Use of Functional Traits to Distinguish Successional Guilds of Tree Species for Restoring Forest Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have reviewed your article "Use of functional traits to distinguish successional guilds of tree species for restoring forest ecosystems". The topic is interesting, and the article fits the journal 'Forests’. However, it can't accept in its present form because the manuscript needs improvement, particularly in the Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, and Conclusion sections.

Finally, a clearer message should be given. An effort should be made to make the manuscript more attractive. Briefly, the manuscript needs major revisions before accepting for publication in the journal ‘Forests’, and I listed comments and suggestions about MS below for reference.

Abstract

1-      The whole abstract was hard to read due to the lack of logic and clear clues for their objectives and scientific questions.

2-      The abstract does not report the main findings of the study in a clear manner.

3-      More specific information is required in the abstract instead of general expressions.

4-      What is the reason/motivation/research gap? Please add the answer to this question in the Abstract.

5-      Keywords must be rewritten and arranged alphabetically to enhance the visibility of your article. Please don’t write again the words you have already used in your article's title. 

Introduction

The introduction failed to motivate and problematize the objectives of the study. Moreover, the introduction of the present study only mentions why this study is important and the need for that specific region. What about scientific merit? I did not list all the points, but the introduction needs to be rewritten carefully.

Please rewrite the Introduction considering these questions:

1-      What scientific questions have you addressed?

2-      What will benefit the scientific community/society of your study?

3-      What is the significance of your research?

4-      The leaf's functional traits didn’t discuss properly in the introduction.

5-      A relevant hypothesis for the study is missing from the introduction. Please clarify your hypothesis.

6-      The authors are encouraged to consult and cite recent literature in the introduction.

(https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9080990, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2022.153671).

Materials and Methods

This section also needs to revise.

1-      109: Please add a schematic diagram of the study and study area map to enhance your Article's visibility and easy understanding. Otherwise, it isn't easy to understand the study design, etc.

2-      Line 208-222: ‘Measurement of leaf traits’ was too coarse.

Results

The results are fine.

Discussion

The discussion is shallow.

Conclusions

Line 394-414: The Conclusions need to be rewritten carefully based on the factual findings of your study.

Hopefully, these suggestions will help you to improve your Article.

 

Good luck!

Author Response

Rev#1

I have reviewed your article "Use of functional traits to distinguish successional guilds of tree species for restoring forest ecosystems". The topic is interesting, and the article fits the journal 'Forests’.

Thanks for the comment

However, it can't accept in its present form because the manuscript needs improvement, particularly in the Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, and Conclusion sections.

See changes below.

Finally, a clearer message should be given.

We re-wrote the conclusion section and added this final message “To sum up, our study shows that the use of functional traits could be a powerful tool to plan ideal mixes of successional guilds when selecting tree species forest restoration trials. However, its wider application depends on greater availability of easily accessible functional trait data, of a wide range of indigenous forest tree species.”

An effort should be made to make the manuscript more attractive. 

We added two new graphics that may increase “attractiveness”.

Abstract

1-   The whole abstract was hard to read due to the lack of logic and clear clues for their objectives and scientific questions.

2-   The abstract does not report the main findings of the study in a clear manner.

3-    More specific information is required in the abstract instead of general expressions.

4-    What is the reason/motivation/research gap? Please add the answer to this question in the Abstract.

5-  Keywords must be rewritten and arranged alphabetically to enhance the visibility of your article. Please don’t write again the words you have already used in your article's title. 

 

We have extensively revised the abstract to address these comments.

Introduction

The introduction failed to motivate and problematize the objectives of the study.

Moreover, the introduction of the present study only mentions why this study is important and the need for that specific region. What about scientific merit? I did not list all the points, but the introduction needs to be rewritten carefully.

Please rewrite the Introduction considering these questions:

1-      What scientific questions have you addressed?

2-      What will benefit the scientific community/society of your study?

3-      What is the significance of your research?

4-      The leaf's functional traits didn’t discuss properly in the introduction.

5-      A relevant hypothesis for the study is missing from the introduction. Please clarify your hypothesis.

6-      The authors are encouraged to consult and cite recent literature in the introduction.

(https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9080990, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2022.153671).

The introduction presents a logical sequence of points (supported by citations) leading towards identification of the need for the study: the need of forest ecosystem restoration to address climate change and biodiversity loss; the need to provide alternatives to mono-plantations (such as the framework species method), by mixing species of various successional status; the inadequacy of binary climax vs. pioneer classification, leading to the need to explore the use of functional traits to define more precise successional guilds. The gap in knowledge, which the study seeks to fill, is clearly stated – lack of studies that have “explored how to apply the use functional traits as indicators of successional status of planted trees during forest ecosystem restoration projects in the tropics.”

To addresses the points above, we have reworked the final paragraph of the intro as follows “Therefore, this study, tested the hypothesis that functional traits can be used to distinguish successional guilds, among tree species, planted to test the framework-species method of restoration. The aim was to develop a tool to assist with tree-species selection for restoration trials, based on the positioning of species along a successional gradient as a more useful alternative to the conventional binary division of pioneer and climax species. Such a tool may help to make true, science-based forest-ecosystem restoration (such as the frameworks species method) more practicable and successful in meeting goals of climate change and biodiversity conservation [6].”

The hypothesis statement was also added to the abstract.

The two references suggested are non-pertinent to a study of tropical forest trees, since they about trade-offs in just leaf traits within desert plants – not even trees. We cannot understand the logic of suggesting that we cite them, unless the reviewer happens to be amongst the authors of those papers and is seeking to boost his/her own citation score (which would be highly unethical).

Materials and Methods

1-      109: Please add a schematic diagram of the study and study area map to enhance your Article's visibility and easy understanding. Otherwise, it isn't easy to understand the study design, etc.

See added figures 1 and 2.

2-      Line 208-222: ‘Measurement of leaf traits’ was too coarse.

Added more detail on how leaf functional traits were measured.

Results

The results are fine.

Discussion

The discussion is shallow.

This is not a very helpful comment. The reviewer should have been more specific if corrections are being suggested.

Conclusions

Line 394-414: The Conclusions need to be rewritten carefully based on the factual findings of your study.

We have reworked the conclusions section and added: “To sum up, our study shows that the use of functional traits could be a powerful tool to plan ideal mixes of successional guilds when selecting tree species forest restoration trials. However, its wider application depends on greater availability of easily accessible functional trait data, of a wide range of indigenous forest tree species.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All recommendation I added in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2

For this reviewer to call for extensive revision of the English of our paper is a travesty. He/she is hardly in a position to judge considering the unintelligible language used in his/her comments.

FORESTS editors – please desist from putting reviewers, who can barely cobble together a single comprehensible English sentence, in the position of judging the English language capability of native English speakers with >35 years’ experience of teaching university students how to write publishable scientific papers—and then use that to justify calling for extensive English revision.

Line 21 Should present the results

We have redrafted the abstract and added more info on results there, but the 200-word limit is restrictive.

Line 124 Cite

Nearness of remnant forest – cited Elliott et al., 2019

Line 126 Cite

Seed dispersers – cited Sinhaseni, 2008. Toktang, 2005.

Line 133 Which site condition between plot similar or not?

Yes … inserted the “homogenous” into the text

Line 173 Cite

Climax species behaving like pioneers – cited Elliott et al., 2022

Line 223 I'm not sure of analyzing in this way. The author has long term monitering data (over 20-yr), why not analyze the relationship between growth rate and functinal trait for predict species chalacteristic by successional process. For growth rate shoud standardized by fitting slope first before analysis.

The uncertainty of the reviewer is noted. The rest of the comment is unintelligible.

I suggest ref. Kahmen and Poschold. 2004. Plant fuctional trait responses to grassland succession over 25 years. j. Vegetation Science 15: 21-32. Please concider this article may be applie for the new analysis.

Again, this comment is barely intelligible. The effects of temperate grassland management on functional traits of grassland herbs is too far removed from the clearly stated objective of our paper – the use of functional traits to select tree species for tropical forest restoration. We cannot understand why the reviewer has suggested citing such an irrelevant paper, unless the reviewer happens to be one of the  authors of the paper being recommended and is seeking to boost his/her own citation score (which would be highly unethical).

Line:241-242 REV2: I suggest use Rank function instead by eye. Why five grad I think should use in three that Pioneer Intermediate and Climax

Line 246 It seems the 3 grade division is more correct

 

Line: 254 REV2: Should use DCA or NMDS base o data analysis and grading by gradient score into 3 class.

Line 290 As suggested first, using cluster would make it more difficult to divided intermediate such as Eurya acuminata, but would it be easier to divid by DCA?

Again—practically unintelligible. These 3 comments seem to be suggesting a for 3-class system, when in fact, the level of precision achieved by the novel calculation systems applied in our paper–enabling 6-7 classes to be quantified—contributes considerably towards its originality. We experimented with NMDS, but it was not useful for the kind of data in this project (it seems more useful for species abundance data).

