Influence of Forest Management on the Sustainability of Community Areas in Northern Inland Portugal: A Simulated Case Study Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I’ve read your manuscript with attention. It focuses on a problem of sustainable forest management, which matters in many places of the word. The research question is reasonable, and it is answered with a good example. The manuscript reports results of a well-though project, which are presented in detail. The structure and the number of illustrations are ok. A central problem is a local focus of the manuscript, but it can be solved easily if you are ready to work with the literature and make additions. I also specify various other recommendations below.

1)      Abstract: please, shorten and focus on your direct findings and interpretations.

2)      Key words: do not repeat the words already present in the title.

3)      Introduction: please, start with the international importance of your theme.

4)      Fig. 1: please, enlarge and indicate the source of the satellite image.

5)      Subsection 2.3: what is the foundation for the proposal of these scenarios?

6)      Subsection 2.4: have you considered price changes, inflation, demand changes, etc.?

7)      Results: Figures 2 and the following – horizontal axis: Age of what? Please, extend the label a bit.

8)      Discussion: please, articulate the importance of your findings to the understanding of the local sustainability. In this section, you have to demonstrate the international/conceptual importance of your study. This will also help to solve the problem with the insufficient awareness of the literature.

9)      Conclusions: please, formulate your principal findings more extensively and easier. Limitations of this study and perspectives for future research should be added.

10)  The language is more or less ok, but the writing needs polishing. Too short paragraphs should be avoided. Phrases should not start with [].

Generally, I like your work and wish you good luck with revisions!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The language is more or less ok, but the writing needs polishing. Too short paragraphs should be avoided. Phrases should not start with [].

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary: Overall, this simulation study which deployed an established stand-level growth&yield-type simulator to generate rotational structural, volumetric, end-product and carbon temporal trajectories and end-point yields for 5 different density management crop plans (i.e., an initially high-density naturally-regenerated forest thinned 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 times initiating at age 16 yr) for a single Maritime Pine forest growing in a rural community in Northern Island Portugal. Based on rotational volumetric yield, economic viability and carbon production (short-lived fine and long-lived coarse) outcomes the scenarios are compared and recommendations regarding the most applicable one for each objective is identified.

 

Assessment:

Analytically, the general stand development trends and associated yield outcomes for each of the volumetric, economic and carbon outcome metrics were in accord with basic expectation with respect to monospecific even-aged stand dynamical patterns across all 5 density management scenarios. Likewise, thinning effects on rotational outcomes were also consistent with expectation.

General Concerns: Although these simulations are useful in terms of exemplifying the utility of using a forest management simulation model to evaluate the likelihoods of achieving sustainability goals, the simulations were not climate sensitive and hence devoid of projecting realistic outcomes under climate change. Furthermore, only a single site was evaluated with hence no site quality variation, only a single stand condition was used to calibrate and initialize the simulations, and the crop plans deployed a single target site occupancy maintenance target (WF=0.21) once all 5 simulated stands were thinned down to a single residual density of 3584 stems/ha at age 16. These restricted scope limits the ability to extract general crop planning recommendations and how such may vary across determinate variables such as varying RCP, site qualities, rotation ages, and target site occupancy levels.

Thus if the goal of the study was to only demonstrate the utility of forest management models in designing density management crop plans for the purposes of addressing sustainability objectives via a single case study example, then the study has been successful. If however, the study is additionally attempting to exact crop planning recommendations then that goal cannot be attained with such a limited scope. These issues should be discussed and articulated in the text and clear statements of study’s goal, objectives and limited scope should be included. The latter should be discussed in depth after the results are presented.    

 

Specific Comments/Concerns

Methods:

1)      The area of sampled forest used to initiate the simulations is not included?

2)      The plot size (16 m²) is rather small for capturing a representative sample or mean measure of the diameter and height distributions (approximately 22 trees per plot based on the initiate densities given in Table 1)?

3)      Inflation and discount rate used in the economic analysis are not defined?

4)      Text introduces the utility of the SDI as an density control targetting metric but it is not explicitly used or discussed in the manuscript.

Discussion: Discussion points regarding the results of specific scenarios and/or comparing them without inferring generalities, could be moved to the results section.

Conclusions: Reduce or eliminate the references to the scenario number or specific crop plan and replace with the generalities exacted from the limited scope simulations (e.g., for this limited scope single site (etc) simulation analysis, volumetric production increased with …; economic utility increased with …; carbon production increased with …; for this  actual crop plan deployed. Ensure that a statement regarding that usefulness of the forest management model which could enable a land manager or community to compare and evaluate competing crop plans and subsequently determine the optimal crop plan required to achieve sustainability goals, is included.  

 

Specific Comments:

(1) Inclusion of a data description table summarizing the mensurational metrics of the selected study stand would be informative;

(2) Figure 1c seems to reflect a low stand density condition given the large openings whereas the simulations (Table 2) initial densities are very high (13750 stems/ha or approximately 0.52 m inter tree spacing) hence if available, replacing with an image with a higher density condition would be more informative; and

(3) Displaying the temporal SDI profiles for each scenario would be instructive.

 L79: “… important when drawing conclusions …”

 L96: “… was selected for study. Following its characterization in terms ???, data …”

 L97: “… income, equipment costs and …”

 L99: “… remaining leave strips, were …”

 L115: Include the actual area of the study area as delineated in Figure 1b: e.g., “… of the ?ha area, …”

 L149: “… 55 and 60 …”

 L150: Include appropriate reference for Wilson’s spacing index (i.e., Wilson, F.G. 1946. Numerical expression of stocking in terms of height. J. For. 44: 758-761; and (or) Wilson, F.G. Thinning as an orderly discipline: A graphic spacing schedule for red pine. J. For. 1979, 77, 483–486) and provide a brief computational summary of it (mean inter-tree spacing / mean dominant height).

L169: “… the conversion factor …”

L189-193: Revise by dividing into two sentences.

L191: “… the trees extracted …”

L193: Explicitly define the “SIMEF” abbreviation.

L401-402: “… forest may not …”

Figure 1: Inclusion of scales for Figures 1a and 1b would be informative.

Figure 9: Check legend “Total recicled” – should be “Total recycled”

Author Response

Pleas, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title Revision: From "Influence of Forest Management Models on the Sustainability of Community Areas in Northern Inland Portugal" to "Influence of Forest Management on the Sustainability of Community Areas in Northern Inland Portugal: a simulated case study assessment"

L19&L105 "... This case study ..."

L34-35: Use of the word in models when referring to each of the scenarios tested is confusing, hence revise accordingly: e.g., "... studied crop plans, highlighting that the adoption of a silvicultural regime depends ..."

 

L106: "... namely those associated with economic ..."

L167:  Remove or clarify this statement: "for each age until this correlation be comes negative. SDI for specified base tree size, is derived from power function relationship between Dq and N with constant intercept and slope values. So the negative correlation statement is confusing or irrelevant without further clarification.

L186: "... one more, respectively, than ..."

L518: "... management treatment (..."

L588: "... intervention may offer the ..."

Analytical Clarification/Elaboration Required: All the volumetric and carbon rotational outcomes are presented for the standing crop at 45 years, particularly in the figures. However, the thinning yields are not explicitly reported nor is their fate in terms of end-product yields or short and long term carbon storage potential. Although these attributes/values may be embedded in the textual values that are reported, it is not clear if they actually were. If they were not, the case for thinning this forest type on this site in this region, would be even stronger with respect to both economic return and carbon storage potential. Please elaborate and clarify on this in order to ensure readers can be assured that all thinning yields have been accounted for.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx