Lumber Recovery Rate of Cupressus lusitanica in Arsi Forest Enterprise, Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article discusses wood use in the Ethiopian region and analyses the changes in wood use efficiency and its implications under different circumstances, which are useful for forest management in such areas. The article is clear in its thinking and conclusions. Suggestions for revision include (1) enhancing the usefulness of this study for green economic development and industrial transformation in Ethiopia, where forest cover is relatively low, and (2) improving the language with appropriate embellishments.

Author Response

Reviewer-1

The article discusses wood use in the Ethiopian region and analyses the changes in wood use efficiency and its implications under different circumstances, which are useful for forest management in such areas. The article is clear in its thinking and conclusions. Suggestions for revision include (1) enhancing the usefulness of this study for green economic development and industrial transformation in Ethiopia, where forest cover is relatively low, and

Response: Agreed; Thank you so much for the wonderful comments, the usefulness of the study on green economic development and industrial transformation have added.

(2) improving the language with appropriate embellishments.

Response: Agreed, the language of the article has been improved.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is actually a very simple study of determining Lumber Recovery Rate of Cupressus lusitanica in Arsi Forest Enterprise, Ethiopia. The authors studied the factors that affect the recovery.

The journal is titled "Sustainability" but the paper (in my personal opinion) is more appropriate to the MDPI's "Forests".

The paper yet so simple discussed so much background especially the Methods part where some of them are irrelevant or may be transferred in the Introduction section.

Despite the simplicity of the study, the paper can still be a good reference in determining what could possibly affect lumber recovery rate in a commercial sawmill. However, the paper's content should also include the lumber grading rule as practiced in Ethiopia. This is missing in the paper which I think should be included to complete the story and create an overall picture of an Ethiopian's commercial sawmill.

Also, as I read through the paper, I encountered so many awkward sentences and grammatical lapses that need to be carefully edited/corrected by an English language editor. Please have the paper edited by a native English speaker for clarity.

For the references, I noticed that some were not published so it will be hard to validate them (if ever) . It will be helpful, if only published references are used in the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a highly effective paper on lumber technology and effective utilization of wood. Methods to increase the utilization rate have been devised and considered from various perspectives. However, what about the fuel consumption and energy efficiency issues that arise in the sawing process? This is because not only the effective utilization rate of logs but also their efficiency is questioned. If you get any results, please add them to the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I think it would be rasonable to discuss to how much extent Cupressus lusitanica (and other commercially valuable tree species) plantation areas should be increased, as well as their productivity rate improved in Ethiopia, in terms of implementing and securing sustainable forestry, saving and protecting valuable forest resources and biodiversity in the country

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

 

Lumber Recovery Rate of Cupressus lusitanica in Arsi Forest Enterprise, Ethiopia

 

The abstract is poorly structured and should be rewritten. It should show the problem, methods results and implications of the study. Secondly, it also has many grammatical errors that you should be addressed. In the introduction section, many statements are hanging. These should be supported with references. Authors should also demonstrate the research gap in this study. Thirdly, the referencing style is not consistent. They should refer to the guidelines of the journal. Under location, Figure 1. Map of the study area (Source: Eba et al. 2012). The authors should generate a new map that reflect the location of the study.

 

In the results section, much as the recovery rate has been analysed, authors should also demonstrate patterns of their results other than interpreting the figures. By this, authors should also implications of their results in the discussion. Furthermore, the presentation of results on the Factors that effects the lumber recovery rate should be rethought or presented. In its current format it is confusing. Author should present the most significant factors that accommodate all the variables. The conclusion should not only be a summary of results, but should show global justification of this study which is lacking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the paper has improved a lot - specifically reviewers' comments are addressed and language and grammar were already ok, except for few minor lapses such as provision of spacing between words which occurred during language editing. Please recheck those.

In Table 1 under the column of log classification, it would be better/helpful to add either in the Table or mention in the text the age of those logs/trees as an added information as the age of the Cupressus lusitanica tree plantation was not mentioned in the discussion which I think needed to be stated in the paper. Also, the diameter of the circular saw blades, number of saw blade teeth and kerf width used to saw the log during its primary breakdown should be worth mentioning in the methods section.

Overall, the paper is very good and recommended for publication. I would like to request to please address the additional comments. I will leave the checking to the editors if the last comments I added are addressed in the final version of this paper.

Author Response

Reviewer-2

The revised version of the paper has improved a lot - specifically reviewers' comments are addressed and language and grammar were already ok, except for few minor lapses such as provision of spacing between words which occurred during language editing. Please recheck those.

In Table 1 under the column of log classification, it would be better/helpful to add either in the Table or mention in the text the age of those logs/trees as an added information as the age of the Cupressus lusitanica tree plantation was not mentioned in the discussion which I think needed to be stated in the paper. Also, the diameter of the circular saw blades, number of saw blade teeth and kerf width used to saw the log during its primary breakdown should be worth mentioning in the methods section.

Overall, the paper is very good and recommended for publication. I would like to request to please address the additional comments. I will leave the checking to the editors if the last comments I added are addressed in the final version of this paper.

Response- Thank you so much for the comments; the comments have been incorporated in the method section of the text and yellow highlighted.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf