Optimizing Forest Harvesting Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis of Small-Sized Logging Crews Using Cable-Grapple Skidders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research need to be improved as follows:
1. In Discussion section, there are so many paragraph and lacks Structure, hierarchy and readability, needing to divide those paragraph into several points.
2. Fig 2 is not standardized.
3. whether the “a”, ”b” and ”c” in the Table 3, Table 4 and Table 7 show the consistent means? A “note” for each is needed.
4. The references lack of standardization
Author Response
Reviewer 1
We would like to thank you for the valuable time they have spent on our manuscript and, most importantly, for your thoughtful comments and recommendations with the aim of improving the presentation of our work.
This research need to be improved as follows:
- In Discussion section, there are so many paragraph and lacks Structure, hierarchy and readability, needing to divide those paragraph into several points.
Reply
Thank you! Following your recommendation, we divided the Discussion in six subchapters that we kindly believe facilitate the readability of our manuscript.
- Fig 2 is not standardized.
Reply
Thank you! Following your comment, we corrected the position of some tables and other figures as well.
- whether the “a”, ”b” and ”c” in the Table 3, Table 4 and Table 7 show the consistent means? A “note” for each is needed.
Reply
Thank you for your revision! We have added a note in Table 3. In Table 4, (a) and (b) are described in the table caption. Finally, in Table 7, three “a”s, next to the respective 0’s should not have been put in the first place, therefore they have been removed.
- The references lack of standardization
Reply
Thank you! As you mentioned, we found some mistakes in the references section e.g. Borz, S.A.; Ignea, G.; Popa, B. Modelling and comparing timber winching performance in windthrow and uniform selective cuttings for two Romanian skidders. J. For. Res. 2014, 10.1007/s10310-014-0439-0., which have been corrected.
We have tried to solve all similar problems in text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates two skidding systems utilizing the cable-grapple skidder Welte 115/5L, differing in work team size: one with one skidder operator and two chainsaw operators (WT3) and the other with one skidder operator and one chain saw operator (WT2). The paper is generally well written and the results well presented. I believe it can be acceptable for publication almost in the present form.
I suggest only a few amendments.
1. In the Results and Discussion sections, more pictures can be used to express the results to be more intuitive and easy for readers to understand.
2. All variables should be expressed in italics to avoid confusion with units.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer 2
We would like to thank you for the valuable time they have spent on our manuscript and, most importantly, for your thoughtful comments and recommendations with the aim of improving the presentation of our work.
This study investigates two skidding systems utilizing the cable-grapple skidder Welte 115/5L, differing in work team size: one with one skidder operator and two chainsaw operators (WT3) and the other with one skidder operator and one chain saw operator (WT2). The paper is generally well written and the results well presented. I believe it can be acceptable for publication almost in the present form.
I suggest only a few amendments.
- In the Results and Discussion sections, more pictures can be used to express the results to be more intuitive and easy for readers to understand.
Reply
Thank you! Following your kind suggestion, we divided the Discussion in six subchapters that we kindly believe facilitate the readability of our manuscript. Also, we have created a new Figure 2 in color.
- All variables should be expressed in italics to avoid confusion with units.
Reply
Thank you for your suggestion! However, we do not know if this is possible, as this is not described in the journal’s guidelines to authors. Furthermore, in the Discussion, we refer to the variables in their full length, not to their abbreviated version (e.g. skidding distance vs Dskid) Nevertheless, we are willing to make the change in a future revision, if you kindly insist on this point.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI accepted the work with interest for review, it can be seen that it is a research with many results and a documented work
The introduction is well structured and dimensioned in relation to the rest of the work.
When choosing the objectives, maybe it would have been a little easier to read if you had established 2-3 slightly more detailed objectives that would be correlated with the conclusions of the study.
Regarding the material and method, it would have been interesting if you had also taken into account the exploitation in the classic system (the one usually used) of course the volume of analyzed data would have increased a lot but we would have received relevant information about the productivity of the teams and equipment, obtained under the same conditions exploitation. Because in the conclusions in the first paragraph, the results obtained are compared with the classic exploitation system. But at the classic exploitation system, there are very large variations in the reported productivity (see the Discussions chapter, lines 323-329).
During the Discussions, I appreciate the fact that the results are reported and compared with other results obtained in the field.
Otherwise, there would be some small corrections, for example lines 113-125 are empty, the information on the page must be reorganized.
In Figure 2, if it were in color, it would probably increase the attractiveness of the article for the reader.
Table 7 - centrally arranged
Otherwise, the research is interesting.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
We would like to thank you for the valuable time they have spent on our manuscript and, most importantly, for your thoughtful comments and recommendations with the aim of improving the presentation of our work.
I accepted the work with interest for review, it can be seen that it is a research with many results and a documented work
The introduction is well structured and dimensioned in relation to the rest of the work.
When choosing the objectives, maybe it would have been a little easier to read if you had established 2-3 slightly more detailed objectives that would be correlated with the conclusions of the study.
Regarding the material and method, it would have been interesting if you had also taken into account the exploitation in the classic system (the one usually used) of course the volume of analyzed data would have increased a lot but we would have received relevant information about the productivity of the teams and equipment, obtained under the same conditions exploitation. Because in the conclusions in the first paragraph, the results obtained are compared with the classic exploitation system. But at the classic exploitation system, there are very large variations in the reported productivity (see the Discussions chapter, lines 323-329).
During the Discussions, I appreciate the fact that the results are reported and compared with other results obtained in the field.
Otherwise, there would be some small corrections, for example lines 113-125 are empty, the information on the page must be reorganized.
Reply
We would like to thank you for your thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Regarding the material and method, you set a paramount question: How high is the productivity according to the conventional/classic exploitation system. Due to budget constraints, it was impossible to conduct the presented study and a second one on the “classic” system. It should be stressed that we prioritized this research option mainly to the fact that no data exist on the new trend of smaller work teams. Nevertheless, our future endeavors will focus on even more comparisons among the two systems.
In Figure 2, if it were in color, it would probably increase the attractiveness of the article for the reader.
Reply
Thank you! Following your suggestion we created a new color Figure 2.
Table 7 - centrally arranged
Reply
Thank you! We aligned from left to central, as kindly suggested.
Otherwise, the research is interesting.
Reply
We would like to thank you for your kind comment!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It is recommended to cite and compare more work related to this study, highlighting the contribution of this study. 2. Please explain the applicability and limitations of the conclusions of this study?
Author Response
Reviewer 4
We would like to thank you for the valuable time they have spent on our manuscript and, most importantly, for your thoughtful comments and recommendations with the aim of improving the presentation of our work.
- It is recommended to cite and compare more work related to this study, highlighting the contribution of this study.
Reply
Thank you! We kindly believe that we have already cited a decent number of articles on the topic. According to another reviewer the fact that our results are presented in the Discussion and compared with other studies is appreciated, suggesting that a careful analysis and discussion of the results was done. However, we are more than willing to include and discuss other articles you may suggest to us.
- Please explain the applicability and limitations of the conclusions of this study?
Reply
Thank you for your comment, because it gives us the opportunity to clarify this point! We will try to reply to your questions with excerpts from our manuscript. Regarding the applicability:
… Both studied harvesting systems WT3 and WT2 outperformed the existing ones…. Despite the productivity gains, the transition from WT3 to WT2 resulted in large organizational delays that reduced the gross productivity in WT2 …. Thus, WT3, comprising of one dedicated machine and two chainsaw operators, seems to be a considerably more balanced and efficient option for the study area compared to WT2 …. To make optimal use of such smaller-sized work teams, special attention should be given to the training of the existing work force on modern work methods and equipment, especially in times of large cutbacks in the forestry workforce.
Regarding the limitations, we kindly believe that the currently designated as subchapter 4.6 of the Discussion includes the study limitations.
