On the Shoulders of Giants: Continuing the Legacy of Large-Scale Ecosystem Manipulation Experiments in Puerto Rico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I very much enjoyed reading the review entitled On the shoulders of giants: continuing the legacy of large-scale ecosystem manipulation experiments in Puerto Rico. The authors did a wonderful job weaving together the story of the forest. Reviewing the evolution of research on the forest and how it influenced future researching is important for up and coming scientists to consider. Understanding the history of scientific progress within a physical location or within a discipline may help people to contextualize their own research and fully value its true impact. 

This review skillfully weaves together the history of experiments conducted at Luquillo that were major drivers in the advancement in Experimental Forests. It is important to view and understand how science, particularly overlooked field-based experiments in forests.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind words about the manuscript!  We feel privileged to have had the opportunity to highlight all of the interesting research that has been conducted in the Luquillo Experimental Forest.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented paper investigates the long term history of major field experimental researches of tropical forests in Puerto Rico. Given the fact that these processes have high ecological role I consider the topic of the study as important. The global climate changes and its consequences as increased temperatures and extreme events of natural disturbances have a great significance for such reviews, providing a baseline for understanding disturbances, its returning periods and severity of events. The authors of this study has well described the results of mentioned experiments in the Luquillo Experimental Forest and explained in the context of global climate change as well. Overall this is an interesting of a historic field experiments in tropical forests in the Luquillo Experimental Forest and how they are connected with ongoing change of climate and disturbance regimes.

 

My suggestions for improvement are minor.

Line34-35,  Here you could add more about location, i.e. coordinates

Line 43-45, Clarify the objective because now it is not clear about time scale

Line 46, in context of what?

Figure 1 Is it really necessary? I would better found some figure with map showing general area of the Luquillo Experimental Forest and/or map with a series of plots etc.

Line 107 Latin names would be relevant in this scientific study.

I thing that somewhere adding a  missing reference could increase the value of the work for example lines 142-144; 166-170; 463-465

Author Response

Point 1. Line34-35,  Here you could add more about location, i.e. coordinates

This is an excellent suggestion.  We have now added coordinates (line 33) as well as additional text that describes the Luquillo Experimental Forest (lines 39-50):

 

The broad diversity of climate, geology, and flora and fauna found within the Luquillo Experimental Forest has attracted a wide range of ecological research throughout its history [1–4]. Within an area of what is now just over 11,000 ha, the elevation spans 100 to 1,075 masl. Across this change in elevation, mean annual rainfall spans 2450 to 4000 mm and average monthly air temperature ranges between 23.5 and 27 ^oC at lower elevations and 17 and 20 ^oC at the higher elevations [5]. There are two major bedrocks (marine volcaniclastic and intrusive igneous rocks from the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods), and three major soil orders (Ultisol, Inceptisol, Oxisol) within the Luquillo Experimental Forest [4]. The forest is also highly diverse with 164 animal species (24 endemic), more than 1,000 plant species, and 224 tree species (60 endemic) [4]. In light of this range of conditions, it is no surprise that there are five Holdrige life zones found within the Luquillo Experimental Forest: wet forest, rain forest, lower montane wet forest, lower montane rain forest, and a small area in the southwest region that is moist forest life zone [2].

 

Point 2. Line 43-45, Clarify the objective because now it is not clear about time scale

We agree that this was confusing and have adjusted the time-scale referenced in this sentence.  It now reads:

 

From the early foresters that explored forest management techniques in the 1900’s [1] to the more recent large-scale field manipulation experiments [10], these studies provide a window into the greatest interests and concerns of society.

 

Point 3. Line 46, in context of what?

We have revised this sentence to state that we are putting these results in historical context.

 

Point 4. Figure 1 Is it really necessary? I would better found some figure with map showing general area of the Luquillo Experimental Forest and/or map with a series of plots etc.

We have now switched figure 1 to be a map of Puerto Rico showing the location of the Luquillo Experimental Forest.

 

Point 5. Line 107 Latin names would be relevant in this scientific study.

The latin names have now been added everywhere that was missing in the manuscript.

 

Point 6. I thing that somewhere adding a  missing reference could increase the value of the work for example lines 142-144; 166-170; 463-465

We have added additional references to the recommended areas.  However, for the warming experiment we have only published the methods for the experiment at this time. We are still working on publishing results from the 1^st year of warming.  In addition, we would like to point out that the radiation experiment results were published in an enormous book volume that also contained other experiments as well as background research.  It is thousands of pages.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript “On the shoulder of giants: continuing the legacy of large-scale ecosystem manipulation experiments in Puerto Rico”, the authors present the history of the Luquillo Experimental Forest in Puerto Rico and synthesize major research that has taken place in it. This is overall a well written and enjoyable article in which the authors successfully summarize, connect, and interpret numerous studies that have taken place in Luquillo. I have mostly minor comments, of which I am highlighting the most important ones in the following three paragraphs.

1. The authors go into great detail describing the history of Luquillo but do not give the reader any background on the site’s actual climate, topography, etc. Please add a paragraph that summarizes the Luquillo research site for those not familiar with it.

2. Stylistically, I noticed that scientist’s names were left out throughout the majority of the manuscript until lines 369+. This could be indicative of several authors that worked on the manuscript or of bias towards naming certain scientists. Whatever the reason, I highly recommend sticking to the generic “scientists …” or include all names throughout the manuscript.

3. The paragraph on the TRACE experiment lacks any results. Considering that the experiment started in 2013, I assume that some results are already available. I also recall seeing results of TRACE presented at AGU. If there are really no published results yet, the authors should at least acknowledge that data are still in the pipeline.

Below is a list of detailed, minor comments:

36 – the “a” before “reserve” seems misplaced

48/49 – “Such reflections…” recommend removing this sentence. It is redundant and somewhat awkward

90-93 – “Below, we…” recommend removing this

110-118 – Wadsworth’s 420 plots are not all experimental, correct? I believe some were just for monitoring. The title of this paragraph suggests otherwise. Maybe change the title or clarify the intent of Wadsworth’s plots. I understand I’m being nitpicky here but in an overall well-written manuscript, such details jump out.

127-131 – needs clarification. The treatment is between commercially valuable and poorest growing trees, but the following statement compared secondary and old-growth

137 – add a comma after “land”

150 – add a comma after “1960s”. There are similar occasions throughout the manuscript where a comma would help the reader with sentence flow. I highlight a few below but recommend overall a close-reading with emphasis on commas.

161-163 – I am not sure what nuclear volumes are. Same goes for 205/206 (large/small nuclei)? Please clarify.

241 – add a comma after “thus”

284/285 – stick to either the chemical term or the “rainbow” term. I had to read this section a few times to ensure I would link the correct ones with one another

297-301 – this is a tangent. I recommend removing unless it was critical to the experiment itself (in which case the authors should mention to what extend it was critical)

372, 382, 408, 410, and maybe other locations – see above comment on using names versus the generic “scientists”. Leaving Wadsworth’s name is fine, I think.

388 – do you mean “from coarse wood” instead of “food”?

466 – add a comma after “warming”

485/486 – are there any details on what the future might hold for the site? If you have details of future research endeavors and focal points, I would love to read about them.

Author Response

Point 1. Top of Form

The authors go into great detail describing the history of Luquillo but do not give the reader any background on the site’s actual climate, topography, etc. Please add a paragraph that summarizes the Luquillo research site for those not familiar with it.

 

We thank the reviewer for this recommendation.  We totally agree and have now included more text in the introduction describing the research site, including climate, elevation, geology, and diversity.

 

Point 2. Stylistically, I noticed that scientist’s names were left out throughout the majority of the manuscript until lines 369+. This could be indicative of several authors that worked on the manuscript or of bias towards naming certain scientists. Whatever the reason, I highly recommend sticking to the generic “scientists …” or include all names throughout the manuscript.

 

We very much appreciate this change in style being noted.  The manuscript was indeed written by multiple authors and the switch in style for this section was missed. We have edited the manuscript so that the more generic scientists is used throughout the manuscript rather than discussing “author et al.”

 

Point 3. The paragraph on the TRACE experiment lacks any results. Considering that the experiment started in 2013, I assume that some results are already available. I also recall seeing results of TRACE presented at AGU. If there are really no published results yet, the authors should at least acknowledge that data are still in the pipeline.

 

We appreciate your interest in the experimental results from TRACE!  We are currently working on publishing results from the first year of warming, which ran from 2016-2017 (construction  and pre-treatment data collection began in 2013). We expect to be submitting those manuscripts very soon! We agree that this should be acknowledged and have included a statement that research is ongoing and that publication of results from the 1^st year of warming are in progress.

 

Point 4.  Minor comments.

Thank you for highlighting these grammatical errors, redundancies, and other points of confusion.  We have addressed all of the minor comments in the manuscript and did work to find all of the “missing commas”!