Potential of Birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescens Ehrh.) for Forestry and Forest-Based Industry Sector within the Changing Climatic and Socio-Economic Context of Western Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very good revision work. Acceptable with minor in-house language checks.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the previous version manuscript taking into account the several comments and suggestions of the four reviewers. In my opinion, the new version of the manuscript has been substantially improved and it can be accepted for the publication.
Minor remarks:
- Lines 42-43: Add 1 or 2 keywords related to the main characteristics of birch or birch wood.
- Lines 89-90: Delete "our expertise".
- Line 284: Add the common name of two species before the scientific name: for example birch bark beetle (Scolytus ratzeburgi).
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have to some extent improved the manuscript by adding some relevant information. However, I am still struggling to understand the originality and novelty of the manuscript.
The novelty of the paper is still problematic.
What are the unique lessons that can be learnt from this case study that can not be obtained from previous studies/analyses?
What are the actual challenges associated with logistics of forest residues for the case study?
What are the key findings from the current study?
What is the novelty for using the SWOT method to investigate this research problem?
In addition, it is still not clear how the data collected from literature and the various sources was inputted into the model and processed to generate the outputs for the different scenarios i.e. there are no equations or any sample calculations to help the reviewer to verify the values obtained.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors provided a comprehensive review on various aspects related to the role and utilization of birch in the Western Europe. The manuscript represents a valuable source of collected and analysed information on this issue.
I have the following comments:
Please consider the title revision as the content of manuscript does not cover forestry only but also the forest-based industry sector The issue is not limited on the Wester European region only as birch is a common tree species also in other regions of Central and Eastern Europe. In this sense, it would be prosperous to add some research findings resulting from research projects in this region such as Forests 2018, 9(4), 197; https://doi.org/10.3390/f9040197 or Forests 10(2):189; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020189 Manuscript misses the methodology section. Lines 67 – 72 should be placed to new Methodology chapter. It should also content the description how SWOT analysis was created – how factors were selected, evaluated and assigned to individual quadrants. Therefore, some theoretical background on SWOT analysis should be included. In fact, the compete SWOT analysis should result in the proposal of a strategy derived from the final SWOT table (usually weighted evaluation is used to complete this). The most important comment from my side relates to the structure of results and SWOT analysis points. As you mention in Abstract your “SWOT analysis highlighted the potential of birch in Western European forestry by accounting for the social, ecological, and economic purposes….”. In this context I would recommend to make the structure of Results, Discussion, Conclusion and table 2 more clear and structure your findings into three main categories – either use the “social, ecological, and economic” or any other clear structure of described factors e.g. “site conditions, growing potential, material properties…. etc.”
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting manuscript on the potential of white and silver birch.
There are some adjustments to be made, especially concerning the structure of the manuscript. The methodology is completely lacking, but it would be valuable for future readers to understand the rationale behind the chosen method. I suggest this manuscript to be approved with minor reviews. Please find my point-by-point comments and suggestions below.
Title: It doesn't not indicate what type of "potential" is being talked about. Economic potential? Potential for biodiversity conservation? Other types of potential? "The changing context of Western Europe" is a bit vague. Could the authors be more specific?
Line 11: New approaches for what? Still in this line, when you say "forest health crisis" are you talking about one specific crisis? Or forest health crises in general? If it's in general, it should be in the plural.
Line 13: "The potential of a neglected species", please specify the type of potential.
Line 17: I'd rather say that birches are resistant to browsing, and not game overpopulation. Unless you are not referring to browsing. In any case, could you be more specific?
Line 21: "Well-suited", instead of "well suited".
Line 29: Please precise what you mean by "changing context".
Line 36: Remove hyphen in "wood processing".
Line 45: Forest composition in managed forests might change over the next decades. Please add precision.
Line 56: What do you mean by "technical" properties?
Line 61: Again, precise the potential for what.
Line 62: Again, precise what you mean by "changing context".
Line 63: Remove the word "the" at the very end of the line (in "specific to the birch").
