Effects of Skidding Operations after Tree Harvesting and Soil Scarification by Felled Trees on Initial Seedling Emergence of Spanish Black Pine (Pinus nigra Arn. ssp. salzmannii)
, Mehdi Heydari 2, Isabel Miralles 3, Demetrio Antonio Zema 4 and Ruben Manso 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall Comments
This manuscript presents research on effects of partial harvest of pure Spanish black pine forests and harvest impact class (skid trail, soils scarified by felled trees, and undisturbed harvest areas) on initial seedling emergence of Spanish black pine in contrasting areas in the Spain’s Cuenca Mountains, Palacares representing a lower elevation drier condition where these forests are common and Majadas representing a higher elevation wetter condition at the edge of environmental conditions where the species is common. Seedling emergence in a non-harvested reference forest (Sumidero) in the Palacares area was also examined.
The manuscript provides a potentially useful contribution on the regeneration ecology of this species in this environment. The seedling emergence results point to important differences between non-harvested and harvested areas within the Palacares area, between the Palacares and the Majada areas, and among the classes of harvest disturbance. However, the manuscript needs improvement to provide a clearer, more comprehensive story about the research and its implications.
The abstract should specify that seedling emergence was less on skid trails and areas scarified by felled trees than on non-disturbed harvested areas or on non-harvested areas rather than stating there was a “significant influence” leaving the reader uninformed about the actual direction of the trends.
Seed rain was monitored in each of the experimental areas and while mention of the relationships between seed rain and seedling emergence is prominent in the Abstract and the Discussion sections, no seed rain sampling results are presented in the Results section. Given the importance of seed rain to the topic, seed rain sampling results should be presented in the Results section.
The description throughout the manuscript of the non-harvested forest (Sumidero) in the Palacareres area is inconsistent and confusing. This needs to be addressed. It would be clearer if it was presented that there were two areas in Palacares, one that received harvesting and another that did not.
The tables and figures are needed and informative but they require more descriptive titles and axis labels to be easily understood.
The Discussion section should be expanded to address the importance and utility of the findings for regenerating Spanish black pine. How important are these results given they represent the seedling emergence in only the season immediately after harvesting? What is the significance of the decreasing seedling emergence counts going from non-disturbed areas to scarified areas to skid trail areas when taking into account the respective proportions of the forest in each of these disturbance classes? How do the counts observed per sample unit area compare to any standards of seedling emergence or regeneration success per unit area (e.g. sq. m or ha)?
The format for referring to references is inconsistent. In most cases, consecutive numbering is used, in several cases, the author and year format is used.
See specific line comments below:
Line Comment
2 The title does not reflect the study reported. Skid trail are only part of the harvesting impacts examined.
Abstract
22 Change the following here and throughout the manuscript: “…seed emergence...” to “…seedling emergence…”; “….scarified soil areas by felled trees…” to “…soil areas scarified by felled trees…”; and “….undisturbed areas….” To “areas undisturbed…”. Note that the response measure is seedling emergence and not seed emergence.
26 What does “common forest areas” mean? Rewrite and clarify.
27-34 The abstract does not adequately highlight some important results e.g. differences in seedling emergence between lower elevation, drier Palacares and higher elevation wetter Majadas; Relative differences in seedling emergence among skid trail, scarified, and undisturbed harvested areas.
Introduction
40 What does “persistence” mean? Regeneration, health? Rewrite for clarity.
47 Does all harvesting alter soil physical properties? This statement needs some qualification.
85 What does “masting” mean? Rewrite for clarity.
94 Change “existence” to “implementation”.
97 Delete “….side of….”.
99 Change “look for evidence” to “quantify”.
Methods
105 Change “mountains” to “Mountains”.
132 The photo of surveyed seedlings is very hard to see. Delete or replace with a clearer image of a newly emerged seedling.
133 Rewrite title to be more descriptive.
135 Specify the type of harvesting that was done e.g. seed cut of a shelterwood system.
139 Add “, respectively.” at end of sentence.
140 Add several sentences about the non-harvested reference stand (Sumidero) in the Palancaras area.
152-
155 This sentence needs rewriting. Limit to information regarding the subplots.
155-
156 Use this sentence as a topic sentence for a new paragraph about the forest stand and soil characteristics of the three experimental sites. State how the data in the table were obtained or the reference where the information was originally reported.
157-
158 The title is incomplete and should be rewritten e.g. “Mean and standard error for selected stand and soil characteristics at three experimental Pinus nigra forests after tree harvesting in late December 2013.”
The table needs improvement:
Change column heading “Experimental Site” to “Stand and Soil Attribute”.
Make site titles more descriptive e.g. Palancares – Harvested; Majadas – Harvested; Palancares – Unmanaged. Delete altitude (values mentioned in text) and stand composition (mention in text).
State units for NO3.
Why report ranges for density and basal area and means and standard errors for height and soil variables, and only means for shrub cover?
What is the soil depth corresponding to the soil attributes reported?
162 What does “regularly distributed along 1 ha” mean? Is this systematically distributed within 1 ha?
163 Correct spelling to “..unmanaged site..”
172 A description of the analysis methods for seed rain should be in this section. Subplos were 0.25 sq. m in harvested sites and 1 sq m in the non-harvested area. Describe in methods how the differences in subplot sizes were accounted for.
175 Write more directly e.g. “The response variable analyzed was the number of recruits.”
178 Change to “ ..check of the data….”
176 Change to “…more zero counts than would be …”
178 Change to “…and standard errors. One way….”
186 This is the first time the name Sumidero is mentioned in the manuscript. It should be mentioned around line 140.
Results
215 Results for seed rain should be presented in this section.
220 What does “…significantly more adequate…” mean? It would add to the manuscript if the results were related to meeting regeneration objectives or some standard of seedling emergence. That is best done in the Discussion section.
223 Change to “..in this case, not significantly different from each other.”
226 The table title and table should be more descriptive to aid the understanding by the reader. Fully describe what you mean by “response” in the title e.g number of seedling per ….. . Naming conventions should be consistent throughout manuscript. Harvested forest treatments were referred to as skid trails, scarified areas, and undisturbed areas and the non-harvested area was referred to as unmanaged or natural up to this point. The names in this table are not consistent with what comes before.
What does the mean refer to? E.g. seedlings per sq m.
241 Figure needs more descriptive x and y axis labels to improve reader understanding. Treatment naming conventions should be consistent.
242 Figure title should be more descriptive
243 See comments for line 241
244 See comments for line 244
Discussion
250 Change “influence” to “reduce”. Be more precise in wording.
251 Change “undisturbed areas by harvest operations” to “areas undisturbed by harvest operations”
262-
263 Reference citation format not consistent with main format
265-
271 Present results for seed rain in the Results section. Relate seed rain and seedling emergence in the Discussion section.
273 Mediterranean pine or Black pine?
283 Delete “in’.
285 Change from “..scarified plots by felled trees” to “plots scarified by felled trees”
286 Is this statement about higher seed germination valid? Is it germination or seedling emergence?
288-
290 Include the species and location with this observation.
290 Begin a new paragraph with ‘Site preparation has proven…..”
304 How does this information relate to the stands reported in this manuscript?
310-
312 Awkward sentence. Rewrite
312-
314 Awkward sentence. Rewrite.
314 Begin a new paragraph with “The negative….”
321-
322 Spanish black pine has relatively greater shade tolerance compared to what?
324 Inconsistent citation format.
328 Unclear what a “smooth” protection means. Perhaps a “”modest” or “moderate” protection.
Conclusions
335-
340 This repeat of methods is not needed. This section should be only conclusions.
Author Response
REVIEWER N. 1
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks a lot for Your revision work that we have considered very useful to improve our MS. In the following text, You will find our replies to all Your comments. However, we address You to the file containing the revised paper and attached to the resubmission.
Overall Comments
This manuscript presents research on effects of partial harvest of pure Spanish black pine forests and harvest impact class (skid trail, soils scarified by felled trees, and undisturbed harvest areas) on initial seedling emergence of Spanish black pine in contrasting areas in the Spain’s Cuenca Mountains, Palacares representing a lower elevation drier condition where these forests are common and Majadas representing a higher elevation wetter condition at the edge of environmental conditions where the species is common. Seedling emergence in a non-harvested reference forest (Sumidero) in the Palacares area was also examined.
The manuscript provides a potentially useful contribution on the regeneration ecology of this species in this environment. The seedling emergence results point to important differences between non-harvested and harvested areas within the Palacares area, between the Palacares and the Majada areas, and among the classes of harvest disturbance. However, the manuscript needs improvement to provide a clearer, more comprehensive story about the research and its implications.
As we mentioned above, we have addressed all Your comments, to improve the paper quality.
The abstract should specify that seedling emergence was less on skid trails and areas scarified by felled trees than on non-disturbed harvested areas or on non-harvested areas rather than stating there was a “significant influence” leaving the reader uninformed about the actual direction of the trends.
Thanks. Done.
Seed rain was monitored in each of the experimental areas and while mention of the relationships between seed rain and seedling emergence is prominent in the Abstract and the Discussion sections, no seed rain sampling results are presented in the Results section. Given the importance of seed rain to the topic, seed rain sampling results should be presented in the Results section.
Done
The description throughout the manuscript of the non-harvested forest (Sumidero) in the Palacareres area is inconsistent and confusing. This needs to be addressed. It would be clearer if it was presented that there were two areas in Palacares, one that received harvesting and another that did not.
Corrected accordingly
The tables and figures are needed and informative but they require more descriptive titles and axis labels to be easily understood.
Done.
The Discussion section should be expanded to address the importance and utility of the findings for regenerating Spanish black pine. How important are these results given they represent the seedling emergence in only the season immediately after harvesting? What is the significance of the decreasing seedling emergence counts going from non-disturbed areas to scarified areas to skid trail areas when taking into account the respective proportions of the forest in each of these disturbance classes? How do the counts observed per sample unit area compare to any standards of seedling emergence or regeneration success per unit area (e.g. sq. m or ha)?
Done for each suggested question
The format for referring to references is inconsistent. In most cases, consecutive numbering is used, in several cases, the author and year format is used.
We have thoroughly checked and revised, when necessary, the format.
See specific line comments below:
Comment
Line 2 - The title does not reflect the study reported. Skid trail are only part of the harvesting impacts examined.
Title integrated.
Abstract
22 - Change the following here and throughout the manuscript: “…seed emergence...” to “…seedling emergence…”; “….scarified soil areas by felled trees…” to “…soil areas scarified by felled trees…”; and “….undisturbed areas….” To “areas undisturbed…”. Note that the response measure is seedling emergence and not seed emergence.
Done everywhere in the text.
26 - What does “common forest areas” mean? Rewrite and clarify.
It means “typical”, “specific”. Clarified.
27-34 - The abstract does not adequately highlight some important results e.g. differences in seedling emergence between lower elevation, drier Palacares and higher elevation wetter Majadas; Relative differences in seedling emergence among skid trail, scarified, and undisturbed harvested areas.
We have integrated the abstract.
Introduction
40 - What does “persistence” mean? Regeneration, health? Rewrite for clarity.
Health and growth. Clarified.
47 - Does all harvesting alter soil physical properties? This statement needs some qualification.
Particularly aggregate stability, bulk density and hydraulic conductivity. Corrected.
85 - What does “masting” mean? Rewrite for clarity.
Clarified.
94 - Change “existence” to “implementation”.
Changed.
97 - Delete “….side of….”.
Deleted.
99 - Change “look for evidence” to “quantify”.
Changed.
Methods
105 - Change “mountains” to “Mountains”.
Changed.
132 - The photo of surveyed seedlings is very hard to see. Delete or replace with a clearer image of a newly emerged seedling.
Done.
133 - Rewrite title to be more descriptive.
Rewritten.
135 - Specify the type of harvesting that was done e.g. seed cut of a shelterwood system.
Specified.
139 - Add “, respectively.” at end of sentence.
Added.
140 - Add several sentences about the non-harvested reference stand (Sumidero) in the Palancaras area.
Added. This area was left as unmanaged for ecological protection in 1945 by forest local authorities and has the same stand and soil characteristics as Palancares forest, except for the features reported in Table 1.
