Economic Impacts of Forest Storms—Taking Stock of After-Vaia Situation of Local Roundwood Markets in Northeastern Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment:
The paper presents a systematic and well structured picture on the effects of Vaia storm (2018) for four administrative regions in North-Eastern Italy. The information provided is particularly valuable as it comes from different sources, is characterized by different detail and coverage and it is not always easy to collect. Additionally, contrary to previous studies carried out in Northern and Central Europe, it concerns a recent event, which for the first time significantly affected the Southern parts of the Alps. The possibility of an in-depth analysis is unfortunately limited by the heterogeneity of the data, a limit highlighted by the authors themselves. Nonetheless, the article provides interesting insights and highlights the importance of a systematic collection of data on timber sales, for future analyses.
Minor comments:
line 58: the two references 7 and 13 are provided for "a" single study: are they both on the same study?
line 113: the four regions could be better defined as "administrative regions" instead of "geographicoal" ones
paragraph 2.1: the term used throughout the text is "forest", but the figures on forest area (1.6 million hectares and values in Figure 2) refer to Forest and Other wooded land; it should be specified in the text, although the other wooded land area is a small part compared to the forest area; additionally, the annual increase of forest and other wooded land area in the four regions provided by the cited source INFC2015 - [8] is much less than 36,000 ha/year, that is not even the national one, and is approximately 4,600 ha/year.
Line 144: among the references on species composition, also the volume on INFC2005 results edited by Edagricole could be cited
Table 2: the source of data in the table is missing
Figure 3: it is not explained if the distribution by species refers to the forest area or to the growing stock (volume)
Table 3: it should be specified in the table legend that the figures refer to the number of sales
Lines 238-242: this part could be moved to the end of par. 2.2, as it concerns methods
Table 4 and following tables: the annotation 000 m3 for thousands of cubic meters is not common, use power of 10 (103) or thousand m3
Figure 5: add € per cubic meter or €/m3 in the legend
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors:
The work is reasonably structured and spun. On the other hand,The manuscript is innovative and provides interesting information.
I recommend that authors try to apply it in other member countries of the European Union or in other countries.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall: The manuscript is well-written, and the manuscript provides unique insight on an important issue. The manuscript could be improved with additional details in the introduction regarding typical harvesting practices in the area, how long wind-damaged wood remains viable, etc. In addition, some simple statistical analysis would strengthen the conclusions. Perhaps the analysis should be limited to the areas with more robust datasets.
Introduction: It would be helpful to quantify the volume of timber that is typically harvested per year so that the reader better understands the magnitude of the impact of the storm on timber markets. It would also be helpful to discuss how long storm-damaged timber remains viable for harvest after a storm in Italy. At lower latitudes, salvage operations need to commence within months to prevent rot and staining of the wood. At higher latitudes, wood may remain viable for years after a storm. What is the timeline in Italy?
Table 1 is on page 2, whereas the table title is on page 1.
Line 36: What does “completely destroyed” mean? All trees blown over? All trees unusable/unsalvageable? Consider rephrasing/clarifying.
Line 109: “transactions” rather than “transitions”.
Lines 111–173: One could argue that much of the information in this section belongs in the introduction.
Line 119: The most resistant species to what? Wind?
Line 188: Consider using different abbreviations. Readers could assume that pV means pre-Vaia and aV means after Vaia.
Line 227: There needs to be a more detailed description of the “assortments”. In some parts of the world “timber” is a general term that describes wood that will be used to make forest products. Please define what “timber” is used for and its specifications (e.g., diameter, length, straightness requirements, etc. Please also provide examples of what the “other assortments” are used for.
Methods: There should be a description of how the data was analyzed in the methods. The authors do a good job of describing the study area and where they obtained the data, but the methods of analysis and the tools (e.g., software) used are not clearly described.
Line 248: Why not 4.06 million cubic meters?
Line 273: Does the larger decline in stumpage relative to roadside reflect higher logging costs for salvage wood?
Line 360: What about quality? Is there any information available regarding how Vaia affected the quality of the wood being harvested?
Line 380: Consider changing “price/volume” to something else. It is not entirely clear whether this refers to “price per unit volume”, “price and volume”, or something else.
Lines 391–395: The issue of wood quality and the length of time storm-damaged wood can remain in the forest before wood quality declines should be addressed in the introduction.
Lines 414–418: Again, the issue of wood quality needs additional discussion.
Lines 449–454: I understand the concerns over the heterogeneity of the data; however, it appears that the datasets for several areas are quite large. It seems as though some simple statistical analysis is appropriate in these areas.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall: The authors thoroughly responded to the comments of the reviewers and have improved the manuscript. I have a few suggestions for further improvements.
Tables: Perhaps it is an issue with the reviewer download, but there are several tables for which the table title is not on the same page as the table or half of the table is on one page and the other half on a separate page.
Lines 88–95: There may not be much information available on wood quality after a storm such as Vaia. However, there should be information available regarding the time it takes for wood to decay after felling, which would be relevant here. In some regions, wood should be utilized within days or weeks to prevent staining from fungus and/or decay. In other regions, felled timber may remain sound for months or even years.
Lines 307–308: Consider adding information in the discussion regarding the larger declines in prices for standing timber sales relative to roadside sales.
Line 338: Avoid beginning sentences with Arabic numerals.
Statistical analysis: Consider adding a sentence or two to the results regarding the ANOVA results shown in the response to reviewer comments. I do not think that the whole tables are necessary, but a simple sentence like “Analysis of Variance indicated a statistically significant change in prices after Vaia (p <0.05)” would be helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