Lines 63-66: You mention the SWOT analysis. I think it would be important to add the methods section to this manuscript and explain why the SWOT was the chosen method. Were there other methods that could have been used? Could you describe briefly the advantages and disadvantages of this method? Also, here you describe briefly the strengths and weaknesses; is that always the case for SWOT analysis of species? When explaining the chosen method, it would be good to understand how the authors came up with the items within the SWOT categories.
Line 73: It would help the readers if you added a few sentences of introduce the results, describing the the sections that will be presented, so there will be a less blunt transition from the previous section.
Line 91: It should be "birch performs well...", instead if "birch is performing well...".
Line 94: It should be "zinc or nickel", instead of "Zn or Ni".
Line 95: Change "forestry" for "tree".
Figure 1: Please increase the difference in color shading. When printed in gray scale the green and blue look very similar. In the figure caption, change "downy" for "white", as the latter has been more frequently used in this manuscript.
Line 112: When the authors say "early rapid but unsustained height growth", it is certainly the case in panel "e" in Figure 2, but not in the others.
Line 114: Change from "15 first years" to "first 15 years".
Lines 116-119: Consider breaking down the sentence beginning at the very end of line 116. It is too long.
Line 117 and 119: Use scientific notation (according to SI) for m3/ha/yr. It should be m3 ha-1 a-1.
Line 117: "Until 50-80 years", instead of "until around 50-80 years".
Line 121: Add scientific names for sycamore and ash.
Line 121: Consider changing to "With appropriate silvicultural treatments, large-sized logs (diameter between 50-60 cm)".
Line 134: "If they slide over the snow"? I don't understand this.
Line 134-137: I don't understand this sentence: "It creates 134 favorable conditions for the natural immigration of other trees species [35] by the process of 135 facilitation [55], because of its clear canopy, soil improvement capacity and protection against 136 herbaceous competition, game browsing, frost or drying." Please consider rewriting it to make it more clear.
Line 139: Add scientific names for cherry and maple.
Line 155: Add an S to "birch accumulate".
Lines 155-159: These two paragraphs are composed of only one sentence each. Consider merging the sentences to previous and following paragraphs.
Line 178: Wood density is a physical property.
Line 182: "Smell" should suffice.
Line 184: How different are "wood anatomy" and "structure"? Do you mean anatomical structure?
Line 187: When you say "because of its higher wood density", it is not clear how density is related to chemical properties in this case.
Table 1: Why is Norway spruce being compared to birch? It is clearer when comparing to the other hardwood species, but not to a softwood. Consider either removing Norway spruce from the table or explain why it was included and why you wanted to make the comparison (or which differences and similarities you wanted to show).
Still in Table 1: Add "wood" to density at 12-15%. Consider changing "flexural strength" to "flexural strength (MOR)", "elastic modulus" to "stiffness (MOE)". Use decimal points as decimal separators, instead of commas. Report average values with standard deviation, instead of minimum, mean and maximum values. Use SI notation, such as kg m-3 and J cm-2.
Lines 193-195: This section needs more arguments, as it is much weaker than the other ones. expand it or delete it. Also, you should not write one-sentence paragraphs.
Line 198: It is clear that you are discussing commercial forests and that birch may not be a desired species. But you should reconsider the use of the word "invades", as birch may be in its natural habitat, and therefore, should not be considered an invasive species.
Line 200: Add scientific name for larch.
Line 205: Change 10 by "ten".
Section starting in line 211: In this section, when you talk about short lifespan, make it clear that it is not only because of disturbances, but due to the species' natural life cycle.
Section starting in line 221: Explain the causes for the low durability of birch wood. Is the durability in green wood different from dry wood? Is the low durability a problem before the logs arrive to the mills or is it inherent of the species?
Section starting in line 228: Any species can be subjected to attack by pests. Describe how or why birches are more prone ti attacks, if that is the case.