152-155 - This sentence needs rewriting. Limit to information regarding the subplots.
Rewritten.
155-156 - Use this sentence as a topic sentence for a new paragraph about the forest stand and soil characteristics of the three experimental sites. State how the data in the table were obtained or the reference where the information was originally reported.
Done
157-158 - The title is incomplete and should be rewritten e.g. “Mean and standard error for selected stand and soil characteristics at three experimental Pinus nigra forests after tree harvesting in late December 2013.”
Done.
The table needs improvement:
Change column heading “Experimental Site” to “Stand and Soil Attribute”.
Make site titles more descriptive e.g. Palancares – Harvested; Majadas – Harvested; Palancares – Unmanaged. Delete altitude (values mentioned in text) and stand composition (mention in text).
State units for NO3.
Done.
Why report ranges for density and basal area and means and standard errors for height and soil variables, and only means for shrub cover?
Information added.
What is the soil depth corresponding to the soil attributes reported?
Soil depth added.
162 - What does “regularly distributed along 1 ha” mean? Is this systematically distributed within 1 ha?
Clarified.
163 - Correct spelling to “..unmanaged site..”
Removed.
172 - A description of the analysis methods for seed rain should be in this section. Subplos were 0.25 sq. m in harvested sites and 1 sq m in the non-harvested area. Describe in methods how the differences in subplot sizes were accounted for.
Done
175 - Write more directly e.g. “The response variable analyzed was the number of recruits.”
Done.
178 - Change to “ ..check of the data….”
Changed.
176 - Change to “…more zero counts than would be …”
Changed.
178 - Change to “…and standard errors. One way….”
Changed.
186 - This is the first time the name Sumidero is mentioned in the manuscript. It should be mentioned around line 140.
Done.
Results
215 - Results for seed rain should be presented in this section.
Data presentation added
220 - What does “…significantly more adequate…” mean? It would add to the manuscript if the results were related to meeting regeneration objectives or some standard of seedling emergence. That is best done in the Discussion section.
Clarified.
223 - Change to “..in this case, not significantly different from each other.”
Changed.
226 - The table title and table should be more descriptive to aid the understanding by the reader. Fully describe what you mean by “response” in the title e.g number of seedling per ….. . Naming conventions should be consistent throughout manuscript. Harvested forest treatments were referred to as skid trails, scarified areas, and undisturbed areas and the non-harvested area was referred to as unmanaged or natural up to this point. The names in this table are not consistent with what comes before. What does the mean refer to? E.g. seedlings per sq m.
Specified what “response” means.
We have made consistent the conventions, which effectively were misleading and unclear. To summarise:
- harvested forest subjected to skid trails = compaction (C)
- harvested forest with soil scarified by felled trees = scarification (S)
- harvested and then undisturbed forest = undisturbed (U)
- unmanaged forest = natural (N).
241 - Figure needs more descriptive x and y axis labels to improve reader understanding. Treatment naming conventions should be consistent.
Done.
242 - Figure title should be more descriptive
Done.
243 - See comments for line 241
Done.
244 - See comments for line 244
Done.
Discussion
250 - Change “influence” to “reduce”. Be more precise in wording.
Changed.
251 - Change “undisturbed areas by harvest operations” to “areas undisturbed by harvest operations”
Changed.
262-263 - Reference citation format not consistent with main format
We have revised the format of all citations.
265-271 - Present results for seed rain in the Results section. Relate seed rain and seedling emergence in the Discussion section.
Done
273 - Mediterranean pine or Black pine?
Black Pine (corrected).
283 - Delete “in’.
Deleted.
285 - Change from “..scarified plots by felled trees” to “plots scarified by felled trees”
Changed.
286 - Is this statement about higher seed germination valid? Is it germination or seedling emergence?
Seedling emergerce
288-290 - Include the species and location with this observation.
Included.
290 - Begin a new paragraph with ‘Site preparation has proven…..”
Done.
304 - How does this information relate to the stands reported in this manuscript?
Added information.
310-312 - Awkward sentence. Rewrite
Rewritten.
312-314 - Awkward sentence. Rewrite.
Rewritten.
314 - Begin a new paragraph with “The negative….”
Done.
321-322 - Spanish black pine has relatively greater shade tolerance compared to what?
Compared to other Iberian pines. This information has been added to the text.
324 - Inconsistent citation format.
Corrected.
328 - Unclear what a “smooth” protection means. Perhaps a “”modest” or “moderate” protection.
Corrected.
Conclusions
335-340 - This repeat of methods is not needed. This section should be only conclusions.
Removed. We have revised the Conclusions, also according to the suggestion of another Reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript contains some useful information but there are a few items that should be clarified/changed to ensure (1) readers have full disclosure on the conditions in the sites and (2) summary/conclusions are fully supported by your data. Specific items to address inclide:
- How do you know any part of the area was "compacted" (l. 185, 220,223, Table 2)? I saw no record of measuring compaction or data describing such. Unless you measured compaction, you do not know if those areas were compacted or not.
- How do scarified areas differ from the skid trails? Were the felled trees pulled to the "skid trail" by a skidder? That is the normal procedure in most harvesting operations. If so, both areas were impacted by skidding. If they are different, you need to identify the difference.
- What were the conditions in the "unmanaged" stand? You give the location, but no description. This should be included in section 2.1. (Study Area).
- From L. 270-271, is trees/ha the underlying cause for some of the results. Is that more important than the skidding associated with harvesting activities? See L. 283-284.
- Tables 3 and 4 -- full name of treatments should be given either I nthe table or as explanation of the letter designation.
- Tables 5 and 6 -- full name of the forests should be provided-- same as Item #5 above.
- Figures 2 and 3 -- give full name for the abbreviations.
- L. 47-48, 62 (and elsewhere in the manuscript-- what is the difference between "tree harvesting" and "logging"? The terms are considered to be interchangeable-- perhaps not the same in Spain?
- L. 135-136 and throughout the manuscript -- the terminology "seed rain" may not be familiar to many readers. I leave it to the editors to decide if a more widely accepted term ( perhaps "seed fall") may be preferable.
- The "Conclusions" are really a repeat of your Results. This more of a summary-- not conclusions
There are many places where the English presentation needs work-- phrasing, misplaced modifiers, and others. The following listing is my suggestion for changes. In many cases, words have been deleted, in other places, words have been added.
L. 41 …..recurrence of safety hazards...
L. 48-- "interactions of propagules"-- you may want to explain this phrase
L. 49 -- …..into a site[10]. The distribution...…...
L. 52 replace "modulated" with influenced
L. 56 - replace "whole" with entire
L. 62 -- Machinery used.....
L. 62 -- …..changes in the forest floor....
L. 65 -- forest products to a deck.....
L. 65 ….or roadside [19].
L. 67 -- uptake of water or...….
L. 68 -- demonstrated compacted soil.....
L. 70 -- …...exploited soil volume [21].
L. 74 other authors have reported....
L. 74-75 -- ….. conditions which can result in the suppression of water......
L. 76 -- temperature and a reduction.....
L. 77 -- …..skidding and any associated soil.....
L. 78 -- scarification) on initial......
L. 83 --seedling recruitment. Recently…...
L. 83 …. problems in the …..
L. 84- Spanish black pine......
L. 86 -- ….development of regeneration.....
L. 87 -- what is "height of seedlings"?
L. 95-- ...operations and soil scarification......
L. 98 -- ….soi lareas created by felled trees and undisturbed areas. In addition..
L. 108 -- why the use of italics
L. 113 -- …..50 km apart. Mean annual....
Figure 1 - ii) Soil scarified by felled trees iv) Unmanaged stand
L. 136 -- remove the space between selected and nine
L. 137 -- ….. three plots on soil areas scarified by felled.....
L. 138 -- ….plots in areas disturbed by.....
L. 142 -- 75 cm blade? The chain is usually carried on a bar (not blade)
L. 143 -- is a "wheel skidder" meant to denote a rubber-tire skidder?
L. 144-- were the sites designated as scarified plots.
L. 146--…. long distance movement of logs ….
L. 148 -- Skid trails...
L. 148 -- …. phase were designated as the skid trail...
L. 149 -- ….cable drums. Skid trails....
L. 156 … standard error) are presented in Table 1...
Table 1 -"Density (ind.ha--- what is "ind."? Should this be Trees/ha?
Total height -- is this tree total height?
NO3 -- no units are provided
Asterisk explanation -- I did not see any asterisk in the Table
L. 162-- what is a "regular distribution"?
L. 162 -- …. distributed across 1 ha in each....
L. 165-166 -- move the entire last sentence of the paragraph to L.163 to follow.... to the end of may 2014.
L. 178 ….. and standard errors. One way …..
L. 217-218 -- ….of observing any recruitment in a given.....
L. 219 promote occurrence the most. The Scarification treatment ….
L. 220 -- …. but nevertheless had more emergence or occurrence than Compacted.
L. 223 -- …. in this case, not significantly...
Table 2 -- units for the "Mean"
L. 264-265 -- You 'assume seed rain was similar" and then..... Palacares site presented higher seed rain" -- ??
L. 281 -- here and elsewhere-- does "modulated" mean influenced?
L. 282-283…. higher in unmanaged areas followed by scarified, undisturbed, and compacted.....
L. 292 -- "In addition" is typed twice -- delete one
L. 296 -- ….developed, but the methods used most in …..
L. 298-299. There are different site preparation methods. However......
L. 301 -- "avoid competition"-- should this be "withstand competition"?
L. 302 -- delete "very"
L. 303 -- ….. for light can limit growth of …...
L. 306 -- delete "considered"
L. 310-311-- it appears you are comparing the same sites-- ??
L. 322-323 -- … Majadas alsoresulted in higher seed emergence.....
L. 338 - October 2013 was presented as December 2013 earlier (L. 135)
Author Response
REVIEWER N. 2
Dear Sir/Madam,
thanks a lot for Your revision work that we have considered very useful to improve our MS. In the following text, You will find our replies to all Your comments. However, we address You to the file containing the revised paper and attached to the resubmission.
The manuscript contains some useful information but there are a few items that should be clarified/changed to ensure (1) readers have full disclosure on the conditions in the sites and (2) summary/conclusions are fully supported by your data.
Specific items to address inclide:
How do you know any part of the area was "compacted" (l. 185, 220,223, Table 2)? I saw no record of measuring compaction or data describing such. Unless you measured compaction, you do not know if those areas were compacted or not.
This is a right observation. We did not measure soil compaction for practical reasons, but it is expected that soil subjected to skid trails due to the traffic of logging trucks is more compacted than undisturbed soils. We have added this information in the revised text
How do scarified areas differ from the skid trails? Were the felled trees pulled to the "skid trail" by a skidder? That is the normal procedure in most harvesting operations. If so, both areas were impacted by skidding. If they are different, you need to identify the difference.
This information has been added to the material and method section
What were the conditions in the "unmanaged" stand? You give the location, but no description. This should be included in section 2.1. (Study Area).
The unmanaged stand is located inside the Palancares forest and thus it has the same characteristics, except for those reported in Table 1. We have highlighted this in the text
From L. 270-271, is trees/ha the underlying cause for some of the results. Is that more important than the skidding associated with harvesting activities? See L. 283-284.
Canopy cover is important to generate seedeling emergence, as Spanish black pine is a shade tolerant pine species. However, skiddig and subsequent soil impacts are also important as denoted by our results.
Tables 3 and 4 -- full name of treatments should be given either In the table or as explanation of the letter designation.
Done.
Tables 5 and 6 -- full name of the forests should be provided-- same as Item #5 above.
Done.
Figures 2 and 3 -- give full name for the abbreviations.
Done.
- 47-48, 62 (and elsewhere in the manuscript-- what is the difference between "tree harvesting" and "logging"? The terms are considered to be interchangeable-- perhaps not the same in Spain?
In several European countries (such as Spain and Italy), “harvesting” is the simple cutting of trees that are left on the ground or used in the forest while “logging” means cutting and transport of the timber out of the forest. The latter is the meaning that is relevant to our experiment.
