Definition and Classification of Potential of Forest Wood Biomass in Terms of Sustainable Development: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Term forest wood biomass is in present time more and more analysed, discussed and used in research and too in forest praxis and society. I appreciate the choice of topic, chosen methods of solution, appropriate presentation. Presented paper is by my opinion good prepared and designed in standard requirements for Sustainability Journal. I´m satisfied with overall Quality of Review. Abstract is comprehensive, the Introduction Chapter is adequate, broad and clear. Methodology is suitable and adequate. Results fulfil standard and Discussion is too adequate. Authors have used by standard number of respectable references by Review papers (91). 

I have only some next small (technical) comments and recommendations, which by my Opinion target to improve to final quality of this well prepared and presented Review:

1. (Row 46): I recommend append term “European” in sentence “European forest covered 38%... and about 5% of the world forests”.

2. By mention of more References (row 166 – [37,25] I recommend first mention of lower number [25,37]. Please, check and modify in whole text (row 30, 342 etc.).

3. Fig. 1 is not fully correct, part of last sententious are not displayed. By first indent I recommend append one adjective “Living wood in forest stand and deadwood”

4. I not fully understand sequence of presented References in Table 2 and Table 3. By my Opinion would be best Order by Publish-time. Please, reorder References, or explain logic of current Order. I recommend enlarge wide of Table 2, for me is head little hard understood. Modify presentation of head in only one Row. 

5. Modify too Table 3 and Table 4 according required Format of MDPI (without underline of selected Columns).

5. What does it mean term “BASE” (row 369)?

6. Fig. 2 is by my opinion little unstandardized, more as half of site takes Text. Could You shorten text in Right side, or change Figure to Table.

7. Row 510 – I think, reference [88] is not correct for this sentence, make sure this reference.

8. Please remove unsuitable or redundant text in Finish – I think that Institutional Review Board Statements is not applicable for You, too Informed Consent Statement and check Acknowledgements.  

9. I think, that some References not fulfil required MDPI format (ref. 2,4,5 etc),  Suitable format of references are:

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.

Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name year, phrase indicating stage of publication (submitted; accepted; in press).

 

10. By Reference 91 I recommend append subscript (“In Lithuanian”).

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The answers are attached in a word document. Other corrections are given in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is providing some interesting synthesis of different scientific papers and definitions. However, the overall objective and the main message of the manuscript remain vague. The used literature and methods are appropriate. The discussion and conclusions could be more focused.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The discussion and conclusions have been corrected, more concentrated. Other corrections are given in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments to Authors:

(1)       Please consider restructuring the title to: Definition and classification of potential forest wood biomass in terms of sustainable development: A review

(2)       Page 1, Line 21-22: The authors stated that ‘The study focused on the potential of forest wood biomass for all purposes and contributes to the understanding of the sustainable potential of forest wood biomass.’ This sentence needs to be restructure.

(3)       Page 1, Line 43: Please specify the number of SDG that covers this scope. Add recent reference: Sen, K.Y.; Baidurah, S. Renewable biomass feedstocks for production of sustainable biodegradable polymer. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2020, 27, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.100412

(4)       Page 2, Line 46-85: The paragraph is too long. Should be separated into several new paragraphs, where suitable.

(5)       Page 2, Line 49-50: The authors stated that: ‘There are currently over 8 billion people in the world and the United Nations projects that the global population will reach 11 billion by 2100’. Please add the most recent reference(s) to this statement, taking account of the population reduction due to the Covid-19 crisis.

(6)       Page 2, Line 52: Please rearrange the reference numbering: ‘…wood biomass [9, 10, 11, 12, 6] may …’.

(7)       Page 2, Line 55: Missing close parenthesis?

(8)       Page 2, Line 58-60: This sentence require restructuring: ‘For example, to use innovative wood-based building materials (at present the buildings and construction sector currently emits almost 40 % of energy-related global greenhouse gas emissions) [3]’.

(9)       Page 2, Line63-64: Suggested reconstruction of sentence ‘The actual sustainably available wood depends on many constraints such as physical, biological, technological, ecological, economic, social, and political’.

(10)    Page 2, Line 68: The reference should be cited as: ‘researchers [13, 15-20]’.

(11)    Page 3, Line 100: (p. 180)?

(12)    Page 4, Table 1: Please add one more elaboration/example for the year 2022 or 2023.

(13)    Page 5, Line 190: References numbering should be rearranged [13, 48, 52, 53]. Check throughout the manuscript.

(14)    Page 5, Line 198: reference writing style [15 – 17].

(15)    Page 6, Line 219: Missing close parenthesis?

(16)    Page 6, Figure 1: Missing some information in the right box.

(17)    Page 8: Some paragraphs are too long. Please consider separating into new paragraphs.

(18)    Page 14, Line 457: The manuscript discussed about the sustainability of wood biomass and the related sustainability. However, no information about the replantation method/strategy. Please add one subtopic regarding replantation method/strategy for forest restoration.

 

<<END>>

. Overall, this manuscript requires minor editing prior to any publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The answers are attached in a word document. Other corrections are given in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The subject of the manuscript is nomenclature related to forest production and management and the concept of "sustainability" concerning wood products of forest production. The article is based solely on the selection of appropriate definitions for the predetermined classification of terms such as, for example, the theoretical potential of wood biomass, the potential of wood biomass, the economic (market) potential of wood biomass, the ecological potential of wood biomass, and sustainable potential of wood biomass: sustainable forest development, the theoretical, technical, and sustainable potential of wood biomass, constraints of biomass potential of wood biomass, etc.

The conclusions of the manuscript are the quoted final definitions, considered appropriate by the authors of the manuscript, of the concepts discussed in the manuscript.

The authors named the part of the manuscript from line 458 as Discussion. According to the reviewer, the name Discussion can be adopted for the text much earlier, that is, from the line 86. 

One may wonder whether such a discussion makes sense since many of the authors of the papers cited in the manuscript treated these concepts similar to what the authors of the manuscript did in their final definitions and many somewhat differently, but the sense was similar.

The reviewer was more interested in the marginally treated part of this manuscript concerning the analysis of the state of sustainable forest management, or instead, its absence precisely where it is most expected: lines 498-514. If the authors had focused more on the topics covered in the content contained between lines 498-514, the manuscript would have been interesting for the reader because, in the current version, it is highly tedious. Most of the scientific papers cited are valuable materials from which an excellent article of high scientific value could be written on the global management of forest biomass and forest timber resources, and the authors of the manuscript have only engaged in a discussion of defining terms.

 Considering that the authors reviewed 91 items of an informative and scientific nature in order to obtain the necessary information to systematize and define terms, it can be concluded that the manuscript also has scientific value.

Author Response

Thanks for your notes. The answers are given in the attached word document. Other corrections are provided in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx