Forest Management Effects on Breeding Bird Communities in Apennine Beech Stands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written, and the statistical approaches employed are appropriate for the objectives of the study. The research was carefully conducted and provides relevant and pertinent findings and conclusions. However, certain aspects of the methodology could be questioned. Although the use of "five-minute segments" is a methodological approach found in other studies, vocalization frequency varies significantly among bird species. This variation may constitute a confounding effect, potentially biasing detection toward more vocally active species while underrepresenting those that vocalize less frequently. Moreover, vocalization frequency can also vary within species across different locations. The latter limitation is acknowledged by the authors, but it would be valuable to discuss these methodological constraints more explicitly, particularly with regard to how they may limit the interpretation of the study's conclusions.

A few other points could make the manuscript more concise and conservative. The authors suggest the implementation of ecological corridors; this recommendation could be omitted, as—despite being well supported in the broader literature—the current study does not provide data or analysis directly related to ecological corridors, nor does it demonstrate that such interventions would be effective in the specific system under study. The same applies to the mention of climate change. The authors make strong claims linking tree richness and diversity to bird diversity, although this relationship was not directly addressed in the study. As such, these statements appear more speculative than evidence-based. Removing these sections would result in a more cautious interpretation without diminishing the overall scientific value of the work.

Author Response

Review Report 1

The manuscript is well written, and the statistical approaches employed are appropriate for the objectives of the study. The research was carefully conducted and provides relevant and pertinent findings and conclusions. However, certain aspects of the methodology could be questioned. Although the use of "five-minute segments" is a methodological approach found in other studies, vocalization frequency varies significantly among bird species. This variation may constitute a confounding effect, potentially biasing detection toward more vocally active species while underrepresenting those that vocalize less frequently. Moreover, vocalization frequency can also vary within species across different locations.

The latter limitation is acknowledged by the authors, but it would be valuable to discuss these methodological constraints more explicitly, particularly with regard to how they may limit the interpretation of the study's conclusions.

Author: Our study provides a preliminary analysis of the effects of forest management on bird communities in beech forest stands of the northern Apennines. While the results are clear in the examined sites, several limitations warrant further investigation to enable broader generalization. First, the study is restricted to a single forest type and geographic region, and its observational design limits the strength of causal inference. As noted by Savilaakso et al. [76], the impacts of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management can vary substantially across different facets of biodiversity, emphasizing the importance of integrative, multi-taxa approaches in assessing ecological outcomes. Future research should therefore broaden the taxonomic scope, incorporate long-term monitoring, and account for the interaction between management practices and site-specific ecological conditions.

The following sentence has been added in the revised manuscript (see lines 420-422): Although using five-minute sequences, as in our study, may result in the underrepresentation of certain rare species—particularly those that vocalize less frequently—the overall pattern remains clearly discernible.

A few other points could make the manuscript more concise and conservative. The authors suggest the implementation of ecological corridors; this recommendation could be omitted, as—despite being well supported in the broader literature—the current study does not provide data or analysis directly related to ecological corridors, nor does it demonstrate that such interventions would be effective in the specific system under study. The same applies to the mention of climate change. The authors make strong claims linking tree richness and diversity to bird diversity, although this relationship was not directly addressed in the study. As such, these statements appear more speculative than evidence-based. Removing these sections would result in a more cautious interpretation without diminishing the overall scientific value of the work.

Author: As recommended (Conclusion), we have removed sections regarding the implementation of ecological corridors and climate change.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is a very interesting approach about the Forest Management Effects on Beech Breeding Bird Communities. Although the number of patches sampled is small, the work is consistent and very well executed.

The introduction is well focused and the references used are adequate and sufficient.

The methodology is correct and very well explained. The statistical analysis used is appropriate.

Results are well presented. The discussion is well focused and well written.

The authors adequately discuss the main results obtained.

 

Author Response

Review Report 2

 

This work is a very interesting approach about the Forest Management Effects on Beech Breeding Bird Communities. Although the number of patches sampled is small, the work is consistent and very well executed.

The introduction is well focused and the references used are adequate and sufficient.

The methodology is correct and very well explained. The statistical analysis used is appropriate.

Results are well presented. The discussion is well focused and well written.

The authors adequately discuss the main results obtained.

Author: Thank you for the positive comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on the impact of different forest management regimes on breeding bird diversity in beech-dominated stands in northern Italy. This topic is very interesting and is relevant to publication.

The manuscript has a good methodology. The use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring and advanced statistical models are appropriate for the research question. The comparison across management regimes and development stages is well-structured and insightful. Results are clearly presented through tables and well-designed figures.

Conclusions are data-supported, The recommendations for forest managers—particularly the emphasis on preserving snags, deadwood, and habitat trees—are highly practical and well justified.

Then main limitation of the manuscript is its limited geographic and spatial scope. The study includes only five forest sites in the Northern Apennines, which may limit the generalizability of the results. I also consider it problematic that differentiation among managed sites is a relatively low. The relatively small differences between the various managed forests may reduce the interpretive power of the findings regarding forest management effects. But the limitations are acknowledged and discussed transparently in line with good scientific standards.

From my perspective, I would recommend including an analysis of the surrounding landscape structure of the study plots. Furthermore, given the conservation-oriented focus of the manuscript, I would also welcome results specifically addressing the occurrence of threatened and protected species, in the sense of the study by Zasadil et al. (Forests, 2020). Their presence at the study sites is more relevant than the abundance and diversity of forest generalists, including generalist cavity nesters such as tits.

Author Response

Review Report 3

The article focuses on the impact of different forest management regimes on breeding bird diversity in beech-dominated stands in northern Italy. This topic is very interesting and is relevant to publication.

The manuscript has a good methodology. The use of Passive Acoustic Monitoring and advanced statistical models are appropriate for the research question. The comparison across management regimes and development stages is well-structured and insightful. Results are clearly presented through tables and well-designed figures.

Conclusions are data-supported, The recommendations for forest managers—particularly the emphasis on preserving snags, deadwood, and habitat trees—are highly practical and well justified.

Then main limitation of the manuscript is its limited geographic and spatial scope. The study includes only five forest sites in the Northern Apennines, which may limit the generalizability of the results. I also consider it problematic that differentiation among managed sites is a relatively low. The relatively small differences between the various managed forests may reduce the interpretive power of the findings regarding forest management effects. But the limitations are acknowledged and discussed transparently in line with good scientific standards.

From my perspective, I would recommend including an analysis of the surrounding landscape structure of the study plots.

Author: Thank you for the comment. The landscape aspect was not an objective of our study at this stage. Since this was the first approach, we deliberately chose the sites in a landscape context as similar as possible to identify the effects of the different forest structure resulting from the different silvicultural treatments. We obviously agree on the influence that landscape factors may have on bird communities, so we have mentioned this in the conclusions (see lines 535-539), also indicating it as one of the directions for future research. In addition, we have also included some simple landscape parameters in Table 1 and in the description of the study areas to underline how similar the landscape contexts are (and therefore presumably influence the sites in the same way).

Furthermore, given the conservation-oriented focus of the manuscript, I would also welcome results specifically addressing the occurrence of threatened and protected species, in the sense of the study by Zasadil et al. (Forests, 2020). Their presence at the study sites is more relevant than the abundance and diversity of forest generalists, including generalist cavity nesters such as tits.

Author: Thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, we do not have many species of conservation interest and/or rare species in our sample. However, we have improved / added the following sentences in the Discussion and Conclusions sections:

Lines 417-420: In any case, species of European (Dryocopus martius) or local (Certhia familiaris) conservation concern as well as those that are locally rare (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), are highly sensitive to forest management and are only present in the unmanaged site.

Lines 491-494: This pattern is further emphasized by the observation that all species of conservation concern—whether of local or European significance—as well as the rarest taxa in this geographical context, are entirely confined to the unmanaged site [101].

Lines 537-539:…[66] and to study in detail the species of highest conservation interest, as well as those that are rarer and more ecologically demanding [101].

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments on the manuscript. The raised comments have been addressed, and the manuscript is ready for publication.