Dynamics of Diversity of Woody Species Taxa under Human Impact in the Upper Volga Region (NW Russia) According to Pedoanthracological Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a comprehensive paleoecological study based on thorough analyses of soil and charcoal. With 2277(!) charcoal pieces being investigated and 41 radiocarbon dates obtained, it provides a substantial factual basis for further discussions on the changes in the diversity of woody species under various types of anthropogenic impact. Authors cleverly integrate a huge amount of data to explore the complex interplay between fire, vegetation, human and climate.

Minor suggestions.

M&Ms (4 pages) and especially Discussion (7 pages) are too long and packed with wordy descriptions. Hard to read. Better to formalize site characteristics, e.g., in a table, and shorten the Discussion part.

The gap in the charcoal accumulation during the mid and early-Holocene should be better explained (Figure 6). What is the reason for the absence of charcoal of these ages? Obviously, biomass burning occurred and could have been even more pronounced during occasional fire-prone weather conditions in periods of increased ecosystem productivity (e.g., the mid-Holocene). Is this in the anthropogenic nature of the particular soil archives you selected? Why do even background forest soils still lack this important part of the record? Pyrogenic archives at archaeological sites would always contain an overwhelming signal of human induced-biomass burning. Thus, Figure 6 could be misleading when you locate the data along the continuous Holocene time scale (I’m aware it is a common representation exported from OxCal). Maybe just make the scale discrete, or cut it to the last few millennia from where most of the studied charcoals originate. Otherwise, it looks like biomass burning and subsequent charcoal burial did not occur in forest soils for several millennia, which is doubtfully true.

Line 84 – reference 20 – better to use the latest edition of WRB: IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria.

Line 94 - “Forest sediments” is rather an awkward term. Please change or clarify.

Line 152 - 500 mg is too small sample weight for sieving and extracting sufficient amount of charcoal. Obviously, a mistake.

Line 248 - Please provide the original name for Table 2. The one you use is likely from the template.

Lines 188-189 This assumption is valid for discrete charcoal layers/streaks/morphones/root channels, but highly debatable, when you extract diverse charcoal pieces of different woody taxa from the bulk soil sample, especially from such mixed strata as cultural layers or arable horizons. Please be accurate in further interpretation. The difference in the age of adjacent pieces of charred wood could be within several hundreds of years or even more.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your appreciation of our manuscript, your valuable comments and advice. We have tried to answer all your questions carefully.

Below you will find our answers.

Best regards,

Maxim Bobrovsky

-------------------------

This is a comprehensive paleoecological study based on thorough analyses of soil and charcoal. With 2277(!) charcoal pieces being investigated and 41 radiocarbon dates obtained, it provides a substantial factual basis for further discussions on the changes in the diversity of woody species under various types of anthropogenic impact. Authors cleverly integrate a huge amount of data to explore the complex interplay between fire, vegetation, human and climate.

Minor suggestions.

M&Ms (4 pages) and especially Discussion (7 pages) are too long and packed with wordy descriptions. Hard to read. Better to formalize site characteristics, e.g., in a table, and shorten the Discussion part.

• We don't think the M&Ms section is unreasonably large. The site description takes ½ page, turning it into a table would not gain volume.
• We agree that the Discussion section is quite long. This is because the journal is not specialized in archaeobotany and ecological history. We feel that to be comprehensible to a wide range of readers, the discussion should be sufficiently detailed.

The gap in the charcoal accumulation during the mid and early-Holocene should be better explained (Figure 6). What is the reason for the absence of charcoal of these ages? Obviously, biomass burning occurred and could have been even more pronounced during occasional fire-prone weather conditions in periods of increased ecosystem productivity (e.g., the mid-Holocene). Is this in the anthropogenic nature of the particular soil archives you selected? Why do even background forest soils still lack this important part of the record? Pyrogenic archives at archaeological sites would always contain an overwhelming signal of human induced-biomass burning. Thus, Figure 6 could be misleading when you locate the data along the continuous Holocene time scale (I’m aware it is a common representation exported from OxCal). Maybe just make the scale discrete, or cut it to the last few millennia from where most of the studied charcoals originate. Otherwise, it looks like biomass burning and subsequent charcoal burial did not occur in forest soils for several millennia, which is doubtfully true.

• Thanks for the comment. We changed the text, expanding the explanation. The "discontinuity" graphic is used in the graphic abstract.

Line 84 – reference 20 – better to use the latest edition of WRB: IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria.

• Corrected

Line 94 - “Forest sediments” is rather an awkward term. Please change or clarify.

• Corrected

Line 152 - 500 mg is too small sample weight for sieving and extracting sufficient amount of charcoal. Obviously, a mistake.

• Corrected

Line 248 - Please provide the original name for Table 2. The one you use is likely from the template.

• Corrected

Lines 188-189 This assumption is valid for discrete charcoal layers/streaks/morphones/root channels, but highly debatable, when you extract diverse charcoal pieces of different woody taxa from the bulk soil sample, especially from such mixed strata as cultural layers or arable horizons. Please be accurate in further interpretation. The difference in the age of adjacent pieces of charred wood could be within several hundreds of years or even more.

• Thank you for the remark. We added the discussion of this point into the methods.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General view:

This is a very strong work with high amount of analysed soil profiles, identified charcoals and radiocarbon dated charcoals. You provide a deep level of details about the different soil profiles and their archaeological history. As a result, this paper shows new interesting evidences to improve the knowledge about vegetal dynamics and human impacts at the Upper Volga region during the Holocene.

Main comments:

1. Charcoal stratigraphy

I am disagree with the statement “the charcoals within the soil sample are of the same age, which has previously been shown for forest soils [28, 29]”. Other researchers do not support this hypothesis for other study regions, including forests. For example, Feiss et al. (2017) conclude: “Our case study, which is representative of many European lowland forests, reveals that the vertical patterns of soil charcoal assemblages cannot be taken as a proxy for forest succession over time, as a probable consequence of soil bioturbation”. Sometimes authors do not detail the depth of each dated charcoal or they do not date more than one charcoal from the same depth at the same soil profile, but we can find some published examples of different ages found at the same depth of the same soil profile for European forests:

Talon, Brigitte, Philippe Toutlan, Mélanie Saulnier, Vincent Robin, Diane Cattenoz, Laurent Hardion, Loïc Botta, Maryse Alvitre, Jean-Louis Edouard, and Frédéric Guibal. "Pedoanthracology and dendroecology: two complementary approaches applied to old forest history." SAGVNTVM Extra 2011, 11, 67-68.

file:///C:/Users/UsuarioPC/Downloads/1526-3856-1-PB-1.pdf 

Feiss, Thomas, Hélène Horen, Boris Brasseur, Jérôme Buridant, Emilie Gallet-Moron, and Guillaume Decocq. "Historical ecology of lowland forests: Does pedoanthracology support historical and archaeological data?." Quaternary International 2017, 457, 99-112.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.10.029  

Bal, Marie-Claude, and Salvia Garcia-Alvarez. "Inferring the ancientness of the Mirambel woodland from soil charcoal: A local exception to the regional pattern of the Millevaches plateau (Limousin, Massif Central, France)." Quaternary International 2022, 636, 196-208.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.11.008

Nevertheless, the high quality of the soil profile descriptions, including archaeological considerations, makes me contemplate the possibility of some exceptions. The two references cited at the manuscript [28, 29] refer to very special Canadian coast temperate forests not affected by bioturbation according with their authors. Maybe the analysed soil profiles at the Upper Volga region also have especially slight bioturbation phenomena. This hypothesis is used again at lines 552-553 with other references [86, 87, 88, 88, 90].

Then, I suggest to the authors: please, cite some of the contrary examples and explain that you assume this hypothesis despite these contrary examples because you have evidences of other kind of dynamics at the soil profiles you analysed. Lines 188-190.

