Loading Round Wood in Forestry Trucks and Forestry Platforms: A Case Study for Romania
, Gheorghiță Lucian Abutnăriței, Dumitrel Daniel Hogea, Lucian Denis Miu, Vasile Nicolae Avram, Ștefan Saicu and Rudolf Alexandru Derczeni
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview
The removal of harvested wood is the second stage of the process of transporting harvested wood in forestry. The first phase is considered to be technologically more difficult - the gathering of wood to the transport road, during which the wood is moved over the unimproved terrain of the forest stand to the forest road. However, this relative ease of hauling wood (carried out by variously equipped trucks along prepared forest roads) compared to gathering wood is only apparent. A prerequisite for achieving the desired efficiency of wood hauling along forest roads, or on public roads, there is a high level of work organization, technological preparations, the choice of the optimal means of transportation, the corresponding quality and density of the forest transport network, etc. The authors of the presented article are well aware of all this and focused their research on case studies of wood transportation in different regions of Romania to clarify the main factors by which the removal of wood can be optimized in the local conditions. Therefore, I consider the topic of the article to be appropriate and current with potential use not only in Romania, but also in other countries.
In Chapter 1 – Introduction, the authors present a comprehensive overview of information on the given issue both in Romania and abroad. They have studied for this purpose and here they cite the publications of a number of renowned authors. At the end of this chapter, the main goal of the article is stated (to evaluate the process of loading wood for different types of means of transport in terms of the time requirements of individual work phases and factors that can affect productivity) and the sub-goals on which the main goal is based are also listed. This first chapter is handled very well both in terms of content and form, and I have no comments about it.
Chapter 2 – Materials and Methods first characterizes the locations in Romania where the wood hauling research took place. This characteristic is suitably supplemented by the attached map, from which it is clear that the authors chose four regions for their research, which differ from each other in terms of natural production conditions. I consider this to be a very appropriate methodological approach, as the typical conditions that can be encountered during timber transport in Romania (both flat and mountainous landscapes) are apparently affected. In the second sub-chapter, the methodology of solving the research study is characterized, on the results of which the presented article is based. It is obvious that some of the data (transport distances) were obtained by the authors by analysing transport documents, and some were also obtained by their own field observations of the towing vehicles during the loading of wood (creating the load). Field observations were therefore carried out based on the analysis of time-lapse images from each workplace. I think the authors used standard methodological procedures to obtain the data that they further elaborate in the Results section. Descriptions of the investigated locations and work procedures with different types of trucks are processed in a comprehensible manner. Perhaps I would just remind you that it would be appropriate to mention the provability of the knowledge achieved, i.e. it would be appropriate to mention any statistical procedures used in the processing of basic data sets.
The most important part of the article is, of course, chapter 3 – Results. This chapter consists of four sub-chapters, corresponding to the set sub-goals. Subchapter 3.1 deals with the issue of the analysis of transport distances, which, among other things, deals with the average sizes of wood loads depending on the transport distance. Here, the authors have processed their findings in the form of impressive graphs, supplemented by suitable comments. Subchapter 3.2 deals with the comparison of the sizes of loaded volumes of wood and the length of time needed to load wood when using two basic types of hauling vehicles that were tested as part of the research (forestry trucks - ATF and forestry platforms - APF). These two types of towing vehicles differ from each other in their loading mechanisms (hydraulic crane for ATF and loading rope winch for APF). In principle, I have no substantive comments on this sub-chapter, from a formal point of view I would only recommend changing the type of graphs in Figures 12 and 13 - although the graphs look impressive, they are not easy to read - I recommend choosing the "ordinary" form of graphs. I also have no major comments on subchapters 3.3 and 3.4 – they inform about what is announced in their headings. Regarding the Results chapter, I would generally recommend mentioning the characteristics of the transported wood (timber, dimensions) and whether and how these characteristics of the transported wood can in any fundamental way affect, for example, the productivity of the haulage, loading speed (folding of wood), etc.
Chapter 4 – Discussion is a mandatory part of scientific articles and it is handled very well by its authors in this article. In it, the authors reflect on their findings, obtained through the research study and presented in chapter 3. The authors, completely with the intentions intended for Discussions, also argue with the findings of other authors, compare their findings with the findings of other scientists, etc. Within the Discussion, considerable attention is paid to the problem of handling parameters wood for vehicles. In this sense, I would recommend the authors to formulate at the end of this chapter or in chapter 5 - Conclusions the recommendations resulting from their research, i.e. for example, whether it is advisable to use vehicles equipped with loading cable winches in the future, whether or not vehicles with hydraulic cranes are more advantageous for loading or stacking wood, whether, for example, potential safety risks for personnel in both types of loading mechanisms are the same, or whether they differ, etc. Such an operationally usable recommendation would undoubtedly benefit an article focused in this way.
Chapter 5 – Conclusions recapitulates the findings in an appropriate way. As I have already stated above, it would be appropriate if the authors here (or in the previous chapter) formulated the knowledge that can be generalized for the forest management of Romania and provided any recommendations for the choice of optimal perspective removal means.
References are processed in a standard way and I have no comments on them.
Overall, I consider the submitted article to be successful. Its structure corresponds to a scientific article, the article brings new findings that are generalizable. Therefore, I recommend the article to be published, after previous minor adjustments, mentioned above in the text of this Review.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Author: I would like to thank to Reviewer 1 to your effort and time spend to improve our work. And thank you very much for the constructive suggestions which will definitely make the article better.
Reviewer 1: The authors of the presented article are well aware of all this and focused their research on case studies of wood transportation in different regions of Romania to clarify the main factors by which the removal of wood can be optimized in the local conditions. Therefore, I consider the topic of the article to be appropriate and current with potential use not only in Romania, but also in other countries.
Author: Thank you very much for the appreciations.
Reviewer 1: In Chapter 1 – Introduction, the authors present a comprehensive overview of information on the given issue both in Romania and abroad. They have studied for this purpose and here they cite the publications of a number of renowned authors. At the end of this chapter, the main goal of the article is stated (to evaluate the process of loading wood for different types of means of transport in terms of the time requirements of individual work phases and factors that can affect productivity) and the sub-goals on which the main goal is based are also listed. This first chapter is handled very well both in terms of content and form, and I have no comments about it.
Author: I would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for the appreciations.
Reviewer 1: Chapter 2 – Materials and Methods first characterizes the locations in Romania where the wood hauling research took place. This characteristic is suitably supplemented by the attached map, from which it is clear that the authors chose four regions for their research, which differ from each other in terms of natural production conditions. I consider this to be a very appropriate methodological approach, as the typical conditions that can be encountered during timber transport in Romania (both flat and mountainous landscapes) are apparently affected. In the second sub-chapter, the methodology of solving the research study is characterized, on the results of which the presented article is based. It is obvious that some of the data (transport distances) were obtained by the authors by analysing transport documents, and some were also obtained by their own field observations of the towing vehicles during the loading of wood (creating the load). Field observations were therefore carried out based on the analysis of time-lapse images from each workplace. I think the authors used standard methodological procedures to obtain the data that they further elaborate in the Results section. Descriptions of the investigated locations and work procedures with different types of trucks are processed in a comprehensible manner. Perhaps I would just remind you that it would be appropriate to mention the provability of the knowledge achieved, i.e. it would be appropriate to mention any statistical procedures used in the processing of basic data sets.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for the suggestions made for improving our article. We completed the methodology sections with the mention related to the statistical procedures used in processing the basic data sets.
Reviewer 1: The most important part of the article is, of course, chapter 3 – Results. This chapter consists of four sub-chapters, corresponding to the set sub-goals. Subchapter 3.1 deals with the issue of the analysis of transport distances, which, among other things, deals with the average sizes of wood loads depending on the transport distance. Here, the authors have processed their findings in the form of impressive graphs, supplemented by suitable comments. Subchapter 3.2 deals with the comparison of the sizes of loaded volumes of wood and the length of time needed to load wood when using two basic types of hauling vehicles that were tested as part of the research (forestry trucks - ATF and forestry platforms - APF). These two types of towing vehicles differ from each other in their loading mechanisms (hydraulic crane for ATF and loading rope winch for APF). In principle, I have no substantive comments on this sub-chapter, from a formal point of view I would only recommend changing the type of graphs in Figures 12 and 13 - although the graphs look impressive, they are not easy to read - I recommend choosing the "ordinary" form of graphs. I also have no major comments on subchapters 3.3 and 3.4 – they inform about what is announced in their headings. Regarding the Results chapter, I would generally recommend mentioning the characteristics of the transported wood (timber, dimensions) and whether and how these characteristics of the transported wood can in any fundamental way affect, for example, the productivity of the haulage, loading speed (folding of wood), etc.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for the suggestions and we appreciate the mentions regarding the graphs for figures 12 and 13. We changed the figures to be easier to read, and we completed the results with the recommendation related to the influence of wood characteristics on the loading process in forestry trucks (ATF) and forestry platforms (APF):
”In the studied areas there were applied progressive cuts and the harvested wood was in the form of assortments and multiple assortments, which means long logs of different diameters. Thus, in the forestry trucks (ATF) were loaded logs with diameters between 10 and 44 cm, and with lengths varying between 3 to 7 m, while most of the logs had 5 m long. In the forestry platforms (APF) the logs were much longer, of 6 to 8 meters, most of them being of 7 and 7.5 meters long, while the diameters were the same, varying between 10 and 44 cm. These characteristics of logs influenced in a considerable way the productivity and the loading times in the sense that when were loaded many logs with small diameters the loading process for forestry trucks were somewhat more difficult and imposed more time, because the operator had to arrange them for an optimum loading and for minimizing the risk of accidents. The loading process of logs in forestry platforms was not influenced by the diameters of the logs, because there were loaded many logs once. The main factor affecting the productivity in loading wood in the forestry platforms was the length of the logs, and in the studied cases the logs had quite big lengths, which influenced the loading process in a positive way.”
Reviewer 1: Chapter 4 – Discussion is a mandatory part of scientific articles and it is handled very well by its authors in this article. In it, the authors reflect on their findings, obtained through the research study and presented in chapter 3. The authors, completely with the intentions intended for Discussions, also argue with the findings of other authors, compare their findings with the findings of other scientists, etc. Within the Discussion, considerable attention is paid to the problem of handling parameters wood for vehicles. In this sense, I would recommend the authors to formulate at the end of this chapter or in chapter 5 - Conclusions the recommendations resulting from their research, i.e. for example, whether it is advisable to use vehicles equipped with loading cable winches in the future, whether or not vehicles with hydraulic cranes are more advantageous for loading or stacking wood, whether, for example, potential safety risks for personnel in both types of loading mechanisms are the same, or whether they differ, etc. Such an operationally usable recommendation would undoubtedly benefit an article focused in this way.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for the suggestion regarding the recommendation for production. This was missing from the article, to be complete. We putted the recommendation at the end of the Conclusions section. Thank you again.
”Based on the obtained results, it could be recommended the use of forestry trucks when the wood have to be transported on long distances because the loaded volume is greater than in the cases of forestry platforms. For eliminate the interruptions in the loading process and the delays it is recommended to prepare the logs before loading (cross-cuts and measure the logs), which will increase the productivity and it will decrease the risk of accidents for the workers who performs these tasks during the loading process.”
Reviewer 1: Chapter 5 – Conclusions recapitulates the findings in an appropriate way. As I have already stated above, it would be appropriate if the authors here (or in the previous chapter) formulated the knowledge that can be generalized for the forest management of Romania and provided any recommendations for the choice of optimal perspective removal means.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 1 for the suggestion regarding the recommendation for production. This was missing from the article, to be complete. We putted the recommendation at the end of the Conclusions section. Thank you again.
Reviewer 1: References are processed in a standard way and I have no comments on them.
Author: Thank you very much for the appreciations.
Reviewer 1: Overall, I consider the submitted article to be successful. Its structure corresponds to a scientific article, the article brings new findings that are generalizable. Therefore, I recommend the article to be published, after previous minor adjustments, mentioned above in the text of this Review.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 1 to the effort, for the constructive suggestions and time spend to improve our work. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFigures 9, 10A, 12, and 13 - I suggest you choose another more readable type of chart with columns.
Fig. 10B and in the text - I suggest you use turn instead of transport.
