Residual Stand Structure and Topography Predict Initial Survival and Animal Browsing of Redwood and Douglas-Fir Seedlings Planted in Coastal Forests of Northern California

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract was representative of the study and complete.

The introduction was very good and placed this study in the context of previous studies and the significance of variables affecting survival rates of significant tree species.

The methods section was complete, easy to follow, excellent research design, and very good at minimizing variable bias.

The results section was complete, again easy to understand and follow. Statistics were appropriate and complete. Tables and figures were completely explained and were stand-alone, not needing further explanations in the text to describe their significance. I did have one question, though: in tables 3,4,5, why was only survival rates for redwoods a line item, and not D. fir? Suggest a brief note in the text to explain why...if that's appropriate. Or, maybe I missed something that explained why in the text?

Discussion section was complete and thoughtful with acknowledgements of the (many) other variables not addressed in this study and how they could have affected survival rates. Also, the authors addressed other treatments (physical protection, weed control) that would be valuable to address in future research studies. 

References: very complete and inclusive.

The language used showed a command of the English language, was clear, and structurally sound. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This study examined the effects of residual stand structure and topography in initial survival and animal browsing of redwood and Douglas-fir seedlings. It is very interesting and well written. However, some concerns should be cleared before its publication. 2. Abstract is too woody, could you make it more concise? 3. what is the spatial resolution of topography? Would the spatial resolution biased the conclusions? 4. why not consider climate conditions? Seasonal, annual variations of climatic conditions? 5. Soil not considered? 6. what is the associations with the aim of the journal?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problems in this manuscript are as follows.

[1] SDI, SDI Aspect and PACL Models need to be presented more clearly in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section. In addition, the R packages used for constructing these models should be also listed in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.

[2] ANOVA should be used to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference between GS, LD, HA and HD.

[3] The version of R(v3.2.3) was posted in December, 2015 and too old (L177).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no comments.