Woody Species Composition, Stand Structure and Regeneration Status of Londiani Forest in Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is essentially good research and has much to offer.

 

Please find some comments bellow:

The main question addressed by the research was to determine tree abundance, species diversity, distribution, species composition, stand structure, regeneration status of the Londiani Forest. Field data were collected correctly on three forest blocks.

 

The topic is relevant and it addresses a specific gap in the field. No study has been done yet on the woody species composition, tree diversity and regeneration status of Londiani Forest.

 

Standard error of mean should be added for values in Figure 3 and 4.

 

 

Author Response

Corrections have been done according to the reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigated some plots (~15 25m*25m) in Kenya tropical forests and summarized some information in species composition and community structure. basically, this is a data paper. It is too simple for a SCI magazine.

 Some suggestions:

 1. the abstract is too long, please shorten it.

 2. some important information are missing, eg., how many plots were finally investigated, what is the criterion (the smallest DBH) for tree to be measured. 1308 stems? I guess the authors may measured trees larger than 5 cm or 10 cm, 19-27 tree species is too poor for a tropical forest.  

 3. “Londiani Forest is divided into three blocks”, is there just three blocks in Londiani Forest?

 3. if the authors try to introduce the tropical forest in Kenya, please provided more forest plots at a large scale.

 4. Try more statically analyses, but not this simple summarized information.   

Author Response

Corrections have been done according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses very important issues connected with tropical forest dynamics and their conservation. To answer some scientific questions the Authors decided to analyze the forest stand structure, tree species composition, abundance and diversity, and the regeneration status of Londiani Forest. Results and conclusions were presented in a paper, however, they need some improvements. My suggestions I have given below.

The title should be more problematic and address the questions given in the article

Abstract

Line 19-21 this information should be included in materials and methods but rather not in the abstract

Line 27 the sentence Data from the quadrats … is unimportant here

Materials and methods

Fig. 1. Check the legend carefully (colors of forests, repetitions, what blue color marks? Londiani Forest should be written in Capital Letters

Line 109 another .) should be removed

Line 135 what were the criteria for choosing these three forest blocks for further investigation? where are these coordinates? What are some floristic differences between forest blocks?

Line 136 Why those three forest blocks were chosen? Give some short descriptions of them.

Line 141 First you should include information that all tree species in plots were identified and their full scientific names were given or local names and next they were determined using manuals (what manuals were used give some examples). Next what traits or characteristics were measured (collected) and why such traits were chosen for detailed studies?

Line 157 what was the range of values on which the interval classes were determined

Line 158 Maybe it is better to separate some tree /forest characteristics from diversity indices Describe why such parameters were used not others. How origin of species native versus exotic species was determined according to ????? (is a list of some exotic /invasive species)

Line 174 Shannon-Wiener diversity index; ln – natural logarithm,

Line 178 first gives the formula for how to calculate Evenness and next explains the symbols.

Results

Line 205 What post-hoc tests were applied to determine changes between forest blocks? Complete these data

Line 208 According to me abbreviations in the titles of subchapters should not be used.

Fig. 2. Change to captions Woody tree species richness in Londiani Forests. Decide what is the symbol of species richness: in methods you have S and on axis Y (n). Apply some statistical tests to check if forest blocks differ significantly in terms of species richness or mark that any statistical changes were detected. What exactly is presented in Figure (standard deviation, standard errors)?

Line 240 Spectrum of height in Londiani Forest

Line 252 you should use one standardised way of metrics description

Line 284 Table 1 Title complete Species diversity and Evenness …

You mean the Shannon-Wiener diversity index. What data are presented in the table mean (median), SD, or SE (complete this information in the description)

Line 292 How the status of regeneration was determined. There is no information about methods used to determine it in Materials and Methods.

Line 311 from 0 to 121 saplings

Line 324 you mean 34 tree species

Conclusions

Should be changed since in the present form they are too general.

Line 404. First explained why such research in Londiani Forest was important from the scientific point of view. Next to give some important results

Line 406 The sentence “ The findings revealed …” is too general and explains nothing.

 

Line 410 what anthropogenic factors? Be more precise. 

Author Response

Corrections have been done in accordance with the reviewer's comments and suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The aim of the study was the determination of Woody Species Composition, Tree diversity and Regeneration Status of Londiani Forest, Kenya. Field data were collected following a typical protocol for such studies.

Generally, the manuscript is written clearly, and the data are well-presented. However, the manuscript follows a typical form, without including a perception of a deeper analysis of the data collected. For example,

·      -   a theoretical curve (normal distribution, Weibull distribution) could be tested for tree DBH and height distribution classes of the tree species recorded, and some explanation of the analysis could be given.

·       -  Also, based on Abundance, Richness and Diversity of saplings and seedlings, authors should try to model/predict future species composition in Londiani Forest, totally and any differentiation between the blocks.

·        Afterwards, authors should improve the subsection “Population Structure and Regeneration Status of Londiani Forest” of the Discussion, including suggestions for management implications and appropriate silvicultural treatments, based on the specific stand structure and regeneration dynamics.

 

Specific comments

A list of all species recorded per each studied block should be added. Indigenous and exotics  should also be indicated in the list.

All densities in the text, tables and figures should be converted to values per hectare.

Figure 3 and 4. Bars of standard error of mean should be added for all values.

Authors used ANOVA analysis to detect any statistically significant differences between the three forest blocks, but seeing the tree height distribution classes (Figure 4), the values seem not to follow the normal distribution, thus, a non-parametric test should be used instead ANOVA.

Line 252. The meaning of the phrase “The overall stem density in the Londiani forest varied from 0.33 stems/ha to 45.5 252 stems ha-1”, does not make sense. Authors may refer to each species density and not to overall. They should clarify the meaning.

Line 259. The total basal area for all species recorded in the entire forest was 122.6419 m2. Again, authors should clarify what this value refers to (per hectare?, for all sampling plots?). They should covert the value per hectare.

Line 378-379. “Based on Jaccard similarity indices, it is very clear that the  three forest blocks have very low similarity index less than 0.5.” The use of the term “very low” may not be appropriate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvement is needed.

Author Response

Corrections done according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See detailed comments in attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Corrections have been done according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved according to my suggestions. I have read it.

I have one suggestion use alien (this term is generally used in reference to such species both harmful or not to the environment) instead of foreign. If you use exotic species you should explain what this term means. Try to cite appropriate literature here  (e.g. Richardson et al. 2000) 

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-exotic-and-invasive-species/

Author Response

Corrections done accordingly

Author Response File: Author Response.docx