Impact on Soil Physical Properties Related to a High Mechanization Level in the Row Thinning of a Korean Pine Stand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
From the title and abstract, I found it is a nice story owing to the fact that Korean pine is very important tree species in northeast Asia both for timber production and seed production with high economic values. At the moment, management with special machine influences on soil properties should be useful for forest management and land improvement.
Introduction
Should be reorganized why this paper is important for a wide population, not only in Korea,
Korean pine is a climax species in NE Asia both China, Korea and Russia, and part of Japan, possibly.
M&M
The machine should be described more in detail, for example the width of the machine?
I am confused by your description. For example, fawarder do not use the same trail of harvester? However, you did not want to check their different effects on soils. So, you should tell more details on these machines.
What do you mean 8x8， and 6x6？
Fig. 1 including the inserted figures is not good quality enough for publication.
L89-90: what you mean % in slope gradient? Is it not slope degree?
L92:upcase of m3ha-1.
L101: what do you mean on unit?
Fig. 2, in my opinion, the buffer region beside the 4m trail should be used different color for a more readable figure.
Quality is too low for publication.
Results
The paper should try to highlight the differences of forwarder and harvester. However, in the figure presentation, sometimes you want to say their differences, and some time you want to say their similarity with mean value. I think it is better to emphasize the differences. Please give new revision on this.
For example, Fig. 4. Should have similar in 3.2. The same is to other figure and tables.
Discussion.
Firstly , talking about the possible way to reduce the impact by machine selection. The second paragraph should be the most important part. Please highlight it.
Secondly, soil disturbance related soil erosion is very important part. Bulk density and porosity has been defined. So, it is better to describe sth. on this point, the soil erosion control.
Thirdly, Please highlight the importance your finding for world audience. At the moment, I cannot see what your idea on this point.
L260” they is who? Please define
Author Response
Introduction
Point 1. Should be reorganized why this paper is important for a wide population, not only in Korea,
Korean pine is a climax species in NE Asia both China, Korea and Russia, and part of Japan, possibly.
Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We already report why this paper is important in line 32 – 34. And Gao et al. (2015) reported that “Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis Sieb. et Zucc) forests mainly distribute in Xiaoxing’an Mountain, and Changbai Mountain in Northeast of China. It is one of the important tree species for plantations in the area. In addition to the good quality of its lumber for industrial uses, its seeds are extensively harvested and sold as pine nuts, which have been the most widely traded pine nut in international commerce.” Thus, we should manage Korean pine.
M&M
Point 2. The machine should be described more in detail, for example the width of the machine?
Response 2. We add some information of the machine.
Point 3. I am confused by your description. For example, fowarder do not use the same trail of harvester? However, you did not want to check their different effects on soils. So, you should tell more details on these machines.
Response 3. The harvesters fell and transport to forwarding trail (Figure 1). So, the forwarder do not pass in only harvesters trails. After harvesters operations, forwarder carried logs and residues to landing. Thus, forwarding trails used both harvester and forwarder passes.
Point 4. What do you mean 8x8 and 6x6？
Response 4. It means that drive configuration of tracked vehicles.
Point 5. Fig. 1 including the inserted figures is not good quality enough for publication.
Response 5. We changed it.
Point 6. L89-90: what you mean % in slope gradient? Is it not slope degree?
Response 6. We changed it.
Point 7. L92: upcase of m3ha-1.
Response 7. We revised it.
Point 8. L101: what do you mean on unit?
Response 8. Unit A was defined as harvested by highlander.
Point 9. Fig. 2, in my opinion, the buffer region beside the 4m trail should be used different color for a more readable figure.
Response 9. Yes, we changed it.
Results
Point 10. The paper should try to highlight the differences of forwarder and harvester. However, in the figure presentation, sometimes you want to say their differences, and some time you want to say their similarity with mean value. I think it is better to emphasize the differences. Please give new revision on this.
Response 10. We report that the effect of harvester and forwarder operations on soil bulk density in Result section. In harvester trails, only track part significant difference between the reference and center. In addition, in forwarding trails, all part was significantly difference. Further, the forwarding trails was more compacted than harvester trails.
Point 11. For example, Fig. 4. Should have similar in 3.2. The same is to other figure and tables.
Response 11. Yes, we create it as Figure 6.
Discussion.
Point 12. Firstly , talking about the possible way to reduce the impact by machine selection. The second paragraph should be the most important part. Please highlight it.
Response 12. Our results showed that tracked harvesters showed a higher increase in bulk density and porosity at 0–10 cm soil depth. These results are similar to several previous studies which reported that although the tracked harvester is lighter than the wheeled harvester, it causes significantly higher soil compaction. We may suggest that the tracked harvesters can less impact on soil environment from this study’s results.
In addition, Forwarders are driven more frequently with heavier loads than harvesters, thus ex-plaining the higher extent and degree of soil damage.
Point 13. Secondly, soil disturbance related soil erosion is very important part. Bulk density and porosity has been defined. So, it is better to describe sth. on this point, the soil erosion control.
Response 13. Yes, we revised it.
Point 14. Thirdly, Please highlight the importance your finding for world audience. At the moment, I cannot see what your idea on this point.
Response 14. Our results showed that tracked harvesters showed a higher increase in bulk density and porosity at 0–10 cm soil depth. These results are similar to several previous studies which reported that although the tracked harvester is lighter than the wheeled harvester, it causes significantly higher soil compaction. We may suggest that the tracked harvesters can less impact on soil environment from this study’s results.
In addition, Forwarders are driven more frequently with heavier loads than harvesters, thus ex-plaining the higher extent and degree of soil damage.
This is the first study to effect of mechanized harvesting on soil environment in Korea condition.
Point 15. L260” they is who? Please define
Response 15. We changed it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed the paper titled: “Impact of harvester and forwarder used in row-thinning operations on soil physical properties in a Korean Pine stand". In my opinion, the aims of the paper are germane with “LAND” journal topic, however, in the present form, the paper fits only in part with the international scientific standards. The paper is written with an average English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge is acceptable but some important flaws are present in the text. I understand the difficult work done, but as a reviewer it is my duty to highlight the gaps in order to improve the research approach and its presentation to the international scientific community. Please I suggest revising the paper following the suggestions and comments reported in the pdf attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1. This title is not correct. I suggest to revise this English building.
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. We do not revise because two reviewers accept the title. If you would like to change, please let me know.
Point 2. Line 29, “Pinus koraiensis” Please write in italic.
Response 2. We revised it.
Point 3. Line 38, “row thinning or geometric thinning” Please add.
Response 3. We added it.
Point 4. Line 60, please pay attention in the whole text these number must be in apex.
Response 4. We revised it.
Point 5. Line 87, “Pinus koraiensis” Please write in italic.
Response 5. We revised it.
Point 6. Line 89, Ranging A and B. Please rewrite.
Response 6. We revised it.
Point 7. Line 92, 148, 156, 157, 158, please pay attention in the whole text these number must be in apex.
Response 7. We revised it.
Point 8. Line 96(Figure 1), In my opinion the figure seems of low definition.
Response 8. We revised it.
Point 9. Line 96(Figure 1), Highlander, Forwarder. Please specify the constructor.
Response 9. We revised it.
Point 10. Table 1, Pay attention it seems wrong.
Response 10. We revised it.
Point 11. Line 113, Are you sure? I think there is a mistake.
Response 11. We revised it.
Point 12. Line 117-118, Please, specify.
Response 12. We added it.
Point 13. Line 120-122, Please add also other more recent references.
Response 13. We added it.
Point 14. Line 126, which method?.
Response 15. When we calculate the porosity, we used equation as:
Porosity = (1-bulk density/2.65)×100
Point 15. Line 130, Is this a control?.
Response 15. We revised to control.
Point 16. Line 268-269, could you better explain?.
Response 16. We revised it.
Point 17. Line 269, Please note that these paper (28 and 37) are not referred to harvester and forwarder, I suggest to check and cite only specific paper, for example:
Cambi, M., Grigolato, S., Neri, F., Picchio, R., & Marchi, E. (2016). Effects of forwarder operation on soil physical characteristics: A case study in the italian alps. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 37(2), 233-239.
Response 17. We revised reference.
Point 18. Line 275, Also in this case this paper is not proper, I can suggest some but surely this cited is poor for the specific topic:
Cambi, M., Paffetti, D., Vettori, C., Picchio, R., Venanzi, R., & Marchi, E. (2017). Assessment of the impact of forest harvesting operations on the physical parameters and microbiological components on a mediterranean sandy soil in an italian stone pine stand. European Journal of Forest Research, 136(2), 205-215. doi:10.1007/s10342-016-1020-5
Venanzi, R., Picchio, R., Grigolato, S., & Latterini, F. (2019). Soil and forest regeneration after different extraction methods in coppice forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 454 doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117666
Venanzi, R., Picchio, R., Spinelli, R., & Grigolato, S. (2020). Soil disturbance and recovery after coppicing a mediterranean oak stand: The effects of silviculture and technology. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(10) doi:10.3390/SU12104074
Response 18. We added these references.
Point 19. Line 292, here are the results?
Response 18. We revised it. We already reported this result.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors! I with interest read your manuscript entitled: “Impact of harvester and forwarder used in row-thinning operations on soil physical properties in a Korean Pine stand”.
The topic of article is interesting and fits to Land journal scope. There are low number of studies aimed to assess the impact of wheeled/tracked harvesters on soil properties. The article has both positive and negative sides. The advantages – the enough number of soil samples, experiment analyzed 2 types of soil texture and 2 (wheeled/tracked) harvesters. The disadvantages – short-term observations; you could analyzed also the other physical (for example, infiltration) and chemical (Corg, and other soil nutrients) properties. Anyway I respect your efforts and article could be considered for publication. I have some comments and suggestions:
- 1. Type of the Paper (Article) > Article
- In Abstract please add sentence/suggestion how to reduce the negative impact of harvester on soil properties (which type of machine you recommend, probably other types also should be studied; special soil treatments/measures). Reduce a number of journeys (ways to work place and back), adding of brush mats and etc?
- Figure 1. I recommend to add a study site location on the map of Korea, now is difficult to understand. And please improve the quality of picture.
- Table 1. The abbreviation DBH (Diameter at breast height) better to explain in text or in table.
- In “2.1. Description of the study area” section please add the data about precipitation and it intensity (from September to October, 2021). You know that rainfalls could affect on soil erosion development (and soil compaction (under wet soil conditions) due to machinery, especially in ruts).
- 150. “the average soil moisture was 34% in unit A and 27% in unit B throughout the whole field work period” for which soil layer?
I worry about limited data of experiment. You conducted a research only for few months. I guess that if you have a long-term observations (during seasons when the machinery could work), the research/conclusion will be more authentically.
Author Response
Point 1. Type of the Paper (Article) > Article
Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We deleted “Type of the Paper ()”
Point 2. In Abstract please add sentence/suggestion how to reduce the negative impact of harvester on soil properties (which type of machine you recommend, probably other types also should be studied; special soil treatments/measures). Reduce a number of journeys (ways to work place and back), adding of brush mats and etc?
Response 2. We revised the abstract section.
Point 3. Figure 1. I recommend to add a study site location on the map of Korea, now is difficult to understand. And please improve the quality of picture.
Response 3. We changed it.
Point 4. Table 1. The abbreviation DBH (Diameter at breast height) better to explain in text or in table.
Response 4. We added the abbreviation.
Point 5. In “2.1. Description of the study area” section please add the data about precipitation and it intensity (from September to October, 2021). You know that rainfalls could affect on soil erosion development (and soil compaction (under wet soil conditions) due to machinery, especially in ruts).
Response 5. Yes, we added the precipitation and intensity.
Point 6. “the average soil moisture was 34% in unit A and 27% in unit B throughout the whole field work period” for which soil layer?
Response 6. Yes, we can measure soil moisture content from sampled soil.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- All the comments should be included into the revised ms, not only a response to referee.
- I am still worrying about the audience of this paper is international, and the writting of this ms is too local. This can be improved by 1) more descrisption the status of forest management like this paper descripted is very popular of the world? 2) this species korean pine is at least a regional importance species, but only in Korea.
- the table and figure revision is not significant enough. Data cannot be repeating used in figure and table. Some comments in my last review is not properly revised.
- In general, the revision is too slight, and a major revision is needed.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Point 1. All the comments should be included into the revised ms, not only a response to referee.
Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We really effort to revision for publishing this paper.
Point 2. I am still worrying about the audience of this paper is international, and the writing of this ms is too local. This can be improved by 1) more description the status of forest management like this paper descripted is very popular of the world? 2) this species Korean pine is at least a regional importance species, but only in Korea.
Response 2 We added some information why Korean Pine is important in Korea, Japan, China, and Russia in Introduction part.
Point 3. the table and figure revision are not significant enough. Data cannot be repeating used in figure and table.
Response 3. We do not repeat figure and table. Please check again.
Point 4. Some comments in my last review are not properly revised. In general, the revision is too slight, and a major revision is needed.
Response 4. We revised considerably. Please check the manuscript.
We added the operation description in Materials and Methods part. And we revised some part in Discussion with your last comments.
“Discussion.
Point 12. Firstly , talking about the possible way to reduce the impact by machine selection. The second paragraph should be the most important part. Please highlight it.
Point 13. Secondly, soil disturbance related soil erosion is very important part. Bulk density and porosity has been defined. So, it is better to describe sth. on this point, the soil erosion control.
Point 14. Thirdly, Please highlight the importance your finding for world audience. At the moment, I cannot see what your idea on this point.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed the second version of the paper titled: “Impact of harvester and forwarder used in row-thinning operations on soil physical properties in a Korean Pine stand". In my opinion, the aims of the paper are germane with “LAND” journal topic, in the present form, the paper fits with the international scientific standards. The paper is written with a good English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge is good even if some minor lacks are still present in the text. Please I suggest revising the paper following the suggestions and comments reported in the pdf attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer2
Point 1. I suggest to change as follow: Impact on soil physical proprieties related to high mechanization level in row-thinning of a Korean Pine stand
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. We revised the title.
Point 2. Line 38, It is necessary to add: (recently introduced, and commonly called geometric thinning)
Response 2. We added it.
Point 3. Line 106-109, and 114-115, row space.
Response 3. We revised it.
Point 4. Line 256, please correct and add to references list.
Response 4. We revised it and reference list.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors! I appreciate your efforts in improving of article. However in revised version I have some extra suggestions as well, partly I not found answers on my previous comments.
- 87. For which period? From September to October 2021?
“The total precipitation was 197.1 mm and intensity was rainfall intensity was 0.3 mm/ha”. mm/ha??? Please check the correctness of unit, the rainfall intensity usually - mm/h, mm/min and etc. Also the amount of precipitations and intensity seems high (as usual for Asian-tropical region), so does you observed (visual or measured) a rainfall erosion and runoff on your study plots? If yes, what the soil loss was? I suggest to read some papers related to that: a) Rainfall Intensity Regulating Surface Erosion and Its Contribution to Sediment Yield on the Hillslope Devastated by a Shallow Landslide; b) Rainfall erosivity in the Republic of Korea; c) Siltation and radiocesium pollution of small lakes in different catchment types far from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident site; d) Experimental studies on rain splash erosion of forest soils after clearing in Okinawa using an artificial rainfall apparatus
- 93. m3/ha1 > m3/ha or m3·ha-1
- Figure 1. You improved the quality of picture but not add the map of Korea with the study site location. Please think about it, you have a coordinates of study site, but ease to see on map.
