Spatial Patterns and Associations of Tree Species in a Temperate Forest of National Forest Park, Huadian City, Jilin Province, Northeast China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. 1. In the abstract, the final conclusion stated, "seed dispersal limitations, competitive ability, and topography and light requirements may influence the spatial distribution and association of species to maintain species coexistence and diversity in Korean pine broad-leaved mixed forests." However, what is crucial is to elucidate how these factors specifically and precisely affect the spatial distribution of species. Please provide details on this aspect.

    

   2. On page 3, P. koraiensis, and on page 5, S. reticulata should be corrected to italicize.

    

   3. In the materials, the two life stages were distinguished based on DBH classes, namely juvenile and adult. However, in the results and discussion, juvenile is mentioned as sapling, small, young, etc., and adult as large, which lacks consistency. Please standardize the terminology. Additionally, on page 4, the abbreviations for juvenile and adult are noted as J and A, which are unnecessary.

    

   4. On page 3, the second mention of Acer should be revised to A.

    

   5. On page 4, "as the in distance (scale)" should be corrected to "as the distance (scale)."

    

   6. Regarding the last sentence on page 4: "As scales greater than 10 m, if the adult trees are aggregated, it can be inferred that habitat heterogeneity is at work." Evidence supporting this statement, such as references, needs to be provided.

    

   7. Please ensure consistency in the numbering of figures. For example, figures 2 and 3 are labeled with a, b, c, while figures 4, 5, 6 use (a), (b), (c). Additionally, some text within figures 2 and 3 is obscured. Please revise the figures accordingly.

    

   8. The titles of figures 2 and 3 are identical. They need to be modified.

    

   9. In section 3.3, spatial associations, it's challenging for readers to understand due to discrepancies between the scale presented in the table and the scale described in the text. Please explain based on the table.

    

   10. On page 10, in "in S. reticulata and J. mandshurica, P. koraiensis and A. mono, and P. koraiensis and A. holophylla," "and" should be replaced with "vs."

    

   11. Evidence supporting the statement, "The random distribution of trees may be attributed to the abundance of factors such as light and space," is needed. (References)

    

   12. Evidence supporting the statement, "Furthermore, these species have a relatively strong ~~ from the stump," is needed. (References)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is of interest but requires thorough revisions before it can be considered publishable. The main comments in this regard are as follows:

1. It is recommended to specify in the title that the study was conducted in the National Forest Park in Huadian City, Jilin Province, Northeast China.

2. In the introduction, the authors should begin by discussing forests in a general context, and then focus specifically on temperate forests. Additionally, the introduction section appears excessively lengthy and should be condensed for conciseness. Scientific names should be italicized.

3. The description of the study site should also include contextual elements related to the socio-economic aspect.

4. The data collection section needs to be elaborated upon (in fact, the entire methodology needs to be strengthened), and methodological choices should be justified. How were species identified? Were they identified using available floras?

5. When introducing scientific names, ensure to write the genus names in full for the first time.

6. Subsection titles should be clear and explicit (for example, remove "3.2.1. Analysis 1" and similarly for "3.2.2"). Additionally, the issue of habitat heterogeneity is not adequately addressed in the methodology. It is crucial to sort, present, and interpret only relevant results.

7. The discussion section should be reorganized, focusing on discussing methodological limitations, results (rather than statistical tests), and implications for conservation. 

8. A separate section on the conclusion needs to be developed.

9. There are still many outdated references that need to be updated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is judged that the comments were reflected sincerely and actively.

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved for publication.

  Thank you for your effort

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review and for acknowledging our efforts to address the comments effectively. We are pleased that you find the manuscript sufficiently improved for publication. Your feedback and guidance have been invaluable in improving the quality of the manuscript. We look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the scientific community. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for taking the time to fully integrate my comments from the first draft of the manuscript. However, I note that the following comments have not been taken into account:

1) The discussion section should be reorganized, focusing on discussing methodological limitations and expand the section implications for conservation.

2) There are still many outdated references that need to be updated.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and for recognizing our efforts to incorporate your comments into the first draft of the manuscript.Your advice about the formatting, structure and referencing style of my paper is most helpful.We did not ignore your suggestions, and we apologize for the fact that the previous changes were not obvious and therefore appear to be unchanged. We have now addressed the two issues you raised:
First, with respect to the organization of the Discussion section, we have reevaluated it to ensure that it focuses on methodological limitations and expands on implications for conservation.
Second, we have conducted a thorough review of the references cited in the manuscript and updated any outdated references to ensure that the reference list is accurate and up-to-date. Currently, essentially all of the references in the article are from 2015 or later, and we appreciate your attention to this matter.
Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention, and we have made the necessary changes to improve the manuscript.