Restoration Strategies for Three Dacrycarpus dacrydioides (A.Rich.) de Laub., Kahikatea Remnants in Hamilton City, New Zealand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Authors revised and improved the manuscript by all my recommendations.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I think the additions to the report add to its usefulness to readers from other countries. (even though I did not suggest them!)
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
The authors deal with a very important topic. It is relevant not only in New Zealand, but also around the world. Preservation of biological diversity, restoration of species, damaged ecosystems is discussed in the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Ecosystem restoration is a difficult and long-term job that requires a lot of knowledge and the right strategy.
The authors conducted a detailed study of kahikatea habitats, determined the approximate age of the trees, and indicated the measures that should be applied in the restoration of kahikatea habitats.
Some comments:
In the introduction, part 1.1, I missed information about habitat restoration in other countries of the world.
Very unclear figures, it's difficult to see.
Reviewer 2 Report
Remnant forests are ecologically important and have attracted many researchers' interests. Typical remnant islands or patches of the swamp forests in New Zealand are also very interesting and worthy of research.
However, this article needs many changes and editing before it can be accepted.
First, the biodiversity of remnant forests and community structure (rather than the population structure of the dominant tree species) are very important and fundamental compared with other areas without the remnants. You'd better set some specific survey (e.g., plots) rather than download data from the INaturalist.
Second, Implications of management, we all know that plant species which the primary forest or remnant forests have those life forms could be useful or helpful. However, how to plant those life forms of plants is critical and basic. Also, plant pest control is vital for successful restoration. In my opinion, those methods are too general and need to be specific and thorough.
Third, the Conclusions and Title are not well concluded and summarized in the article.
At last, the quality of the Figures is poor. Figure 2, It is hard to recognize the texts on both the X and Y axes in Figure 2. Figures B1-3, objective remote-sensing images are recemented to replace current patchiness images.
Reviewer 3 Report
I liked the article, it is well supported by the references.
There is nothing particularly original about the content by as promotion for good practice on the restoration of remnant vegetation in peri urban and urban areas it is good.
There might have been a comment about the importance of evaluation to suit funders and rate payers. Some discussion about recent methods involving DNA for biodiversity including soils biota may also have been useful. But the paper is complete for this purpose as it is now.
E.G https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46283545/Environmental_DNA_for_wildlife_biology_a20160606-394-1c0epdc-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?
