Cross-Boundary Sustainability: Assessment across Forest Ownership Categories in the Conterminous USA Using the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses the important issue of sustainable forest management by examining it over a large area and in relation to different forms of forest ownership, using the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators. Such considerations can help to improve forest sustainability, which is also of particular importance for the rest of the environment and people. However, the article needs significant corrections and additions, which I have presented below, as it is currently more like a report. The text needs to be formatted, as there are currently numerous pages with only one small paragraph.

 

Title

Needs to be changed - the article does not compare criteria and indicators, only their values (the criteria and indicators used are the same after all). Maybe something like: Implementation of the SFM model in forests of different ownership forms in the USA

 

Abstract

L13 (and further in the article) - "Forest sustainability" or "Sustainable forest management"? (vide e.g. Criterion 2, 6 and 7)

L15-16 - here there is a division into Private/Public/Tribal (=100%) and further down in the Abstract there are the terms Family/Corporate/Federal/ Local and Other Private - this is inconsistent, it is not clear how these divisions relate to each other

L16-17 - you could remove "Based on the C&I framework and the available data,", it repeats previous information. Also, this was found rather based on analysis of these criteria/data.

L24 - % of what? forest area? Care should be taken to be precise both in the Abstract and throughout the article. For example, it is not written which year (or which period) the analysed data refers to? Since the terms "decrease" and "increase" are used, it is rather a certain period that was studied.

L28-30 - "Sustainability is complex, C&I are imperfect, and there are additional elements that would be helpful for comparing across ownership categories" - this is some mental shorthand, please expand on this. Which elements would be helpful? Are these the authors' thoughts/conclusions after the analysis? this should be added.

L31-32 - why is "the loss of Family forestland to other ownership categories" as an problem?

 

Keywords

They should not repeat the title. If the title is corrected, this comment will be partly obsolete.

 

Introduction

Have such comparisons been made somewhere/ in another country or region? What did they show? It is worth referring to this as background research and it will also be useful in discussing the results. (I gave some examples in References)

L45-46 - no source of information - e.g. how do you know that they have varying levels of knowledge?

It is worth extending the description of the Montréal Process.

Purpose is insufficiently described - in fact these are rather means (e.g. make comparisons across these groups) to achieve some purpose. Why was the comparison made? what is the significance and what can it be used for? why might it be important and interesting for an international reader?

 

Materials and Methods

L76 - unexplained USDA abbreviation

Table 2 - data source for Indicator 7.5.c - in my opinion, if there is no data available for this indicator in the mentioned institutions or datasets, it should not be listed here, but separately described and commented in the further text (why there are no sources of information for it and that only the authors' research will allow evaluation of this indicator). But why can't it also be Literature synthesis? Are there no theoretical assumptions for this indicator described anywhere and there are no publications about its practical implementation? And the cited report for all US forests does not refer to this issue?

Text under Table 2 - no explanation of what was meant by forest (forest area).

L135-139 - NatureServe's Map of Biodiversity presumably includes forest species as well as those from other environments. However, this indicator is about endangered species associated with forests - there is no explanation for how this was resolved.

L160 and 164 - repeats "3.b", should rather be listed once, please check the correctness of both these lines

There is no information in this section about the timeframe for which the analysis was carried out.

 

Results

The first sentence is redundant, it should rather be at the end of the previous chapter (Materials and Methods).

The layout of the results should be changed, as they are currently very uncomfortable to read and illegible. Please divide them into numbered subchapters, separate for each criterion. In each subchapter, please include a table with all the information related to that criterion, selected from the current Tables 3, 4 and 5. Due to the size of the article and its readability, I suggest making a common chapter Results and Discussion, and commenting/discussing the obtained results on an ongoing basis. This will be much more convenient for the reader and more interesting.

L174-179 - this is information from the Introduction, it is repetition - so some thought needs to be given to how to arrange the content in the article

L180 - "the remeasurement period" - the years from to should be added

Table 3 and 5 - titles of tables. The sentence "Numbers preceding attributes correspond to Montréal Process C&I numbers (see Table 2)" is redundant, the preceding sentence ("C&I, including data sources, are described in Table 2.") is sufficient

Figure 3 - not very readable, I am also not convinced that it is needed at all, since the trends are shown in Table 4.

Figure 4 - maybe you can enlarge it, as it is currently poorly legible. Title: the sentence "Colors correspond to different forest-type groups in each region" can be removed, as it is obvious.

L219 - the explanation for stand sizes should be in Materials and Methods

L232 - the note (Figure 6) should be together with the reference to Table 5, because Figure 6 does not show that the protected area covers 90 million ha.

In text descriptions to tables and figures it is worth remembering that you do not repeat exactly the same data - it is worth describing them more comprehensively, cross-sectionally, rather than giving again exactly the same value that is already seen in the table.

L253 - here it was stated "at-risk species associated with forests", whereas in Materials and Methods it was only "at-risk species" - this is a big difference, it is not clear which version is ultimately correct

L254 - "2.3" - does this value refer to sample point or 1 million ha? it is unclear

L254-256 and Figure 7 - no such data can be seen in Figure 7

L265 - Figure 8 refers to UNPRODUCTIVE forestland and the sentence in L263-265 refers to PRODUCTIVE forestland

L320-324 - 1 million hectares per year of forest loss is a lot, this seems like a worrying phenomenon that needs more comment

L336 - "but see Shy [25]" - what then is in the cited publication on compliance with forestry BMPs?

L336-341 - no source of information

L383 - how are BMPs supposed to encourage sustainable forest management of Private forestland? Because the other elements do, but the BMPs themselves are just requirements, not incentives

L401-402 - "most Tribal forestland is held in trust by the BIA with management goals that include sustained timber yield" - then why are forest parameters (e.g. productivity) quite low in their case?

 

Discussion

The discussion should be well and comprehensively developed, using numerous citations, otherwise it will be difficult to consider the whole reviewed text as an article, but rather as a report. The discussion should also not be a duplication of results, and in some parts it looks like that. You can also propose some solutions to the problems presented, this will increase the value of the article. These are largely in the Conclusions section, and it seems to me that a good place to put them would be in the Discussion.

L409 - "that was abandoned by Euro-American settlers or their descendants" - it is worth adding a source of information here

L431 - "much of it is conversion to agriculture" - please specify

L452 - "but the increase was due to..." - doesn't this rather mean "decrease = the reduction in percentage of area of Corporate forestland that has been planted"?

L459-461, L465-467, L473-474. L481-482, L489-507, L538-540 - no sources of information, these comments would also need to be detailed

L536-537 - "many years or decades between harvests" - please further explain why this has a negative impact on BMP implementation

L555 - "report" - is this about the article I am reviewing or something else?

 

Conclusions

This chapter should summarise the main findings of the research.

L576 - "across ownership categories" - should be added that in United States

L583-589 - the reader has no idea what the Weeks Act is. This section should be further developed in the Discussion

 

References

Some items are very unspecific - for example, the title and year alone

There are items in the Scopus database that appear to be interesting and useful ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( montreal  AND  process )  AND  TITLE-ABS-KEY ( forest )): The state of Canada's forests: A global comparison of the performance on Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators (Forest Policy and Economics 118,102234), The state of british Columbia's forests: A global comparison (Forests 11(3),316), Examining the sustainability of tropical island forests: Advances and challenges in measurement, monitoring, and reporting in the U.S. Caribbean and pacific (Forests 10(11),946), Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Lessons Learned in the Southern Cone (International Forestry Review 21(3), pp. 315-323), etc.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see our responses in the accompanying file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript seeks to assess forest sustainability across types of land ownership in the USA.

Given the size of the country, the task proposed by the authors is ambitious and very relevant and inevitably faces some data limitations.  Overall, the manuscript is well written and clear.

I salute the effort to assemble all the required data to assess forest sustainability on a scale as ample as the contiguous USA. The authors properly acknowledge the limitations that such tasks implies, particularly important are those cases in which the type of forestland ownership covariates with the natural environmental traits (often because of colonization history). The discussion makes a good job at recognizing the socio-ecological heterogeneity across regions and avoiding assigning the differences in sustainability indicators between regions to ownership.

My only (minor) advice to the authors is to consider that this journal has a global audience, thus please carefully revise the full manuscript, and take into consideration what elements are idiosyncratic for the USA, thus requiring explanation. For example, tree species are presented in vernacular names (e.g. page 12), the use of scientific names is needed.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see our responses in the accompanying file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors applied the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators to assess forest sustainability across ownership groups in the conterminous USA. Overall, the paper is sound and it deals with an interesting and relevant topic. The comprehensive information provided on the current state of US forests across ownership categories will for sure be useful for many who are working within this research area. Not only in the US, but also internationally.

The paper still has a few weaknesses, of which the most significant is the introduction of the research area and the somewhat ambiguous aim of the study. Therefore, I suggest that the authors introduce the concept of cross-boundary sustainability more thoroughly. Some additional references to previous research on sustainability would strengthen this part, since the introduction currently only refers to a few reports and unpublished work. Furthermore, a more clear justification for why the authors found the C&I framework to be the most suitable approach to assess sustainability would be useful, besides that it has been used previously in a national sustainability report. Especially since the conclusions mention that there are challenges to assess sustainability and the limitations of the C&I framework were also discussed.

The objective of this paper also needs some clarification. The authors state that the “objective of this paper is to apply the Montréal Process C&I…”, but is this not just the methodological approach that was chosen? To me it seems like the primary objective of this paper was to assess forest sustainability across ownership categories (this is also how it is stated in other parts of the manuscript), and not the just the application of the C&I. If the application of the C&I framework was a goal in itself, then why is this of interest? Furthermore, what do you want to achieve by comparing ownership categories, i.e. what are the scientific and practical contributions you aim for with this paper? Who will benefit from this new knowledge? This might become more clear if you develop the introduction a bit. 

The material and methods section is in most cases clear and offers good transparency. However, some more information about the conducted literature syntheses for criteria 4 and 7 would be useful. Did you do a systematic literature review?    

The presentation of the results are in most parts well structured, clear and easy to follow. The use of tables and figures is also clearly justified.

Overall I think the discussion is very good. In its current form, the discussion and conclusion sections could be merged because I find the latter to be more of a continuation of the discussion than concise key points revealed by this study. Finally, when the objective of the paper has been clarified, the conclusions section could be revised and more clearly highlight the key findings in relation to the objective of the study.

Specific comments:

L2: Since you have studied the conterminous USA, I suggest that  “conterminous” is added to the title for consistency with the rest of the paper.

L37: Two of the four keywords are already in the title. I recommend replacing these with other keywords.

L140-142: Does this mean that jobs generated by e.g. silvicultural activities are excluded? If so, how much would that influence the results?

L144-147: How sure are you that this will be a representative figure for the Rocky Mountain region?

L151-153: Information about what the regions were based on (and figure reference) could be moved to the above paragraph where the regions are mentioned.

L257: The small values makes Figure 7 a bit hard to read, although it gives a quite good overview of the categories. Details are however lost. 

L563-574: Could be mentioned in the introduction. Could also be moved to discussion section.

L590-599: I suggest that this is moved to Discussion.

L600-605: Could be mentioned in the introduction to establish the need for this study. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see our responses in the accompanying file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been revised, but requires final corrections and additions, which I have outlined below. A significant difficulty in preparing a review of the revised version of the article was that the corrections were not made in the revision registration mode. Please keep this in mind in the future.

 

Introduction

The objective is still insufficiently described/justified. Why has this comparison been made? what is its significance and what can it be used for? Why might it be important and interesting for an international reader?

The last sentence of the Introduction is here rather by mistake - it is a copy of the first sentence of the Methodology and that is where it (together with Table 1) should be, not in the Introduction.

 

Materials and Methods

L162 - no explanation of BMP abbreviation (it is only in L352)

 

Results

I propose to completely remove the first two sentences, they spoil the effect, and in fact it is clear how the description of the results is constructed.

In the text descriptions to tables (and figures) there are still exactly the same data repeated as in the tables - it is worth describing the tables (figures) more comprehensively, cross-sectionally, and not giving in the text again exactly the same thing we have already seen in the table. This can be simply boring for the reader.

L231 - superfluous '1' after 'large trees'

L361 - "but see Shy [35]" - still think this should be expanded - what is in the cited publication about monitoring of BMP implementation?

L396 - in the first version of the article it was 58%, in the current version it is 43% - is this not an error?

 

Discussion

There are still no broader contexts in the Discussion - why, when discussing the results for the USA, no reference has been made to the studies for Canada or Australia cited in the introduction?

It also seems that the negative phenomenon of the loss of 1 million ha of forests per year should be emphasized even more strongly, and the negative consequences of this should be stressed. One million hectares per year really is a lot.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I find that you have made significant improvements to the parts I commented on in my previous report. I also think your decision to restructure the result tables is good. Overall, I find the paper to be of high quality and it has been very interesting to read it.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx