Effects of Forest Fragmentation on the Volume of Wood Resources in Managed, Pine-Dominated Forests in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The article deals with a very important topic because the issue of management and production in fragmented forest stands is very topical in all areas with intensively used cultural landscapes.
  The objectives, methodology and conclusions of the paper are clearly stated and the conclusions are well supported. 
  I have only a few clarifying remarks:
•  row 300 - "the largest forest patch had an area of 1377,5 thousand ha" - really a thousand ha?
• row 357 - the closing bracket is missing.
• rows 366 - 395 - in the section on the regression models used, it is not necessary to give the general shapes of the models (this can be found in any statistics textbook), but more useful would be the specific forms of the models used, especially in the case of a mixed model where it is not clear which random parameters were used (i.e. which specific variables are fixed and which are mixed)
• figures 3-5 - the position of the median should be indicated by a point or a line - in the scale used in the graph, the median is approximately 40-50 units of the Y-axis
• figures 6 -8  - it would be useful to provide confidence intervals for the values at each age class
• figure 9 - the graph should be shifted - apparently the whole graph is not displayed
• figure 9 - "Due to the peculiarity of the model, it is not possible to give a specific limit 497 value here" - perhaps a segmented (piecewise) regression could help in determining the "break point"

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your comments. In the attached file we send our answers.      

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks

The study is interesting and well conducted. The hypothesis (effect of forest fragmentation on the volume of wood resources) seems to be reliable and realistic. However the proposed study faults in a critic issue: analysed patches in the study are managed. They are not natural/native forests submitted to conservation practices (i.e. Natural protected sites, etc.). This management makes the analysis less realistic and the results not too reliable. This study should be reprojected focusing on managed forests and then, an alternative hypothesis should be proposed: what is the edge effect on managed forests affected by fragmentation? In this context, the study could be more focused on wood resources, carbon sequestration, and loss of ‘biodiversity’ in these isolated managed forests.

 

Specific comments

Line 27: what means C?

Introduction: It is too long. There are many irrelevant details for the study. It should be restricted to introduce the topic. It is not a revision study, therefore it is not necessary to explain in details the theory of biogeography, the edge effect, etc.

Lines 218-220: This sentence is unclear. Is this carbon release relevant in comparison to global emission? Are these millions of tons an estimation or actual data?

Line 239: It is stated that the study is conducted in temperate zone forests; however, the study only mentions pines. It is well known that temperate forests are broadleaves in the main or mixed forests.

Lines 254-262: There are many confusing data. It is better if they are expressed in a table.

Line 254: It is stated that the study covered all forests. It is one of the main critic issues of the study. Are these forests managed? Are submitted to exploitation reducing the extension, density, etc. in a higher intensity than the proposed effect of fragmentation?

Line 256: Correct silvestris by sylvestris

Line 280: what means … stands with complex structure?

Line 294: correct Figure. 1 by Figure 1.

Line 297: The criterion for selecting 50 m is not clear.

Line 298: 10 Ar. ???

Line 307: The criterion for selecting 50 m of internal buffer is unclear.

Line 324: The species composition is considered, but only Pinus sylvestris is mentioned in Mat&Met. It could be interesting if all tree species are mentioned to a better understanding the dynamics of the forests.

Line 509: correct CO2 (subscript).

Discussion: it is too long and many content seems to be more suitable for introduction. It should be reduced, discussing the obtained results and compared with other studies/sites.

Line 599. Stand age results. It is one of the most interesting results that should be emphasised.

Line 436: Management of forests in Poland. It is the first time that forests analysed in this study are deeply managed. It is the reason why the study should be redirected on the effect of fragmentation on edge effect in managed island forests.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your comments. In the attached file we send our answers.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All amendments/corrections/suggestions have been done.