Using Forest Compensation Funds to Reverse Biodiversity Loss: A Case Study of Turin–Lyon High-Speed Railway Line

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The intention of the authors and the work done to reverse biodiversity loss it is commendable. However, the paper ”Using forest compensation funds from a high-speed railway line to reverse biodiversity loss” has several shortcomings.

There are many repetitions in the text but one stands out: ”an innovative approach” - collocation used by the authors to characterize their method. I consider that self-characterization is not enough to determine innovation in this case. The methods are confusing: are composed of subchapters 2.1 A case study: the Turin–Lyon High-speed railway  and 2.2. Forest compensations to reverse biodiversity loss. I believe that in the chapter that describes the research methods you need to be clear: what is the place where you conducted the research and how you did this research. Subchapter 2.1. includes some of the necessary data but not enough. In subchapter 2.2. there is a purely theoretical part and a scheme for the ”innovative approach” proposed by the authors. I consider this approach a normal and well-known approach with the intention of reducing the impact on biodiversity.The results include information that would have been great if it had been included in the method description.

For example: you evaluated the animal taxa threatened by the megaproject. In the chapter on methods it was good to specify: ex. for the development of the method ... I evaluated ... how this evaluation was done, its importance. Only then in the results chapter to present the data obtained after the evaluation.

The same observations apply to the following subchapters. In order for the reader to be convinced that the authors' method is innovative, he must know how to replicate it, what are the considerations that classify this method in the category of innovation, what do the authors bring in addition and it has not been applied in other cases?

I think it would be much better if the research results were presented as a case study and not as an innovative method. The paper contains very interesting information from a scientific point of view in the context of large-scale industrial developments. I recommend rewriting the paper and presenting the research in detail and organized in the form of a case study.

Author Response

The intention of the authors and the work done to reverse biodiversity loss it is commendable. However, the paper “Using forest compensation funds from a high-speed railway line to reverse biodiversity loss” has several shortcomings.

AUTHORS: We hope to have solved all the shortcomings.

 

There are many repetitions in the text but one stands out: “an innovative approach” - collocation used by the authors to characterize their method. I consider that self-characterization is not enough to determine innovation in this case.

AUTHORS: We thank the Reviewer for the comment, we have edited the text in order to make more explicit the reason why we consider the approach innovative.

 

The methods are confusing: are composed of subchapters 2.1 A case study: the Turin–Lyon High-speed railway and 2.2. Forest compensations to reverse biodiversity loss. I believe that in the chapter that describes the research methods you need to be clear: what is the place where you conducted the research and how you did this research. Subchapter 2.1. includes some of the necessary data but not enough. In subchapter 2.2. there is a purely theoretical part and a scheme for the “innovative approach” proposed by the authors. I consider this approach a normal and well-known approach with the intention of reducing the impact on biodiversity. The results include information that would have been great if it had been included in the method description.

AUTHORS: We thank the Reviewer for having pointed out these unclarities. Considering that the manuscript is a perspective paper (and not a typical research paper), we have removed the sections “Materials and methods” and “Results” that partially led to unclarities. Instead, we have added two paragraphs on where and how the research was conducted (lines 226-567).

 

For example: you evaluated the animal taxa threatened by the megaproject. In the chapter on methods it was good to specify: ex. for the development of the method ... I evaluated ... how this evaluation was done, its importance. Only then in the results chapter to present the data obtained after the evaluation.

AUTHORS: We understand the point raised by the Reviewer. However, we highlight that we aim to propose our manuscript as a perspective paper. The focus is more on presenting our approach, which we consider pretty innovative, than classic methods and results of a research paper. Nevertheless, we edited the text, adding more details on procedures and results.

 

The same observations apply to the following subchapters. In order for the reader to be convinced that the authors' method is innovative, he must know how to replicate it, what are the considerations that classify this method in the category of innovation, what do the authors bring in addition and it has not been applied in other cases?

AUTHORS: We believe that our approach is innovative, at least with respect to Italy's usual procedures. To better explain this point, we have added a new paragraph describing how forest compensations are usually used and how our approach differed, being based on data collected locally and used to improve local biodiversity (lines 120-136). We hope to have been clear in presenting the innovative aspects of our approach. We also hope to clarify that we want to introduce a new approach that policymakers and managers would apply in similar situations in other industrial sites instead of replicating our case study.

 

I think it would be much better if the research results were presented as a case study and not as an innovative method. The paper contains very interesting information from a scientific point of view in the context of large-scale industrial developments. I recommend rewriting the paper and presenting the research in detail and organized in the form of a case study.

AUTHORS: We have edited the text accordingly, presenting the paper as a case study. However, as explained above, we focused on the proposed approach more than the results, limiting the methods' description. Other managers and researchers could use the information provided to replicate the study; however, we stress that we aim to stimulate a discussion on how forest compensation could be better used to maintain or improve local biodiversity. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study under consideration reports on some sort of a model proposed for ecological conservation out of megaprojects for a case of Turin–Lyon High-speed railway. It is a matter of fact that these kinds of projects have been threatening ecological well-being around the world. A phenomenon that makes this study of potential interest to the readers of the journal. However, the major flaw in the manuscript is that the authors have somewhat ignored the importance of highlighting the novelty of the current study.

More specific comments are highlighted below;

• In the abstract, the authors should add a statement highlighting the novelty of the study apart from the general significance.
• Similarly, the novelty of the methodologies used should be highlighted in the introduction section. A statement like, “Here, we present a new multi-taxa approach to use forest compensation…….”, is not enough to justify the novelty. The study should be placed in front of other studies. Also, solely relying on funding type, does not make this study that much scientifically sound, instead the authors should focus on the methodologies used.
• To better anticipate the potential effects of the project the authors could characterize the case study in terms of km²
• Did the study cover the entire project area? If not, what is the percentage of the study coverage within the entire project area? (This information should be presented in the materials and methods section)
• Based on the fact that the study is ongoing, the presented information becomes more of reporting the current activities, that is why you find more of the methodologies in the results and discussion section.
• The authors should also carefully check and define all the abbreviations before their application elsewhere in the manuscript.
• In the monitoring process, the authors plan to check if the two populations of Z. polyxena will connect and to evaluate if artificial cavities will be used by bats; to my opinion these two metrics are not enough to justify the approach.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

The study under consideration reports on some sort of a model proposed for ecological conservation out of megaprojects for a case of Turin–Lyon High-speed railway. It is a matter of fact that these kinds of projects have been threatening ecological well-being around the world. A phenomenon that makes this study of potential interest to the readers of the journal. However, the major flaw in the manuscript is that the authors have somewhat ignored the importance of highlighting the novelty of the current study.

AUTHORS: We thank the Reviewer for the general appreciation of the paper. We agree that the novelty of our approach in respect of ‘business as usual’ was not well presented, and we edited the text to explain the originality of the work better. More specific comments are highlighted below.

 

In the abstract, the authors should add a statement highlighting the novelty of the study apart from the general significance.

AUTHORS:  We have added a sentence to highlight the novelty of the approach.

 

Similarly, the novelty of the methodologies used should be highlighted in the introduction section. A statement like, “Here, we present a new multi-taxa approach to use forest compensation…….”, is not enough to justify the novelty. The study should be placed in front of other studies. Also, solely relying on funding type, does not make this study that much scientifically sound, instead the authors should focus on the methodologies used.

AUTHORS: We understand the Reviewer's concern, and we agree that some points were not clear enough. Therefore, we worked through the manuscript to make things more straightforward. In our region and Italy, more in general, forest compensations can be monetary or physical. Funds collected by the Local authorities are used for hydrogeological rebalancing, while physical compensation involves reforestation or forest improvement projects. Fauna and ecological interactions are usually not considered. The novelty of our approach was that evaluating compensation measures, forests were regarded as an ecosystem and not only as trees, focusing on the interactions between animals and vegetation. We used forest compensation funds to reduce the risk of biodiversity loss. We monitored several taxa and used data collected locally to design and implement some valuable interventions for the target taxa. The methodology used to monitor some animal taxa are commonly used for species surveys: Pollard transect and MRR for butterflies; window traps for saproxylic beetles; acoustic monitoring for bats. Therefore, we believe there is no need to describe them in detail, especially in a perspective paper.

To better anticipate the potential effects of the project the authors could characterize the case study in terms of km²

AUTHORS: We have added this information. The site was about 65 ha (0.65 km²; line 132).

Did the study cover the entire project area? If not, what is the percentage of the study coverage within the entire project area? (This information should be presented in the materials and methods section)

AUTHORS: The project was developed in 65 ha: 3.6 ha inside the area partially included in the expansion site, 50 ha were included in forest improvements (ecological corridor + tree improvements) and 11.6 in the higher area connected by the ecological corridor. Not all the activities were carried out in the entire area but only in those parts suitable for the species investigated (e.g. butterflies in grassland, saproxylic beetles in forests). We have added this information to Table 1.

 

Based on the fact that the study is ongoing, the presented information becomes more of reporting the current activities, that is why you find more of the methodologies in the results and discussion section.

AUTHORS: We agree with the Reviewer, and it has to be considered even that the actual results might be seen only several years after the forest interventions. We added this aspect to the main text.

 

The authors should also carefully check and define all the abbreviations before their application elsewhere in the manuscript.

AUTHORS: Done.

 

In the monitoring process, the authors plan to check if the two populations of Z. polyxena will connect and to evaluate if artificial cavities will be used by bats; to my opinion these two metrics are not enough to justify the approach.

AUTHORS: We edited the text in order to be more explicit on how evaluate the success of the approach.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written and clearly explains with a pragmatic approach the right actions to reduce the loss of biodiversity focused on some target species but with positive effects on many others. It represents an interesting case study that can be used as a model for future similar cases

Author Response

The paper is well written and clearly explains with a pragmatic approach the right actions to reduce the loss of biodiversity focused on some target species but with positive effects on many others. It represents an interesting case study that can be used as a model for future similar cases

AUTHORS: We thank the Reviewer for this nice and careful evaluation of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the corrections, the structure of the paper has been considerably improved. I consider that the paper can be published in this form.

Author Response

We are thankful to the Reviewer for this appreciation. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in the current form

Author Response

We are thankful to the Reviewer for this comment.