- 135-136 and throughout the manuscript -- the terminology "seed rain" may not be familiar to many readers. I leave it to the editors to decide if a more widely accepted term ( perhaps "seed fall") may be preferable.
Thanks for the suggestion. Both terms sound good for us and we are ready to change “seed rain” to “seed fall” if the Editor asks it.
The "Conclusions" are really a repeat of your Results. This more of a summary-- not conclusions
We have revised the Conclusions, also according to the suggestion of another Reviewer.
There are many places where the English presentation needs work-- phrasing, misplaced modifiers, and others. The following listing is my suggestion for changes. In many cases, words have been deleted, in other places, words have been added.
We have thoroughly revised English and addressed the suggestions given by You and the other Reviewer.
- 41 …..recurrence of safety hazards...
We do not understand this suggestion. We would prefer leaving the sentence as it is now.
- 48-- "interactions of propagules"-- you may want to explain this phrase
Changed
- 49 -- …..into a site[10]. The distribution...…...
Corrected.
- 52 replace "modulated" with influenced
Replaced.
- 56 - replace "whole" with entire
Replaced.
- 62 -- Machinery used.....
Corrected.
- 62 -- …..changes in the forest floor....
Corrected.
- 65 -- forest products to a deck.....
Corrected.
- 65 ….or roadside [19].
Corrected.
- 67 -- uptake of water or...….
Corrected.
- 68 -- demonstrated compacted soil.....
We do not understand this suggestion. We would prefer leaving the sentence as it is now.
- 70 -- …...exploited soil volume [21].
Corrected.
- 74 other authors have reported....
Corrected.
- 74-75 -- ….. conditions which can result in the suppression of water......
Corrected.
- 76 -- temperature and a reduction.....
Corrected.
- 77 -- …..skidding and any associated soil.....
Corrected.
- 78 -- scarification) on initial......
Corrected.
- 83 --seedling recruitment. Recently…...
We do not understand this suggestion. We would prefer leaving the sentence as it is now.
- 83 …. problems in the …..
Corrected.
- 84- Spanish black pine......
Corrected.
- 86 -- ….development of regeneration.....
Corrected.
- 87 -- what is "height of seedlings"?
Corrected. Mistake
- 95-- ...operations and soil scarification......
Corrected.
- 98 -- ….soi lareas created by felled trees and undisturbed areas. In addition..
Corrected.
- 108 -- why the use of italics
Italics removed.
- 113 -- …..50 km apart. Mean annual....
Corrected.
Figure 1 - ii) Soil scarified by felled trees iv) Unmanaged stand
Corrected.
- 136 -- remove the space between selected and nine
Removed.
- 137 -- ….. three plots on soil areas scarified by felled.....
Corrected.
- 138 -- ….plots in areas disturbed by.....
Corrected.
- 142 -- 75 cm blade? The chain is usually carried on a bar (not blade)
Changed
- 143 -- is a "wheel skidder" meant to denote a rubber-tire skidder?
Correct
- 144-- were the sites designated as scarified plots.
Corrected.
- 146--…. long distance movement of logs ….
Corrected.
- 148 -- Skid trails...
Corrected.
- 148 -- …. phase were designated as the skid trail...
Corrected.
- 149 -- ….cable drums. Skid trails....
Corrected.
- 156 … standard error) are presented in Table 1...
This sentence has been completely rephrased.
Table 1 -"Density (ind.ha--- what is "ind."? Should this be Trees/ha? Corrected.
Total height -- is this tree total height?
NO3 -- no units are provided
Asterisk explanation -- I did not see any asterisk in the Table
Done.
- 162 -- …. distributed across 1 ha in each....
Corrected.
- 165-166 -- move the entire last sentence of the paragraph to L.163 to follow.... to the end of may 2014.
Done.
- 178 ….. and standard errors. One way …..
Corrected.
- 217-218 -- ….of observing any recruitment in a given.....
Corrected.
- 219 promote occurrence the most. The Scarification treatment ….
Corrected.
- 220 -- …. but nevertheless had more emergence or occurrence than Compacted.
Corrected.
- 223 -- …. in this case, not significantly...
Corrected.
Table 2 -- units for the "Mean"
Added.
