Decision Support Tool for Tree Species Selection in Forest Regeneration Based on Harvester Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Decision making tool for tree species selection in forest regeneration based on harvester data” presents a methodology of stand delineation when recognizing microsites using data collected by harvester during final cutting. The precision forestry approach can be interesting for broad international readers of Forests.
Some issues should be better described/ explained.
- Paragraph 3.2 – why in stands no: 118 or 127 NPV is almost twice higher than in stands no 2 or 84. Why in stand no 140 with the poorest site – Vaccinium NPV is relatively high in comparison with stands on reacher sites (species compositions and rotation age are comparable in particular variants). - it could be explained in discussion.
- Paragraph “2.4 Simulation of future stand development”
In regeneration number of seedlings were: Norway spruce 1800 and Scots pine 2200 seedlings per hectare, survival of seedlings was assumed to be 90%, density of seedlings after early cleaning was 3000-400 and after precommercial thinning total stem number was 2200 and 1800 for Scots pine and Norway spruce, respectively – it should be corrected.
Specific remarks:
consider adding the hyphen in the title "Decision-making ... "
Line 158 change “[16,17,18]” on [16-18], the same line 281, line 286.
Line 217 “study stand (study stand 118)” change on “study stand (no 118).
Line 222 Figure 3 unit of vertical axes NPV is probably in euros per ha
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript “Decision making tool for tree species selection in forest regeneration based on harvester data” presents a methodology of stand delineation when recognizing microsites using data collected by harvester during final cutting. The precision forestry approach can be interesting for broad international readers of Forests.
Some issues should be better described/ explained.
- Paragraph 3.2 – why in stands no: 118 or 127 NPV is almost twice higher than in stands no 2 or 84. Why in stand no 140 with the poorest site – Vaccinium NPV is relatively high in comparison with stands on reacher sites (species compositions and rotation age are comparable in particular variants). - it could be explained in discussion.
Stands were defined generally into site type VT or MT. In different micro-stand solutions stand level results are the sum of grids. The local growth varied a lot between grid cells, from 3 to 14 m3/ha/year and also between different stands. The most important issue in this study was to observe the growth variation inside a larger stand, not illustrate the growth variation between different stands.
- Paragraph “2.4 Simulation of future stand development”
In regeneration number of seedlings were: Norway spruce 1800 and Scots pine 2200 seedlings per hectare, survival of seedlings was assumed to be 90%, density of seedlings after early cleaning was 3000-400 and after precommercial thinning total stem number was 2200 and 1800 for Scots pine and Norway spruce, respectively – it should be corrected.
Corrected - “The total stem number after PCT was 1800 and 2200 for Norway spruce and Scots pine, respectively.”
Specific remarks:
consider adding the hyphen in the title "Decision-making ... "
– we considered and changed the title -“Decision support tool for tree species selection in forest regeneration based on harvester data”
Line 158 change “[16,17,18]” on [16-18], the same line 281, line 286. - corrected
Line 217 “study stand (study stand 118)” change on “study stand (no 118). – corrected “(no. 118)”
Line 222 Figure 3 unit of vertical axes NPV is probably in euros per ha - corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript describes a new micro-stand level model that takes into account tree species selection, soil preparation, regeneration measures, stand management, soil properties, and micro-topography.
In the introduction, I missed more literature sources on the development of similar modeling programs and their effectiveness.
n assessing the research carried out, it is commendable that soil type and species composition have been taken into account. However, for the future, it would be desirable to model not only tree species but also their selection value (which families' offspring grow best according to the intended method) when modeling future forest planting. Because the offspring of one family of the same species will grow well by the intended method, and other families may grow poorly.
Some minor corrections: Lines 93 and 241 - Latin words everywhere please write in italic (Vaccinium, Myrtillus).
Author Response
This manuscript describes a new micro-stand level model that takes into account tree species selection, soil preparation, regeneration measures, stand management, soil properties, and micro-topography.
In the introduction, I missed more literature sources on the development of similar modeling programs and their effectiveness.
We might not fully understand what the referee means. However, micro-stand idea is new and we could not find much literature, and those we found are already cited.
n assessing the research carried out, it is commendable that soil type and species composition have been taken into account. However, for the future, it would be desirable to model not only tree species but also their selection value (which families' offspring grow best according to the intended method) when modeling future forest planting. Because the offspring of one family of the same species will grow well by the intended method, and other families may grow poorly.
- We agree. We added this point into discussion. “The piloted tree species selection tool could be further developed to adjust planting density and planting material according to the local site index. On the most fertile parts of a regeneration area, it might be worth using more genetically improved planting material with a higher density than on the less fertile parts of the same site.”
Some minor corrections: Lines 93 and 241 - Latin words everywhere please write in italic (Vaccinium, Myrtillus).
- corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of 1377273 “Decision making tool for tree species selection in forest regeneration based on harvester data” by Saksa et al.
Innovative and creative study! Well written, but would be worthwhile to have minor editing for clarity by a native English speaker (e.g., see comments below for Line 78 and Line 80). The small study area has limited scope of inference, but the novelty of the research and its potential applications makes this paper valuable.
I had some difficulty understanding the Results, e.g., with the different threshold levels, probably because this is so new and innovative, so if the authors could think of a way to explain more clearly what was found or add examples to help the reader, I think the paper might be more widely read and cited.
Please discuss in more detail how accuracy of tree locations could be improved (L104-111 location of harvester is not exactly tree location) and how much this uncertainty affects results. For example, give distance from GPS to the harvester head, and discuss how this relates to grid size and thus importance of this problem etc…or why it doesn’t matter?!
L23 (m3/ha/yr)
L23 “growth potential” is not a forestry term. Suggest “growth”
L71 citation
L73 citation(s)
L78 Recently, … (add comma) – this is example of a minor punctuation change that enhances readability
L80 suggest improvement: “…also been used to create spatially-explicit maps of standing volume at the time of harvest.”
L91 “clearfelled” or “clearcut” (not final felled)
L92 1.3ha is small area for this type of study – not many microsite polygons.
Table 1 give age units in (years) or (yr) not ‘a’
Table 1 usually put units in parentheses (m3/ha) below variable name
Table 1 inconsistent bold among column headers, and remove empty row.
L154 what variable(s) are entered into model to define site quality? SI? or 100-yr MAI?
L155 what is (Luke)? citation or location?
L230 “local growth potential” not a forestry term, and I prefer term “final harvest”, so instead I suggest “…growth of dominant trees at final harvest was a good estimate of site quality in terms of site index.” But trees don’t grow at final harvest, so more correct would be “…height growth of dominant trees over entire rotation was a good estimate of site quality in terms of site index.”
L239 “…would bring more accuracy to stem mapping” (not site index estimation) or “…accuracy to site index estimation for individual grid cells”
L277-278 “…the outcome enhances…” is a bit too vague. Can you be more specific, e.g., i think you mean “It is not mixed in terms of planting and thinning to retain trees in an intimate mixture, but rather by retaining a mix of pure patches or patches dominated by each species that together create a mixed stand.“?
L290 I doubt its genetics but rather physical similarities among conifers, as opposed to greater differences between hardwoods and softwoods growing in mixture, and their interactions with the environment such as shade and leaf litter, and associated plants and animals, etc.
L294 try to find a more positive way to end Discussion section.
L295 please explain what this risk is/are.
It would be helpful to add a paragraph on recommended next steps in this field of research, and limitations.
Author Response
Review of 1377273 “Decision making tool for tree species selection in forest regeneration based on harvester data” by Saksa et al.
Innovative and creative study! Well written, but would be worthwhile to have minor editing for clarity by a native English speaker (e.g., see comments below for Line 78 and Line 80). The small study area has limited scope of inference, but the novelty of the research and its potential applications makes this paper valuable.
