Assessment of Climate Impact of Sustainable Forestry Based on Landscape Structure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Content

- It is well known that natural forests are better than other types of forests. However, we must take into account the use of forests in the correct way. If we use a specific perspective to explain, it may distort the purpose of management.

Method

- The method studied is not clear enough.

Conclusion

- Deforestation is bad and inappropriate. The readers agree. However, carbon neutrality from management is like destroying forests. We need to find more reliable support in various aspects.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. The article has been updated. Changes are marked with red, blue and green colours. All changes relate to your specific review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for consideration in Forests. I have now had the opportunity to review your paper titled "Carbon-Neutral Forestry Contributes to Global Warming due to Carbon Debt," and I appreciate the effort you have put into this work. Your study provides a critical examination of the environmental impacts of forestry practices through the lens of landscape theory, which is a valuable contribution to the field. However, I have several comments and suggestions that could enhance the clarity and impact of your manuscript.

1. Elaboration on Landscape Theory:

The paper employs landscape theory as the foundational framework for evaluating the environmental consequences of forestry. While this approach is intriguing, the paper would benefit from a more explicit justification for the selection of landscape theory over other potential frameworks. Could you please elaborate on the unique contributions that landscape theory offers to the analysis of carbon debt in forestry? Additionally, discussing the limitations of landscape theory and how your study addresses these limitations would strengthen the methodological rigor of your work.

2. Detailed Explanation of Software Package Utilization:

Your manuscript references the Heureka software package in the context of modeling forest growth under varying logging intensities. To enhance the credibility of your findings, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive background on the Heureka software. This includes its underlying assumptions, validation against empirical data, and its comparative advantages over other modeling tools. Could you please expand on why Heureka was chosen for this study and how its use impacts the results and conclusions drawn from the model?

3. Rationale for Software Selection:

It is crucial for the readers to understand the rationale behind the use of the Heureka software in your research. Have other similar tools been evaluated, and if so, what were the factors that led to the selection of Heureka? A discussion on the strengths and limitations of this software in the context of your study would provide a more robust foundation for the methods and results sections of the paper.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the paper. Changes are highlighted with red, green and blue colours. Changes marked with blue colour are directly related to your remarks.

1. We have addes a paragraph in the introduction decribing details, variations and limitations of landscape theory as well as a motivation for choosing this practice.
2. and 3. We have not utilized the Heureka software package ourselves but we are just referring to a study utlizing this package. We have added remarks clarifying this issue in section 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written, clear for understanding, and easy to read. The study addresses a crucial issue on the possible carbon debt from the application of specific climate change mitigating practices (for example, managed forests vs. natural forests). The authors criticize the widespread idea that forestry operations (such as logging, thinning, clear-cutting, scarification, and monocultural replanting, etc.) positively affect the climate fluctuations and can be utilized for mitigation of climatic changes along with the natural forested area. The authors clearly demonstrated that such a concept can be unproductive due to the methodological presumptions (e.g., ignoring the early stage of landscape forestry formation) that can be much farther from reality. This research is highly relevant and fascinating due to its consideration of the urgent problems of climate change. The authors also draw the attention to the issue of declining biodiversity related to forestry practices. Finally, they present the clearest illustration of how Sweden actually ranks among the leaders of the GHG emissions.


As the MS is well written and represents the original study in the discipline of crucial overall importance, therefore, I would recommend making minor revisions to this MS to fix minor drawbacks (see specific comments).

Literature is not presented in a proper manner (according to the author’s guide to the journal).

 

Specific comments:

L190-192. Place the caption for Table 1 above it.

L226. Correct “20 MHa.” Mha?
 
L257. Consider changing the 3.2.1. subsection to “Swedish total climate-induced GHG emissions”.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. The manuscript has been changed, amendments coloured with red, blue and green. Text highlighted with green colour relate to your comments.

We have done the alteration as you recommend.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It has been revised as suggested, and the writing style has improved and is now ready for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok