Timber Harvesting in Mountainous Regions: A Comprehensive Review
and Eliza Tupu 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is a review of available literature describing the analysis of logging experience and description of mountain ecosystems.
Abstract
The analysis of biometric indicators for research evaluation of timber harvesting in mountainous areas is described. Publications of dominant research sources: from the USA, Canada, Australia and China and others were reviewed.
Global trends in environmental science, ecology , forestry , zoology, biological conservation are indicated
Unfortunately, the time range and summary of the contribution of each group of research in terms of the distribution of the structure of the continents and the impact of research on the scientific world are not presented.
Keywords
“logging” and ‘selective logging’ are unnecessary repetition
Introduction
The main types of forests in mountainous areas are presented. The basic tree species in each region of the world with the required level of terrain are described.
Publications in the topics of both forest cultivation and timber utilization are pointed out
The authors paid too little attention to the description of timber harvesting systems and the impact on the animal and plant world in the study area
Material and methods
The primary source of Web of Science data and searches with the assumed keywords “timber harvesting in mountainous areas” were indicated for the aspects: types of publications, Web of Science categories, years of publication, geographic distribution, affiliated institutions, language of publication, journals, publishers, authorship and keywords in publications.
The relationship is described.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Material and methods
The primary source of Web of Science data and searches with the assumed keywords “logging in mountainous areas” for the aspects: types of publications, Web of Science categories, years of publication, geographic distribution, affiliated institutions, language of publication, journals, publishers, authorship and keywords in publications are indicated.
Keyword relationships and the relationship between them are described. How keywords were selected for the study was not indicated: 1 dynamics, 2 management, 3 forest management, 4 logging, 5 disturbance, 6 fire, 7 forest, 8 protection, 9 patterns. 10 growth, 11 impact, 12 biodiversity, 13 climate change, 14 habitat, 15 abundance, 16 vegetation.
Unfortunately, it was not indicated for which period (how many years were considered and why) of the study the biometric assessment was conducted
Results
Performed biometric analysis with indication of journals ii number of publications by defined keywords. Not surprisingly English as the dominant language but it is the research area that is the primary parameter. The problem may concern some of the journals that do not have links to the Web of Science database. These are often national journals. How do the authors address such assumptions?
Only in the results is the time interval for the publications studied: 1978-2025
The primary clusters of timber harvesting in mountain areas are indicated, with authors indicated.
The highest value of Forest Ecology and Management, Journal of Wildlife Management and Forests journals was shown.
An interesting part of the study is an analysis presenting timber harvesting after disasters. A literature review with fire damage, avalanches and insect activity is included. Unfortunately, the damage was not sorted out in the arrangement of biotic and abiotic disasters.
The effect of the description of logging methods was related to the impact on wildlife.
The effects of activities in mountainous areas were also described in the context of other damages
Discussion
The discussion of the scope of the literature describing timber in mountain areas is broad.
What is missing is a broader look at the issue of growth conditions of stands in mountainous areas and the broad topic of mountain timber harvesting in various techniques.
Deficiencies in the literature description of the selected method of timber harvesting in the terrain limitation and threats of damage to the raw material in transport are noted.
Author Response
Comments 1
Unfortunately, the time range and summary of the contribution of each group of research in terms of the distribution of the structure of the continents and the impact of research on the scientific world are not presented.
Response 1
We appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the need to specify the time range of publications and provide a summary of the contribution of different research groups based on geographical distribution and their impact on the scientific world.
To address this, we have clarified the time range of our bibliometric analysis in the Materials and Methods section, specifying that our dataset includes publications from January 1, 1983, to December 31, 2024. Additionally, we have enhanced the Results section by summarizing the contributions of research groups from different continents, highlighting that the most significant research outputs originate from the USA, Canada, Australia, and China, with substantial contributions from European institutions.
Furthermore, we have incorporated an analysis of the impact of research on the scientific world, emphasizing key publications, frequently cited journals, and collaboration networks. We have also included insights on how the research from different regions influences forestry policies, ecological conservation strategies, and sustainable timber harvesting practices globally.
These modifications ensure a clearer presentation of the research contributions across continents and their scientific impact.
Comments 2
Keywords
“logging” and ‘selective logging’ are unnecessary repetition
Response 2
Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced the term selective logging with bibliometric review.
Comments 3
The authors paid too little attention to the description of timber harvesting systems and the impact on the animal and plant world in the study area
Response 3
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have addressed your concerns by adding a new chapter that provides a more detailed description of timber harvesting systems and their impact on the plant and animal world in mountainous areas. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion on growth conditions of forest stands and included a critical evaluation of various logging technologies and techniques used in mountain forestry. We appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped improve the depth and scope of the article.
Comments 4
Material and methods
The primary source of Web of Science data and searches with the assumed keywords “timber harvesting in mountainous areas” were indicated for the aspects: types of publications, Web of Science categories, years of publication, geographic distribution, affiliated institutions, language of publication, journals, publishers, authorship and keywords in publications.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Material and methods
The primary source of Web of Science data and searches with the assumed keywords “logging in mountainous areas” for the aspects: types of publications, Web of Science categories, years of publication, geographic distribution, affiliated institutions, language of publication, journals, publishers, authorship and keywords in publications are indicated.
Response 4
We have replaced the respective sentence with the correct one indicated in the comments.
Comments 5
Keyword relationships and the relationship between them are described. How keywords were selected for the study was not indicated: 1 dynamics, 2 management, 3 forest management, 4 logging, 5 disturbance, 6 fire, 7 forest, 8 protection, 9 patterns. 10 growth, 11 impact, 12 biodiversity, 13 climate change, 14 habitat, 15 abundance, 16 vegetation.
Response 5
We used the VOSviewer software. It analyzes all the articles we mentioned and automatically selects (based on the keywords used in these articles) all these keywords, ranks them according to their frequency and importance, and groups them into clusters. We have added this explanation to the text.
Comments 6
Unfortunately, it was not indicated for which period (how many years were considered and why) of the study the biometric assessment was conducted
Response 6
We have now mentioned in the text the analyzed period: from January 1, 1983, to December 31, 2024. We did not identify any significant older articles published on this topic, and even if they existed, their ideas have been reanalyzed and improved in more recent articles.
Comments 7
Performed biometric analysis with indication of journals ii number of publications by defined keywords. Not surprisingly English as the dominant language but it is the research area that is the primary parameter. The problem may concern some of the journals that do not have links to the Web of Science database. These are often national journals. How do the authors address such assumptions?
Response 7
We did not include in the analysis journals that do not have links to the Web of Science database. As mentioned, WOS is the largest current database. Additionally, we believe that the large number of identified articles represents a very solid database for analyzing and interpreting the results obtained by different authors on this topic.
Comments 8
An interesting part of the study is an analysis presenting timber harvesting after disasters. A literature review with fire damage, avalanches and insect activity is included. Unfortunately, the damage was not sorted out in the arrangement of biotic and abiotic disasters.
Response 8
We appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the categorization of disasters in our study. Following your suggestion, we have revised the section on timber harvesting after disasters by systematically sorting disturbances into biotic (insect outbreaks) and abiotic (fire, avalanches) categories. This arrangement provides a clearer structure and enhances the understanding of how different types of disturbances influence forest ecosystems and post-disturbance management strategies.
We believe this modification improves the clarity of our discussion and aligns the study with established ecological classifications. Thank you for your insightful recommendation, which has helped us refine our analysis.
Comments 9
What is missing is a broader look at the issue of growth conditions of stands in mountainous areas and the broad topic of mountain timber harvesting in various techniques.
Response 9
Thank you for pointing this out. We have added considerations regarding the growth conditions of stands in mountainous areas and timber harvesting, and we have introduced a new chapter on timber harvesting systems and logging technologies in mountain areas.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented article deals with timber harvesting in mountain areas. The article is not the result of field studies by the author team, but rather has the character of a review and is the result of an analysis of a large number of professional publications, especially articles in scientific journals maintained in the WOS database from 1978 to the present. It is therefore not a scientific article created on the basis of its authors' own data, but an analytical and bibliometric study of published foreign works. However, this fact does not reduce the potential importance of the article, since this analysis can create cross-sectional information about the most important findings of world experts on individual sub-topics related to timber harvesting in mountain areas.
Chapter 1 – Introduction deals with basic aspects of mountain forests. Right at the beginning, the authors present a list of mountain areas – however, I think that other mountain ranges should also be listed. In Europe, the Alps, Carpathians, Pyrenees and Balkan Mountains are not the only important mountain ranges, as the authors state. Lower mountain ranges also have their own specifics of mountain forestry. At the end of this chapter, line 84 states the main objective of the article: to provide a comprehensive review of timber harvesting in mountainous regions, with a focus on its environmental, economic, and management implications.
Chapter 2 – Materials and Methods describes the procedure by which the bibliographic study on the given topic was prepared. The description of the methodology is written clearly and I have no comments on it. I have a comment or question about the text on line 133, where the authors state that 357 articles were analyzed in depth. However, only 119 publications are cited in the References section of the article (lines 681 to 934). Can the authors explain this fact or correct the relevant parts of the text of the article? From Figure 1 it is clear, among other things, that the authors investigated methods used in timber harvesting in mountain areas. My impression of the article, however, is that this, in my opinion, crucial issue of logging technologies in mountain conditions is not presented in too much depth in the article. I would have expected, for example, a critical overview and evaluation of technological procedures and methods of logging, etc.
Chapter 3 – Results begins in section 3.1 Bibliometric review by stating that “a total of 358 publications on timber harvesting in mountainous areas have been identified (line 142).” The number indicating the number of articles studied is different here than on line 133, where the number of articles is 357. I recommend correcting it. Subsequently, the text of the Results chapter provides various statistical data, e.g. on the number of citations of authors, or on the countries of origin, years of publication, etc. The written data are suitably supplemented with tables and graphs. It is therefore a group of information that may be interesting and beneficial for a specific group of readers (bibliography specialists).
In section 3.2 Literature review, various thematic areas are elaborated, such as Timber harvesting in mountain areas after disturbances, Methods and programs used in timber harvesting in mountain areas, etc. The chapter also discusses, for example, pedological conditions affecting timber harvesting in mountain conditions, animals living there, but also the consequences of timber harvesting on the environment (damage). All this is quite interesting information, even if it is not elaborated in too much detail. What I find missing in this chapter, however, is a characteristic or analysis of technologies, or rather machines and work procedures, by which timber harvesting is ensured in various categories of mountain areas. I think that such a passage should be added to the article. For example: should be given the specifics of felling trees in mountainous terrain, as well as the technical means and procedures by which logging is ensured, the relationship of natural and production conditions to these means and procedures. Typical equipment for transporting harvested wood in the mountains is not mentioned here, i.e. forest cable cars or other specific equipment (mountain processors), etc. There are quite a few publications in this area of forestry, e.g. from several European countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, etc.). I think that these missing passages would be a good addition to the other, otherwise well-written parts of the article and the article would be more interesting for another group of technologically oriented readers. In my opinion, for the reasons mentioned above, the current substantive content of the article only partially meets its goal, stated on line 84 (see also above).
In conclusion of my Review, I state that I consider the article to be beneficial, providing useful information to a specific group of readers. As I stated above, however, I recommend that it be supplemented in the area of technological characteristics of wood extraction in the mountains and only then do I recommend that the article be published.
Author Response
Comments 1
Chapter 1 – Introduction deals with basic aspects of mountain forests. Right at the beginning, the authors present a list of mountain areas – however, I think that other mountain ranges should also be listed. In Europe, the Alps, Carpathians, Pyrenees and Balkan Mountains are not the only important mountain ranges, as the authors state. Lower mountain ranges also have their own specifics of mountain forestry.
Response 1
Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the inclusion of additional mountain ranges in our introduction. We appreciate your suggestion to acknowledge other significant mountain ranges in Europe beyond the Alps, Carpathians, Pyrenees, and Balkans. In response to your comment, we have revised the introduction to include additional European mountain ranges such as the Massif Central, the Jura Mountains, the Dinaric Alps, the Scandinavian Mountains, the Cantabrian Mountains, and the Scottish Highlands. Each of these mountain ranges has its own distinct forestry characteristics, which contribute to the diversity of mountain forest ecosystems across Europe.
We believe this modification strengthens the completeness of our review and ensures a more inclusive representation of mountain forests. We appreciate your valuable input and hope that this revision meets your expectations.
Comments 2
I have a comment or question about the text on line 133, where the authors state that 357 articles were analyzed in depth. However, only 119 publications are cited in the References section of the article (lines 681 to 934). Can the authors explain this fact or correct the relevant parts of the text of the article?
Response 2
We have analyzed all 357 articles related to this topic. However, only 119 of them presented conclusions or aspects relevant to our analysis that could be cited. This does not mean that the other articles are not important, but we could not cite all of them in our paper.
Comments 3
My impression of the article, however, is that this, in my opinion, crucial issue of logging technologies in mountain conditions is not presented in too much depth in the article. I would have expected, for example, a critical overview and evaluation of technological procedures and methods of logging, etc.
Response 3
Thank you for pointing this out. We added a new chapter that provides a more detailed description of timber harvesting systems and their impact on the plant and animal world in mountainous areas. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion on growth conditions of forest stands and included a critical evaluation of various logging technologies and techniques used in mountain forestry.
Comments 4
Chapter 3 – Results begins in section 3.1 Bibliometric review by stating that “a total of 358 publications on timber harvesting in mountainous areas have been identified (line 142).” The number indicating the number of articles studied is different here than on line 133, where the number of articles is 357. I recommend correcting it.
Response 4
Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the text with the correct number of articles: 358.
Comments 5
What I find missing in this chapter, however, is a characteristic or analysis of technologies, or rather machines and work procedures, by which timber harvesting is ensured in various categories of mountain areas. I think that such a passage should be added to the article. For example: should be given the specifics of felling trees in mountainous terrain, as well as the technical means and procedures by which logging is ensured, the relationship of natural and production conditions to these means and procedures. Typical equipment for transporting harvested wood in the mountains is not mentioned here, i.e. forest cable cars or other specific equipment (mountain processors), etc. There are quite a few publications in this area of forestry, e.g. from several European countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, etc.). I think that these missing passages would be a good addition to the other, otherwise well-written parts of the article and the article would be more interesting for another group of technologically oriented readers. In my opinion, for the reasons mentioned above, the current substantive content of the article only partially meets its goal, stated on line 84 (see also above).
In conclusion of my Review, I state that I consider the article to be beneficial, providing useful information to a specific group of readers. As I stated above, however, I recommend that it be supplemented in the area of technological characteristics of wood extraction in the mountains and only then do I recommend that the article be published.
Response 5
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have addressed your concerns by adding a new chapter that provides a more detailed description of timber harvesting systems and their impact on the plant and animal world in mountainous areas. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion on growth conditions of forest stands and included a critical evaluation of various logging technologies and techniques used in mountain forestry. We appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped improve the depth and scope of the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors After studying the corrected version of the article, I note that the authors of the article have adequately responded to my comments stated in my review of the first version of this article. Therefore, I personally consider the corrected version of the article suitable for publication, and I do not request any further changes.