Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General Comments:

The paper is a valuable resource and a potential reference for future studies on similar coppice forest stands in other regions of the world, particularly in Asian countries, such as Southeast Asia, where tree growth is faster than the species studied in this paper.

 

Specific comments:

I have some minor comments and clarifications that I want to know and I hope the authors would welcome them incorporated in their revised paper. Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Report is in attached!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is not organized as a research paper. It is more the chapter of a PhD thesis or a book. Neither the objectives of the manuscript or the hypothesis of the study are present in the manuscript. The Materials and Methods section should be reorganized. There is so much information that seems to not be necessary. These aspects must be corrected before further analysis of the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English quality should be improved. 

Author Response

Report in s in attached!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Production of Chestnut Coppice Biomass in a framework of Low Mechanization and High Expectations to Combat Climate Change and other Social Expectations

The paper assesses possibilities of chestnut coppices to the fight against climate change. The authors analysed in the detail current management of a chestnut stand in the territory of Tolfa and potential of increasing the forestry sector's climate change mitigation potential.

However, several issues need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication:

·       It would be appropriate in the introduction to establish the scientific hypotheses that were to be achieved through the analyses and would be evaluated in the discussions, it would contribute to a more scientific paper

·       Chapter 3 “Results” shows the procedure for determining the volume of wood per hectare, as well as its distribution into individual categories. In my opinion, this is better suited to the Chapter “Material and methods”

·       References used in the Introduction and Discussion are mainly from Italy. There is a relatively broad literature on this topic

·       the discussion and conclusion part is very poor in my opinion

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language quality is fine, but I advise before publication the article a check by a native speaker of the language

Author Response

Report is in attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf