INTRO: The authors examined the influence of forest practices that intended to promote a forest restoration using the dataset from a 12-year large-scale field experiment in a boreal forest in Finland. They found both general and context-dependent patterns in the forest structures (trees, seedlings, and deadwood) after the restoration procedures.
MERITS: This study uses the dataset from a 12-year large-scale field experiment. Such empirical evidences based on the field experiment is valuable.
CRITIQUE: The relationship between findings in previous studies and what the authors did in this study is not clearly explained: for example, I'm wondering why the authors referred insect populations in the first paragraph. In addition, the originality of this study is not clearly presented in the introductory section. While, in the conclusion part, the authors mentioned about a landscape issue, I'm not sure how this is supported by the author's results.
DISCUSSION: The following points may worth considering revisions: explicit statements of the originality of the study in the introductory part; detailed explanations of experimental design (placing plots? If so, how large? how many? etc.), in the methodological part; clear linkage between the conclusions and the results.
- - -
INTRO: The current study reports some of the results from a restoration experiments for a by comparison long time period, 12 years after restoration. It provides information on the change in dead wood and stand structure. It argues for taking landscape aspects into consideration when initiating restoration programs.
MERITS: It is highly valuble that restoration experiments are followed for longer time periods. As being relatively new to conservation management the introduction of restoration fire and creation of dead wood suffer from the lack of long-term studies. The current study hence provide information from, by comparison, a longer time since the intervention.
CRITIQUE: The abstract provides no quantitative information on the effects of the interventions.
DISCUSSION: It is desirable that the so far few restoration experiments are followed up over longer time periods. As it is likely that such experiments include context dependent aspects linked to fire behaviour, local stand history, forest type and species composition it is important that also other similar experiments are monitored over time. Only then can the effects of local context be teased apart.
- - -
INTRO: The research on different restoration methods (partial felling, felling combined with subsequent burning and passive restoration) mimicking natural disturbance dynamics summarizes the results of a 12-year field study of boreal forests with the measurement of trees, tree seedlings, and dead wood. On the basis of the results, the authors suggest utilizing several restoration methods simultaneously within the landscape.
MERITS: The scientific merit of the study that it investigates the long-term effect of three different conservation management types on different spatial scales. By these spatial and temporal scales, the authors could formulate relevant information on restoration techniques for nature conservation.
CRITIQUE: Data on the number and size of involved study areas would be appreciated. I would be also interested what large-scale field experiment means, and how the results relevant for different spatial scales were deduced. The conclusion is relevant but slightly confusing. The results showed that partial felling as such is not an efficient restoration technique. How did you conclude that several restoration methods should be used simultaneously at the landscape scale?
Two questions where extra information would be helpful for the reader:
1) "…the development of the diversity of living trees strongly depended on initial stand structure" - Does it mean that the investigated sites were markedly different considering their initial status? If yes, how and why?
2) "In the most severely burned stands, all trees died within two years after treatments" - Does it mean that the management techniques applied at different sites were also different, regarding the intensity of fire? - If yes, how and why?
DISCUSSION: The investigation of the effect and efficiency of restoration techniques and conservation-oriented management actions is highly relevant and timely to halt biodiversity loss in forested ecosystems. This study formulates that several techniques should be utilized side by side to enhance natural structural elements in the forests at the landscape scale. The analysis and test of this statement would be very crucial in other ecosystems (e.g. temperate and Mediterranean forests) and several spatial scales to form adequate conservation measures for European forests.
- - -
INTRO: This study provides an valuable information about a response of a forest to a long-term management experiment, in particular a response by deadwood production and tree species regeneration. From the patterns each treatment generated, the authors suggested to maintain variation in restoration methods in order to maintain varied conditions in the forest structure.
MERITS: A long-term and repeating observation together with different management designs including a control promise a robust understanding of the forest response.
CRITIQUE: According to the abstract, there seems no shortcoming in the study itself.
DISCUSSION: When doing analysis, it is important to distinguish between the consequence of the management methods and the characteristic unique to original stand conditions. Also, good to be careful in interpretation of results without confounding effects of anomalous climatic events.
