Integrated Harvesting of Medium Rotation Hybrid Poplar Plantations: Systems Compared

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The design of the experiment and the data processing are correct, the results are relevant enough to deserve being published, but there are a number of formal and side aspects that must be improved in order to avoid confussions regarding units, terminology and some unclear statements in the manuscript. I will point out them:

- In line 28, the statement "The study results show that WTH operation was more productive (BDT Ha-1)" contains several confussing aspects that must be changed or clarified:

· BDT is presented without explaining the signification of the initials beforehand.

· BDT is a weight unit defined as "Bone Dry Ton or “BDT” means a unit of weight equal to 2,000 pounds of woody material at zero percent (0%) moisture content". It is much more usual in the scientific literature the use of IS units, The authors should use ODT (oven dry tonnne) instead, or at least they must give the equivalence in this SI unit. This must be changed through the whole manuscript text.

· BDT·Ha-1 is not a productivity unit, the sentence is quite confussing and must be rephrased.

· The symbol for hectare is ha, not Ha (following IUFRO), so this symbol. This must be changes througout the whole text as well.

- In Line 46, the keyword "MRP" is unclear as it in not defined anywhere in the manuscript, may be the authors mean "MRC".

- In Line 58, as in the text later on, I think that TL should be considered as a different system than WTH, as it needs debranching at the stump.

- In Line 79, pls use Slovakia or Slovak Republic, do not shorten to Rep.

- In Line 81, I guess that stum should be stump and boking should be bucking

- In Lines 83 to 86, I guess that you mean "motor-manual processing", as motormanual felling is needed in TL system unless you were using a feller-buncher or harvester. Pls rephrase this parragraph.

- In Line 131, 6 are few trees for a significant regression, both for height and weight, the authors should indicate that these results must be considered as approximate.

- Lines 138-140: The methodology of these correction should be more detailed in the text.

- In Line 143, the sentence "so as to match dry mass with dry mass" is mistaken, the authors must correct it.

- In Line 144, the authors must poiny out that 57% refers to "Humid basis".

- Lines 146-148: The authors must remove this assertion, it mixes different estimates in an unproper way.

- Line 224: As I have pointed out before, BDT is not an IS unit, you must use ODT (oven dry tonne) instead, or at least express the results using both units. Thhey must remember to change it, besides the ha symbol for hectare, all through the manuscript.

- Line 243: The authors must define the variable "Shere of logs" more precisely (e.g, %Logs weigth over total biomass weigth, for example).

- Lines 252-254: The authors should give some references for that, many volume or mass tables are dependant on squareDBHxH, so it is not clear at all for me this statement. On the other hand, density is greater in Skalica (11% greater), this fact actually can have an influence on the growing stock. Pls revise  or remove this parragraph and, in any case, move the corrected one to "Discussion" chapter.

-  In Table 2, the variable "Yield" may be confusing, as it is more referred to stand dynamics, I recomends using standing volume or growing stock instead (through all the manuscript).

- In the first row od Table 3, I guess that the authors could mean "Deviation" instead of "Deviance".

- In Tables 4 and 5, the authors must define properly the variables in the first column using the same symbols than in the text.

-   In Line 415, the authors must homogenize formats in References list accordingly with the author instructions by Forests Editorial

    

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript and believe that the study carried out provides important information for harvesting operations in poplar rotations in eastern Europe. The study design and results are adequate and provide good information to the readers. Some English language editing is needed. The writing currently is in a format that has several standalone sentences between paragraphs that makes reading more difficult. I have highlighted further comments in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The studied variables/indicators in Table 4 and Table 5 should be presented with their natural values. 

Author Response

Coment: The studied variables/indicators in Table 4 and Table 5 should be presented with their natural values.

Response: We agree and we have re-edited all tables with variable-names to improve readability.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper brings results made a direct comparison between whole tree and short wood system, conducted in two sites in the Slovak Republic, applied to poplar plantations. The focus of the paper suits to a scope of the journal. The structure of the paper follows a structure of a scientific paper.

 

Abstract

This section is too long I recommend to shorten it.

 

Introduction

The introduction is written concisely and clearly - I have no comments.

 

Materials and Methods

The methodology for measuring the productivity and economic efficiency aspects of hybrid poplar harvesting has been determined correctly. It is described clearly and concisely. I have one comment on the methodology of the experiment. It would have been useful to add to the methodology a harvesting scheme (figure) at the plantations.

 

Results

The authors set regression analysis, ANalysis of VAriance and others in the data evaluation. The proposed method of data evaluation was well chosen, where the stated objective of the research was clearly and concisely evaluated by the authors. The results show the differences of the established harvesting methods in poplar plantations. I have no comments on the chapter.

 

Discussion

The discussion is a critical comparison of the results with the works of other authors - I have no comments.

 

Conclusion

The authors conclude by pointing out the differences between CTL and WTH harvesting systems, highlighting the contribution of the paper and the results to scientific knowledge. The limitations of the research provided and directions for future research are discussed in the conclusion.

For better clarity of the results, I recommend the authors to write the conclusions in bullet points.

 

Example:

-     - The study results show that “Whole tree” (WTH) operation is more productive (BDT ha^-1) than “cut-to-length” (CTL)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf