Soil Respiration after Bark Beetle Infestation along a Vertical Transect in Mountain Spruce Forest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper describes soil respiration (SR) over two growing seasons at sites sampled 5 to 6 years after a bark beetle infestation. The authors show that in general SR is higher at infected sites (not always statistically). They postulate - that SR rates at infested sites are boosted by needle fall and debris from dead and dying trees, which increases heterotrophic SR and compensates the decrease of autotrophic SR from tree roots.
While the paper has some merit, there are lots of major issues that need addressing.
1. The title should identify that they are looking at SR after a beetle infestation.
2. The study design is not well explained. There is no information regarding the extent of the defoliation and other site factors that could affect SR. There are no QA/QC procedures identified so it is hard to be sure that any differences are due to the attack. This lack of information makes it very hard to adequately review the paper and assess the relevance of the data.
3. Why only sample 5 to 6 years after the attack? What is the justification?
4. Why aren’t other important parameters measured (forest floor depth, litterfall, soil carbon etc.)?
5. What is the point of the 4 elevations? What is different about them? The authors report they measured soil temperature so why isn’t this included in the analysis (as it is the dominant control on SR) instead of showing the four elevation zones. I recommend reorganizing the results and exploring temperature and SR relationships in more detail.
6. The authors essentially show the same data set multiple times, presented in different ways. In my opinion the main point of the study is to see if there is a difference in SR between infected and uninfected stands – which is shown in Figure 1 (an annual mean could easily be added to each figure). The tables report the stats that are shown in the figure so are not needed and I see no value in any of the other figures as they just show the same data expressed in different ways. The authors should use their temp data to see if the relationship with temperature differs between infected and uninfected sites (or whether temperature is different and that is the reason for the difference).
7. Because the authors over-report the data they also over-interpret their findings. For example, there is no support to add “SR rates at infested sites are boosted by needle fall and debris from dead and dying trees, which increases heterotrophic SR and compensates the decrease of autotrophic SR from tree roots” in the abstract when none of these parameters are measured.
8. I don’t understand why the authors focus so much on month-to-month differences – only some of which are statistically different. Surely the main point is that SR is still generally higher 5 to 6 years after the infestation. Comparing May to June or May to August in different years has no value unless the authors have additional data that explain these differences and is important.
9. The paper is poorly written and in my opinion is far below the standard I would expect to see in an English language journal article. This ranges from simple spelling errors, poor formatting including paragraphs that are just one sentence long and sections that don’t make sense and are hard to follow. Any subsequent submission would need to be thoroughly edited.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagesee above
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Each paragraph of the introduction was too short, please adjust the contents;
2. In the introduction, the author didn’t tell the deficiencies of current research;
3. The language need to be improved;
4. The figure of study area should be showed;
5. Reference
Please correct the formats of the reference, the format of some references was not correct;
6. The table should be a three-line table;
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language should to be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn many parts of Europe, spruce forests and spruce woodlands are suffering from infestation by the bark beetle. The management of these areas is the subject of intense and highly controversial debate. Although the primary concern here is the recording and assessment of soil respiration, a statement regarding the future treatment of the areas from the point of view of changes in soil respiration would be important. The reviewer would have liked to see more here.
Although several similar studies are cited and described in the discussion, a review-like meta-analysis would have been desirable here. Are there any other similar studies that could have been analysed?
A geographical altitude gradient is analysed. What would be the natural forest vegetation in this gradient? In other words, are the analysed stands natural spruce forests or artificial forest stands? This should also have been discussed. Are some spruce trees growing here on former beech sites? This question is not answered either.
In general, there is no clear description of the analysed stands!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMinor suggestions may help to improve the quality of the manuscript, congrats!!
The topic of the paper entitled “Post-Disturbance Dynamics of Soil Respiration in the High Tatra Mts. (Slovakia)” falls within the scope of Forests (MDPI) Journal' and is noteworthy. The authors are trying to address the relevant issue and the findings are interesting. The following suggestions may help to improve the quality of the manuscript further. Overall, the title clearly reflects the contents.
Abstract have covered the statement about the background, research gap and focus of current study and well flow to write as an abstract.
Key words repeated from the title and it should be different from the title of the manuscript.
The introduction part is appropriate and does establish the existing state of knowledge but needs minor suggested modifications; the Authors should add the knowledge gap and some relevant information at the end of the introduction.
In lines 54,90 and 91: Check and correct the plant's scientific name.
In line 60: What is soil Anorganic N, correct and define the term.
In lines 149- 155: Explain with the appropriate reason why SR reached its peak in summer.
In lines 162-164: All the parameters should be explaining with proper reason.
In lines 189-195: Explain in detail with reason.
Rest result section is appropriate and well written.
Discussion and Conclusion:
In discussion section, please mentioned more recent references and compared with present study and elaborate more what are the reason to SR reached its peak in summer etc and what are the factors responsible for??
In conclusion, you mentioned that the removal rate significantly depended on environmental factors but in the result section you didn't talk about the environmental factor. Give a proper explanation of how environmental factors affect removal rates.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily.Comments on the Quality of English Language The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and advice. We edited language of the manuscript and the manuscript was checked by English native speaker.
