A Conceptual Landscape-Level Approach to Assess the Impacts of Forestry on Biodiversity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript ”A conceptual landscape-level approach to assess the impacts of forestry on biodiversity”  deals with an important topic from the perspective of the biodiversity impacts in life-cycle assessments of forest wood production. The authors propose a conceptual approach at landscape level to assess the impact forestry on biodiversity. 

The research methods are described in detail and leave no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. Discussions - very detailed and comprehensive lead to well-defined conclusions that support the authors' approach. The references to future and possible research on the subject, the justifications of the research included in the project are logical and clarify questions that may arise related to the approach of the subject.

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript ”A conceptual landscape-level approach to assess the impacts of forestry on biodiversity”  deals with an important topic from the perspective of the biodiversity impacts in life-cycle assessments of forest wood production. The authors propose a conceptual approach at landscape level to assess the impact forestry on biodiversity. 

The research methods are described in detail and leave no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. Discussions - very detailed and comprehensive lead to well-defined conclusions that support the authors' approach. The references to future and possible research on the subject, the justifications of the research included in the project are logical and clarify questions that may arise related to the approach of the subject.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive comments of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations, this work presents some very interesting proposals to assess the impacts on biodiversity. In my opinion this paper are ready to be published 

Author Response

Comment: Congratulations, this work presents some very interesting proposals to assess the impacts on biodiversity. In my opinion this paper are ready to be published 

Response: Thank you very much for your positive comments of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript „A conceptual landscape-level approach to assess the impacts of forestry on biodiversity” presents an interesting, novel approach for assessing the effects of forest management on biodiversity. The used methods are thoroughly described, but the manuscript needs a major re-structuralization in order to make it more understandable and concise.

I suggest merging the introduction with the literature review and also shortening the length of these sections. A detailed description of each method is not necessary if they are referenced properly. 

Suggestions for developing methods or ideas for new approaches should take place in the discussion section, supported with results. 

Methods: instead of suggestions, I propose to describe the methods used in the experiment. Suggestions should be moved to the Discussion or the Conclusion section.

Fig 2. is overcolored. Please consider using a more restrained appearance for visualization.

Results: The description of the study sites and data collection should be moved to the methods section. An overview map could help the reader.  
At all, I suggest handling the two case studies, the methods used for them, and the results as the central part of the manuscript and formulating your recommendations based on them.

Line 386 – Error in the numeration: „4. Results” correctly.

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript „A conceptual landscape-level approach to assess the impacts of forestry on biodiversity” presents an interesting, novel approach for assessing the effects of forest management on biodiversity. The used methods are thoroughly described, but the manuscript needs a major re-structuralization in order to make it more understandable and concise.

Response: Thank you very much for providing constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. We have addressed your concerns and re-structured parts of the manuscript to make it more lucid and clearer. See our detailed responses below.

Comment: I suggest merging the introduction with the literature review and also shortening the length of these sections. A detailed description of each method is not necessary if they are referenced properly. 

Response: We have now merged the introduction with the literature review and shorted several sections and explanations in order to not make this chapter too long.

Comment: Suggestions for developing methods or ideas for new approaches should take place in the discussion section, supported with results. 

Response: We have moved parts of the text in the introduction to the discussion section, for example sections explaining the importance of reference levels. These discussions are supported with results.

Comment: Methods: instead of suggestions, I propose to describe the methods used in the experiment. Suggestions should be moved to the Discussion or the Conclusion section.

Response: We have changed the wording of suggestions to descriptions. However, we believe that the description of the models and equations in the methods sections are central to understand the following experiment and the implications of the case study examples.

Comment: Fig 2. is overcolored. Please consider using a more restrained appearance for visualization.

Response: Yes, you are right. We have changed to more simple colors in the figure for better visualization.

Comment: Results: The description of the study sites and data collection should be moved to the methods section. An overview map could help the reader.  
At all, I suggest handling the two case studies, the methods used for them, and the results as the central part of the manuscript and formulating your recommendations based on them.

Response: The description of the case study sites have been moved to the methods section. We have also added an overview map of the case study sites (Figure 3). As a result, we now believe that the case studies are a central part of the manuscript. Also, the recommendations we suggest in the discussion section are based on the case study examples.

Comment: Line 386 – Error in the numeration: „4. Results” correctly.4

Response: Thank you. This has been corrected.