Next Article in Journal
Expression Analysis of the NAC Transcription Factor Family of Populus in Response to Salt Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Estimating Crown Structure Parameters of Moso Bamboo: Leaf Area and Leaf Angle Distribution
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Automated Cable Road Layout and Harvesting Planning for Multiple Objectives in Steep Terrain

Forests 2019, 10(8), 687; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080687
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Forests 2019, 10(8), 687; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080687
Received: 4 July 2019 / Revised: 31 July 2019 / Accepted: 13 August 2019 / Published: 14 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Operations in Environmentally Sensitive Areas)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors describe a multi-objective approach for planning cable road layout in steep sloping terrain. Primary author has extensive background in this type of research, which shows competence in the study area. However, detail needed to fully understand some of the concepts described are missing. Perhaps because there are excessive warnings of "Error, Reference source not found", which was both frustrating and annoying, throughout the manuscript. I am not sure what this error refers to, but this certainly needs to be corrected before this manuscript can proceed further in the review process.


Specific comments:

Line 20 - "strictly speaking" should be deleted (also on line 65)

Line 21 (and throughout the document) - authors use the term "penalize" but they never define what or how a penalty is applied, or what is the ramification of a penalty. Is this assessed to the cable road length or angle, or is it somehow actually applied to the cost. Confusing.


Line 27 - the should be a colon, not a period, after the word "findings". 


Line 32 - define high-performance, this changes annually with computers.


Line 41 - How does forest management provide? I think it should be forest management protects.


Line 75 - Sentence starting with "However" should be rewritten.


Lines 78-80 - Out of place, should be cut and moved to Line 63 above.


Lines 80-84 - Objectives are vague. Need to be more specific. For example, how does one define "easy-to-use"?


Line 88 - First of many "Error! Reference source not found." There are so many of these that it make the paper very difficult to read and understand.


Line 248 - Sentence is incomplete and likely out of place.


Eqn 6 - What is "maxa??"


Table 4, Figure 4 - Why L*1 and not just L? With this, is Figure 2 necessary? Additional info on how the penalty is applied is needed (or better described).


Figures 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 - These are interesting and do a good job of illustrating differences qualitatively, but some quantitative description of road length or timber volume in figure legends or on graphic for each would be greatly helpful. Very difficult to interpret what it actually means.


Conclusion - Describe how a timber company would actually use this tool. What are the overall management implications. Can a general forester use this, or is this something that would require a consultant with specialized modeling skills?



Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the paper. You will find a point to point response a document with track changes and the revised document attached. Best regards, Leo Bont

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A very nice paper that describes the model being developed.  It is very easy to read. I would like to see how much better than the usual expert system approach that is commonly completed, but perhaps that is another paper.

Major concerns: 

Need better description of the negative impacts as it appears that slope angle is being used a proxy for the model - isn't it more likely a corridor that cannot lift the desired payload due to the size of pieces available. How has payload and slope been developed?   


Is production based on a physical description of the skyline road ie payload or is some form of the geometry of just slope.  


Is there a constraint that the entire area is feasibly logged using the system.    

Can you describe the number of integer variables in the problem as this ishas the most impact of the solution time and quality?

  

 Needs to have the citation added to the paper correctly.   

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the paper. You will find a point to point response a document with track changes and the revised document attached. Best regards, Leo Bont

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am fine with the revision. The paper is improved and is recommended for publication.

Back to TopTop