- Thanks for the positive comments. The text has now been proofread.
I had some difficulty understanding the Results, e.g., with the different threshold levels, probably because this is so new and innovative, so if the authors could think of a way to explain more clearly what was found or add examples to help the reader, I think the paper might be more widely read and cited.
– rewritten “The alternative threshold values for tree species change from Scots pine to Norway spruce were 6, 7 or 8 m3/ha/year in this case study.”
Please discuss in more detail how accuracy of tree locations could be improved (L104-111 location of harvester is not exactly tree location) and how much this uncertainty affects results. For example, give distance from GPS to the harvester head, and discuss how this relates to grid size and thus importance of this problem etc…or why it doesn’t matter?!
- text added “The distance from GPS to harvester head was 10-12 meters at most. In reality, trees cut from same machine position could have had over 20 meters distance and belonged to different grid cells.”
L23 (m3/ha/yr) - Corrected
L23 “growth potential” is not a forestry term. Suggest “growth” – rewritten “growth”
L71 citation – three citations added at the end of chapter
L73 citation(s) – three citations added
L78 Recently, … (add comma) – this is example of a minor punctuation change that enhances readability – comma added
L80 suggest improvement: “…also been used to create spatially-explicit maps of standing volume at the time of harvest.” – corrected according suggestion
L91 “clearfelled” or “clearcut” (not final felled) – rewritten clearfelled
L92 1.3ha is small area for this type of study – not many microsite polygons. – That is true and it can be seen in the results.
Table 1 give age units in (years) or (yr) not ‘a’ - corrected years
Table 1 usually put units in parentheses (m3/ha) below variable name - corrected
Table 1 inconsistent bold among column headers, and remove empty row. - corrected
L154 what variable(s) are entered into model to define site quality? SI? or 100-yr MAI?
In the Motti simulator site quality is given as site type in Finnish site type classification.
L155 what is (Luke)? citation or location?
Luke is an abbreviation of Natural Resources Institute of Finland
L230 “local growth potential” not a forestry term, and I prefer term “final harvest”, so instead I suggest “…growth of dominant trees at final harvest was a good estimate of site quality in terms of site index.” But trees don’t grow at final harvest, so more correct would be “…height growth of dominant trees over entire rotation was a good estimate of site quality in terms of site index.”
- rewritten “height growth of dominant trees over the entire rotation was a good estimate of site quality in terms of site index.”
L239 “…would bring more accuracy to stem mapping” (not site index estimation) or “…accuracy to site index estimation for individual grid cells”
- rewritten “accuracy to site index estimation for individual grid cells”
L277-278 “…the outcome enhances…” is a bit too vague. Can you be more specific, e.g., i think you mean “It is not mixed in terms of planting and thinning to retain trees in an intimate mixture, but rather by retaining a mix of pure patches or patches dominated by each species that together create a mixed stand.“?
– rewritten “It is not mixed in terms of planting to retain trees in an intimate mixture, but rather by retaining a mix of pure patches or patches dominated by each species that together create a mixed stand”
L290 I doubt its genetics but rather physical similarities among conifers, as opposed to greater differences between hardwoods and softwoods growing in mixture, and their interactions with the environment such as shade and leaf litter, and associated plants and animals, etc.
– rewritten “since the ecology of pines and spruces is far closer than birches and conifers
L294 try to find a more positive way to end Discussion section.
New paragraph was added at the end of discussion (see below)
L295 please explain what this risk is/are.
- Text added “because the market of one wood species is vulnerable to price fluctuations”.
It would be helpful to add a paragraph on recommended next steps in this field of research, and limitations.
- Text added “The piloted tree species selection tool could be further developed to adjust planting density and planting material according to local site index. On the most fertile parts of a re-generation area it might be worth using more genetically improved planting material with a higher density than on the less fertile parts of the same site. Also, if the existence of root rot could be detected during felling the tree it would give valuable additional information for tree species selection.”