Line 166 - ocșa?
Line 246 - salvage cuts instead of hygiene cuts?
Line 247 - coniferous instead of resinous species.
Fig. 9 - I think Beech and Quercus (which ones?) are also hardwood. Try another term instead of hardwood.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI think the English needs minor corrections and some terms need to be cleared.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 to your effort and time spend to improve our work. And thank you very much for the constructive suggestions which will definitely make the article better.
Reviewer 2: Figures 9, 10A, 12, and 13 - I suggest you choose another more readable type of chart with columns.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for the constructive suggestions. We changed the figures 9, 10, 12, and 13.
Reviewer 2: Fig. 10B and in the text - I suggest you use turn instead of transport.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2. We changed ”transport” with „turn” in fig. 10 and in the text
Reviewer 2: Line 166 - ocșa?
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for the constructive suggestions. Here was missing a letter. Now is correct (”Bocșa”). Thank you!
Reviewer 2: Line 246 - salvage cuts instead of hygiene cuts?
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for the constructive suggestions. We changed ”hygiene cuts” with ”salvage cuts”. Thank you!
Reviewer 2: Line 247 - coniferous instead of resinous species.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for the constructive suggestions. We changed ”resinous species” with ”coniferous” in the text and in the legends of figure 9. Thank you!
Reviewer 2: Fig. 9 - I think Beech and Quercus (which ones?) are also hardwood. Try another term instead of hardwood.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 for the constructive suggestions. We changed in figure 9 ”hardwood species” with ”other hardwood species”.
Reviewer 2: Comments on the Quality of English Language. I think the English needs minor corrections and some terms need to be cleared.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 2 to your effort and time spend to improve our work. One of my colleagues checked the English. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The article is very long and more like a report than the results of a research work.
The difference between the treatments, the statistical population, and the samples size are unclear.
The introduction does not contain much of a section related to the research topic and is more about the network of forest roads.
Work components are not well defined for work study and time study.
Statistical tests have not performed. The number of figures is very large.
A number of figures are unclear because they do not have a unit (9 and 10).
Abstract
The first sentences are related to the network of forest roads, they have nothing to do with the title of the article.
I did not see the term "wood logging".
The “different condition” is unclear, what are research variables?
Only the last two sentences are the results. The abstract is too vague.
The research method is not clear. It is not clear which data was collected.
The research results are self-evident and not a new issue.
Introduction
Line 42: “GPD”? please explain
Study area
It seems that it would be more appropriate to present the characteristics of the four studied areas (machinery and volume of wood harvested) in one table.
Author Response
Reviewer 3: The article is very long and more like a report than the results of a research work.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 to the effort and time spend to improve our work. The article is quite long, but the journal does not limit the number of pages, and in a final versions, after revisions, the length of the article will reduce. There are a lot of research results for which the authors of the article worked almost half of year, including students. We tried to centralize the results as good as we could, by presenting the data in suggestive figures. Thank you very much for the suggestions, we will consider them for the next articles.
Reviewer 3: The difference between the treatments, the statistical population, and the samples size are unclear.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for the comment. In the study area section are presented the cuts applied in each compartment unit, and yes they are not detailed described because we think, and please excuse us if we do not think correct, but the article is addressed to specialists in forestry who knows (or they should to know) the particularities of the cuts applied in a stand. Also, there are presented the number of the locations where the field works were performed. And in the Methodology section are presented the statistical analyses performed for the data processing, and also the number of the transport documents taken into consideration, the number of the analyzed transports (for each objective), the number of loads in a transport and other important information for each addressed subject.
Reviewer 3: The introduction does not contain much of a section related to the research topic and is more about the network of forest roads.Work components are not well defined for work study and time study.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for the comment, but the introduction is structured according to the plan of the article. There are presented some information related to the forest road network, because a poor developed network of transport can influence in a negative way the transport process and the quantities and quality of the wood. An improper forest road can limit the access of forest truck with big loading capacity and so on. After this part there are presented the characteristics of the forest transport, the factors that can affect it and the particularities and types of vehicles used at wood transport, according to the wood assortments. Also there are information related to the number of axles and the types of loading equipments. Please check also the Discussion section, where are presented also information regarding the results obtained in the article compared to those from other studies.
