Stand Structure Impacts on Forest Modelling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author is to be commended for reviewing stand structure impacts on forest modeling, especially on diameter, height and volume modeling. This article represents a wide insight for scientists interested in forest modelling. It fits well in the aim of the journal and it would be no doubt interesting for the topic studied. However, I have two concerns on the review, which I will explain in the following.

(1) More silvicultural practices are needed to be added rather than only pruning and thinning (L100-118).

(2) The recommendations for future forest modelling should be given. Unfortunately, the recommendations were not available in the version, although the author pointed out the diverse factors can influence the modeling efficiency.

I hope my comments are constructive, please correct me if I have misunderstood something in my thinking.

Author Response

First, we wish to express our gratitude to the reviewers. Their comments were a great help in improving the manuscript. 

Comments:

(1) More silvicultural practices are needed to be added rather than only pruning and thinning (L100-118)

Fertilisation was included (lines 118-119).

(2) The recommendations for future forest modelling should be given. Unfortunately, the recommendations were not available in the version, although the author pointed out the diverse factors can influence the modeling efficiency.

The recommendations for future modelling were included in the text (lines 525-531).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is interesting and significant. Its aim is to describe the different modern modeling methods and techniques to predict tree diameter at breast height, total height and volume. Especially the review focused on the impact of stand structure on modelling at tree level. It is well organized.

I have only one suggestion to the author to use table or flowchart to summarize sections 4-6, where the author describe models, their advantages and disadvantages. So we can see all models (nonlinear ordinary least square regression, nonlinear mixed effect models, linear mixed effects models, multiple least square models, GENeralized Growth and Yield Model and so on) and their precision of the predictions of diameter at breast height, total height and volume in different conditions. I think this will improve the perception and understanding of the review.

Author Response

First, we wish to express our gratitude to the reviewers. Their comments were a great help in improving the manuscript.

Comments

I have only one suggestion to the author to use table or flowchart to summarize sections 4-6, where the author describe models, their advantages and disadvantages.

A table was included in the text (lines 514-516, 521-522).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx