Forest Regeneration Patterns Differ Considerably between Sites with and without Windthrow Wood Logging in the High Tatra Mountains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a good quality paper. The aim of the study is formulated clearly, Introduction part is good structured and comprehensive. I did not find any shortages in Materials and Methods chapter either. Study material is large and obtained results are very interesting and to my opinion - have international relevance. Discussion part and Conclusions are correct and based on achieved results.

The English in general is good, few corrections probably will be needed before publishing.

Reference to the part describing study area is optional (lines 109-116).

The English species name “white birch” can be confusing since in many regions it is used for different birch species, sometimes – for both B.pendula and B.pubescent. I suppose here it is used for B.pubescent. Downy birch or pubescent birch are  more commonly used names.

Author Response

This is a good quality paper. The aim of the study is formulated clearly, Introduction part is good structured and comprehensive. I did not find any shortages in Materials and Methods chapter either. Study material is large and obtained results are very interesting and to my opinion - have international relevance. Discussion part and Conclusions are correct and based on achieved results.
The English in general is good, few corrections probably will be needed before publishing.
Reference to the part describing study area is optional (lines 109-116).

Yes, we added a citation which presents a publication describing the study area (book by Vološčuk et al.). 

The English species name “white birch” can be confusing since in many regions it is used for different birch species, sometimes – for both B.pendula and B.pubescent. I suppose here it is used for B.pubescent. Downy birch or pubescent birch are more commonly used names.
We agree, it was corrected for downy birch. 
We improved English language and style including minor spell check all over the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Forest Regeneration Patterns Differ Considerably between Sites with and without Wind-Throw Wood Logging in the 3 High Tatra Mts." is an interestig paper about the effect on long time of salvage and unslavage windthrow areas. Tha paper is simple but with an high current meaning. Forest disturbance are quite coommon in the Central-Europe and research is foundamental to understand the effects on the forests.

General comments

The abstract is very detailed and extensive. Authors may consider reducing the abstract and presenting results more briefly. This is a suggestion that may or may not be accepted

Part of the introduction is aimed at Slovakia and the escalation of forest destruction events. It would be useful to have a brief summary of windstorms over central Europe to get an order of magnitude and understand post-wind damage issues such as bark beetle attacks. This would make it possible to understand the extent of the problem at the level of central Europe and therefore Slovakia.

The second part of the introduction driving to the difference between salavage logging and not slavaged logging is ok.

The description of the objectives is clear and well defined.

The Material and Methods is enough developed.and describe well the need to add additional MS to balance the plots between the salvage and unsalvage areas

The description of the protocol is clear. I wonder if some notes have been recorded according to the harvesting method and if the Plot was located in or in proximity of a skid trails.

The results are clear and well presented.

Discussion are good. Anyway, some consideration about bark beetle or other secondary effect after the wind.twrows can be presented and introduced.

The conclusions are ok

Author Response

The paper "Forest Regeneration Patterns Differ Considerably between Sites with and without Wind-Throw Wood Logging in the 3 High Tatra Mts." is an interestig paper about the effect on long time of salvage and unslavage windthrow areas. Tha paper is simple but with an high current meaning. Forest disturbance are quite coommon in the Central-Europe and research is foundamental to understand the effects on the forests.

The abstract is very detailed and extensive. Authors may consider reducing the abstract and presenting results more briefly. This is a suggestion that may or may not be accepted

Part of the introduction is aimed at Slovakia and the escalation of forest destruction events. It would be useful to have a brief summary of windstorms over central Europe to get an order of magnitude and understand post-wind damage issues such as bark beetle attacks. This would make it possible to understand the extent of the problem at the level of central Europe and therefore Slovakia.

OK, we added a couple of sentences in the first paragraph of the Introduction section in that context. The extended text includes three new citations.   

The second part of the introduction driving to the difference between salvaged logging and not salvaged logging is ok.

The description of the objectives is clear and well defined.

The Material and Methods is enough developed and describe well the need to add additional MS to balance the plots between the salvage and unsalvaged areas

The description of the protocol is clear. I wonder if some notes have been recorded according to the harvesting method and if the Plot was located in or in proximity of a skid trails.

We are sorry but we do not have this kind of knowledge or records.

The results are clear and well presented.

Discussion are good. Anyway, some consideration about bark beetle or other secondary effect after the wind-throws can be presented and introduced.

We decided to add this kind of information about wind-throw and bark beetle damage in the Conclusion section. We believe that the new text enriched the final generalization of the findings.

The conclusions are ok.

 One more time, thank you so much to both reviewers for helping us to improve the manuscript!