Ecosystem Services of Large Wood: Mapping the Research Gap
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I find this study a valuable attempt at mapping the gaps in studies related to large wood. This is still a rather niche topic although the physical and ecological implications of the presence of LW in rivers and streams is tremendous. However, it seems that scales of analysis in ES studies and LW studies are different, with LW studies more often (and for a reason) being site specific and high-resolution. Secondly, although studies of LW significance are inevitably of high practical importance, the scientific communties that study ES and LW are not necessarily the same - so perhaps rather than the postulated interregional or international research endeavours that are encouraged by the Authors, what may be more important is a transdisciplinary cooperation between LW specialists (mostly ecologists and fluvial geomorphologists?) and ES specialists (and perhaps many more). Such cooperation may result in finding a common language for the same issues and open more research and publication opportunities that would fill the existing gaps indicated by the Authors. My major suggestions for the paper is to somehow deepen the discussion/conclusion parts, looking closer at the reasons for the existence of such gaps in knowledge.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, thank you very much for your appreciation of our work on the revised version. All your suggested comments were accepted, and changes were made. Please see the changes below and also in the original document.
General Comments
My major suggestion for the paper is to somehow deepen the discussion/conclusion parts, looking closer at the reasons for the existence of such gaps in knowledge.
Thank you for your recommendation. We deepen the discussion part, please see p.14, lines: 412 to 428.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a valuable manuscript trying to organize the knowledge of ecosystem services in world publications about large wood in freshwater environment. Technically, the manuscript is carefully edited and linguistically correct. However, before further processing of this paper in Water, authors should complete the manuscript referring to the following comments:
Comment to Introduction: You described two different scientifical approaches to LW: 1) traditional, geomorphic and 2) Ecosystem services. Why you chose to map the research gap this second approach? It can be mentioned that the first approach was already studied by for example Wohl (2017) and second approach was not sufficiently taken before.
Methodology was well described and designed. Authors made good job to select the appropriate publications in the face of various terminology and properly justified their choices.
Table 4: It could be interesting to provide a more detailed data: specific countries instead of continents.
In references: Please remove brackets from publication date in reference number 7, 8, 9.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, thank you very much for your work to improve our manuscript. All your suggested comments were accepted, and changes were made. Please see the changes below and also in the original document.
General Comments
Comment to Introduction: You described two different scientifical approaches to LW: 1) traditional, geomorphic and 2) Ecosystem services. Why you chose to map the research gap this second approach? It can be mentioned that the first approach was already studied by for example Wohl (2017) and second approach was not sufficiently taken before.
We elaborated your comment into the work, please see p.2, line 55.
Table 4: It could be interesting to provide a more detailed data: specific countries instead of continents.
We elaborated your comment into the work, please see new Table 4.
In references: Please remove brackets from publication date in reference number 7, 8, 9.
Thank you for the notification. We removed the brackets.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting manuscript. It reports a research on relation between ecosystem services and large wood through systematic literature review. They have made a very good analyses of its current status, research gaps and other concerns. It concluded the research directions or recommendations for future study. I thought that this was a well structured and written paper; it is worthwhile publishing. I have following three comments for the authors to consider in the revision.
1) Fig. 2 on Page 5: it may be more appropriate to replace “PC numerical modelling” with “Numerical modelling” as there are numerical simulations using other computers such as Workstation.
2) In Section 3.3, is it possible to provide a bit more detail about some research classification, e.g., when referring to “…basic site research…” in Line 218 on Page 7, does it means basic survey or other?
3) Page 1, Line 8: may replace “… a threat for …” with “… a threat to …”.
Author Response
Comments to the Reviewer 3
Dear Reviewer 3, thank you very much for your work to improve our manuscript. All your suggested comments were accepted, and changes were made. Please see the changes below and also in the original document.
General Comments
1) Fig. 2 on Page 5: it may be more appropriate to replace “PC numerical modelling” with “Numerical modelling” as there are numerical simulations using other computers such as Workstation.
Thank you for the notification. We removed word „PC“.
2) In Section 3.3, is it possible to provide a bit more detail about some research classification, e.g., when referring to “…basic site research…” in Line 218 on Page 7, does it means basic survey or other?
We elaborated your comment into the work, please see p.5 l. 149. Also, we changed Figure 2 „site research“ to „basic site research“.
3) Page 1, Line 8: may replace “… a threat for …” with “… a threat to …”.
We elaborated your comment into the work.
