[REVIEW]: no_gjen_002_seminat

[linejohansen]

Review checklist

Reviewers, please go though the checklist below and tick the boxes that are fulfilled.
If one check is not fulfilled, or requires some more discussion, press the target sign to the right on that line and convert to issue. Follow up the point there.
The reviewes may add any additional comments, besides these general checks, as commenst below.

Before you start:

Please add the indicator ID to the title of this issue (replacing the placeholder text that reads "indicatorID"), or check that it is not already there.
Also, under lables in the right column, locate and choose the correct indicatorID from the list (if not already chosen).

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have conflict of interest that makes me unsuited to review this indiator. If not, I will convert this checkbox into an issue and declare my conflict there.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the code of conduct.

General checks

• Contribution and authorship: Does the author list seem appropriate and complete?
• Meta data: Does the metadata entered for the indicator seem correct, including ECT class and ecosystem type?
• Introduction and concusion: Is the introduction written so that it sums up the general method and usabillity of the indicator?
• Legibility and structure: Is the documentation written so that is is easy, or at least possible, to follow the arguments? Is each header and sub-header populated with the appropriate text?
• Images, tables and figures: Does the documentation contain the appropriate amount of tables, figures and images, and do these have high enough quality?
• A statement of uncertaint and needs: Do the authors include the clear description of the different sources of uncertainty or errors for the indicator?
• Validation: Does the documentation include some sort of validation for the precition of the indicator values, and is this validation sufficient?
• Relevance: Do the reviewers judge that this indicator has relevance as an ecosystem conditio indicator for the given ecosystems?
• Reproducability: Is the documentation sufficient, or seem sufficient enough, to make the results entirely reproducable by the reviewers?
• References: Does the references seem appropriate and do important hyperlinks work?

[linejohansen]

Legibility and structure: To understand the text, one must have some prior knowledge of the topic. It is generally difficult to follow all the argumentation. One must be familiar with all the data sets in order to understand their relevance and how they can contribute to the indicator.

[linejohansen]

Reproducability: I do not understand everything in figure 1. Population sample (Ar5) is not explained. Semi-naturlig mark is not included in AR5 as far as I know.

[linejohansen]

Relevance: Semi-natural habitats in Norway are an endangered habitat and the main reason for this is encroachment. We know that large areas of semi-natural habitats s are under heavy encroachment and are in a poor condition, as shown in sources such as Naturindeks and ASO. However, this indicator gives the impression that there is a better condition and less encroachment of semi-natural meadows than is the case. The indicator values are unlikely high.

[anders-kolstad]

Very goo @linejohansen . Same as for #55 - I will just reopen the issuse and we keep it open untill all points are solved/adressed.

[gunnaraustrheim]

On relevance: Do the reviewers judge that this indicator has relevance as an ecosystem condition indicator for the given ecosystems? Partly difficult to understand, and important to introduce indicators clearly. E.g. " We will use a spatial reference approach where reference areas define good or optimal vegetation their vegetation heights". As I understand the "gjengroings index" is mainly based on the tree canopy height. In general, I would prefer a more direct and more easy to communicate measure of gjengroing based on average height and average tree cover within different levels. One example of the problem with using height it the problem with shrub encroachment which causes strong changes in semi-natural vegetation and associated fauna e.g. invertebrates which often are the target species for conservation and management

[gunnaraustrheim]

Introduction and conclusion: Is the introduction written so that it sums up the general method and usabillity of the indicator?
It's important to introduce the reference state in a good and balanced way, and although tree canopy openness is a relevant indicator it's only one of several relevant factors for assessing ecological conditions in semi-natural land. The current description is much too simple "For semi natural ecosystems it reflects a state where traditional husbandry is keeping the ecosystems open due to grazing and hay making". I think to achive management goals on on optimizing BD and ES it would be better to avoid unclear terms as traditional animal husbandry and instead focus on specific management such as grazing/browsing regimes, wood cutting and haymaking. Also "keeping the landscape open" could be misleading. For example, many wooded meadows with high BD and ES conservation values may have high tree canopy cover (subalpine birch forests). Another tree related issue is the change in tree species composition from deciduous to coniferous due to planting. Could tree identity (con vs dec) be included as a value for the indicator?