Concept for Genetic Monitoring of Hemiboreal Tree Dynamics in Lithuania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Multispecies approach to the genetic monitoring of hemiboreal tree dynamics" is well written and elaborated, however, modifications need to be made:

- include in the title of the manuscript that the approach is focused on Lithuania.

- all abbreviations must be cited in the first citation, include:

Line 41: CC (climate change);

Line 89: FGM (Forest genetic Monitoring);

Line 163: EUFORGEN (Europen Forest Genetic Resources Programme;

Line 430: EUFGGIS (European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources)

- Table 01:

Field layer-canopy dominants must not be italicized;

What do the abbreviations Nf, Lf, Uc, etc. mean?

- Table 02: species do not need to be in bold.

More than 50% of the references are more than 10 years old. For a literature review focused on recent years, this is a very high value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I agree with the authors that genomic surveillance is a promising approach to achieve successful conservation strategies. From this point of view, this paper is relevant, as it draws attention to an important problem.

However, the content of the paper does not correspond to the title. The paper is devoted to the problems of regeneration of woody plants, not genetics. Also, I did not see the multi-species approaches that are stated in the title of the paper. Authors should change the title or completely rewrite the paper.

Is the work a significant contribution to the field? I didn't learn anything new from the paper. The paper contains only well-known theses that have been published many times for a long time. For example:

Morozov, G.F. The Doctrine of Forest Types; State Publishing House: Leningrad, Russia, 1925; 367p.

Ivashkevich, B.A. Types of forests of Primorye and their economic significance. Product. Forces Far East Plant World 1927, 3, 2–3.

Sukachev, V.N. Fundamentals of Forest Typology and Forest Biogeocenology; Nauka: Petrograd, Russia, 1972; 408p.

Kolesnikov, B.P. The genetic stage in forest typology and its tasks. Russ. For. Sci. 1974, 2, 3–20.

Smolonogov, E.P. Main principles of the genetic approach to the typological classification of forests. Russ. J. Ecol. 1998, 29, 220–225.

Fomin, V.; Ivanova, N.; Mikhailovich, A. Genetic forest typology as a scientific and methodological basis for environmental studies and forest management. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing Ltd: Bristol, UK, 2020; p. 012044

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described? The work is well organized for a study paper, but not for a scientific one.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading? Since the title does not correspond to the content of the paper, the reader may be misled. In addition, the conclusion does not follow from the results of the study. The review is devoted to the regeneration of woody plants, but in conclusion, conclusions are drawn about the need to develop forest typologies. This conclusion looks very strange, since forest typologies were not discussed in the paper at all. In addition, forest typologies have already been developed, which are being successfully improved thanks to the efforts of enthusiastic researchers. For example, I can recommend a paper to the authors: Ivanova, N.; Fomin, V.; Kusbach, A. Experience of Forest Ecological Classification in Assessment of Vegetation Dynamics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063384

Thus, the article needs a very serious revision:

1. Authors should change the title according to the content of the paper

2. The composition of the article also needs to be changed. The authors can start with forest typologies, including genetic forest typology, since this direction most closely corresponds to the topic of genetic research. In the main part, focus on the problems of interest. It will be very good if the authors provide an overview of truly genetic research and analyze how the record of the ecosystem development program is implemented at the genetic level. In conclusion, it can be concluded that genetic studies at the level of forest succession systems are necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made only part of the modifications suggested by this reviewer.

The following items still need to be corrected in the manuscript:

- The hydrotope trophotope codes for the forest site types used in Lithuania used in Table 1 must be clarified and mentioned in the manuscript. It's still not clear what they are.

- Even more than 50% of the references are more than 10 years old, which is a lot for a review article. The authors say they added more recent references, but there are references from the 70's. Please make changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to all the comments and significantly improved the paper. I don't have any more questions.

Please indicate all the authors of paper (Fomin, V.; Mikhailovich, A.; Zalesov, S.; Popov, A.; Terekhov, G. ):

Fomin, V. Development of Ideas within the Framework of the Genetic Approach to the Classification of Forest Types. BALT FOR 2020, 27, doi:10.46490/BF466.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx