Using Adapted and Productive European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Provenances as Future Solutions for Sustainable Forest Management in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article submitted for evaluation titled "Phenotypic variability and plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) provenances tested in Romania" presents very interesting results of many years of research on phenotypic variability and plasticity of Fagus sylvatica at two sites in Romania. The authors assessed three parameters (Th, Dbh, S) for trees from 31 centers in Europe. The research deserves recognition. The results were properly presented. The discussion also raises no objections. Therefore, I fully recommend publishing the manuscript in Land magazine. Before this happens, please respond to a few of my comments.

 

Lines 36-38

This paragraph should describe the habitat conditions in which Fagus sylvatica occurs. Particular attention should be paid to: altitude, exposure, relief, soil and vegetation. Fagus sylvatica is known to have a wide ecological tolerance, but has two distinct ecological optima. It is a mountain species (for example, in the Carpathians it grows up to approximately 1,150 m above sea level in the lower montane zone), preferring heavy rainfall, but its occurrence in higher mountainous locations is limited by low temperatures. It also grows in much lower areas, where the soil (fertile and moist) and high air humidity play a key role. Sample literature to cite:

Dobrowolska D. 2015. Vitality of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) at the Limit of Its Natural Range in Poland. Polish Journal of Ecology 63(2): 260-272. https://doi.org/10.3161/15052249PJE2015.63.2.009

Schieber B., Kubov M., Rastislav Janík R. 2017. Effects of Climate Warming on Vegetative Phenology of the Common Beech Fagus sylvatica in a Submontane Forest of the Western Carpathians: Two-Decade Analysis. Polish Journal of Ecology 65(3): 339-351 https://doi.org/10.3161/15052249PJE2017.65.3.003

Szwagrzyk J., Gratzer G., Stępniewska H., Szewczyk J., Veselinovic B. 2015. High Reproductive Effort and Low Recruitment Rates of European Beech: Is There a Limit for the Superior Competitor?. Polish Journal of Ecology 63(2): 198-212. https://doi.org/10.3161/15052249PJE2015.63.2.004

Willner W., Jiménez-Alfaro B., Agrillo E., Biurrun I., Campos J.A., Čarni A., Casella L., Csiky J., Ćušterevska R., Didukh Y.P., et al. 2017. Classification of European Beech Forests: A Gordian Knot? Applied Vegetation Science 20(3): 494–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12299

Lines 118-122

The characteristics of the research sites present only climatic data (temperature and precipitation). The authors should indicate on what soils the research plots were established and whether they differed in terms of topography and relief.

Lines 352-368

The conclusions are too general. Please complete them. The authors should clearly indicate which trees (from which centers in Europe) showed the greatest phenotypic plasticity and why.

Technical notes

Lines 187-264 (chapters 3.2 – 3.4) – there are additional spaces between paragraphs.

Lines 187-215 – text is not justified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you very much for your suggestions. This helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. All the amendments suggested were accepted, and the article corrections are easy to remark because they were made using the Track Changes.

 

Reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions

The article submitted for evaluation titled "Phenotypic variability and plasticity of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) provenances tested in Romania" presents very interesting results of many years of research on phenotypic variability and plasticity of Fagus sylvatica at two sites in Romania. The authors assessed three parameters (Th, Dbh, S) for trees from 31 centers in Europe. The research deserves recognition. The results were properly presented. The discussion also raises no objections. Therefore, I fully recommend publishing the manuscript in Land magazine. Before this happens, please respond to a few of my comments.

 

1. Lines 36-38 This paragraph should describe the habitat conditions in which Fagus sylvatica occurs. Particular attention should be paid to: altitude, exposure, relief, soil and vegetation. Fagus sylvatica is known to have a wide ecological tolerance, but has two distinct ecological optima. It is a mountain species (for example, in the Carpathians it grows up to approximately 1,150 m above sea level in the lower montane zone), preferring heavy rainfall, but its occurrence in higher mountainous locations is limited by low temperatures. It also grows in much lower areas, where the soil (fertile and moist) and high air humidity play a key role.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these ideas. The introduction of the manuscript was completed by adding information about the ecological characteristics of the European beech as follows: “In its large distribution, this species grows in different site conditions, from a lowland species in the northern part to a mountain species in the south [18]. The natural distribution limits are shaped by low temperatures on high-elevation sites and by the high temperatures and low amounts of precipitation in the low-elevation sites from the southern area [19,20]. It prefers fertile sites, and the atmospheric humidity can counterbalance the insufficient water from the soils [21]. In addition, it’s a highly shade-tolerant species with a remarkable capability of competition [22] and natural regeneration, which may allow northward expansion [23,24].” Besides these, I would like to thank you for the reference sources that truly helped us to fill the gaps in the introduction.

 

2. Lines 118-122 The characteristics of the research sites present only climatic data (temperature and precipitation). The authors should indicate on what soils the research plots were established and whether they differed in terms of topography and relief.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these remarks. The methods part was revised by adding more information about the climatic data used as well as information about the environmental conditions of the testing sites, as follows: “The Alesd test site is placed in the Bihor Mountains at an elevation of 682 m. The slope has a 10° inclination and a southern exposition, and the soil is a typical eutricabosoil [65]. The Fantanele trial is located in the hilly area from the eastern part of the Carpathian Mountains, on a site with 276 m elevation, a slope characterised by an inclination of 6° with eastern exposition, and a luvisoil [66].”

 

3. Lines 352-368 The conclusions are too general. Please complete them. The authors should clearly indicate which trees (from which centers in Europe) showed the greatest phenotypic plasticity and why.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these observations. The conclusions of the study were reshaped by adding remarks related to forest management implications together with the specific result of the phenotypic plasticity, as follows: “The analysis of plasticity revealed that three provenances from France (1, 4, 6) and one from Denmark (21) recorded the highest level of mean plasticity and appeared to have a better capacity to adapt to different environmental conditions.”

 

4. Technical notes

Lines 187-264 (chapters 3.2 – 3.4) – there are additional spaces between paragraphs.

Lines 187-215 – text is not justified.

Answer: All the manuscript was revised and corrected according to the instructions of the Land Journal.

 

Thank you very much for all your suggestions and remarks that contribute to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

Respectfully,

Emanuel Besliu, first author.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have missed the wider microsatellite research all along. You write that the study did not show any significant differences. It would have been interesting to do a microsatellite study on the genetic part. Microsatellites would show genetic variability.

The introduction is interesting, and the problem is topical.  The literature could be expanded.

The statistical part is extensive but can be extended with statistical methods that will confirm the results.

The conclusions are supported by the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you very much for your suggestions. This helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. All the amendments suggested were accepted, and the article corrections are easy to remark because they were made using the Track Changes.

 

Reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions

1. I have missed the wider microsatellite research all along. You write that the study did not show any significant differences. It would have been interesting to do a microsatellite study on the genetic part. Microsatellites would show genetic variability.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these ideas. In this survey, we were focused on finding information on the variability among provenances and test sites that are signs of plasticity and adaptation, mainly on the phenotypic level. Your suggestion is very relevant because we need to test the variability also on the genetic level, but this analysis will be considered in another study. However, based on reviewers' remarks, we introduce a subchapter that presents the limitations of the study and future perspectives which include microsatellites analysis.

 

2. The introduction is interesting, and the problem is topical. The literature could be expanded.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these remarks. The introduction and the whole manuscript were revised by adding new information together with new literature sources.

 

3. The statistical part is extensive but can be extended with statistical methods that will confirm the results.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these observations. The part of the study that refers to statistical analyses was verified in order to ensure the relevance of the applied methods, thus sustaining the results of the study. We use statistical analyses that are widely used in common garden experiments to quantify the relation between genotypes and the environments.

 

4. The conclusions are supported by the results.

Answer: The conclusion part was revised by adding important information about the study implications in the forestry sector.  

 

Thank you very much for all your suggestions and remarks that contribute to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

Respectfully,

Emanuel Besliu, first author.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors of the manuscript " Phenotypic Variability and Plasticity of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Provenances Tested in Romania" have presented a comprehensive evaluation of the adaptive potential of European beech in different environmental conditions within Romania, using growth, stability, and phenotypic plasticity assessments. The research is timely and relevant, considering the current challenges in forest management due to climate change. The methodology is robust, and the data analyses are thorough, contributing valuable insights into the phenotypic plasticity and adaptability of European beech provenances. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication after minor revisions. Below are my suggestions for enhancement:

1 The introduction provides a clear background on the importance of studying adaptive potential in forest tree species, particularly the European beech in Romania. However, it would be beneficial to have a more explicit statement of the research gaps your study aims to address, especially in the context of Romanian Carpathians

2 The description of the common garden experiments and the selection of provenances is detailed and well-structured. However, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the criteria for choosing these particular provenances and test sites. In the measurements section, it would be helpful to include more information on how the climatic conditions were controlled or monitored throughout the study.

3 The presentation of results is clear and well-organized.  The significant differences observed between testing sites and provenances are effectively highlighted.  Including a discussion on the implications of these findings for forest management and conservation would add value to this section.

4 The discussion adeptly interprets the results, linking the growth and stability performance with the adaptive potential of the species. The comparison with other international studies enriches the discussion. I recommend expanding the discussion on the limitations of the study. For example, the potential impact of unmeasured environmental variables on the provenances' performance could be explored.

5 The study's exploration of phenotypic plasticity is one of its strong points. The use of the Relative Distances Plasticity Index (RDPI) is appropriate and innovative. Elaborating on how this metric compares with other plasticity indices used in similar studies would strengthen this section.

6 The conclusions are well-drawn and align with the study's objectives. It would be advantageous to discuss the practical applications of these findings, particularly in the context of assisted migration and sustainable forest management strategies in Romania.

 

7 The figures and tables are informative but could be enhanced for better clarity and impact. Consider revising the graphical representation for more straightforward interpretation. Ensure consistency in formatting and citation style throughout the paper.

Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution to understanding the adaptive potential and phenotypic plasticity of European beech in Romania. It provides valuable insights for forest management under changing climatic conditions. Enhancing certain aspects, as suggested, could further strengthen the paper's impact in the field of forest ecology and conservation.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors of the manuscript " Phenotypic Variability and Plasticity of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Provenances Tested in Romania" have presented a comprehensive evaluation of the adaptive potential of European beech in different environmental conditions within Romania, using growth, stability, and phenotypic plasticity assessments. The research is timely and relevant, considering the current challenges in forest management due to climate change. The methodology is robust, and the data analyses are thorough, contributing valuable insights into the phenotypic plasticity and adaptability of European beech provenances. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication after minor revisions. Below are my suggestions for enhancement:

1 The introduction provides a clear background on the importance of studying adaptive potential in forest tree species, particularly the European beech in Romania. However, it would be beneficial to have a more explicit statement of the research gaps your study aims to address, especially in the context of Romanian Carpathians

2 The description of the common garden experiments and the selection of provenances is detailed and well-structured. However, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the criteria for choosing these particular provenances and test sites. In the measurements section, it would be helpful to include more information on how the climatic conditions were controlled or monitored throughout the study.

3 The presentation of results is clear and well-organized.  The significant differences observed between testing sites and provenances are effectively highlighted.  Including a discussion on the implications of these findings for forest management and conservation would add value to this section.

4 The discussion adeptly interprets the results, linking the growth and stability performance with the adaptive potential of the species. The comparison with other international studies enriches the discussion. I recommend expanding the discussion on the limitations of the study. For example, the potential impact of unmeasured environmental variables on the provenances' performance could be explored.

5 The study's exploration of phenotypic plasticity is one of its strong points. The use of the Relative Distances Plasticity Index (RDPI) is appropriate and innovative. Elaborating on how this metric compares with other plasticity indices used in similar studies would strengthen this section.

6 The conclusions are well-drawn and align with the study's objectives. It would be advantageous to discuss the practical applications of these findings, particularly in the context of assisted migration and sustainable forest management strategies in Romania.

 

7 The figures and tables are informative but could be enhanced for better clarity and impact. Consider revising the graphical representation for more straightforward interpretation. Ensure consistency in formatting and citation style throughout the paper.

Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution to understanding the adaptive potential and phenotypic plasticity of European beech in Romania. It provides valuable insights for forest management under changing climatic conditions. Enhancing certain aspects, as suggested, could further strengthen the paper's impact in the field of forest ecology and conservation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you very much for your suggestions. This helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. All the amendments suggested were accepted, and the article corrections are easy to remark because they were made using the Track Changes.

 

Reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions

The authors of the manuscript " Phenotypic Variability and Plasticity of European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Provenances Tested in Romania" have presented a comprehensive evaluation of the adaptive potential of European beech in different environmental conditions within Romania, using growth, stability, and phenotypic plasticity assessments. The research is timely and relevant, considering the current challenges in forest management due to climate change. The methodology is robust, and the data analyses are thorough, contributing valuable insights into the phenotypic plasticity and adaptability of European beech provenances. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication after minor revisions. Below are my suggestions for enhancement:

 

1. The introduction provides a clear background on the importance of studying adaptive potential in forest tree species, particularly the European beech in Romania. However, it would be beneficial to have a more explicit statement of the research gaps your study aims to address, especially in the context of Romanian Carpathians. Answer: We thank the reviewer for these ideas. The introduction of the manuscript was completed by adding information about the ecological characteristics of the species and also about the gaps that the study refers to, as follows: “Besides these, searching for potential adaptive and highly productive beech provenances, which is considered a starting point in the assisted migration process, is still a gap that needs to be filled by research studies.

Taking into account the current need to test and model the adaptive potential of tree species in different site conditions and to identify acclimated and adapted provenances, the main goal of this paper was to evaluate the adaptive potential of European beech in the environmental conditions of Romania along with the appraising of the opportunities for applying the assisted migration practices.”

 

2. The description of the common garden experiments and the selection of provenances is detailed and well-structured. However, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth explanation of the criteria for choosing these particular provenances and test sites. In the measurements section, it would be helpful to include more information on how the climatic conditions were controlled or monitored throughout the study.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these important remarks. The methods part was revised by adding more information about the environmental conditions of the testing sites and also clarifications related to the climatic data used, as follows: “In addition, the temperature and air humidity were recorded for one year using data loggers installed in the two environments. The recorded climatic indicators were used to test the accuracy of data extracted from the above-mentioned climatic database.”

 

3. The presentation of results is clear and well-organized. The significant differences observed between testing sites and provenances are effectively highlighted. Including a discussion on the implications of these findings for forest management and conservation would add value to this section.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these remarkable observations. The results section was completed by adding an overview of the implications in forest management, as follows: “The good performance of the Romanian provenance over the two test sites is a sign of the stability of this population, which is adapted to the conditions of the Romanian Carpa-thians. In this case, the beech populations from Bihor-Izbuc might be useful to be con-served as a forest genetic resource. However, the reduction in the height increment, when the provenance was transferred from a high to a low elevation, raises the problem of moving the forest reproductive material, which must be done only in adjacent provenance regions. Besides these, forest managers who are interested in increasing the productivity and stability of beech forests might consider the assisted transfer of best-performing provenances in the regions where they reached the highest performance.” In addition, we included a new section in the discussion part related to the implications of the assisted migration process in forest management.

 

4. The discussion adeptly interprets the results, linking the growth and stability performance with the adaptive potential of the species. The comparison with other international studies enriches the discussion. I recommend expanding the discussion on the limitations of the study. For example, the potential impact of unmeasured environmental variables on the provenances' performance could be explored.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. Including a part regarding the limitations of the study was well received, and we include a section in the part of the discussion related to this, as follows: “The variability between provenances was tested only at the phenotypic scale. A complete differentiation between provenances could be done by genetic structure analyses with microsatellites, and the provenances that grew well in the limiting conditions from the Fantanele trial might be tested with genetic markers for particularities of adaptation. These genetic analyses of provenances will be considered in another study. Also, phenology is a very important key in studying the adaptive capacity of forest tree species, which needs to be done in these trials in order to complete the results about the adaptation potential because provenances that manifest high performance may be predisposed to damages produced by frosts.

Moreover, in the direction of the assisted migration modelling topic, future analyses based on the international beech provenance trials will provide a more realistic perspective regarding the suitability of site conditions from the Romanian Carpathians area for assisted transfer of beech provenances.”

5. The study's exploration of phenotypic plasticity is one of its strong points. The use of the Relative Distances Plasticity Index (RDPI) is appropriate and innovative. Elaborating on how this metric compares with other plasticity indices used in similar studies would strengthen this section.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these ideas. The part of the discussion that refers to phenotypic plasticity was revised by adding new information about the relevance of the plasticity index used in the study, as follows: “The difference between using a simple plasticity index, as was the case of the abovementioned studies, and our study, where we use RDPI, is related to statistical significance. The RDPI is considered to be more complex in computing but also more statistically powerful, so it is more appropriate to use this approach in the analysis of the plasticity difference between genotypes [69]”

 

6. The conclusions are well-drawn and align with the study's objectives. It would be advantageous to discuss the practical applications of these findings, particularly in the context of assisted migration and sustainable forest management strategies in Romania.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these remarks. These observations were very important for the relevance of the manuscript results. We fill the gap in the conclusion sections by adding this paragraph: “Conserving the valuable beech populations as a method of increasing the sustainability of forest management in a changing climate might be an appropriate way to maintain the genetic diversity of forests and to provide tested reproductive material that can be used in the practice of the assisted migration process.”

 

7. The figures and tables are informative but could be enhanced for better clarity and impact. Consider revising the graphical representation for more straightforward interpretation. Ensure consistency in formatting and citation style throughout the paper.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these observations. The whole manuscript was revised according to the author's instructions from the Land Journal, together with the language corrections. Figures with clarity issues were remade, as well as the graphical abstract.

 

 

Thank you very much for all your suggestions and remarks that really contributed to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

Respectfully,

Emanuel Besliu, first author.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf