Environmental Impacts of Mechanized Timber Harvesting in Eucalyptus Plantations in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the authors of the article that the deployment of technology and mechanized technologies in forestry, especially in logging, brings a number of benefits, especially in the form of a reduction in the physical effort of workers, an increase in work safety and, of course, an increase in productivity and the quality of work. However, in addition to these positive benefits, technical progress also entails some negative consequences, especially in the form of damage to the natural environment. In perhaps all forestry-developed countries of the world, considerable attention has been paid in recent decades to the identification of these negative impacts of mining and transport technologies on the forest environment and how to mitigate these (negative) impacts. There are several sophisticated methodologies in the world for the analysis of these damages caused especially by logging on forest stands. A number of publications are also devoted to this topic. All this testifies to the general importance of this issue. Therefore, I can state that the presented article is up-to-date and is particularly important for the economic sector from which the information processed in the article was obtained.

In Chapter 1 – Introduction, some specifics of Brazil's forest management are presented and the method of using the EIA methodology for assessing the effects of mining technologies is indicated. In this context, I would recommend the authors to specify more precisely the main principles of this methodology so that it is possible to follow up in other parts of the article. At the same time, I would also recommend mentioning that there are several special evaluation methods in the world for identifying the structure and degree of damage to the forest environment by mining. However, these methods are not mentioned in the article, which I consider a shortcoming. At the end of this chapter, the authors specify the goal of their study, namely to integrate methodologies for assessing the effects of logging on the environment and to facilitate and refine the possibilities of reducing the negative consequences of logging on the environment. I agree with this goal.

Chapter 2 – Materials and Methods contains several sub-chapters, in which, for example, the locality where the research investigations were carried out is specified, and the local management methods are also described. Data collection is characterized in subsection 2.2. In my opinion, this important characteristic is described insufficiently – it is not entirely clear whether the authors worked with their "original" data, obtained by field investigations in the given locality, or whether they only used data taken from other sources. I also think that it should be very specific what kind of data was involved. I recommend editing this subsection. My comments on sub-chapter 2.3 follow on from the previous ones: here the authors talk about the creation of some kind of relational networks, but they are not specific, they do not state what specific information is important to them and also what the limits are for what can still be accepted as a negative effect and what not anymore. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the article, but I think that in order for its outputs to be applied in a real environment, it should be spoken in concrete terms. I would comment similarly on the following subsection 2.4.

Chapter 3 Results and Discussion presents a whole range of information. To me, all this information seems like the theoretical outputs of theoretical works. If the authors state in chapter 2.1 that they conducted their investigations on a specific property (…commercial plantations of Eucalyptus spp, with a total area of 194.37 hectares…), then I did not find any specific findings and conclusions about this location in the Results. The advertised Discussion in Chapter 3 is very unclear. There is no comparison of the results with the findings of other authors, but even the controversy over their own results is perceived by the authors rather vaguely.

In the title of the article as well as in its goal, the integration (or connection) of methodologies for evaluating the negative effects of logging on the environment is announced. I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me what existing methods have been integrated here and what kinds of data and what limits are being worked with. I would recommend editing the article in such a way that it will be considered either only as a theoretical characteristic of the evaluation methods (even in that case, however, I would recommend making the article more concrete and precise) or that it will include the actual use of connected methods on the example of the given locality.

 

I therefore recommend not to publish the article in this form and to edit it in accordance with the above recommendations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for all the time spent contributing to our work and science. All revisions were taken into consideration and incorporated into the text, as far as possible. We marked the changes with the color yellow and the other questions were answered in the attached file.

This work has a qualitative character and aims to improve methodologies based on facilitating field work and the planning of forestry operations. The association of tools developed aims to assist in monitoring the routine of field workers, who carry out the planning of forestry operations, and the specific operational procedures of each company. In this context, we seek simplify an underused tool in forestry, with the potential to go beyond legal requirements, such as those related to environmental licensing.

In Brazil, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is detailed and required in prior licensing processes for various operations, as well as being an important topic in different countries and legislations. Existing methodologies for EIA generally require long evaluation periods and several steps. The idea for this work arose from consultancies provided to large companies in the Brazilian forestry sector, which face difficulties in simplifying the application of EIA on a daily basis, in accordance with certification requirements such as ISO 14001 (environmental management system) and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), in addition to supporting decision-making in field by employees who often do not have extensive knowledge of environmental impacts.

This study aims to simplify environmental impact assessment, qualitatively evaluating the positive and negative impacts of mechanized harvesting activities. The application of the first tool, interaction networks, allows a better visualization of possible impacts, while the second stage, the transposition of these impacts in networks, aims to consider them to classify and prioritize them in forest management. Many impact assessment methodologies are permeated by the evaluator’s subjectivity. The idea of considering the impacts on the matrix and establishing a classification in stages seeks to reduce and standardize this subjectivity, which is still addressed in the discussion. Both integrated methodologies (interaction network and EIA matrices) are easy to apply in the field and in the daily lives of workers and managers.

The proposed association of tools was applied in large Brazilian companies with the aim of monitoring and managing daily impacts, without excluding other EIA methodologies required in licensing. We believe that the combination of these methodologies can be applied and adapted to different forestry production models. Although many impacts are predictable and obvious, environmental legislation, environmental certifications and companies' internal procedures require demonstration of how this conclusion was reached, through monitoring methodologies and standards. This work, therefore, offers a significant contribution to the simplification and efficiency of the management of environmental impacts in forestry.

Finally, thank you again for all your contributions and understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Timber harvesting is most often associated with a negative impact on the forest environment. This article refers to methods of assessing this impact.

In my opinion, the article needs to be rewritten.

The Introduction chapter is relatively short. Although it refers to the topic, it should be expanded to include more details related to methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. This chapter should also include a literature review. At the end of the Introduction, there is a lack of presentation of a clearly defined research aim.

The authors have implemented the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix to solve the research problem. I would ask for an explanation of why the ranges of value range (ES) are unequal. Statistical analyses are also lacking.

The Results chapter should be separated from the Discussion. The Discussion should generally be written at a high level of generality. In this chapter, reference should be made to how the results obtained look in comparison with other studies related to the problem described. Guidelines can also be placed there.

Fig. 2. was published in 2019 and should not be part of the results. It should probably be in the methods section. Furthermore, if it was made by the Authors then there is no need to emphasize that it is ‘Own authorship ’.

The order in which the different problems are presented should follow what is written in lines 256-279, which is not in this case.

The Authors use the abbreviation ‘ES’ in their table descriptions. Please use the full name.

Conclusions should relate directly to the results achieved.

Please adapt the References layout to the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for all the time spent contributing to our work and science. All revisions were taken into consideration and incorporated into the text, as far as possible. We marked the changes with the color yellow and the other questions were answered in the attached file.

This work has a qualitative character and aims to improve methodologies based on facilitating field work and the planning of forestry operations. The association of tools developed aims to assist in monitoring the routine of field workers, who carry out the planning of forestry operations, and the specific operational procedures of each company. In this context, we seek simplify an underused tool in forestry, with the potential to go beyond legal requirements, such as those related to environmental licensing.

In Brazil, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is detailed and required in prior licensing processes for various operations, as well as being an important topic in different countries and legislations. Existing methodologies for EIA generally require long evaluation periods and several steps. The idea for this work arose from consultancies provided to large companies in the Brazilian forestry sector, which face difficulties in simplifying the application of EIA on a daily basis, in accordance with certification requirements such as ISO 14001 (environmental management system) and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), in addition to supporting decision-making in field by employees who often do not have extensive knowledge of environmental impacts.

This study aims to simplify environmental impact assessment, qualitatively evaluating the positive and negative impacts of mechanized harvesting activities. The application of the first tool, interaction networks, allows a better visualization of possible impacts, while the second stage, the transposition of these impacts in networks, aims to consider them to classify and prioritize them in forest management. The evaluator’s subjectivity permeates many impact assessment methodologies. Considering the impacts on the matrix and establishing a classification in stages seeks to reduce and standardize this subjectivity, which is still addressed in the discussion.

The proposed association of tools was applied in large Brazilian companies to monitor and manage daily impacts, without excluding other EIA methodologies required in licensing. We believe combining these methodologies can be applied and adapted to different forestry production models. Although many impacts are predictable and obvious, environmental legislation, environmental certifications and companies' internal procedures require a demonstration of how this conclusion was reached, through monitoring methodologies and standards. Therefore, this work offers a significant contribution to the simplification and efficiency of managing environmental impacts in forestry.

Finally, thank you again for all your contributions and understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Please note the following: In the current research, an attempt has been made to investigate the effects of timber harvesting on the forest environment and the economic status of the local people. Although this is an appropriate research topic, I think it is too general and broad. I found many things in the text of the article that were not clear to me, for example, how to collect data and how to score dependent variables, statistical population, sample size and statistical analyses. In the introduction, I did not see the need for research and the gap in previous research. Also, the objectives of the research are not clearly mentioned in the introduction. Research hypotheses are not mentioned. The results obtained are predictable and common. Conclusions should be limited. Please make the above more clear. Good luck

 

Title

It is better to write it shorter and clearer. My suggestion:

Environmental impacts of mechanized timber harvesting in Eucalyptus plantations, Brazil

Abstract

The results are not clear. The conclusion needs correction.

Line 25: “forest harvesting”: Considering that you have studied the environmental effects of forest harvesting, it is better to mention the method, system, and mechanization level of forest harvesting.

Line 29: You stated the purpose of this research as "forest harvesting" effects, not "timber transportation". These two words are different.

Line 29-30: “The results show ….. environmental indices”: This is quite obvious. In fact, in all forest harvesting operations, there will be a series of positive environmental effects and a series of negative effects.

Line 31: soil erosion

Line 32-34: “The most significant changes, both positive and negative, were observed in a greater number of environmental impacts for the physical and anthropic environment, with fewer for the biotic environment.” These results are incomprehensible to me. It seems that they need to be written in detail.

Line 36-37: “applicable to different crops” and “production systems”: First: It is better to use more appropriate terms that are common in forest management sciences: different forests, different tree species, different methods of forest management, silviculture, etc. Secondly: I did not understand how the results of this research were generalized to all types of forests in different parts of the planet.

Keywords

Needs correction

Separate keywords with commas, not dots.

mention to harvesting system.

“Environmental impact of forest harvesting”: be corrected, it is long.

“Eucalyptus”: eucalyptus plantation

“Forestry industry”: I don't understand why you wrote this as keywords

 

Introduction

By reading the introduction, the necessity of conducting the present research, especially the existing gap, cannot be understood.

Research objectives should be written in detail at the end of the introduction.

Line 45: … products or services “in forest ecosystems”.

 

Materials and methods

Please describe the studied forest in more detail.

Line 93: Please correct the degree symbols.

Line 101: “for 90 days”. In the figure 1 you mentioned to “60 to 90 days”.

Classification of forest harvesting effects and how to quantify them are unclear to me.

 

References

The way of writing references is not according to the journal format.

Many references are mentioned which are in non-English language.

The references of 25 and 34 are same.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for all the time spent contributing to our work and science. All revisions were considered and incorporated into the text, as far as possible. We marked the changes with yellow, and the other questions were answered in the attached file.

This work has a qualitative character and aims to improve methodologies based on facilitating field work and the planning of forestry operations. The association of tools developed aims to assist in monitoring the routine of field workers, who carry out forestry operations planning, and each company's specific operational procedures. In this context, we seek to simplify an underused tool in forestry, with the potential to go beyond legal requirements, such as those related to environmental licensing.

In Brazil, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is detailed and required in prior licensing processes for various operations, as well as being an important topic in different countries and legislations. Existing methodologies for EIA generally require long evaluation periods and several steps. The idea for this work arose from consultancies provided to large companies in the Brazilian forestry sector, which face difficulties in simplifying the application of EIA on a daily basis, in accordance with certification requirements such as ISO 14001 (environmental management system) and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), in addition to supporting decision-making in field by employees who often do not have extensive knowledge of environmental impacts.

This study aims to simplify environmental impact assessment, qualitatively evaluating the positive and negative impacts of mechanized harvesting activities. The application of the first tool, interaction networks, allows a better visualization of possible impacts, while the second stage, the transposition of these impacts in networks, aims to consider them to classify and prioritize them in forest management. The evaluator’s subjectivity permeates many impact assessment methodologies. The idea of ​​considering the impacts on the matrix and establishing a classification in stages seeks to reduce and standardize this subjectivity, which is still addressed in the discussion.

The proposed association of tools was applied in large Brazilian companies with the aim of monitoring and managing daily impacts, without excluding other EIA methodologies required in licensing. We believe that the combination of these methodologies can be applied and adapted to different forestry production models. Although many impacts are predictable and obvious, environmental legislation, environmental certifications and companies' internal procedures require demonstration of how this conclusion was reached, through monitoring methodologies and standards. This work, therefore, offers a significant contribution to the simplification and efficiency of the management of environmental impacts in forestry.

Finally, thank you again for all your contributions and understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the modifications made to the paper and have no further comments on it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your contributions to our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be published in the present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for all your suggestions and contributions to our article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thanks for your corrections.

Please, well describe the different colors in the Figures 6, 10.

Please, Dot should be used instead of comma in the numbers of figures 3, 4 and 5.  

Please change from underlined to normal: Lines: 347, 353, 359, 362, and 366.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Follow the responses to the comments:

"Dear Authors

Thanks for your corrections.

Please, well describe the different colors in the Figures 6, 10.

Authors: The descriptions of the different colors have been improved according to suggestions.

Please, Dot should be used instead of comma in the numbers of figures 3, 4 and 5.  

Authors: The change in the score was made as suggested.

Please change from underlined to normal: Lines: 347, 353, 359, 362, and 366.

Authors: The formatting change was changed as suggested"

We are grateful for all suggestions and improvements made to our article.