2. Some improvements

2.1. Soil sampling. Lines 152-160 and Figure 3.

The description of soil sampling at lines 152-160 does not explain why at figure 3 we can find some gaps between the depth levels represented for forest soils, arable lands, sediments below hillfort and forest sediments. For example, at ZL13 horizon AB seems to take from 2 to 14 cm, horizon BE from 14 to 21 cm, horizon B1 from 30 to 40 cm and horizon B2 from 80 to 90 cm; but what about the material between 21 and 30 cm depth, or between 40 and 80 cm depth?

Please, clarify at the manuscript the reason of these gaps.

2.2. Table 2.

Legend of table 2 is absent. The reader does not know the meaning of “µ mean” and “SE”. Please, provide.

2.3. Radiocarbon dating. Lines 335-380

Please, provide a table with the results of dated charcoal fragments. Example:

id charcoal

soil profile

horizon/depth

taxon

14C age years BP

Calibrated Ages (cal yr BC/AD)

 

Please, clarify if the age numbers used to discuss throughout the manuscript (example: line 420, 432-433) are median probability of 2σ interval or whatever (you can indicate this at the table or inside the text, as you prefer).

Lines 374-375. I am not sure if I do not understand the sentence but I find confusing the relation between “distribution of charcoals for the last 2500 years” and Figure 7a. If you could re-write in an easier format, it would be better.

2.4. Holocene decrease in species diversity in Europe. Lines 774-785.

I appreciated this paragraph. Just in case, if you want to add one more example to your list: Tilia and Acer are reported to disappear at Mirambel Woodland (Massif Central, France) at a local scale (Bal & Garcia-Alvarez, 2022, reference provided at comment 1).

2.5. Authors of plant taxa

The first time each species taxa is mentioned in the manuscript, the authorship of the botanical binomen should be provided (example: Pinus sylvestris L., Picea abies (L.) H.Karst, etc.). Lines 118-136.

3. Other minor comments:

Line 147. Could you provide the reference number for Bobrovsky et al. (2022)? I think it is [21]

Line 315 and line 322. Pinus in italics.

Line 316 and line 323. Picea in italics.

Line 328. Corylus in italics.

Line 531. Consider to cite figure 7 here.

Line 548. Maybe is “soil profile” not “sol profile”

Lines 732-734 and lines 755-756. Consider to add some references to support your statement about the composition of regional woody flora.

Line 765. Ulmus and Tilia in italics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript, its high appreciation, valuable comments and advice. We have tried to respond carefully to all your comments.

Best regards,

Maxim Bobrovsky

-------------------------

General view:

This is a very strong work with high amount of analysed soil profiles, identified charcoals and radiocarbon dated charcoals. You provide a deep level of details about the different soil profiles and their archaeological history. As a result, this paper shows new interesting evidences to improve the knowledge about vegetal dynamics and human impacts at the Upper Volga region during the Holocene.

Main comments:

1. Charcoal stratigraphy

I am disagree with the statement “the charcoals within the soil sample are of the same age, which has previously been shown for forest soils [28, 29]”. Other researchers do not support this hypothesis for other study regions, including forests. For example, Feiss et al. (2017) conclude: “Our case study, which is representative of many European lowland forests, reveals that the vertical patterns of soil charcoal assemblages cannot be taken as a proxy for forest succession over time, as a probable consequence of soil bioturbation”. Sometimes authors do not detail the depth of each dated charcoal or they do not date more than one charcoal from the same depth at the same soil profile, but we can find some published examples of different ages found at the same depth of the same soil profile for European forests:

Talon, Brigitte, Philippe Toutlan, Mélanie Saulnier, Vincent Robin, Diane Cattenoz, Laurent Hardion, Loïc Botta, Maryse Alvitre, Jean-Louis Edouard, and Frédéric Guibal. "Pedoanthracology and dendroecology: two complementary approaches applied to old forest history." SAGVNTVM Extra 2011, 11, 67-68.

file:///C:/Users/UsuarioPC/Downloads/1526-3856-1-PB-1.pdf 

Feiss, Thomas, Hélène Horen, Boris Brasseur, Jérôme Buridant, Emilie Gallet-Moron, and Guillaume Decocq. "Historical ecology of lowland forests: Does pedoanthracology support historical and archaeological data?." Quaternary International 2017, 457, 99-112.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.10.029  

Bal, Marie-Claude, and Salvia Garcia-Alvarez. "Inferring the ancientness of the Mirambel woodland from soil charcoal: A local exception to the regional pattern of the Millevaches plateau (Limousin, Massif Central, France)." Quaternary International 2022, 636, 196-208.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.11.008

Nevertheless, the high quality of the soil profile descriptions, including archaeological considerations, makes me contemplate the possibility of some exceptions. The two references cited at the manuscript [28, 29] refer to very special Canadian coast temperate forests not affected by bioturbation according with their authors. Maybe the analysed soil profiles at the Upper Volga region also have especially slight bioturbation phenomena. This hypothesis is used again at lines 552-553 with other references [86, 87, 88, 88, 90].

Then, I suggest to the authors: please, cite some of the contrary examples and explain that you assume this hypothesis despite these contrary examples because you have evidences of other kind of dynamics at the soil profiles you analysed. Lines 188-190.

- Thank you, that's a very fair point. We have added a discussion of this issue.

 

2. Some improvements

2.1. Soil sampling. Lines 152-160 and Figure 3.

The description of soil sampling at lines 152-160 does not explain why at figure 3 we can find some gaps between the depth levels represented for forest soils, arable lands, sediments below hillfort and forest sediments. For example, at ZL13 horizon AB seems to take from 2 to 14 cm, horizon BE from 14 to 21 cm, horizon B1 from 30 to 40 cm and horizon B2 from 80 to 90 cm; but what about the material between 21 and 30 cm depth, or between 40 and 80 cm depth?

Please, clarify at the manuscript the reason of these gaps.

- Explanations added.

2.2. Table 2.

Legend of table 2 is absent. The reader does not know the meaning of “µ mean” and “SE”. Please, provide.

- It is fixed.

2.3. Radiocarbon dating. Lines 335-380

Please, provide a table with the results of dated charcoal fragments. Example:

id charcoal

soil profile

horizon/depth

taxon

14C age years BP

Calibrated Ages (cal yr BC/AD)

• The table added.

Please, clarify if the age numbers used to discuss throughout the manuscript (example: line 420, 432-433) are median probability of 2σ interval or whatever (you can indicate this at the table or inside the text, as you prefer).

• Explanation added.

Lines 374-375. I am not sure if I do not understand the sentence but I find confusing the relation between “distribution of charcoals for the last 2500 years” and Figure 7a. If you could re-write in an easier format, it would be better.

- Error corrected.

2.4. Holocene decrease in species diversity in Europe. Lines 774-785.

I appreciated this paragraph. Just in case, if you want to add one more example to your list: Tilia and Acer are reported to disappear at Mirambel Woodland (Massif Central, France) at a local scale (Bal & Garcia-Alvarez, 2022, reference provided at comment 1).

- Thank you. We added this reference.

2.5. Authors of plant taxa

The first time each species taxa is mentioned in the manuscript, the authorship of the botanical binomen should be provided (example: Pinus sylvestris L., Picea abies (L.) H.Karst, etc.). Lines 118-136.

- Corrected.

3. Other minor comments:

Line 147. Could you provide the reference number for Bobrovsky et al. (2022)? I think it is [21]

• Corrected

Line 315 and line 322. Pinus in italics.

• Corrected

Line 316 and line 323. Picea in italics.

• Corrected

Line 328. Corylus in italics.

• Corrected

Line 531. Consider to cite figure 7 here.

• Corrected

Line 548. Maybe is “soil profile” not “sol profile”

• Corrected

Lines 732-734 and lines 755-756. Consider to add some references to support your statement about the composition of regional woody flora.

• The references added.

Line 765. Ulmus and Tilia in italics.

• Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

This article clearly shows the effectiveness of the Pedoanthracology to reconstruct the recent Holocene landscape history of the hemiboreal forest region.

Forest fires and human impact have determined the history of forests in the boreal zone over the Late Holocene. Although these factors played an important role in forest history, estimates of their impact in Russian hemiboreal forests are hampered by a lack of data.