Line 235: If there isn't a common name for the species, consider adding something like "Phytobia betulae, a species of fly, causes..." to help readers understand what kind of pest the Phytobia betulae is.
Section stating in line 239: It may work as an argument against plantations, where there are many individuals from the same species in the same area. But how about in naturally regenerated stands (where you'll have a smaller number of individuals)? Make the context clear.
Line 266: Add scientific name for cedar.
Line 272: Add scientific name for silver fir.
Line 289: Change "dilutes" for "dilute".
Section starting in line 329: Yes, investments in tree breeding are only done in planted stands. Thus, when forest management relies on natural regeneration, there is no sense discussing tree breeding. Please reconsider this section. A stronger point has to be made in this section to demonstrate the opportunities for birch breeding.
Line 334: Change 5 for "five".
Line 343: Please reconsider the word "invade".
Lines 346-348: Have the industries from those countries developed the production of those products to use birch? It is not very clear.
Line 365: Change "this criteria" for "these criteria".
Section starting in line 372: This is a very interesting section.
Line 388: What is LNG?
Line 391: What are NSSC and CTMP?
Lines 391-395: Regroup these one-sentence paragraphs.
Line 403: Change "makes" for "make".
Lines 461-462: Regroup this one-sentence paragraph.
Line 474: Change "naturally-born" for "naturally regenerated".
Line 476: Change "saw logs" for "sawlogs".
Line 491: Delete word "considered".
Section starting in line 508: This section is weaker than the other ones. I don't think CCF should be considered a threat.
Line 510: Change for "that could be a disadvantage for light-dependent...".
Lines 518-520: There are several species that need scientific names. Please check which ones and add accordingly.
Line 542: Again, be more specific regarding the "changing context" of western Europe.
Lines 561-563: Forest managers should choose the silvicultural systems that are most adequate for the region, which could be involve mimicking nature, done according to the natural succession. Thus, birches would be considered a threat when managers chose inadequate silvicultural practices. Way too often certain species are undesired in their own natural habitats, considered as "invasive" species. However, one of the ways to improve forest resilience and increase biodiversity is to allow the growth of native species, even of little commercial value. I'm not intending to change the focus of your manuscript, but please make sure this is discussed throughout the text.
Lines 578-579: Again, the choice of forest management should be closer to natural conditions (or at least mimic those conditions) to benefit the selected species.
Lines 581-583: One-sentence paragraph. Also, add scientific name to American bronze borer (if not previously cited). Change "happened for the ash" to "happened to ash".
Lines 591: Change "saw logs" to "sawlogs".
Line 600 (and in all other occurrences): Change "non-wood forest products" to NWFP, as the acronym has already been mentioned in the text.
Line 607: Change "fiber boards" to "fiberboards".
Line 620: Remove italics from "etc.". Change "sixteen" for 16.
Line 643: Delete "(Betula sp.)".
Line 650: Change "this species" for "these species", as you assess two birch species.
Line 655: Change "have" for "has".
Line 655: When you say "high quality logs", do you mean in general? Because standing birch trees have several defects. In don't think the technology is there, but it lacks implementation because of high costs.
Line 659: Change "accounts" for "account".
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript “Potential of birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescens Ehrh.) in forestry within the changing context of Western Europe: A SWOT analysis” focuses on the assessment of potential of two birch (white and silver birch) species based on the literature review and the stakeholders’ knowledge. The results of the study are shown through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and treats) analysis in order to summarize the literature data. In my opinion, the issue of the manuscript – in order to improve the knowledge about the potential use of birch species – is important for the scientific community and decision makers. However, the manuscript has some methodological weaknesses and the results are shown in a disorderly and chaotic manner. The authors reported too much information in the "Results" section without selecting them by importance. In addition, the manuscript does not contain the "Materials and methods" section; consequently, it is difficult to evaluate the quality of the literature review and the information collected involving the stakeholders. Therefore, the manuscript cannot be accepted in the current form.
Keywords
Page 1, lines 32-33: it is advisable to avoid the use of keywords already in the title. Therefore, change the following keywords: “Betula pendula”, “Betula pubescens”, “Birch”, and “SWOT”. Besides, the keyword “climate change” is not relevant considering the results shown by the study.
Introduction
Page 1, lines 39-40: The sentence “These comprise approximately 80% of the forest resource volume” must be supported by a reference. What do you mean by the term "forest resource volume"? Standing stock volume? Page 2, lines 65-67: Delete this sentence “(e.g., environmental issues and regulations; forest, trade and economic policies; societal aspects and organizations; industry structure and business opportunities)”. Page 2: at the end of the “Introduction” section, it would be necessary to clarify the aim of the study. What is the aim of the study from a practical point of view? How can the SWOT analysis results be used by decision makers?
Materials and methods
Page 2: Add a “Materials and methods” section aimed to describe the methodology used for the literature review and the collection of stakeholders’ information. Concerning the literature review: Which search engines did you use for the literature review? Did you work by keywords? What keywords did you use? Did you make a selection of the identified literature? What criteria did you use to analyze the literature?
Concerning the information provided by stakeholders:
How many stakeholders did you involve? What sampling method did you use to identify stakeholders? What techniques did you use to collect the information provided by stakeholders (e.g., questionnaire, interviews, cognitive maps, etc...)? How have you processed the data collected by the stakeholders?
Results
The “Results” section contains too much information shown in a non-systematic way. Therefore, the current version of the “Results” section is difficult to follow. The authors should select only the main points for each aspect and show them in a concise way. Page 3, lines 117-119: Concerning the mean annual volume increment, could you specify the geographical context (countries) to which they refer? Are these annual volume increments for the boreal or temperate forests? Page 3, lines 121-122: What do you mean with the term “appropriate silviculture”? In order to clarify the concept, could you specify the silvicultural treatments please? Page 4, Figure 2: Check the reference “Lockow (1997)” because the number [15] in not right in the list of references. Page 5, Table 1: Check the reference “Wagenführ & Scheiber (1985)” because the number [89] in not right in the list of references. Page 5, Table 1: Check the reference “Boedts (2016)” because the number [90] in not right in the list of references. Page 5, Table 1: What criteria did you use to select the three species (Beech, Pedunculate Oak, Norway spruce) for comparing the physical and mechanical wood proprieties of birch? Page 6, lines 194-195: Add more information about aesthetical and recreational value of birch forests compared to other forest types (e.g., European beech forests, mixed oaks forests, etc…) in order to justify this paragraph. Page 8, lines 294: What about the red deer and roe deer in Westerns Europe? Page 8, lines 322: Add the year of “Helsinki Guidelines” Page 11: in the “Availability and demand of birch wood”, add some information about the potential change in the birch wood products market in the climate change context.
Conclusion
In “Conclusion” section, it would be opportune to emphasize more the utility of the study for the decision makers (forest managers, planners, policy makers).
Reviewer 5 Report
I was reading this paper with interest. I don't see any fatal error in the manuscript so I would suggest acceptance pending moderate revisions. First, I am not convinced about the 'review' presentation way. This is clearly a 'commentary' article style where authors provide a refined and interesting focus on a research issue, in this case benefits and opportunity of beech in Western European forestry. Swot analysis is also interesting and correctly applied but it is another proof that the article is not a full review, rather a position paper, and it should be revised and restructured having this in mind. Second, Swot analysis is presented very late in the article with no specific reference to any methodological detail. I suppose swot is a specific product of the authors (no interviews, no panels, no surveys) but at the same time it should be presented in a more formal way at the beginning of the paper, justifying the adoption of this methodology. While being a soft methodology, SWOT has the same dignity of a more formal analysis, e.g. statistical techniques, and should be carefully detailed. I have also some minor concerns regarding the selection of the appropriate bibliography, since I encourage authors to provide a wider state of the art considering more bibliography especially from western and central Europe countries (e.g. France and Germany).
