaceous species.

 

L292–294: This sentence should be moved to the Discussion; interpretive comments do not belong in the Results section.

Response: We have removed interpretive comments from the Results section and relocated it to Discussion section.

 

L325: Please clarify what this figure represents and ensure it is properly referenced in the text.

Response: This issue was caused by formatting or file-upload error in the submitted manuscript. The figure appearing at Line 325 is actually Figure 6, which presents the diversity indices of shrub communities. In the revised manuscript, we have corrected the figure placement, ensured that Figure 6 appears in the appropriate section.

 

L344–348: These sentences include interpretation and should be relocated to the Discussion.

Response: We have removed interpretive comments from the Results section and relocated it to Discussion section.

 

L427–430: The authors conclude that a 5 m cutting width on moderate slopes is optimal for

Moso bamboo growth, but the mechanistic basis is not fully explained. Please provide ecological reasons for why this combination promotes both regeneration and reduced competition.

Response: The mechanistic basis underlying the optimal performance of a 5 m cutting width on moderate slopes should be clarified. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the ecological interpretation of this result in the Discussion section.

 

L467: In addition to suggesting future studies, it would strengthen the paper to include broader management or conservation implications of the findings.

Response:

L468 (5. Conclusion): The Conclusion currently re-states the main results but does not highlight their broader significance. Please emphasize how these findings contribute to the sustainable management of bamboo plantations, biodiversity conservation, or climate adaptation.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Discussion to provide ecological explanations for this pattern.

 

L469–472: The first two sentences both state that cutting width and slope influence vegetation and bamboo growth. These can be merged for smoother flow and to reduce redundancy.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have merged these sentences into a more concise statement to improve clarity, reduce redundancy, and enhance the overall flow of the Conclusion section.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached. 

Thanks

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While there are few mistakes in the English (which is a terrible language and it's mine), too many words are misused so the prose loses clarity.  I started line editing but ran out of time. The story is a complicated one and not told clearly enough, at least for this reader. I can't picture clearcutting alternate strips of 3 m wide in a monospecific stand of single-stemmed bamboo that grows to be 10 m tall (from what I can see on pictures on the web)---don't the retained stems lean over?

Author Response

General Suggestions

Search for and remove or replace the word ‘significant’ and its derivative.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and searched for the word “significant” and its derivatives throughout the text. These terms have been removed or replaced with more precise and descriptive expressions.

 

Do the same for ‘sustainable’ unless you define what exactly it is that you mean.

Response: The word “sustainable” and its derivatives throughout the text have been removed or replaced with more specific and measurable descriptions.

 

Moso is a common name and should not be in upper case…so, moso bamboo not Moso bamboo. Give the species name in the abstract.

Response: The common name “moso bamboo” is now consistently written in lower case throughout the text. In addition, the full species name Phyllostachys edulis has been provided in the Abstract at its first occurrence.

 

In the abstract and when first mentioned in the introduction, describe moso bamboo briefly:

….how thick are the culms, for example, given that bamboos range 1-20 cm thick. Is it clumping, climbing, spreading, or etc. Include a photograph or detailed line drawing.

Response: We have added a brief description of its growth form and culm characteristics in the introduction to provide background context for readers unfamiliar with this species.

 

Reporting areas and etc. to two decimal places (e.g., 1,885.71 km2 on line 96) just makes the prose hard to read….round off all unless really important.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have rounded all area measurements and similar numerical values to appropriate whole numbers or single decimal places, except where higher precision is essential for scientific interpretation.

 

 

The design isn’t entirely clear partially because the bamboo wasn’t described. For example, if the bamboo grows to be 15 m tall, a clearcut strip of 3 m wide would mean harvesting how many culms?  And then there’s a 3 m wide uncut strip before the next 3 m wide cut strip….for all treatments, I’m envisioning that 50% of the stand is clearcut, with culms falling over from the uncut to the cut areas….not a clear picture.

Response: We agree that the experimental design may not have been sufficiently clear, partly due to the limited description in the original manuscript. We have revised the Introduction and Methods to provide a clearer description of the experimental design. The new figure 6 clearly illustrates the layout of strip-cutting plots with cutting widths of 3 m, 5 m, and 8 m, including their spatial arrangement relative to the reserved strips. The numerical dimensions of each strip width are indicated in the new figure.

 

Are there no climbing plants or trees in this forest? Only herbs, shrubs, and bamboo?

Response: In the study area, there are no trees only moso bamboo. Climbing plants and woody vines are present, but they are generally small in size and often overlap morphologically with herbaceous or shrubby growth forms. Many of these species exhibit climbing habits while also being classified botanically as herbs or shrubs. For consistency and practicality in vegetation classification and analysis, such species were therefore grouped into the herb or shrub layers based on their growth form and structural characteristics, rather than being treated as a separate climbing plant category.

 

When you give a plant family name, do not also write ‘family/’….Primulaceae family is wrong. And all Latin binomials must be in italics.

Response: We have revised the manuscript to correct the formatting throughout the text. Specifically, we removed the redundant use of the word “family” following plant family names (e.g., “Primulaceae family”) and now refer to families simply by their accepted family names (e.g., Primulaceae). In addition, all Latin binomials of plant species have been italicized consistently.

 

 

 

 

 

Title: Current “Effects of Strip-Cutting Width and Slope on Bamboo Shoot 2 Emergence, Bamboo Culm Formation, and Understory Vegetation Diversity in Moso Bamboo Forests”

Suggested: Effects of Slope and Strip-Cut Width on Bamboo Shoot Emergence, Culm Formation, and Understory Vegetation Diversity in Moso Bamboo Forests in China”

Response: We have revised the title following the reviewer’s recommendation to improve clarity and accuracy. The title has been updated to: “Effects of Slope and Strip-Cut Width on Bamboo Shoot Emergence, Culm Formation, and Understory Vegetation Diversity in Moso Bamboo Forests in China.”

 

Detailed comments by line number

ABSTRACT: needs a great deal of revision…does not present a clear picture of what was done or found.

Response: We agree that the original Abstract did not clearly and concisely present the study. In response, we have revised the Abstract to improve its clarity, structure, and scientific focus.

 

16 drop ‘systematically’, add ‘strip clear cut’ widths,

Response: We have revised the text by removing the word ‘systematically’ and adding the specific ‘strip clear cut’ widths, as recommended.

 

17 three slope ‘classes, 5-14 (gentle), 15-24 (moderate) and 25-34 (steep) on bamboo recovery…’. Drop the SL1 acronyms….write instead, steep or etc.

Response: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

19 drop the CK acronym….not needed..’compared with uncut control plots, the number of herb and shrub species increased in all treated plots’

Response: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

20 you wrote ‘in the 5-m plot’ ---does that meant there was NO replication? Only one plot? ‘were considerably higher’. Should be ‘were xx m taller, or xx-xx m, or xx-xx % taller’

Response: Each strip-cutting width treatment was replicated three times, rather than consisting of a single plot. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have replaced qualitative expressions such as “were considerably higher” with quantitative descriptions such as “xx % higher”.

 

21 “in the herbaceous layer’ is wordy and imprecise….is this about herb species diversity? If so, write that.

Response: We have revised the text to improve clarity and precision.

 

23 try : ‘in the narrowest clearcut strips’

Response: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

24 ‘in the shrub layer’ is not clear….in that ‘layer’ there can be tree saplings and giant herbs…do you mean ‘shrubs’?

Response: In this study, the term was intended to refer specifically to shrubs. We have therefore revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

25 “The cumulative contribution rate’ sentence makes no sense whatsoever and should be explained or dropped.

Response: The sentence referring to the “cumulative contribution rate” has been removed in the revised manuscript and replaced with the PCA analysis score.

 

26 why “Thus…” and it isn’t clear how you arrived at this conclusion based on what came before in the abstract….first mention of ‘canopy closure’ and economics.

Response: In the revised Abstract, we have removed the causal transition (“Thus…”) and restructured the concluding sentences to ensure logical consistency with the reported results. Canopy closure and economics have been removed.

 

INTRODUCTION

38 what are biodiversity ‘characteristics’?; does ‘productivity levels’ mean the same as ‘productivity’?

Response: By “biodiversity characteristics,” we intended to refer to measurable attributes of biodiversity, such as species richness, diversity indices, and community composition, which can be quantitatively assessed using understory diversity metrics. Similarly, the term “productivity levels” was intended to describe differences in the magnitude of productivity rather than a distinct concept from productivity itself. To avoid ambiguity, we have revised the wording accordingly in the manuscript.

 

42 what are ‘variable disturbances’?

Response: In this study, the term “variable disturbances” refers to multiple sources of environmental and management-related variability that can influence bamboo forest dynamics. These include differences in climatic conditions (e.g., rainfall and temperature), site conditions, slope gradients, slope positions, and aspect, as well as variation in harvesting intensity and topographic settings.

 

47 Moso is a common name and shouldn’t be capitalized…excessive number of digits…73% is close enough

Response: This has been revised as suggested.

 

49 Poaceae is a family….no need to say ‘the Poaceae family’ 50 add ‘in southern China’ or etc.

Response: This has been revised as suggested.

 

53 Readers will appreciate having some picture in mind of moso bamboo….how thick are the culms, for example, given that bamboos range 1-20 cm thick. Is it clumping, climbing, spreading, or etc.

Response: We have added a description of its growth form and culm characteristics in the introduction to provide background context for readers unfamiliar with this species.

 

56 how can declining management reduce value and increase costs? Logic not clear.

Response: In moso bamboo forests, declining or insufficient management often leads to the accumulation of dead and senescent culms. These culms occupy growing space and reduce light and resource availability for new shoot emergence and stand renewal, ultimately lowering overall stand quality and productivity. Consequently, the economic value of the bamboo forest declines. In addition, excessive culm density and the presence of dead bamboo increase the difficulty of subsequent harvesting and management operations, thereby raising labor input and management costs.

 

58 drop ‘sustainable’---meaningless here.

Response: This has been revised as suggested.

 

68 why does ‘strip cutting’ of an understory bamboo cause canopy gaps? Perhaps it’s tall??

Response: In this study, all the cutting plots were clear cut , meaning that all bamboo culms within the cutting strip were completely harvested, and the felled culms, branches, and leaves were fully removed from the site. As a result, strip cutting created open gaps within the bamboo canopy, leading to increased light availability and altered microenvironmental conditions in the cutting strips.

 

74 different from what? How else is it harvested?

Response: Strip cutting differs from traditional selective harvesting commonly practiced in moso bamboo forests. In conventional selective harvesting, younger culms (typically ≤6 years) are retained, while older culms (usually >6 years old) are selectively harvested and removed. In contrast, strip cutting involves clear cutting of all bamboo culms within cutting strips.

 

76 is ‘gap size’ equal to ‘strip width’??

Response: Yes, in this study, the gap size is equivalent to the 3 m, 5 m, 8m strip-cutting width.

 

82 YIKES, this reader is surprised….this ‘forest’ is entirely bamboo? I mistakenly presumed that the bamboo was mixed with other species….other readers will also be confused.

Response: Yes, this study was conducted in pure moso bamboo forests, rather than mixed-species forests. To avoid misunderstanding for readers, we have revised the Methods section to state that all experimental plots were established in pure moso bamboo stands.

 

84 useless information about survey dates without knowing when the harvests occurred.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have relocated the detailed survey dates and clearly stated the timing of the strip-cutting operations.

 

86 species richness NOT composition.

Response: This has been revised as suggested.

 

106 is Smilax china a shrub and not a climber? Same for Dioscorea. Makes sure Latin names are italicized.

Response: Smilax china is a climbing shrub, and Dioscorea species are twining herbaceous vines. In this study, climbing plants were not treated as a separate functional group. Many of these species exhibit climbing habits while also being classified botanically as herbs or shrubs. For consistency and practicality in vegetation classification and analysis, such species were therefore grouped into the herb or shrub. All Latin binomials have been italicized accordingly in the revised manuscript.

 

125 protection from what?

Response: The protection measures were mainly implemented to prevent disturbance from human activities and, to a lesser extent, wildlife. During the on-year of moso bamboo, local residents often enter bamboo forests to harvest shoots, which could interfere with the experimental plots and affect data integrity. Therefore, fences and clear warning signs were installed to restrict access and minimize external disturbances to the study area.

 

155 I have no idea what this means…> shaped arrangement. And how can you have a 5 x 5 m plot when some strips were only 3 m wide?

Response: We acknowledge that the original description was incorrect and potentially confusing. We have revised the text to clarify that shrub quadrats were 3 m × 3 m in size, which is consistent with the minimum strip-cutting width of 3 m. Within each 3 m × 3 m shrub quadrat, 1 m × 1 m herbaceous quadrats were randomly established for understory herb surveys.

 

180 not a single climbing plant or tree?

Response: In the study plots, no tree species other than moso bamboo were present, as the research was conducted in pure moso bamboo stands. Climbing plants did occur; however, these species were mainly small climbers that could be classified morphologically as herbaceous or shrubby species (e.g., climbing shrubs or herbaceous vines). For consistency in vegetation classification and subsequent analyses, climbing plants were therefore included within the herbaceous or shrub categories rather than treated as a separate functional group.

 

277 ‘shoot count’ is imprecise…do you mean shoot density, #/m2?

Response: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

283-286 the imprecision in language renders these finding uninterpretable, and ‘during the current season’ makes me wonder if sprouting will continue.

Response: We acknowledge that the original wording was imprecise and may have caused confusion. Moso bamboo exhibit a characteristic on- and off-year cycle, in which years of abundant shoot production (“on-years”) alternate with years of low shoot emergence (“off-years”). The phrase “during the current season” was misleading, as most shoot emergence does not continue beyond 2024 (on-year). We have revised the text and removed the ambiguous wording to ensure accurate interpretation of the results.

 

291 bamboo ‘species’?

Response: We have corrected the corresponding text accordingly.

 

292 I have NO idea what you mean by ‘shoot to culm conversion’

Response: We agree that the term “shoot-to-culm conversion” was unclear and potentially confusing. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced this expression with “culm formation”. This term is used to describe the process by which newly emerged bamboo shoots successfully develop into standing culms. We note that not all shoots complete this process, as some may abort during early growth or fail to form normal culms due to factors such as insufficient nutrient supply or mechanical deformation.

 

296 highest density how long after the harvest?

Response: 10 month after harvest. Strip cutting was completed in December 2023, and standing culm density was measured in October 2024, after newly emerged shoots in the 2024 on-year had fully developed into stable culms.

 

301 how can you retain existing culms in a clearcut?

Response: We have deleted and revised this sentence to avoid confusion and to ensure that the description of the strip clearcutting treatment is accurate.

 

303 ‘larger culms”. What does this mean to you? First mention of the thickness of the stems.

Response: In this context, “larger culms” was intended to refer to differences in culm size as measured by diameter at breast height (DBH), which is a standard indicator of bamboo culm size. However, we agree that this was not sufficiently explained and could lead to ambiguity for readers. To avoid confusion, we have revised the manuscript by removing this expression and adjusting the related text accordingly.

 

Table 3: I find this entirely confusing. 50% of each plot was clearcut. Why include here the strips that were not cut? Shouldn’t those all be the same and thus only confuse the reader?

Response: All data reported in this table were collected exclusively from the cutting (harvested) plots, not from the reserve strips. The purpose of this table is to compare recovery indicators among cutting plots with different cutting widths, as well as between cutting plots and the control (CK, uncut). Data from the reserve strips were not included in the analysis.

 

Ditto for ‘crown density’…presumably all bamboo, not sure about the height above ground that the measurement was made or how the measurement was made. And the 3 m strip treatment would involve cutting almost 3 x more of the stand than the 8 m strip treatment, so why isn’t the canopy MUCH more open and the density of bamboo culms MUCH lower?

Response: Canopy closure was measured within the cutting plots using hemispherical photography. Photographs were taken with a digital camera equipped with a fisheye lens at a standardized height above the ground, and canopy closure was calculated using the Hemiview software. Measurements were conducted separately in the 3 m and 8 m strip-cut plots. Because wider cutting width treatments (e.g., 8 m) created larger canopy openings immediately after harvesting, the resulting gaps remained larger even after bamboo recovery. Consequently, canopy closure in the 8 m strips was consistently lower than that in the 3 m strips, despite subsequent regeneration. Standing culm density was calculated based on the number of culms recorded within each cutting plot and then converted to a per-hectare basis.

 

394 ‘aborted shoots’???of bamboo? Why aborted? How tall when aborted?

Response: The term “aborted shoots” refers to the phenomenon commonly known as shoot abortion or shoot dieback in moso bamboo. During the shoot emergence stage, not all bamboo shoots successfully develop into culms. Some shoots cease growth and wither due to factors such as insufficient nutrient supply, unfavorable climatic conditions, or physiological constraints. In moso bamboo, shoot abortion typically occurs at an early developmental stage, most frequently when shoots are shorter than approximately 20 cm.

 

415 what are ‘new bamboos’?

Response: By “new bamboos” we refer to newly emerged culms produced during the on-year shooting season, i.e., first-year bamboo culms that developed from shoots. In moso bamboo, shoot emergence and culm formation occur synchronously during the on-year, and these newly formed culms represent the primary component of post-harvest stand recovery.