Using Naturalness for Assessing the Impact of Forestry and Protection on the Quality of Ecosystems in Life Cycle Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is quite extensive. The problem that the authors solve also demands a given scope. I am glad that I had the opportunity to read the text. The problem is solved worldwide, where the authors propose a new approach to assessing the impact of forestry on ecosystem quality in life cycle assessment (LCA) combining a model of nature assessment with the relationship of species richness. A very good finding of the authors is that the nature index suggests that it is better to intensify forestry with plantations in a small part of the forest area and at the same time ensure strict protection of the rest of the area compared to large-scale forestry applied to the vast majority of wooded areas. I have no comments on this post.

Author Response

No specific correction has been proposed from reviewer #1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to the authors that abbreviations be used as little as possible in the text because there are many of them, especially the repetition of the same because in that way it is difficult to read and follow the work. I would put the pictures in the paper and the tables where they belong according to the results of the research and only the appendices at the end of the paper.        

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

A list of acronyms has been added at the end; corrections proposed in the PDF were done, except the double bracket which was appropriate.

Reviewer 3 Report

Figure 2: 
(a) Add information what the points signify. They seem to be derived from literature. If so add some measure of each point's uncertainty.

(b) Remove colours. They add no additional information to the figure.

(c) Remove the boxed commentary on the right. It is not evident from the figure that the intervals [0.8;1] and [0.6;0.8] differ from each other. The interpretation of the other intervals as well imbue qualities to the curve, which are not evident. -- Your derivation of the curve (from line 333 onwards) seems inconcise and over-interpretive, e.g., "Losses of sensitive species" (line 354) and "important losses of species" (line 355). Simply stick to the PDF and NI numbers.

(d) The curve does not show PDF as a function of Ni. It is the other way round.

Line 321:
The curve is simply concave. A negative exponential curve is just one example of a concave curve. Logarithmic? I guess you could formulate an equation with logs in it that would produce a curve of such shape. However, if you cannot provide an argument for a specific mathematical form, don't postulate one.

Line 327 "This shape shows a growing effect as the pressure rises":
Reformulate this. (a) The curve is decreasing with a decreasing slope. Hence, the effect of x is waning not growing with x. (b) It is unclear what "pressure" refers to in the figure.

Lines 336-338: Are these small numbers completely arbitrary? What is the consequence in your final calculations of setting PDF=0 for NI=0.6 and NI=0.7, rather than the infinitissimal PDF values you chose? If it makes no difference set PDF=0. If it makes a difference, you are in troubles, if you draw them out of the blue. -- If such small PDF values are important then the PDF scale should be illustrated on a log scale (conveniently, log10). -- I later realised that these arbitrary choices ARE important. You are cheating the reader by not introducing the uncertainty on the curve up front.

Line 379:
When you have discarded the rainbow colours in Fig. 5, you should instead illustrate the "alternative correspondence values", by which I guess you mean that a band of uncertainty could be added to the curve.

Eq 2:
Remove superflous parentheses around the product.

Line 475 and 476:
You mean "transformation of NI to PDF"

Line 477:
"in regards to"

Lines 477-482:
Your point (1) is meaningless to me.
Your point (2) is uninteresting. So what?
Your point (3) is simply due to your choice of scale. If very small PDF values are important (as you imply by lines 336-338) then PDF should be on a log scale. If the first species to go are the rarest and most coveted then they represent a big loss.
Your point (4) is interesting. At what NI will PDF be zero? But can your model tell that? I do not understand what you mean by "we adjusted a part of it by introducing...". Are you saying that these arbitrary small PDF numbers have important consequences for your analysis?

Figure 4:
Place y-axis titles on respectice left- and righthand y-axes.

Lines 611 and 613 and elsewhere:
A common misunderstanding (check a dictionary). You did not "parametrize" the curve (if so, what are the parameters?). No. You "estimated" it.

Lines 642-644, 655-659:
Given that this is the result (the NI->PDF is so uncertain that it is practically useless), I think you have spent too much text, figures and analysis (and spent too much of the reader's time) on the relation. In Table 3, Table 4, Figure 3 and elsewhere you have presented data and analyses on PDF that are untrustworthy, which you then tell us at the end. Thereby you are breaking your contract with the reader. -- With regards to PDF: Concentrate your analysis showing that it is too uncertain to be useful.

Discussion:
Bad English and convoluted sentences prevail. Improve your thought and text.

Lnes 709-710:
You did not quantify the relation successfully as you claim.

Lines 714-715:
You should consider the possiblity that no such general relationship exists across ecosystems.

Line 718:
Why go to the detail of non-linearity, when you found that the relation is simply too uncertain to be useful?

Line 727 and following lines:
I shall say this no more: You cannot use PDF in your arguments, as you did not provide a reliable model for it. -- I skipped the rest of the Discussion, as I scanned "PDF" mentioned again and again. Overall the discussion is much too long. It should be cut to 20% or less of its current length.

Conclusions (sic!):.
You conclude a scientific paper only once, so "Conclusion". It is much too long. Again, you refer to PDF, as if this proved to be a useful parameter. It was not. And, in fact, it is very interesting that it was not useful! 

Author Response

See detailed corrections in the report

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf