Models for Economic Evaluation of Silvicultural Interventions in Radiata Pine Plantations in Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the manuscript Pignatti, G., Verani, S., Sperandio, G.: Models for the economic evaluation of silvicultural interventions in radiata pine plantations: A case study of sustainable forest management in Italy
The manuscript is solidly written, I consider it an interesting contribution to the discussion about the alternatives of conversions of Pinus radiata plantations to the native tree species composition. I appreciate the approach of the authors to tackle this issue in a close-to-nature way, i.e. to utilize the shelter of pine overstorey to provide the favourable conditions for the development of natural regeneration of autochthonous tree species and thus to gradually convert the stands. I have some minor comments to the description of the methods (see the specific comments below), anyway my major objection is regarding the number of figures and tables. In my opinion, the manuscript is overloaded with tables and figures, in some cases presenting the same data and therefore redundant. I recommend to move some of them into Supplement or merge the data included in table and figure into one figure.
Specific comments:
L42-43: „In the same years first thinning began on the plantations“ – this is not very clear. Does it mean no interventions were done until the beggining of the 80s on the entire area of pinus radiata plantations in Italy?
L119 and L123: „best plants“ and „groups of plants“ – here the better term as „plants“ would be „stems“. Btw, what do you mean under „best plants“? Does it mean the best quality, best vitality of something else? Please, be more specific here.
L142-150: in this section the definition (regarding the limits of height or diameter) of seedling, shrub, tree is missing. Please, be clear about the differences between these categories.
L220-227: What do you mean under the „regeneration layer“ and „shrub layer“? see the previous comment
L236-237 and L240-241: here al least a brief interpretation of the data is missing
L243-249: the majority of this paragraph belongs to Methods
L318-319: this is a rather trivial statement, I recommend to omit it
Figures and tables: I recommend
Fig1, Fig2 – move to Supplement
Fig3 – numbers and letters too small to read, even when printed on A4
Tab4 – the columns 3-7 repeat the same numbers – this can be mentioned in text and deleted from the table, thus making it more reader-friendly
Tab5 – move to Supplement
Tab6 – delete as redundant, can be merged with Fig7, the equations can be inserted to the respective lines/curves
Tab7 – delete as redundant, can be merged with Fig8, the equations can be inserted to the respective lines
Although I´m not a native speaker I identified some flaws regarding the English language, here the recommendations to correction:
L48: instead of „not very interested in grazing“ insert „not very interesting for grazing“
L102: instead of „after thinning the beginning of this century“ insert „after thinning at the beginning of this century“
L271: instead of „processing e extraction“ insert „processing and extraction“
L281: instead of „curry out“ insert „carry out“
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your valuable and effective suggestions that have helped to improve the understanding of the article.
Attached you will find our answers point by point.
Sincerely.
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
You have done good research. Please pay more attention to the following and make corrections: The units of the variables should be mentioned in the tables. Provide a precise definition of tree and regeneration. The method of measuring all variables and statistical analysis should be written in the research method section. In the conclusion section, the results of time and costing studies should be used. Other items that need to be more careful and if necessary to be corrected are as follows:
Line 42: What is your mean by “Sardinia”? Please indicate whether it is an ecological region or a province or other. Also mention its geographical location in Italy, for example “the province of Sardinia in the south of Italy”.
Line 48-50: What is your mean by “Intensive interventions with mechanical equipment for site preparation”? Please state clearly.
Line 56: Please state clearly for “Arbatax”, also for “Tortolì, NU”. Are they growth areas? Or the province?
Line 70: I think better terms can be used instead of "non-autochthonous".
Line 80-82: It seems that this sentence is different from the previous sentences (70-72).
Line 91-95: In my opinion, research objectives can be made clearer. The examine of "potential benefits" in applying the CCF management principles, and the "economic sustainability" in silvicultural operations seem a bit dumb. In this research, the costs and incomes of two different thinning methods and a improvement cutting of the type of regeneration cutting have been calculated, analyzed and compared with each other in tree felling, extraction and processing stages in Radiata pine plantations.
Line 142-150: It seems that if a schematic image of the sampling method is added, the collection method will be easier and faster for the reader of the article. Also, considering that the effects of the silvicultural treatments on stand and regeneration are revealed a few years after they are done, were these silvicultural treatments done in the previous periods as well? In fact, the question is, how many years after cutting are these results for the regeneration of trees?
Table 1: Please correct the decimal point in all numbers. For example, the numbers for Fuel price (EUR L-1) are correct (1.05, 1.55, 1.05), but other numbers are incorrect. Please correct them.
Line 220-227: The words of “absolute density”, relative density”, “relative frequency” are unclear and undefined.
Table 3: Please add units for different densities.
Line 229-232, and Fig. 2: Yes, but what are data about regeneration frequency in these forests? Did you collect tree regeneration data in the sample plots?
Line 236-237: Please refer to the results.
Line 240-241: Please refer to the results.
Line 243-249: This section is related to the research method, please move to the data analysis method section.
Table 8: The cost of the yard is equal to the total cost of the three stages. Why is the sum of the three costs not equal to the yard cost in the table?
Line 376: “11,477” please correct.
Line 447: Is “selective crown thinning” the same as “selective thinning”? Please keep the names of variables and treatments constant in all texts.
Line 464-472: In my opinion, the references should not be mentioned in the conclusion section, and the conclusions from the results of this research should be mentioned.
Line 473: What is your conclusion from the results of the economic analysis of this research? Please include this issue in the conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we would like to thank you for your valuable and effective suggestions that have helped to improve the understanding of the article.
Attached you will find our answers point by point.
Sincerely.
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