- In M&M please add the soil type name according WRB.
- Point 6.“the average soil moisture was 34% in unit A and 27% in unit B throughout the whole field work period” for which soil layer?
Response 6. Yes, we can measure soil moisture content from sampled soil.
I understood that you can and measured the soil moisture, I asked for which soil layer such data, for 0-10 or 10-20 cm?
- 257. (Wenger et al., 2018). Not needed. Also please provide a full reference for № 36 (L. 386).
- You not answered on my comment “I worry about limited data of experiment. You conducted a research only for few months. I guess that if you have a long-term observations (during seasons when the machinery could work), the research/conclusion will be more authentically”.
Author Response
Reviewer3
Point 1. Line 87. For which period? From September to October 2021?
“The total precipitation was 197.1 mm and intensity was rainfall intensity was 0.3 mm/ha”. mm/ha??? Please check the correctness of unit, the rainfall intensity usually - mm/h, mm/min and etc. Also the amount of precipitations and intensity seems high (as usual for Asian-tropical region), so does you observed (visual or measured) a rainfall erosion and runoff on your study plots? If yes, what the soil loss was? I suggest to read some papers related to that: a) Rainfall Intensity Regulating Surface Erosion and Its Contribution to Sediment Yield on the Hillslope Devastated by a Shallow Landslide; b) Rainfall erosivity in the Republic of Korea; c) Siltation and radiocesium pollution of small lakes in different catchment types far from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident site; d) Experimental studies on rain splash erosion of forest soils after clearing in Okinawa using an artificial rainfall apparatus
Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We added the period and revised rainfall intensity unit.
Unfortunately, we did not observe the soil erosion and loss in the trail areas. Our data only focus on the effect of mechanization operation on soil physical properties.
Our further research is that we observed the soil hydrological properties and soil erosion and runoff.
Point 2. Line 93. m3/ha1 > m3/ha or m3·ha-1
Response 2. We revised the unit.
Point 3. Figure 1. You improved the quality of picture but not add the map of Korea with the study site location. Please think about it, you have a coordinates of study site, but ease to see on map.
Response 3. We changed it.
Point 4. In M&M please add the soil type name according WRB.
Response 4. We added the abbreviation.
Point 5. [Point 6.“the average soil moisture was 34% in unit A and 27% in unit B throughout the whole field work period” for which soil layer?
Response 6. Yes, we can measure soil moisture content from sampled soil.]
I understood that you can and measured the soil moisture, I asked for which soil layer such data, for 0-10 or 10-20 cm?
Response 5. This data is at 0-10 and 10-20 cm soil depth. The average soil moisture (0-10 and 10-20 cm) was 39% and 31%, and 32% and 26% in unit B, respectively.
Point 6. Line 257. (Wenger et al., 2018). Not needed. Also please provide a full reference for № 36 (L. 386).
Response 6. Yes, we deleted and added full reference.
Point 7. You not answered on my comment “I worry about limited data of experiment. You conducted a research only for few months. I guess that if you have a long-term observations (during seasons when the machinery could work), the research/conclusion will be more authentically”.
Response 7. We understand your worries. This is the first study to evaluate the effect of high mechanized operation on soil physical properties in South Korea’s forest condition. In addition, our harvesting system (whole tree method) is not similar compared to harvester-forwarder system (cut-to-length method)). The branches and crowns are not used as brush mats for the harvester and forwarder operations in our test. Thus, our finding is important to improve environmental impact and future practices to help sustain forests, forest resources, and forest management. Further study is need to evaluate a long-term observation.
