The Environmental Impact of Poplar Stand Management: A Life Cycle Assessment Study of Different Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief summary:

Concerns about climate change and its implications for reducing carbon emissions have intensified recently. The authors tried to highlight these aspects by using different stand management for the cultivation of poplar clones with short production cycles (10 years). The results are promising and if confirmed by other research could be used in large-scale production for this type of crop.

Broad comments:

Research focuses on the impact of different hybrid poplar crops on climate change and their quantification. The quantification took into account the fertilization (organic or inorganic), the agricultural operations, the used equipment and the emissions associated with the respective crops. Using various software, it was possible to perform this quantification and through this the authors were able to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four management models analyzed. The results obtained were well highlighted in Result and Discussion chapter.

However, this type of analysis is just the beginning and should be developed in the future.

 

Specific comments:

Abstract:

The abstract is well written with relatively good information. Additional information on climate change should be added if the authors believe that the current keywords should be retained.

L16: Please specify “SIMAPRO” is a software.

L20: why it is compared to corn and not to other species. Is corn a common species in the area?

Keywords:

There is not enough abstract information on climate change. I don't think there are enough mentions about the 2030 Agenda as well as carbon sequestration. From my point of view, it is necessary to complete the manuscript with some information on climate data, global warming, etc.

INTRODUCTION:

It is clearly written in which important aspects of the research are presented, with bibliography representative of the research topic, but not sufficient.

It should be noted that the objectives of the research are very clearly defined.

L35-36: Explain how poplar plantations maintain biodiversity?

L61: Please specify that “SIMAPRO” is a software.

Materials and Methods:

Relatively sufficient and approximately accurate information is presented in this chapter. The authors present the information in a manner with a good fluency of the information presented in the text, making a good impression on the readers.

L66-70: Please provide details about the study area, such as climate, soil and site condition.

Figure 2: Please add more information on the map (roads, rivers, cities) because it cannot be identified that the study area is in northern Italy. The clarity of image is also reduced.

Table 1: Please define “n”.

L133: Please cite “IPCC 2013 GWP 100a method” or detail this method.

L137: Please define “ReCiPe” or cite a paper related.

 

Results and Discussion:

The manuscript does not follow the Forests template, respectively Research manuscript sections should be: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions.

So, this chapter should be split into two: a) Results, b) Discussions

Regarding the results, it can be seen that they are presented in a cursive manner and the main objective of the research was treated accordingly.

The Discussion Chapter should be better developed to better highlight the results and at the same time give a greater impact to the paper.

L199-200: Correct but you must also keep in mind that the duration of maize cultivation (rotation) is 10 times shorter than the cultivation of selected poplars. From my point of view, it is not a good comparison. If you compare it to old growth forests the situation would be much different, although it is not the subject of the study.

Conclusions:

The conclusions are more a recapitulation of the results and should be developed to highlight the contribution that this study brings.

Again, reference is made to the 2030 Agenda, but apart from a few aspects of carbon sequestration, it has nothing to do with climate change. If the authors consider that they should keep these aspects regarding climate change (including the mention in keywords) they should be developed more with aspects of novelty and which should be supported by relevant and at the same time recent bibliography in the field.

Supplementary   Materials:

L260-261: Does the article also have Supplementary Materials? If so, I didn't find them.

 

References:

Bibliographic citations are quite old and out of 39 bibliographic references only 9 are main and 5 years old. Authors should also introduce newer bibliography that is representative of this field.

Author Response

A brief summary:

Concerns about climate change and its implications for reducing carbon emissions have intensified recently. The authors tried to highlight these aspects by using different stand management for the cultivation of poplar clones with short production cycles (10 years). The results are promising and if confirmed by other research could be used in large-scale production for this type of crop.

Broad comments:

Research focuses on the impact of different hybrid poplar crops on climate change and their quantification. The quantification took into account the fertilization (organic or inorganic), the agricultural operations, the used equipment and the emissions associated with the respective crops. Using various software, it was possible to perform this quantification and through this the authors were able to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four management models analyzed. The results obtained were well highlighted in Result and Discussion chapter.

However, this type of analysis is just the beginning and should be developed in the future.

thanks for your comments, we really appreciate

Specific comments:

Abstract:

The abstract is well written with relatively good information. Additional information on climate change should be added if the authors believe that the current keywords should be retained.

thanks, for the suggestions. we changed the keywords

Specific comments:

Abstract:

The abstract is well written with relatively good information. Additional information on climate change should be added if the authors believe that the current keywords should be retained.

L16: Please specify “SIMAPRO” is a software.

thanks we specify it

L20: why it is compared to corn and not to other species. Is corn a common species in the area?

thanks for the suggestion. in the section materials and methods we specify that corn is in rotation with poplar (in the considered area)

Keywords:

There is not enough abstract information on climate change. I don't think there are enough mentions about the 2030 Agenda as well as carbon sequestration. From my point of view, it is necessary to complete the manuscript with some information on climate data, global warming, etc.

we delete agenda 2030 

INTRODUCTION:

It is clearly written in which important aspects of the research are presented, with bibliography representative of the research topic, but not sufficient.

It should be noted that the objectives of the research are very clearly defined.

L35-36: Explain how poplar plantations maintain biodiversity?

we added references

L61: Please specify that “SIMAPRO” is a software.

yes we add

Materials and Methods:

Relatively sufficient and approximately accurate information is presented in this chapter. The authors present the information in a manner with a good fluency of the information presented in the text, making a good impression on the readers.

L66-70: Please provide details about the study area, such as climate, soil and site condition.

thanks, we added the informations

Figure 2: Please add more information on the map (roads, rivers, cities) because it cannot be identified that the study area is in northern Italy. The clarity of image is also reduced.

thanks, we changed the figure

Table 1: Please define “n”.

table 1 was moved to S1 and renamed as primary data. we added the definition for n

L133: Please cite “IPCC 2013 GWP 100a method” or detail this method.

yes we add

L137: Please define “ReCiPe” or cite a paper related.

yes we added

 

Results and Discussion:

The manuscript does not follow the Forests template, respectively Research manuscript sections should be: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions.

 

thank for the suggestion. according to section for authors we prefer to mantain results and discussion

 

L199-200: Correct but you must also keep in mind that the duration of maize cultivation (rotation) is 10 times shorter than the cultivation of selected poplars. From my point of view, it is not a good comparison. If you compare it to old growth forests the situation would be much different, although it is not the subject of the study.

thanks we specify

Conclusions:

The conclusions are more a recapitulation of the results and should be developed to highlight the contribution that this study brings.

Again, reference is made to the 2030 Agenda, but apart from a few aspects of carbon sequestration, it has nothing to do with climate change. If the authors consider that they should keep these aspects regarding climate change (including the mention in keywords) they should be developed more with aspects of novelty and which should be supported by relevant and at the same time recent bibliography in the field.

thanks, we changed and deleted reference to agenda 2030

Supplementary   Materials:

L260-261: Does the article also have Supplementary Materials? If so, I didn't find them.

 thanks, we added S1

References:

Bibliographic citations are quite old and out of 39 bibliographic references only 9 are main and 5 years old. Authors should also introduce newer bibliography that is representative of this field.

 

thanks we added new references even if thare fewer paper on stand management (10 year rotation, most are focused on short rotation coppice)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

General comment: Please consider renaming Case1 and Case2 for better presentation purposes. Their main difference seems to be the machinery size (tailored vs oversized).

L17: during a decades-long Italian experience to “

L20: the environmental impacts were lower than crop (like corn) with “ the environmental impacts were lower than conventional agricultural crops in the area like corn”.

L36 the most used cultivation…..

L55-57: Rephrase and merge this part of text.

L60; Consider changing “cultural to “pol

L110: Consider changing “parts” to “locations.

Figure 2 could be improved. Overlapping sites could be avoided my changing the map scale. Consider including a “dual” figure having a larger map of Italy & neighboring countries combined with the existing one.

Table 1: A lot of data is included in limited space. Authors should consider other possible options for the presentation of their data (changing the orientation to vertical). Also, some mistakes/inconsistencies can be found such as the name of equipment some times in small and some other times in capital letters. The unit for ful is l not kg. Also, what exactly is the “engine power factor”? Do you mean “machine utilization”?

L145-146: Consider changing “All the comparisons have considered the cultivation operations carried out for the cultivation of poplar plantations in the four models described, except for irrigation….” To

 “All the comparisons have considered the cultivation operations carried out in the examined poplar plantations with regard to (four models of ……), except for irrigation….”

Table 3: All tables should be self-explanatory. Please include the meaning of DCB

L165: Remove “in”

L193-194: Pleas rephrase

Figure 3 fails to deliver its purposes. Please consider another graphical presentation. Same for Figures 4 and 5. Consider merging them into one with more vivid colors and smaller sizes

L205: Replace “than the traditional” to “over the conventional”. Also, maybe use “sustainability potential” instead of “sustainability”?

L213: …than that of poplar.

L240: “while” can be safely removed as it is also included in the next line

L245-247: Please rephrase/improve the introduction to conclusions.

L249: Be more detailed on the “two cases”. These cases are 50% of your study.

L250-253: 1. Rephrase 2. As it is presented, the topic of the paper seems to be the examination of edaphic anthropods. I would suggest sticking to LCA.

Conclusions: I would kindly suggest re-writing this section, including on-the-topic and concise take home messages for the article readership.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

General comment: Please consider renaming Case1 and Case2 for better presentation purposes. Their main difference seems to be the machinery size (tailored vs oversized).

thanks, we changed the ID for case1 and case 2

L17: during a decades-long Italian experience to “

thanks we changed

L20: the environmental impacts were lower than crop (like corn) with “ the environmental impacts were lower than conventional agricultural crops in the area like corn”.

thanks we changed

L36 the most used cultivation…..

thanks we changed

L55-57: Rephrase and merge this part of text.

thanks we changed

L60; Consider changing “cultural to “pol

thanks we changed

L110: Consider changing “parts” to “locations.

thanks we changed

Figure 2 could be improved. Overlapping sites could be avoided my changing the map scale. Consider including a “dual” figure having a larger map of Italy & neighboring countries combined with the existing one.

thanks we deleted figure 2 and created a new figure according to your suggestions and reviewer 1

 

Table 1: A lot of data is included in limited space. Authors should consider other possible options for the presentation of their data (changing the orientation to vertical). Also, some mistakes/inconsistencies can be found such as the name of equipment some times in small and some other times in capital letters. The unit for ful is l not kg. Also, what exactly is the “engine power factor”? Do you mean “machine utilization”?

thanks we changed and created supplementary material S1. in materials and methods we specified what is engine power factor

L145-146: Consider changing “All the comparisons have considered the cultivation operations carried out for the cultivation of poplar plantations in the four models described, except for irrigation….” To

thanks we changed

 “All the comparisons have considered the cultivation operations carried out in the examined poplar plantations with regard to (four models of ……), except for irrigation….”

thanks we changed

Table 3: All tables should be self-explanatory. Please include the meaning of DCB

thanks we changed

L165: Remove “in”

thanks we changed

L193-194: Pleas rephrase

thanks we changed

Figure 3 fails to deliver its purposes. Please consider another graphical presentation. Same for Figures 4 and 5. Consider merging them into one with more vivid colors and smaller sizes

thanks we changed and elaborated a figure with the three barplots

L205: Replace “than the traditional” to “over the conventional”. Also, maybe use “sustainability potential” instead of “sustainability”?

thanks we changed

L213: …than that of poplar.

thanks we changed

L240: “while” can be safely removed as it is also included in the next line

thanks we changed

L245-247: Please rephrase/improve the introduction to conclusions.

thanks we changed

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript focus on different stand management options and results try to identify and quantify differences on carbon emission and environmental impacts. The topic can be considered as an original and in compliance with the scope of the journal.  It is written understandable English, but there are a number of grammatical errors, typos and shortcomings. The article apply well know methodology on the local conditions and doesn’t cover related novelty and scientific work. This manuscript has simple analytic approach without deeper synthesis and the presentation of proposals. The research has local character without international consequences. The main idea of research is unclear. The abstract simply describes the course of research but does not focus on the description of results and their contribution from a scientific point of view. The abstract should highlight scientific novelty and the benefits of research to the scientific community.

The aim has only description character without deeper scientific idea. In the introduction Life Cycle Assessment as key method to evaluate the environmental impact of poplar stand management is not described sufficient. There are a lot of formal shortcomings. E.g. Table 1 is extensive not suitable for manuscript but as an appendix. On the other hand, Table 2 is confusing where the units of the given variables are not exactly explained. etc

The main problem is that study does not describe sufficiently novelty to warrant publication. The introduction, methodology, results and conclusions are not organized well enough to sufficiently support the central hypothesis of the manuscript; above all, the main aim is not very clear.  (the abstract describes that the main objective was to analyze different stand management options to quantify differences on carbon emission…. Line 12-13), but in the Line 132-133 authors mentioned that they analysed the impact on climate change of the models... ) In my opinion, analyse of CO2 emissions could be considered as one of many factors influencing climate change.

Introduction and methodology are general with an insufficient literature review. In the Introduction I miss a lot of current studies focused on the similar topic.

The results mainly present an official data according to software analyses and simple describe situation on the four cases without deeper analytical perspective with insufficient statistical analyses. 

The conclusions such as are general and purely based on the theory without necessary connection with results investigation based on the offered data.

For the above reasons, which state that the article is unsuited, I did not add any specific comments in detail. If you decide to revise this manuscript and resubmit to the scientific journal, please address the novelty of the paper and make clear the contributions of this study to the wider audience of scientists.

I consider your analyses as very interested, but  the analysis itself is not enough and on the basis of it  is necessary to bring a novelty through the synthesis, while not forgetting the deeper comparison of your outputs with the existing research.

Author Response

The manuscript focus on different stand management options and results try to identify and quantify differences on carbon emission and environmental impacts. The topic can be considered as an original and in compliance with the scope of the journal.  It is written understandable English, but there are a number of grammatical errors, typos and shortcomings. The article apply well know methodology on the local conditions and doesn’t cover related novelty and scientific work. This manuscript has simple analytic approach without deeper synthesis and the presentation of proposals. The research has local character without international consequences. The main idea of research is unclear. The abstract simply describes the course of research but does not focus on the description of results and their contribution from a scientific point of view. The abstract should highlight scientific novelty and the benefits of research to the scientific community.

The aim has only description character without deeper scientific idea. In the introduction Life Cycle Assessment as key method to evaluate the environmental impact of poplar stand management is not described sufficient. There are a lot of formal shortcomings. E.g. Table 1 is extensive not suitable for manuscript but as an appendix. On the other hand, Table 2 is confusing where the units of the given variables are not exactly explained. etc

The main problem is that study does not describe sufficiently novelty to warrant publication. The introduction, methodology, results and conclusions are not organized well enough to sufficiently support the central hypothesis of the manuscript; above all, the main aim is not very clear.  (the abstract describes that the main objective was to analyze different stand management options to quantify differences on carbon emission…. Line 12-13), but in the Line 132-133 authors mentioned that they analysed the impact on climate change of the models... ) In my opinion, analyse of CO2 emissions could be considered as one of many factors influencing climate change.

Introduction and methodology are general with an insufficient literature review. In the Introduction I miss a lot of current studies focused on the similar topic.

The results mainly present an official data according to software analyses and simple describe situation on the four cases without deeper analytical perspective with insufficient statistical analyses. 

The conclusions such as are general and purely based on the theory without necessary connection with results investigation based on the offered data.

For the above reasons, which state that the article is unsuited, I did not add any specific comments in detail. If you decide to revise this manuscript and resubmit to the scientific journal, please address the novelty of the paper and make clear the contributions of this study to the wider audience of scientists.

I consider your analyses as very interested, but  the analysis itself is not enough and on the basis of it  is necessary to bring a novelty through the synthesis, while not forgetting the deeper comparison of your outputs with the existing research.

thank for your comments and suggestions. we really appreciated. we changed the manuscript according to reviewers, improving the referecens (our work is the second on poplar with 10 year rotations; most are focused on short rotation coppice). we changed figure 2 and moved table 1 into supplementary material S1

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the effort to improve the revised manuscript and acceptation of reviewers comments. I have to highlight that authors  improve description of results.

However, I still do not fully agree with the approach that  the main conclusions are based on a small sample of four scenarios. Without statistical verification it can lead to high subjectivity of results and impossibility to reach so general conclusions.

I consider the main shortcoming of research to be the low scientific contribution. The article descriptively analyzes CO2 production according to the well-known LCA method for four different scenarios while not bringing any scientific novelty.