FORESTS editors – please desist from putting reviewers, who can barely cobble together a single comprehensible English sentence, in the position of judging the English language capability of native English speakers with >35 years’ experience of teaching university students how to write publishable scientific papers—and then use that to justify calling for extensive English revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-written and interesting paper on applying some functional traits to distinguish successional guilds of tree species for restoring forest ecosystems. In studies, Authors used measurable functional traits, combined with long term field-performance data, to classify tree species into successional guilds, using trees of known age, planted for forest ecosystem restoration. The aim was to develop a tool to assist with tree-species selection for restoration projects, based on the position of species along a successional gradient from pioneer to climax species.

In my opinion the topic of this paper is original and relevant to the field and suitable for the journal.  The methodology used is appriopriate. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and the authors addressed all the main question posed.

Below I have included some suggestions

Introduction

Line 103 quantifiable  - do you mean quantitative (measurable) functional traits ?

Line 104 you taking about succession taking into account only tress what about the whole ecosystems with other components e.g. herbs, mosses 

Materials and methods

Line 209 What kind of protocol Shannon & Tainsawat were used. It is similar to Cornellisen et. al. (the way of collection, selection of leaves to be sampled?)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Line 121 how the degradations stages were determined please give more details comparing this forest stage with natural forests.

Line 153  explain why such functional traits were taken into account connected with persistence, regeneration, dispersal etc.

Line 212 you write that fresh leaves were scanned what about their weight. This parameter (fresh  mass) was used to calculate LDMC (line 218)

Results

Line 294  Hierarchical clustering

Line 295 Results of hierarchical cluster analysis are presented on Figure 2

Figure 2

 

Erythrina_subumbrans – should be in italic 

Author Response

Reviewer #3

This is a well-written and interesting paper on applying some functional traits to distinguish successional guilds of tree species for restoring forest ecosystems. In studies, Authors used measurable functional traits, combined with long term field-performance data, to classify tree species into successional guilds, using trees of known age, planted for forest ecosystem restoration. The aim was to develop a tool to assist with tree-species selection for restoration projects, based on the position of species along a successional gradient from pioneer to climax species.

The reviewer has grasped the concept of the paper exactly.

In my opinion the topic of this paper is original and relevant to the field and suitable for the journal.  The methodology used is appriopriate. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and the authors addressed all the main question posed.

Thank you for these comments.

Introduction

Line 103 quantifiable  - do you mean quantitative (measurable) functional traits ?

Yes … but this was edited out at the request of another reviewer.

Line 104 you taking about succession taking into account only tress what about the whole ecosystems with other components e.g. herbs, mosses

The focus of our study is successional guilds of trees, since trees contribute most to forest structural complexity and the diversity of niches that support biodiversity recovery. If the correct mix of trees are planted, most other smaller organisms may recolonize restoration sites, provided remnant forest remains nearby, within dispersal distances. The need for remnant forest in close proximity to restoration sites is covered in the introduction.

Materials and methods

Line 209 What kind of protocol Shannon & Tainsawat were used. It is similar to Cornellisen et. al. (the way of collection, selection of leaves to be sampled?)

Yes, Shannon & Tiansawat used Cornelissen et al (2003) as a protocol. We added a cite of Cornelissen et. al. a quotation.                                                      

Line 121 how the degradations stages were determined please give more details comparing this forest stage with natural forests.

The conditions of stage-3-degradation are clearly explained. Explanation of the standard forest-degradation classification system, used to plan forest ecosystem restoration, would detract from the logical flow of the intro. As for other well-established standard techniques, we therefore refer readers to the system by the citation  (sensu Elliott at al. 2013).

Line 153  explain why such functional traits were taken into account connected with persistence, regeneration, dispersal etc.

We have moved some information from supplementary materials into the main paper for this. There’s a new paragraph “2.3 Functional traits trade off” and table 1 to address this suggestion.

Line 212 you write that fresh leaves were scanned what about their weight. This parameter (fresh mass) was used to calculate LDMC (line 218)

Added “Fresh leaves were weighed (LFM, gm) and scanned (including petiole)”

Results

Line 294  Hierarchical clustering

Done

Line 295 Results of hierarchical cluster analysis are presented on Figure 2

We changed it to “Results of hierarchical cluster analysis are presented on Figure 4.”, since 2 figures were added

Figure 2

Erythrina_subumbrans – should be in italic Erythrina subumbrans

Done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors didn't address my main concerns, therefore, I'm not satisfied with the current version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your respond my suggestion.