- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 1 on “Gradients of microclimate, carbon, and nitrogen in transition zones of fragmented landscapes—a review”
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 505–506
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 on “Gradients of microclimate, carbon, and nitrogen in transition zones of fragmented landscapes—a review”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision 2. Comments to Author: This is a very interesting article on a current ecological theme. I enjoyed reading the manuscript, and I am sure that, once published, it will be highly cited. Sections 2.3 and 3 seemed to be particularly interesting, and Tables 1 and 2, as well as Figures 2, 3 and 4 are very informative. Even though some of the suggested definitions may be considered proposals rather than final solutions, this manuscript has the potential to become one of the best contributions to this topic. Thus I am convinced that the paper deserves to be published in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. However, I think that some improvements are necessary, which will be easily done by the authors. My comments and suggestions are as follows. 1. The keywords are appropriate, but I suggest that the authors should include the term “ecotone”, as most scholars search for this term. 2. Although I am not a native English speaker myself, I did detect some mistakes, both minor spelling errors and some grammatical problems. In a highly ranked journal such as Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, the number of errors must be kept to the minimum. I strongly suggest that the whole text be checked by a native English speaker, or at least by a professional scientific translator. 3. I think section 2 is an extremely interesting and thoughtprovoking contribution to the terms used in the literature about edges. The ideas in the paper seem to be mostly justified, and they may well prove useful for ecologists. Nevertheless, I had the feeling that sub-sections 2.1 and especially 2.3 are incomplete. If this is to be a well-founded suggestion based on a comprehensive analysis, some additional papers should be incorporated. I suggest that the authors consider the following publications, as these focus on the very same topic: - Gosz (1993): Ecotone hierarchies. Ecol Applic 3: 369–376.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.10.022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.259 0168-1923/
- Kent et al. (1997): Landscape and plant community boundaries in biogeography. Progress in Physical Geography 21:315–353. - Kark, van Rensburg (2006): Ecotones: marginal or central areas of transition? Isr J Ecol Evol 52: 29–53. - Hufkens et al. (2009): Ecotones in vegetation ecology: Methodologies and definitions revisited. Ecol Res 24: 977–986. ˝ et al. (2011): On the terms related to spatial ecological - Erdos gradients and boundaries. Acta Biol Szeged 55: 279–287. - Kolasa (2014): Ecological boundaries: a derivative of ecological entities. Web Ecol 14: 27–37. Incorporating the above literature, especially the most recent ones, could make section 2. considerably stronger. Also, I think Peters et al. (2006) could be cited in section 2.1 (this paper is cited later in the manuscript). 4. “The total area of forest has been decreasing for centuries due to deforestation and the intrusion of agricultural land” I do not agree with this statement. Forest area has been declining for millennia, at least in much of Europe, as shown by fossil eveidence. 5. I do not see where section 4 is. Section 3 is followed by section 5. 6. As far as I know, “Magnitude of variables in the transition zones (MTZ)" is often termed contrast, which you may include in the table. 7. Among the references, you list the PhD-thesis of Hennenberg. I do not know the thesis, but if the same information is available in the Journal of Vegetation Science article of Hennenberg, I would say referring to the journal article would be a better joice. For most readers, it is more easy to access a JVS article that a PhD-thesis. 8. The Conclusions section is rather short, and some of it has little connection to the previous sections. I think this part could be re-written and a bit enlarged. 3. First revision 3.1. Recommendation Accept 4. Comments to the author I am very much satisfied with the revision. Now I only have some minor comments, which can be solved within a few minutes.
506
Peer Review Report / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 505–506
1) Page 1, lines 9–10 "This probably accelerates global warming and correspondingly is also intensified by global warming." I do not really see why the word "correspondingly" is necessary here. You may consider using the following sentence (if it does not change the meaning): "This probably accelerates and is intensified by global warming." 2) Citations in the text do not follow the same rule: some of them follows a chronological order, some an alphabetical order, and some a mixture. Please unify this. 3)Page 3, line 59 "(Hennenberg, 2005 in Hennenberg et al., 2008)" should be "(Hennenberg, 2005, Hennenberg et al., 2008)" This is a minor issue, but I think it could be corrected. I see that your solution is the most correct, but it is rarely used in the scientific literature. In this case, as Hennenberg et al. (2008) give the number, and they refer to Hennenberg (2005), it is appropriate to cite both documents, with a comma in between. This will
not be unjust, as Henneberg is a common author in both documents. 4) Page 25, lines 531–532 "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his or her very constructive and helpful comments." A more correct and widely used solution is to use "their" instead of "his or her". The use of "his or her", "he or she", and similar structures is generally discouraged nowadays. I suggest that you should use the following: "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their very constructive and helpful comments." 5) One of the new references in the Literature section is not in a correct alphabetical order, please correct it (page 27)! researchfellow László Erdos (PhD) MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Alkotmány utca 2-4., Vácrátót, H-2163, Hungary Available online 5 December 2016
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agrformet
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 1 on “Gradients of microclimate, carbon, and nitrogen in transition zones of fragmented landscapes—a review”
1. Original Submission 1.1. Recommendation Minor Revision 2. Comments to Author: This is a very interesting article on a current ecological theme. I enjoyed reading the manuscript, and I am sure that, once published, it will be highly cited. Sections 2.3 and 3 seemed to be particularly interesting, and Tables 1 and 2, as well as Figures 2, 3 and 4 are very informative. Even though some of the suggested definitions may be considered proposals rather than final solutions, this manuscript has the potential to become one of the best contributions to this topic. Thus I am convinced that the paper deserves to be published in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. However, I think that some improvements are necessary, which will be easily done by the authors. My comments and suggestions are as follows. 1. The keywords are appropriate, but I suggest that the authors should include the term “ecotone”, as most scholars search for this term. 2. Although I am not a native English speaker myself, I did detect some mistakes, both minor spelling errors and some grammatical problems. In a highly ranked journal such as Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, the number of errors must be kept to the minimum. I strongly suggest that the whole text be checked by a native English speaker, or at least by a professional scientific translator. 3. I think section 2 is an extremely interesting and thoughtprovoking contribution to the terms used in the literature about edges. The ideas in the paper seem to be mostly justified, and they may well prove useful for ecologists. Nevertheless, I had the feeling that sub-sections 2.1 and especially 2.3 are incomplete. If this is to be a well-founded suggestion based on a comprehensive analysis, some additional papers should be incorporated. I suggest that the authors consider the following publications, as these focus on the very same topic: - Gosz (1993): Ecotone hierarchies. Ecol Applic 3: 369–376.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.10.022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.11.259 0168-1923/
- Kent et al. (1997): Landscape and plant community boundaries in biogeography. Progress in Physical Geography 21:315–353. - Kark, van Rensburg (2006): Ecotones: marginal or central areas of transition? Isr J Ecol Evol 52: 29–53. - Hufkens et al. (2009): Ecotones in vegetation ecology: Methodologies and definitions revisited. Ecol Res 24: 977–986. ˝ et al. (2011): On the terms related to spatial ecological - Erdos gradients and boundaries. Acta Biol Szeged 55: 279–287. - Kolasa (2014): Ecological boundaries: a derivative of ecological entities. Web Ecol 14: 27–37. Incorporating the above literature, especially the most recent ones, could make section 2. considerably stronger. Also, I think Peters et al. (2006) could be cited in section 2.1 (this paper is cited later in the manuscript). 4. “The total area of forest has been decreasing for centuries due to deforestation and the intrusion of agricultural land” I do not agree with this statement. Forest area has been declining for millennia, at least in much of Europe, as shown by fossil eveidence. 5. I do not see where section 4 is. Section 3 is followed by section 5. 6. As far as I know, “Magnitude of variables in the transition zones (MTZ)" is often termed contrast, which you may include in the table. 7. Among the references, you list the PhD-thesis of Hennenberg. I do not know the thesis, but if the same information is available in the Journal of Vegetation Science article of Hennenberg, I would say referring to the journal article would be a better joice. For most readers, it is more easy to access a JVS article that a PhD-thesis. 8. The Conclusions section is rather short, and some of it has little connection to the previous sections. I think this part could be re-written and a bit enlarged. 3. First revision 3.1. Recommendation Accept 4. Comments to the author I am very much satisfied with the revision. Now I only have some minor comments, which can be solved within a few minutes.
506
Peer Review Report / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 217 (2016) 505–506
1) Page 1, lines 9–10 "This probably accelerates global warming and correspondingly is also intensified by global warming." I do not really see why the word "correspondingly" is necessary here. You may consider using the following sentence (if it does not change the meaning): "This probably accelerates and is intensified by global warming." 2) Citations in the text do not follow the same rule: some of them follows a chronological order, some an alphabetical order, and some a mixture. Please unify this. 3)Page 3, line 59 "(Hennenberg, 2005 in Hennenberg et al., 2008)" should be "(Hennenberg, 2005, Hennenberg et al., 2008)" This is a minor issue, but I think it could be corrected. I see that your solution is the most correct, but it is rarely used in the scientific literature. In this case, as Hennenberg et al. (2008) give the number, and they refer to Hennenberg (2005), it is appropriate to cite both documents, with a comma in between. This will
not be unjust, as Henneberg is a common author in both documents. 4) Page 25, lines 531–532 "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his or her very constructive and helpful comments." A more correct and widely used solution is to use "their" instead of "his or her". The use of "his or her", "he or she", and similar structures is generally discouraged nowadays. I suggest that you should use the following: "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their very constructive and helpful comments." 5) One of the new references in the Literature section is not in a correct alphabetical order, please correct it (page 27)! researchfellow László Erdos (PhD) MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Alkotmány utca 2-4., Vácrátót, H-2163, Hungary Available online 5 December 2016