Europe’s Potential Wood Supply by Harvesting System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the study has fundamental flaws that needs to be corrected before the analyse. You assign areas as "Non-profitable" without considering incomes (wood prices) or logging costs, that will vary between regions in Europe based on market conditions and forest types. These assigned areas might be called "areas with limited accessibility" since your criteria's are mainly based on the accessibility for different logging systems.
I think you underestimate the protected areas by just including the most strictly protected areas. There are other protected areas not-available for forestry, through national regulations, regional decisions or private initiatives that should be included. The effect of certification schemes should not be underestimated.
When modelling accessibility you need also to recognise 1) the large variability in soil type and soil moisture within the 1 square km pixels, and 2) that data quality in the soil mapping varies depending on the land use. It is usually better in urban and agricultural areas than in forest areas. In northern and eastern Europe winter conditions with frozen soils means that some of the wet areas can be accessed without negative impacts on soils.
In your prioritization of which logging system to use you chose the system with the highest degree of mechanisation that fulfills your accessibility criterion. I agree that in many cases this might be the most economical system to use, but this is not always the case and that should be discussed. The regional differences within Europe causes variations in logging costs for the harvesting systems, that might change the cost relationships between systems.
Author Response
Comment: I think the study has fundamental flaws that needs to be corrected before the analyse. You assign areas as "Non-profitable" without considering incomes (wood prices) or logging costs, that will vary between regions in Europe based on market conditions and forest types. These assigned areas might be called "areas with limited accessibility" since your criteria's are mainly based on the accessibility for different logging systems.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion! We changed the text and now consider these areas as “areas with limited accessibility”.
Comment: I think you underestimate the protected areas by just including the most strictly protected areas. There are other protected areas not-available for forestry, through national regulations, regional decisions or private initiatives that should be included. The effect of certification schemes should not be underestimated.
Response: We added some text that our approach follows the suggestion given by Alberdi et al. (2020) for estimating the protected areas belonging to “forest not available for wood supply” (see 2.1.2 Conservation areas). We added text in the Discussion section, mentioning that other areas not-available for forestry due to national regulations are not considered in our analysis. Considering national regulations is not in the scope of our analysis.
Comment: When modelling accessibility you need also to recognize 1) the large variability in soil type and soil moisture within the 1 square km pixels, and 2) that data quality in the soil mapping varies depending on the land use. It is usually better in urban and agricultural areas than in forest areas. In northern and eastern Europe winter conditions with frozen soils means that some of the wet areas can be accessed without negative impacts on soils.
Response: We agree that soil can have a large variability even at the local (below 1 km) level. However, no soil data with the required detail to consider this variability is available at the European level. We choose to include the European Soil Database data in our analysis as it allowed us to at least consider large scale features such as wetlands, thus adding to our analysis. We added text in the Discussion section, stating that small scale soil features are not considered in our analysis due to this data limitation.
Comment: In your prioritization of which logging system to use you chose the system with the highest degree of mechanisation that fulfills your accessibility criterion. I agree that in many cases this might be the most economical system to use, but this is not always the case and that should be discussed. The regional differences within Europe causes variations in logging costs for the harvesting systems, that might change the cost relationships between systems.
Response: We carefully revised the Introduction and Discussion section to address that cost relationship between harvesting systems and thus the selection of the harvesting system may change depending on local factors like the implemented silvicultural system or the price and availability of work force.
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Tips
1. The abstract needs to be supplemented, the main methodological assumptions should be added.
2. In chapters 2.1.5 and 2.2.2, it is necessary to clearly specify which roads were taken into account (public, internal forest roads) in terms of different classification (definitions) of forest roads in the countries under consideration. In many countries (e.g. Central Europe) it is not allowed to load timber on public roads..
3. In the discussion, the authors should refer to all parameters taken into account in their analyses, to data published from other studies (e.g. on the density of forest roads).
4. After supplementing the discussion with new considerations, the conclusions should be extended.
5. The text of the article requires editorial corrections: e.g. lack of units in the tables (table 5, column 2), standardization and detailing, in accordance with the requirements of the Publishing House, of the description of literature items (no reference to the link and date of access to materials that are not articles).
Author Response
Comment: The abstract needs to be supplemented, the main methodological assumptions should be added.
Response: The abstract has been carefully revised.
Comment: In chapters 2.1.5 and 2.2.2, it is necessary to clearly specify which roads were taken into account (public, internal forest roads) in terms of different classification (definitions) of forest roads in the countries under consideration. In many countries (e.g. Central Europe) it is not allowed to load timber on public roads..
Response: We only consider secondary and lower ranked road types relevant to forest operations. We added some text stating that motorways or primary roads were not considered relevant and were excluded in the calculations (see 2.1.5 Road network and 2.2.2 Road network). This reflects the situation in Austria, where loading timber on secondary and lower ranked road types is allowed. Dealing with the situation in each individual country was not in the scope of our analysis. We also added a link to wiki.openstreetmap.org which provides details regarding the different road types.
Comment: In the discussion, the authors should refer to all parameters taken into account in their analyses, to data published from other studies (e.g. on the density of forest roads).
Response: The discussion has been revised and limitations due to soil conditions or forest road density are now discussed in more detail.
Comment: After supplementing the discussion with new considerations, the conclusions should be extended.
Response: The Conclusion section has been revised.
Comment: The text of the article requires editorial corrections: e.g. lack of units in the tables (table 5, column 2), standardization and detailing, in accordance with the requirements of the Publishing House, of the description of literature items (no reference to the link and date of access to materials that are not articles).
Response: Thanks, the unit m³ in Table 5 has been added. We carefully revised the references and kindly ask to point to the references which still need editing.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled “Europe’s potential wood supply by harvesting system” reflects the development of applied research, the topic is interesting and the manuscript has an approach innovative. However, few minor details that could to be improved. Thus, minor changes are recommended.
Comments
1) Table 1 and Liens 237-244 – Authors should consider including the values associated to tree species and dbh in the text in table 1.
2) Lines 331-336 – the authors should consider removing the paragraph.
3) Lines 447-450 – please check English.
Author Response
Comment: The paper entitled “Europe’s potential wood supply by harvesting system” reflects the development of applied research, the topic is interesting and the manuscript has an approach innovative. However, few minor details that could to be improved. Thus, minor changes are recommended.
Response: Thanks!
Comment 1) Table 1 and Liens 237-244 – Authors should consider including the values associated to tree species and dbh in the text in table 1.
Response: We added the section Appendix A with Table A1 which shows the DBH limits for all 20 considered tree species. The table caption in Table 1 now points to this table.
Comment 2) Lines 331-336 – the authors should consider removing the paragraph.
Response Thanks for the suggestion. We chose to keep this paragraph as it presents the proportion of forests dominated by conifer vs. broad-leaved tree species, as well as the terrain and road infrastructure situation, which are important parameters for the efficiency of harvesting systems.
Comment 3) Lines 447-450 – please check English.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion While checking the English, we decided that this paragraph is not needed and removed it.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors
Interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. Please pay attention to the following items and complete them if necessary. Thanks and good luck
Title
In my opinion, the title does not match the abstract. The subject and aim of investigation is the area of the forest that can be harvested. As the title suggests: “the harvesting potential of Europe's forests”
Abstract
Also, in my opinion, the present abstract has not fully shown the information obtained from this research. I think it will be more transparent if the area of forests and harvesting systems are mentioned. For example, the area and percentage of forests that can only be harvested by air transport systems (sky line systems).
Keywords
In my opinion, keywords can also be completed: for example, harvestable forest
Introduction
Please mention the role of forest management method in choosing the timber harvesting system.
Line 24-25: In my opinion, wood production is not an ecosystem service of the forest.
Line 34-35: Please check the mentioned statistics (50 million hectares or 23.6% of forests).
Line 75-76: In the previous sentences you mentioned: “State of Europe’s Forests 2020, around 77 % of Europe’s forest can be considered as FAWS and the remaining 23 % as FNAWS.” What is the difference between your work and the presented statistics?
Method
Line 84-85: For what purpose were these softwares used? Please mention.
Line 125-126: Why did you choose these three slope classes? What was the basis of your classification? Please mention. Although you explained it in the next parts of the article.
Table 1: In my opinion, numbers should be used instead of "tree species specific" in the DBH column, and more complete explanations should be given in the caption of the table. Also, scientific or common name of trees should be used instead of “limited” in the column of “tree species”.
Results
Table 5: FAWS Million m3?
Discussion
Line 473-475: In my opinion, there should be more discussion about road density. Is there a need to build more roads? And in which forests?
Conclusion
In my opinion, it is better to mention the environmental effects of different harvesting systems, such as damage to the soil and remaining trees.
Also, please mention the silvicultural methods and its role in selection a suitable harvesting system and machinery.
Author Response
Comment: Interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. Please pay attention to the following items and complete them if necessary. Thanks and good luck
Response: Thanks!
Title
Comment: In my opinion, the title does not match the abstract. The subject and aim of investigation is the area of the forest that can be harvested. As the title suggests: “the harvesting potential of Europe's forests”
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We carefully revised the abstract but chose not to change the title.
Abstract
Comment: Also, in my opinion, the present abstract has not fully shown the information obtained from this research. I think it will be more transparent if the area of forests and harvesting systems are mentioned. For example, the area and percentage of forests that can only be harvested by air transport systems (sky line systems).
Response: The abstract has been revised and the area of forests by harvesting systems groups (ground-based, ground-based with attachments/winch, cable yarding) have been added.
Keywords
Comment: In my opinion, keywords can also be completed: for example, harvestable forest
Response: Thanks for the suggestion, keywords ‘harvestable forest’ and ‘FAWS’ have been added.
Introduction
Comment: Please mention the role of forest management method in choosing the timber harvesting system.
Response: The role of forest management (the silvicultural system) is now mentioned in the Introduction.
Comment: Line 24-25: In my opinion, wood production is not an ecosystem service of the forest.
Response: Provision of goods such as timber is commonly regarded as an ecosystem service.
Comment: Line 34-35: Please check the mentioned statistics (50 million hectares or 23.6% of forests).
Response: We checked the mentioned statistics. The numbers were right, but the wording was incorrect and has been changed to ‘are in protected areas’ instead of ‘have some protection function’.
Comment: Line 75-76: In the previous sentences you mentioned: “State of Europe’s Forests 2020, around 77 % of Europe’s forest can be considered as FAWS and the remaining 23 % as FNAWS.” What is the difference between your work and the presented statistics?
Response: The introduction has been revised and the difference between our work (top-down assessment, using same restrictions and threshold values all over Europe) and the presented statistics (bottom-up assessment, each country using their own restrictions and threshold values) should now be clearer.
Method
Comment: Line 84-85: For what purpose were these softwares used? Please mention.
Response: The purpose is now mentioned.
Comment: Line 125-126: Why did you choose these three slope classes? What was the basis of your classification? Please mention. Although you explained it in the next parts of the article.
Response: The purpose of the three slope classes is now mentioned.
Comment: Table 1: In my opinion, numbers should be used instead of "tree species specific" in the DBH column, and more complete explanations should be given in the caption of the table. Also, scientific or common name of trees should be used instead of “limited” in the column of “tree species”.
Response: We added the section Appendix A with Table A1 which shows the DBH limits for all 20 considered tree species. The table caption in Table 1 now points to this table.
Results
Comment: Table 5: FAWS Million m3?
Response: The unit m³ has been added.
Discussion
Comment: Line 473-475: In my opinion, there should be more discussion about road density. Is there a need to build more roads? And in which forests?
Response: Road density is now discussed in more detail.
Conclusion
Comment: In my opinion, it is better to mention the environmental effects of different harvesting systems, such as damage to the soil and remaining trees.
Response: The negative impacts on soil and residual stand damage due to badly planned and executed forest operations are now mentioned in the conclusion.
Comment: Also, please mention the silvicultural methods and its role in selection a suitable harvesting system and machinery.
Response: In the Discussion section, the implemented silvicultural system is now mentioned as one factor influencing the selection of a harvesting system.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest that you add a sentence in the conclusions that highlight that the areas with limited accessibility can be feasible for a profitable forest management, but further data (studies) in these areas and/or increased care and planning is needed when harvesting these areas.
Author Response
Comment: I suggest that you add a sentence in the conclusions that highlight that the areas with limited accessibility can be feasible for a profitable forest management, but further data (studies) in these areas and/or increased care and planning is needed when harvesting these areas.
Response: Thanks again for the helpful suggestion! We added the sentence in the conclusions.