Reviewer 3: Statistical tests have not performed.The number of figures is very large.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 to the comments. In the Methodology section is mentioned that the data were statistical analyzed and the descriptive statistical indicators are presented in figures 14 – 17. The article is quite long, yes, but we tried to centralize the results as good as we could, by presenting the data in suggestive figures. Thank you very much for the suggestions, we will consider them for the next articles.
Reviewer 3: A number of figures are unclear because they do not have a unit (9 and 10).
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for the constructive suggestions. We changed the figures 9, 10, 12, and 13.
Reviewer 3: Abstract: The first sentences are related to the network of forest roads, they have nothing to do with the title of the article. I did not see the term "wood logging". The “different condition” is unclear, what are research variables? Only the last two sentences are the results. The abstract is too vague. The research method is not clear. It is not clear which data was collected. The research results are self-evident and not a new issue.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for the constructive suggestions. We changed the abstract in accordance with the requirements mentioned. Thank you very much!
Reviewer 3: Introduction: Line 42: “GPD”? please explain
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for the constructive suggestions. We explained what is ”GPD” – gross domestic product of the country.
Reviewer 3: Study area: It seems that it would be more appropriate to present the characteristics of the four studied areas (machinery and volume of wood harvested) in one table.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 3 for the constructive suggestions. We tried to present the information in accordance with the objectives, which addresses different subjects, even if they are related. So, we think that using a table will be difficult to follow because it has to be structured for various parameters, which are not the same for all the pursued tasks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for corrections
Line 12-15: The sentence is long. It needs to shorten the smoothing.
Figure 9: The letters a, b and c should be placed inside the figures.
Figure 10: The letters a and b should be placed inside the figures.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17: Prepared in two dimensions.
Figures 14, 15, 16, and 17: The differences between which of the averages are statistically significant? It seems that it needs to do ANOVA and post hoc tests.
Figure 22: In this way it is not clear.
Line 406-409: “In addition, it can be found that the productivity when loading wood in forestry trucks (ATF) was predominantly around 0.5 m3/loading (Figure 22), while in forestry platforms (APF) it varied between 0.2 and 0.6 m3/loading, approximately (Figure 23).” The productivity is expressed in unit of work production in unit of work time, such as m3/h.
Author Response
Reviewer 4: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author: I would like to thank to Reviewer 4 to the effort and time spend to improve our work. And thank you very much for the constructive suggestions which will definitely make the article better.
Reviewer 4: Line 12-15: The sentence is long. It needs to shorten the smoothing.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the constructive suggestions. We split the sentence in two much smaller.
Reviewer 4: Figure 9: The letters a, b and c should be placed inside the figures.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the comment. We placed the ”a., b., and c.” inside the figure 2 and 9 (and we deleted the rows below figures).
Reviewer 4: Figure 10: The letters a. and b. should be placed inside the figures.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the comment. We placed the ”a. and b.” inside the figure 10 (and we deleted the rows below figures).
Reviewer 4: Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17: Prepared in two dimensions.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the suggestions. We solved the problems. We prepared the figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in two dimensions.
Reviewer 4: Figures 14, 15, 16, and 17: The differences between which of the averages are statistically significant? It seems that it needs to do ANOVA and post hoc tests.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the constructive suggestion. We inserted into the figures 14, 15, 16 and 17 the median and there could be seen that the values of average and median are very closely in what regarding the time and volumes loaded in forestry trucks and platforms.
Reviewer 4: Figure 22: In this way it is not clear.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the comment. We changed the figures 22 and 23 to be easier to be read. Thank you very much!
Reviewer 4: Line 406-409: “In addition, it can be found that the productivity when loading wood in forestry trucks (ATF) was predominantly around 0.5 m3/loading (Figure 22), while in forestry platforms (APF) it varied between 0.2 and 0.6 m3/loading, approximately (Figure 23).” The productivity is expressed in unit of work production in unit of work time, such as m3/h.
Author: We would like to thank to Reviewer 4 for the comment, it is very useful for us and correct a mistake. We corrected the measurement units from „m3/loading” in ”m3/minute”. Thank you again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