This work represents indeed relevant research for a first knowledge of the role of human communities and wildfires inferred from soil archives in north-western Russian region. This study also demonstrate that in this area soil archives preserve very ancient charcoals assemblages; soil charcoals constitute a very effective proxy for the knowledge of the Holocene forest history of this region.

In this paper however, authors present a very interesting set of data, but they not properly show the results obtained, especially in terms of editing of figures incorporating exhaustive data. In addition, some references are incorrect (pedoanthracological methodology seems to be confounded with archaeoanthracology and other methods).

Please check paragraph numbering and figure/table legends.

 

Specific comments:

Abstract: the abstract include key findings and it represents an exhaustive summary of the work.

Introduction: the objectives are well described, both the state of the art and the results well summarized.

·         Reference 1 is incorrect because this work discuss about Charcoal recorded on pollen slides: quantitative theory on micro-charcoal (particles 50-10,000 μm diameter) source area, transport, deposition, and sampling.

·         Reference 10 is incorrect because in this work authors analyze a complete anthracological sequence from a an archaeological site (Late Upper Palaeolithic) by means of Archaeo-anthracology, that differs from Pedo-anthracology.  

 

Materials and Methods:

Sections 2.1 and 2.2:

Historical and environmental characteristics of the study area are clearly reported.

Section 2.3

·         Line 152: the sentence … we used soil samples (about 500 mg??) taken from 3 combined profiles from soil cores and samples taken from… is not clear. In addition, the amount (500 mg) used to estimate charcoal concentration is incorrect or badly written. In general, methodology used to calculate charcoal concentration should be rewritten.

·         Line 158: the sentence for this analysis 50 soil samples were additionally taken from 19 other soil profiles needs an explanation.  Why do you need more soil samples? What are the samples and where they come from?

·         Line 188: you do not assume that the charcoals within the soil sample are of the same age; this may be false especially in the case of pedoturbations.

·         Radiocarbon dating: You should indicate the taxon of the charcoal dated. In addition, the position of the dated charcoals along the soil profile should be also indicated.

 

Results: results are not clearly showed through the figures.

·         Charcoal concentration, horizons identity, age and identified taxa should be grouped on one figure. See for example Fig. 6 in: Di Pasquale G. et al. 2008. The Holocene treeline in the northern Andes (Ecuador): First evidence from soil charcoal, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 259: 17–34. If you use this method, you can do without Figs 4 and 5 and Table 2. Figures 4 and 5 are too simplified.

 

Section 3.2

·         Please correct the botanical nomenclature; you should use the name of the species if you're sure that no other species of a same genus is (or was) present in the study area (e. g. Corylus = Corylus avellana). In anthracology the botanical nomenclature of Pinus charcoal fragments (in this geographical region) is “Pinus sylvestris type”. Materials classified as “Pinus sylvestris type” might correspond to Pinus sylvestris, Pinus nigra and Pinus mugo/uncinata; in this case species identification by charcoal analysis is impossible due to the absence of specific diagnostic key features.

 

Section 3.4:

·         The dynamics of woody taxa must be first showed in detail (for each soil, area and historical period).

·         For this reason, Fig. 8 is too simplified and not exhaustive (soil samples position and geographical parameters are not considered).

 

 

Discussion and conclusions

Obtained data are adequate to solve the aim of this research.  However, some points can be improved.

The objective of this paper is to reconstruct the forest dynamic of the study area; you should discuss the topics from a successional point of view even more. The analysis of the successional categorization of hemi-boreal forest tree species exemplifies aspects of tree species’ life histories and how they can interact. See for example: R. Petrokas, V. Baliuckas and M. Manton, 2020. Successional Categorization of European Hemi-boreal Forest Tree Species, Plants 2020, 9, 1381; doi:10.3390/plants9101381.

 

Sections 4.1-2-3:

·         Line 489-91: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

·         Line 509-18: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

·         Line 568-74: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

·         Line 614-17: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

·         Line 640-57: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

Section 4.4

·         Line 757: the ecological significance of Quercus (robur?) and Corylus (avellana?) in the charcoal assemblages should be further analyzed, both concerning the paleoclimate and the ancient forest structure.

·         Line 760: you hypothesize the intentional burning of Quercus and Corylus; what do you mean?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation of our manuscript, your advice, and valuable comments. We have tried to answer all your questions. Below you will find our answers.

Best regards,

Maxim Bobrovsky

-------------------------

General comments:

This article clearly shows the effectiveness of the Pedoanthracology to reconstruct the recent Holocene landscape history of the hemiboreal forest region.

Forest fires and human impact have determined the history of forests in the boreal zone over the Late Holocene. Although these factors played an important role in forest history, estimates of their impact in Russian hemiboreal forests are hampered by a lack of data.

This work represents indeed relevant research for a first knowledge of the role of human communities and wildfires inferred from soil archives in north-western Russian region. This study also demonstrate that in this area soil archives preserve very ancient charcoals assemblages; soil charcoals constitute a very effective proxy for the knowledge of the Holocene forest history of this region.

In this paper however, authors present a very interesting set of data, but they not properly show the results obtained, especially in terms of editing of figures incorporating exhaustive data. In addition, some references are incorrect (pedoanthracological methodology seems to be confounded with archaeoanthracology and other methods).

Please check paragraph numbering and figure/table legends.

 

Specific comments:

Abstract: the abstract include key findings and it represents an exhaustive summary of the work.

Introduction: the objectives are well described, both the state of the art and the results well summarized.

Reference 1 is incorrect because this work discuss about Charcoal recorded on pollen slides: quantitative theory on micro-charcoal (particles 50-10,000 μm diameter) source area, transport, deposition, and sampling.

Reference 10 is incorrect because in this work authors analyze a complete anthracological sequence from a an archaeological site (Late Upper Palaeolithic) by means of Archaeo-anthracology, that differs from Pedo-anthracology.  

• The references deleted.

 

Materials and Methods:

Sections 2.1 and 2.2:

Historical and environmental characteristics of the study area are clearly reported.

Section 2.3

Line 152: the sentence … we used soil samples (about 500 mg??) taken from 3 combined profiles from soil cores and samples taken from… is not clear. In addition, the amount (500 mg) used to estimate charcoal concentration is incorrect or badly written. In general, methodology used to calculate charcoal concentration should be rewritten.

• The "500 mg" error was corrected and the part describing soil sampling was rewritten.

 

Line 158: the sentence for this analysis 50 soil samples were additionally taken from 19 other soil profiles needs an explanation.  Why do you need more soil samples? What are the samples and where they come from?

• We rewrote the part of soil sampling. In the first version of our manuscript, there was an error with the total number of full-scale profiles: 38 should be. Anthracomass was analyzed by 19 full-scale and 3 combined soil profiles. Charcoal taxonomic composition was analyzed using the same profiles plus 19 additional full-scale profiles. Additional profiles were taken to increase the coverage of the local patterns studied.

Line 188: you do not assume that the charcoals within the soil sample are of the same age; this may be false especially in the case of pedoturbations.

• We added a discussion of bioturbations and an explanation of our approach.

Radiocarbon dating: You should indicate the taxon of the charcoal dated. In addition, the position of the dated charcoals along the soil profile should be also indicated.

• We added Table 3 to show the soil profile number, horizon, depth, taxons and other characteristics for all dated charcoal samples.

Results: results are not clearly showed through the figures.

Charcoal concentration, horizons identity, age and identified taxa should be grouped on one figure. See for example Fig. 6 in: Di Pasquale G. et al. 2008. The Holocene treeline in the northern Andes (Ecuador): First evidence from soil charcoal, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 259: 17–34. If you use this method, you can do without Figs 4 and 5 and Table 2. Figures 4 and 5 are too simplified.

• Fig. 6 in: Di Pasquale G. et al. 2008 is indeed very illustrative. However, it shows data for three profiles and 16 soil horizons. If we make a similar figure to present our results, it would not be easy to read: it would present information on 22 profiles with data on charcoal concentration, 19 profiles without data on concentration, and in total more than 150 soil horizons and several hundreds of taxa for these horizons. That is too much, we think.
• Table 2 shows the average values of charcoal concentrations for different soil horizons in different land types. It does not duplicate Fig. 3. Figs. 4 and 5 are too simplified indeed. In general, the data on taxonomic composition from samples without radiocarbon dates are very limited for interpretation. However, the figures show the differences in the taxonomic composition of charcoals in different local sites and in different land types studied. This is quite interesting in itself, and it is also related to the theme of the journal.

Section 3.2

Please correct the botanical nomenclature; you should use the name of the species if you're sure that no other species of a same genus is (or was) present in the study area (e. g. Corylus= Corylus avellana). In anthracology the botanical nomenclature of Pinus charcoal fragments (in this geographical region) is “Pinus sylvestris type”. Materials classified as “Pinus sylvestris type” might correspond to Pinus sylvestris, Pinus nigra and Pinus mugo/uncinata; in this case species identification by charcoal analysis is impossible due to the absence of specific diagnostic key features.

• Thank you for your comment. We added the taxon specifications when they were first described.

 

Section 3.4:

The dynamics of woody taxa must be first showed in detail (for each soil, area and historical period).

For this reason, Fig. 8 is too simplified and not exhaustive (soil samples position and geographical parameters are not considered).

• In the new Table 3 for each dated charcoal sample, we gave information on soil profile, horizon, and the site. Unfortunately, radiocarbon dates are not numerous, and most of them were obtained for samples at the Zaborovka-Likhusha site, so a more detailed hierarchical representation of the results by time period does not seem correct. In the discussion, the peculiarities of the position of soil samples and parameters for charcoal samples of different ages are considered.

 

Discussion and conclusions

Obtained data are adequate to solve the aim of this research.  However, some points can be improved.

The objective of this paper is to reconstruct the forest dynamic of the study area; you should discuss the topics from a successional point of view even more. The analysis of the successional categorization of hemi-boreal forest tree species exemplifies aspects of tree species’ life histories and how they can interact. See for example: R. Petrokas, V. Baliuckas and M. Manton, 2020. Successional Categorization of European Hemi-boreal Forest Tree Species, Plants 2020, 9, 1381; doi:10.3390/plants9101381.

• Thank you for your interesting comment. However the objective of our paper is to analyze the dynamics of taxonomic diversity of woody plant species, rather than to reconstruct the forest dynamics; these tasks are significantly different. We intend to reconstruct forest dynamics, but not in this article. In addition to anthrocological data, fossil pollen data and extensive literature on species traits, including their biological and ecological characteristics, population strategies, successional categorization, etc. should be involved. The article by Petrokas et al. (2020) seems interesting, but in many ways controversial; for example, the reference to our book (39: Smirnova, Bobrovsky, Khanina, 2017) is given after facts that are not discussed in the book and which we do not confirm. The history of forest dynamics in the Holocene suggests that successional trajectories were very rarely linear, from disturbance to climax. Various combinations of disturbances prevailed and they usually acted with a frequency lower than the lifespan of late successional trees. Therefore, reconstructing the forest dynamics is a difficult task, the solution of which requires more data than we have now.

 

Sections 4.1-2-3:

Line 489-91: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

• Added a reference to Fig. 5a.

Line 509-18: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

• This is a discussion of the data described earlier, does not require reference to the figure.

Line 568-74: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

• Added references to Fig. 3 and Table 2.

Line 614-17: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

• Added a reference to Fig. 8.

Line 640-57: this sentence should be explained trough a figure.

• Added references to Figs. 6 and 7.

Section 4.4

Line 757: the ecological significance of Quercus(robur?) and Corylus (avellana?) in the charcoal assemblages should be further analyzed, both concerning the paleoclimate and the ancient forest structure.

• The discussion is added.

Line 760: you hypothesize the intentional burning of Quercusand Corylus; what do you mean?

• Added clarification: intentional burning is burning by humans while clearing land for crops or firewood, not by wildfires.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

• Dear authors,

• I have now received the proper reviews on your manuscript and revised it. I found it really interesting, and I consider the contribution a nice piece of work. The manuscript was prepared according to the journal style guide and the topic falls inside the journal’s scope, covering interesting questions. in my opinion the paper can be now accepted without any further changes.