This paper presents very interesting experimental results of block propagation in forested slopes aiming at assessing the protective role of deadwood. The paper is globally well written although one can note typos or mistakes (a thourough check of typos and mistakes is necessary, in my opinion). In addition, the methodology is sound and well described. The results obtained are very interesting and globally well discussed. For all that reasons, I recommend publication provided that the following comment is mandatorily taken into account.

The masses of the block used are very small. The conclusions raised are highly depending on that (in particular, the fact that the blocks are too small induces that there is no breakage of the trees). This point is briefly discussed but it should be more clearly stated, discussed both in the abstract and conclusion. In addition, the fact that the applicability of the results is limited to small rock masses should be clearly written both in the abstract and the conclusion. Indeed, if it is not done, practitioners may build inadequate recommendations from these results. This comment also applies for the simulations. It should be more clearly emphasized that the way of modelling deadwood is only adapted in the case where the block do not break the trees.

I have additionnal comments that may be taken into account :

1) p.2 l. 44, 45 : I don’t understand the sentence.

2) p.3 l. 63 : the reference is strange

3) p.3 l.71-73 : how were the SDE, SDEla and SDEsa calculated ?

4) p.3 l.71-73 : given that the distribution of the deposit is not gaussian, can you justify the use of the SDE indicators instead of “limits of a given percentile of the distribution of the deposited blocks in 2D (X,Y)” ?

5) p.3 l.81-82 : I don’t understand the sentence.

6) Table 1 : It can be interesting to discuss more the discrepancies between the experiments and simulations in terms of velocities for ORG and CLR and rotational velocities

7) p.6 l.123 : “ the surpass the DW” : missing word ?

8) p.7 l.125 -126 : Could you present more details about these results (quantitative comparisons between simulations for different values of the parameters, for example) ?

9) p.8 l. 146 – 149 : in my opinion, the differences with the results from Bourrier et al . (2012) are mainly due to the sizes of the blocks used in the simulations. In Bourrier et al., the blocks were large enough to break the trees which completely changes the processes as well as the efficacy of the protective measure.

10) p.8 l. 151 : “Olmedo (2015)” - it can be useful to cite also “Olmedo, I., Bourrier, F., Bertrand, D., Berger, F., Limam, A. Dynamic analysis of wooden rockfall protection structures subjected to impact loading using a discrete element model (2020) European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 24 (9), pp. 1430-1449.”

11) p.9 l. 168 : “underline” instead of “underlines” ?

12) p.9 l. 169 : “The here” - missing word ?

13) p.9 l. 168-184 : this section is not clear : it can be improved,

14) p.9 l. 182 : “m. s-2” instead of “m.s-1”

15) p.10 l. 202-204 : I don’t understand

16) p.10 l. 215 : “trees Bourrier et al. (2012)” : typo ?

The manuscript “Full scale experiments to examine the role of deadwood on rockfall dynamics in forests” is dealing with a relevant topic for mountain forest management. Protection forests are increasingly affected by natural disturbances and understanding the role of deadwood (both standing and lying) generated by such events is therefore essential. I agree with almost all the comment produced by Bourrier, so I will not be repetitive. The key point he arised was concerning the small rock you used, this point should be definitely more stressed in the discussion (generally protection forests are considered effective up to 5 m3 rocks). One of the main issue is the use of terms that sound quite strange or not commonly used in forestry related papers. I would prefer other term rather than “forest state”, “logging job”,…

Several typo are present, some of them are in the remarks list. Some sentences are not clear.

Some point in the conclusion are quite speculative (you did not tested the size or height of logs related to the rock size).

Line 13. “rockfall energies”: use magnitude or refer to kinetic energy of a single rock

Line 32. Use uprooted trees instead of overturned trees

Line 36. You are not referring to protection “effect” here, but to protective function or role. In order to clarify the terms to be used all over the manuscript: protection forest are forest with a protective role/function, even if they are not providing protection (not protective)

Line 40-43. Delete the part of the sentence related to the wood decay since is not applying to this work

Line51-54. The species should be written not with the first letter uppercase in vernacular (rowan, whitebeam, beech, mountain pine, silver fir) unless is a Country name (Norway spruce, European larch). Furthermore, for the scientific name you have to provide the authority name to all the species, not only for Norway spruce and rowan.

Line 56. Logging operations

Line 65-67. This details are not needed as well as line 68-69

Line 67. Delete “in” after measured

Line 85-86. Please rephrase the sentence

Line 88-89. Not clear to me “we took for all deadwood-logs a maximal diameter of 40 cm”

Line 137. Slightly and considerably values are switched?

Line 144. Avoid using “tremendous”…..

Line 146-148. Please rephrase

Line 233. Rephrase the concept “natural disturbances with piled deadwood”