- 264-265 -- You 'assume seed rain was similar" and then..... Palacares site presented higher seed rain" -- ??
Corrected
- 281 -- here and elsewhere-- does "modulated" mean influenced?
Yes. Corrected everywhere.
- 282-283…. higher in unmanaged areas followed by scarified, undisturbed, and compacted.....
Corrected.
- 292 -- "In addition" is typed twice -- delete one
Corrected.
- 296 -- ….developed, but the methods used most in …..
Corrected.
- 298-299. There are different site preparation methods. However......
Corrected.
- 301 -- "avoid competition"-- should this be "withstand competition"?
Corrected.
- 302 -- delete "very"
Deleted.
- 303 -- ….. for light can limit growth of …...
Corrected.
- 306 -- delete "considered"
Deleted.
- 310-311-- it appears you are comparing the same sites-- ??
Changed
- 322-323 -- … Majadas alsoresulted in higher seed emergence.....
Corrected.
- 338 - October 2013 was presented as December 2013 earlier (L. 135)
All these sentences have been removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
FORESTS 861588
Effects of Skidding Operations after Tree Harvesting and Soil Scarification by Felled Trees on Initial Seedling Emergence of Spanish Black Pine (Pinus nigra Arn. ssp. salzmannii)
Overall Comments
The authors did a thorough job at addressing the comments and suggestion from the previous review. I find the current manuscript suitable for publication with several minor edits identified as follows.
Specific line comments:
Line Comment
Abstract
33 Change “Unmanaged stand” to “the unmanaged stand”.
Methods
236 Change “seed emergence” to “seedling emergence”.
Results
215 Results for seed rain should be presented in this section.
281-
285 Change to “Seed fall (mean an standard deviation) was 123+/- 26 seeds per m2 for the compaction treatment, 113+/-21 seeds per m2 for the scarification treatment, and 117+/-33 seeds per m2 for the undisturbed treatment at Palancares Forest.” Make similar edits on the next sentence.
341-
342 The unit area, e.g. m2 ,must be added either to the y-axis label or to the figure title.
Discussion
380 Indent new paragraph per formatting convention.
458 Change “planed” to “planned”.
Conclusions
465 Change “…scarification or not further disturbed differences in seed fall quantities…” to scarification or no further disturbance, differences in seed fall quantities…”.
468 Change “modulated by” to “influenced by”.
Author Response
Overall Comments
The authors did a thorough job at addressing the comments and suggestion from the previous review. I find the current manuscript suitable for publication with several minor edits identified as follows.
##Dear Editors and reviewers,
First, we would like to thank You for giving us the possibility to revise our manuscript. We have appreciated the work of the referees very much, since they help to improve our paper. All the requests have been duly considered and addressed in the text. We hope that the revised version, in which we have tried to address and valorize all the suggestions, is really improved compared to the previous manuscript. We would be very grateful if You could reconsider the revised MS for publication on Your valued journal. The detailed corrections are listed below point by point.
Sincerely, Manuel Lucas
Specific line comments:
Line Comment
Abstract
33 Change “Unmanaged stand” to “the unmanaged stand”.
# Done
Methods
236 Change “seed emergence” to “seedling emergence”.
# Done
Results
215 Results for seed rain should be presented in this section.
# Thank you very much for your suggestion. As we presented how seed fall data was analysed in the statistical section, we believe that seed fall results should be exposed after this statistical section.
281-285 Change to “Seed fall (mean an standard deviation) was 123+/- 26 seeds per m2 for the compaction treatment, 113+/-21 seeds per m2 for the scarification treatment, and 117+/-33 seeds per m2 for the undisturbed treatment at Palancares Forest.” Make similar edits on the next sentence.
# Done
341-342 The unit area, e.g. m2 ,must be added either to the y-axis label or to the figure title.
# Done
Discussion
380 Indent new paragraph per formatting convention.
# Done
458 Change “planed” to “planned”.
# Done
Conclusions
465 Change “…scarification or not further disturbed differences in seed fall quantities…” to scarification or no further disturbance, differences in seed fall quantities…”.
# Done
468 Change “modulated by” to “influenced by”.
# Done
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
