The Utilization of European Beech Wood (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Beech, a member of the Fagaceae botanical family, is an important and widely-used hardwood in Europe. Its hardness, wear-resistance, strength, and excellent bending capabilities—coupled with its low price—make this hardwood a mainstay for many European woodworkers for furniture manufacturing. Given the right soil conditions, European beech trees has an average life expectancy of between 150-200 years (though there are some exceptional trees that can have exceeded 300 years) and can grow to very large sizes, and wide, long lumber is commonly available for use. As such, this review provides an overview of the past and present utilization of European beech wood. It is dedicated to summarize the extensive state of the art of the utilization of this wood species and provide an overview of recent scientific publications in the field of wood material science.
I think this study is a progress by deepening and expanding knowledge about European beech, with a focus on load-bearing applications. Generally, some revision suggestions are listed below:
(1) It's better to add the important findings to Abstract rather than describing the general purpose. For example, 'the ongoing research on European beech wood needs to be intensified in order to further strengthen our understanding of this wood species and enable its efficient and effective material utilization.'
(2) In '2. The characteristics of European beech wood', it is better to introduce other beech species for comparison in brief, such as the American Beech Tree (Fagus grandifolia) or the Copper/Purple Beech Tree (Fagus sylvatica purpurea).
(3) Discuss the implications of your findings and suggest the future research directions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you very much for taking the time and reading our manuscript. Please see a detailed response in the attachment.
BR
Max Pramreiter and Michael Grabner
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work presented for review contains many of the most important works on European beech wood. The historical and contemporary context is interestingly covered. It seems that the multitude of works indicates a growing interest in beech wood.
The work is interesting and well though briefly written, with some elements needing clarification or improvement.
„The goal of this manuscript is to present the properties and possible uses of European beech wood” (ll. 43-44).
The properties and possible uses have been described even in handbooks for many years. This formulation of the objective does not bring anything new. It is necessary to indicate what novelty is brought by the presented literature review.
The methods of selection of publications is unclear. Based on a qualitative literature search (l. 172) - how do you understand this sentence? Did you provide any methods of choosing „qualitative”? In general, the entire search strategy is described poorly.
A single search based on only 2 keywords presents an incomplete overview of the research and this raises the doubt that it is representative. Searching only in the Web of Science also narrows the area of study and the data in Figure 2 is relative. It should at least be added what number of publications in the following years were included in the search.
Why coniferous and deciduous species were compared (Norway spruce and beech)? The reasoning for such a comparison should be convincing.
The conclusions are rather general do not point to a novelty, to which the whole concept should aspire.
Details
l. 51 The sources are: [6–11]. – this sentence is not clear.
Some references should be in English, e.g. references Nos 35, 36, 39
I am not convinced that table A1 should be in the appendix, since Norway spruce is a search item and is the main research object next to beech, please consider moving the table to the main text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you very much for taking the time and reading our manuscript. Please see a detailed response in the attachment.
BR
Max Pramreiter and Michael Grabner
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
