Dominant Tree Species and Their Age Groups Drive Forest Carbon Storage in Wuyi Mountain National Park, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction

The introduction is well structured and documented however, the hypotheses are too trivial (obvious) and not relevant. Usually, when the research questions are stated, the hypotheses are no more required

2. Materials and methods

Some sentences are without verbs

On which criteria did you classify soil fertility? Did you perform soil analysis?

Overall, the methods are quite clear and adequate

3. Results

Quite interesting and original

On figures 2 and 3, areas in black on the figures are not indicated in the legends of the figures

3.3. Path analysis between forest carbon storage and influencing factors

In this section, there should be statistical analysis to indicate whether the correlation coefficients between carbon storage and the influencing factors are significantly different from zero (0) or not

 3.4. Analysis of decision coefficients for influencing factors

In this section, the different coefficients (parameters) and correlation coefficients should be tested to find out whether they differ from zero (0) or not.

 4. Discussion

4.1. Forest carbon storage and carbon density of WMNP

The following paragraph in the discussion:

 "These discrepancies in carbon storage and density can be attributed to variations in climate, soil conditions, topography, and the carbon storage capacity of plants at different developmental stages [45,46]. For instance, the Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park spans an area four times larger (4269 km2) than the WMNP (1001.41 km2), and the abundance of sunlight and precipitation in tropical regions contributes to higher forest carbon storages and densities [42]"

is not convincing and relevant enough. Indeed there should be more arguments, information and data to support that climate, soil conditions, topography and age can explain the discrepancies observed in carbon storage

4.2. Main influencing factors of forest carbon storage in WMNP

Well presented and discussed

4.3. Challenges and solutions for the future development of forest carbon sinks in WMNP

Well presented with convincing arguments

5. Conclusion

The conclusion presents too many details on the results and is too close to the abstract.

There is also no perspective of research works mentioned here

The English quality is acceptable however, it needs to be edited

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

On behalf of all the contributing authors of this manuscript, I would like to express our sincere appreciations to editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and thoughtful suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “Dominant Tree Species and Their Age Group Drive the Forest Carbon Storage in Wuyi Mountain National Park, China” (Manuscript ID: forests-2865722). According to the really great suggestions, we have tried our best to improve and made extensive corrections in the manuscript based on helpful comments from three reviewers. In this text, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted by using red-colored text. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer 1 is listed below this letter.

We would like to express our great appreciation once again to you and reviewers for comments on our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Zhong-Sheng HE

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +86 130-6726-8912

College of Forestry

Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University

Reviewer 1

1. The introduction is well structured and documented, however, the hypotheses are too trivial (obvious) and not relevant. Usually, when the research questions are stated, the hypotheses are no more required.

Reply: We truly appreciate your suggestions in the introduction section. In the first manuscript, we have proposed the scientific questions and made hypotheses about the possible outcomes of these scientific questions. Now, we have removed these unreasonable hypotheses. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

L104-110:

We attempt to answer the following two scientific questions: (1) Will the forest carbon storage of WMNP increase from 2017 to 2020 (i.e., in the early stages and three years after the establishment of the national park)? (2) What are the primary factors that dominate the variations of forest carbon storage in WMNP? The purpose is to deepen our understanding of forest carbon storage and its influencing factors in WMNP, and to provide a theoretical basis for carbon sink decision-making and forest management.

2. Materials and methods. Some sentences are without verbs. On which criteria did you classify soil fertility? Did you perform soil analysis? Overall, the methods are quite clear and adequate.

Reply: We appreciate you bringing these issues to our attention and acknowledge the overall clarity and adequacy of this method. Firstly, we reviewed the content of this section and made modifications to sentences without verbs. Secondly, our soil fertility classification standard is based on the Second National Soil Survey and related standards. The main nutritional components of soil are divided into different levels, as shown in Table 1 (For more detailed information, please refer to the website: https://www.docin.com/p-732564530.html). The site quality in our study is divided into four categories: fertile (I), sub fertile (II), moderately fertile (III), and infertile (IV), following the general standards provided in Table 1 to ensure the validity and reliability of our research results. Finally, due to limitations related to research costs and feasibility (considering a wide range of research areas and potential budget constraints exceeding soil sampling and testing costs), no additional soil analysis was conducted.

Table 1 Grade standards for main nutrients in soil

3. Results：Quite interesting and original

On figures 2 and 3, areas in black on the figures are not indicated in the legends of the figures

Reply: We appreciate your constructive comments. We apologize for not displaying the black areas in Figures 2 and 3. We have added information describing these black areas in the legend based on your suggestion, so that readers can understand their meanings. Please refer to the modified image.

L261-271:

Figure 2. The forest carbon storage of WMNP in 2017. Note: The blue line indicates the boundary lines within the WMNP. Forest carbon storage size and distribution is depicted through patches of various colors, ranging from green to red, categorized according to the GPS coordinates of the patches and their corresponding forest carbon storage. Black patches within the WMNP denote forest land not accounted for in the forest statistics. The curved and narrow black line represents the river basin within the WMNP, with its carbon storage not factored into the statistics. The same below.

Figure 3. The forest carbon storage of WMNP in 2020.

4. 3. Path analysis between forest carbon storage and influencing factors. In this section, there should be statistical analysis to indicate whether the correlation coefficients between carbon storage and the influencing factors are significantly different from zero (0) or not.

Reply: We truly appreciate for pointing out this issue. To address this issue, we have uploaded the path analysis process and results in the form of supplementary materials. Please refer to the uploaded supplementary material " Xing Jin-Supplementary materials--Path analysis".

5. 4. Analysis of decision coefficients for influencing factors.

In this section, the different coefficients (parameters) and correlation coefficients should be tested to find out whether they differ from zero (0) or not.

Reply: We appreciate your attention to this issue. However, it is worth noting that by using decision coefficients to analyze R²_(i) values, the comprehensive impact of each variable (x) on the dependent variable (y) can be directly arranged in descending order. This can easily determine the role of each variable in decision-making. It seems unnecessary to detect different coefficients (parameters) and correlation coefficients for comparison with zero (0). In addition, we have uploaded the results of coefficients (parameters) and correlation coefficients (Tables S4 and S5) in the supplementary materials for your review.

Table S4. Correlation coefficient of influencing factors to the forest carbon storage in 2017

Table S5. Correlation coefficient of influencing factors to the forest carbon storage in 2020

6. 1. Forest carbon storage and carbon density of WMNP

The following paragraph in the discussion: "These discrepancies in carbon storage and density can be attributed to variations in climate, soil conditions, topography, and the carbon storage capacity of plants at different developmental stages [45,46]. For instance, the Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park spans an area four times larger (4269 km²) than the WMNP (1001.41 km²), and the abundance of sunlight and precipitation in tropical regions contributes to higher forest carbon storages and densities [42]"is not convincing and relevant enough. Indeed there should be more arguments, information and data to support that climate, soil conditions, topography and age can explain the discrepancies observed in carbon storage

Reply: We appreciate your insightful questions raised during the discussion. In response, we have conducted in-depth research and collected data to confirm our viewpoint. Thank you very much for your guidance and suggestions. Please review the revised manuscript.

L328-347:

These discrepancies in carbon storage and density can be attributed to variations in climate, soil conditions, and the carbon storage capacity of plants at different developmental stages [45,46]. For instance, the Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park covers an area of 4269 km², which is four times larger than WMNP's 1001.41 km². Consequently, notable discrepancies in forest carbon storage resulting from differing spatial scales are apparent. The warm and humid climate conditions in tropical regions, such as Hainan, typically foster more fertile soil rich in organic matter [9,56], promoting biodegradation and biomass accumulation, ultimately augmenting forest carbon storage and density [42]. In contrast, WMNP is situated in subtropical regions where soil may be influenced by more pronounced seasonal climate fluctuations, like droughts or rainy seasons, leading to substantial changes in soil texture and moisture content, ultimately impeding the accumulation of forest carbon storage [11,19,22]. Additionally, well-established vegetation generally maintains higher carbon reserves. The Wuyi Mountain National Nature Reserve, under prolonged strict protection, harbors mature forests with abundant carbon reserves (Figure 1, 2, and 3). Conversely, the carbon storage in the remaining three regions of WMNP (e.g., Wuyi Mountain National Scenic Zone, Jiuqu Stream Upper Protected Zone, and other newly zoned areas) is relatively low (Figure 1, 2, and 3), possibly due to less stringent forest protection measures and frequent human activities in these zones. Consequently, these factors contribute to a decline in the overall carbon storage capacity of forests in WMNP.

7. 2. Main influencing factors of forest carbon storage in WMNP. Well presented and discussed.

Reply: We sincerely appreciate your positive comments on this part of our content.

8. 3. Challenges and solutions for the future development of forest carbon sinks in WMNP. Well presented with convincing arguments.

Reply: We appreciate your positive comments on this part of our content.

9. Conclusion. The conclusion presents too many details on the results and is too close to the abstract. There is also no perspective of research works mentioned here.

Reply: We have revised it according to your valuable input. To ensure clarity and conciseness, we have removed some detailed results. Furthermore, we have conducted a brief overview of the research and outlined measures and recommendations to enhance the forest carbon sink in WMNP. Please refer to the revised manuscript.  

L457-470:

Our study reveals that from 2017 to 2020, the overall forest carbon storage in WMNP exhibited an upward trend. The dominant tree species emerged as the primary factor influencing forest carbon storage in WMNP, and age group also assumes a significant role. Building upon the results, we put forward several measures to promote forest carbon storage. On the one hand, implementing reasonable measures (such as implementing zoning control systems, strengthening forest fire prevention and pest control, etc.) to maintain and protect forest carbon storage. On the other hand, selecting appropriate tree species (such as native species of the family Fagaceae with high carbon storage) to optimize reforestation plans. Furthermore, targeted planting measures are implemented for trees of different ages (such as regularly watering, fertilizing, and weeding young trees to promote their growth and development. For mature trees, maintaining soil nutrients and moisture, promoting natural regeneration of trees, etc.) to increase forest carbon storage. In summary, these findings offer valuable perspectives for advancing forest resource conservation and carbon sink development in WMNP.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors provide a meaningful baseline assessment of the carbon storage in Wuyi Mountain National Park, China and quantify changes in carbon stores for the three years following park establishment (2017).  In that time-period there are significant changes in the areal extents of the forest types documented.  In the figures 2 and 3 it is apparent that some reforestation has occurred.  The discussion and conclusion focus on the overall carbon storage which is understandable. The authors do indicate that the protection actions taken have resulted in increased carbon storage.  It would be interesting, but not necessary to have some detail with regards to the types of land use changes influencing the species composition and hence carbon storage capacity.

Three minor comments. 

The listing of authors names is mis-formatted.

The use of the word “Therefore” in the second sentence of the abstract is unnecessary.

The use of the word theory in carbon neutrality theory and later in the discussion is awkward.  I think the authors are referring to the goal of reaching carbon neutrality.  I might suggest

              “This assessment will not only facilitate research on carbon neutrality theory but also promote regional ecological protection and development.” 

                This assessment will facilitate research on carbon neutrality and promote regional ecological protection and development. 

“However, the theory of forest carbon storage in WMNP is still in the exploratory stage.”

However, forest carbon storage and the factors influencing it in WMNP are still in the exploratory stage.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

On behalf of all the contributing authors of this manuscript, I would like to express our sincere appreciations to editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and thoughtful suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “Dominant Tree Species and Their Age Group Drive the Forest Carbon Storage in Wuyi Mountain National Park, China” (Manuscript ID: forests-2865722). According to the really great suggestions, we have tried our best to improve and made extensive corrections in the manuscript based on helpful comments from three reviewers. In this text, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted by using red-colored text. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer 2 is listed below this letter.

We would like to express our great appreciation once again to you and reviewers for comments on our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Zhong-Sheng HE

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +86 130-6726-8912

College of Forestry

Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University

Reviewer 2

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide a meaningful baseline assessment of the carbon storage in Wuyi Mountain National Park, China and quantify changes in carbon stores for the three years following park establishment (2017).  In that time-period there are significant changes in the areal extents of the forest types documented.  In the figures 2 and 3 it is apparent that some reforestation has occurred.  The discussion and conclusion focus on the overall carbon storage which is understandable. The authors do indicate that the protection actions taken have resulted in increased carbon storage.  It would be interesting, but not necessary to have some detail with regards to the types of land use changes influencing the species composition and hence carbon storage capacity.

Reply: Thank you for your positive feedback on this manuscript. We would like to highlight that while the discussion predominantly centers on the general rise in carbon storage resulting from protective measures, delving into specific land use alterations that impact species composition and, in turn, carbon storage capacity could be advantageous. Incorporating these additional details can offer a more thorough understanding of the factors influencing carbon storage dynamics within the park.

L348-380:

From 2017 to 2020, the total forest carbon storage in WMNP exhibited an upward trend, with an increase of 1.97×10⁵ t C and an average annual growth rate of 1.39% (Table 1). Notably, broadleaf trees and shrubs played a crucial role in the augmentation of forest carbon storage (Table 1), particularly in the canopy layer where the carbon storage and density of broadleaf tree species were the highest (Table S2). These findings emphasize the superior carbon storage capacity and carbon storage ability of broadleaf trees. However, the overall forest carbon density in WMNP was diminished due to the relatively lower carbon density found in bamboo forests, economic forests, and shrub forests. Extensive research has demonstrated that niche complementarity and mass ratio effects are vital mechanisms for sustaining the carbon storage of subtropical forest trees [47-49]. These mechanisms likely facilitate carbon storage in subtropical forest trees by optimizing resource utilization. In particular, the effective occupation of limited space by the canopy and understory layers enhances light availability, thereby increasing carbon capture [11]. Simultaneously, dominant species in the canopy layer exploit the crown's uppermost section, which receives the greatest abundance of light resources and further contributes to forest carbon accumulation [50,51].

The WMNP belongs to the subtropical evergreen broadleaf forest region, characterized by diverse natural environments and vegetation types. It is the largest subtropical forest ecosystem at the same latitude globally [20]. Studies have revealed that biodiversity and complex forest structure can maximize carbon storage in subtropical forests [11]. Additionally, the results indicate significant variations in carbon storage between young and mature forests, with carbon storage in young forests more than doubling from 2017 to 2020 (Table S6). Other studies have also demonstrated a rapid increase in forest carbon content in young forests during the first 10-20 years after afforestation [26,27,52]. Therefore, afforestation efforts and promoting the growth of young forests hold great potential for increasing forest carbon storage in the future [1,25]. Recent research indicates that plants with different types of mycorrhizal fungi, such as ectomycorrhizal (EcM) and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, exhibit differences in aboveground carbon storage [53,54]. Particularly, as dominant species in the evergreen broadleaf forest, EcM tree species have significantly higher aboveground carbon storage compared to AM species [53]. Moreover, under climate warming conditions, the proportion of carbon storage in AM trees species are likely to express an increase trend, thus promoting an overall increase in forest carbon storage [54].

2. Three minor comments. The listing of authors names is mis-formatted.

Reply: Thank you for pointing out the formatting issue with the list of author names. I will correct this mistake in a timely manner. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

L3-4:

Xing Jin^†1,2, Shu Lin^†3, Jing Zhu^1,2, Fanglin Tan⁴, Huiguang Zhang⁵, Qichao Chen⁶, Yu Hong^1,2, Jinfu Liu^1,2, Daowei Xu^1,2 and Zhongsheng He^1,2*

3. The use of the word “Therefore” in the second sentence of the abstract is unnecessary.

Reply: We appreciate you pointing out this issue, and we have removed this word from the abstract. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

L16-18:

This study utilized the "One Map" data of forest resources (2020) and the first year (2017) of the establishment of the national park in Wuyi Mountain National Park (WMNP).

4. The use of the word theory in carbon neutrality theory and later in the discussion is awkward. I think the authors are referring to the goal of reaching carbon neutrality.  I might suggest.

“This assessment will not only facilitate research on carbon neutrality theory but also promote regional ecological protection and development.”

This assessment will facilitate research on carbon neutrality and promote regional ecological protection and development.

“However, the theory of forest carbon storage in WMNP is still in the exploratory stage.”

However, forest carbon storage and the factors influencing it in WMNP are still in the exploratory stage.

Reply: We appreciate your insightful suggestions on the use of the term "theory" in carbon neutrality. According to your suggestion, the revised wording expresses the theme of the article more clearly and concisely. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

L15-16:

This assessment will facilitate research on carbon neutrality and promote regional ecological protection and development.

L425-426:

However, forest carbon storage and the factors influencing it in WMNP are still in the exploratory stage.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction

- Add details of how many years the area has been managed as a national park, and there was a new management system in 2016. Why not use data from 2016 but choose to use data from 2017? Explain further in the introduction section.

Materials and methods

- Details of tree forests, site quality levels, and terrain

factors have been added to clarify the division.

- In the study, there was a study of remote sensing and GIS, but there was no method for how the parts obtained from this study did anything.

- The method of deriving the regression model is clearly shown. Which factors are used? This is done in the form of a table of values ​​used in the additional methods.

Results

-This is because the map can tell the size of the area's carbon storage. It should be shown how each carbon sequestration layer is divided in the report. The area in each management model should be shown, for example, 2031-4190 tons in Figures 2 and 3. How much is the management boundary area in Figure 1?

-In pictures 2 and 3, enter additional latitude and longitude coordinates and add additional symbols of other areas, such as black and blue areas. What do they mean on the additional map?

Discussion

-In addition to those that have been edited according to suggestions.

Conclusion

-In addition to those that have been edited according to suggestions.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers,

On behalf of all the contributing authors of this manuscript, I would like to express our sincere appreciations to editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and thoughtful suggestions concerning our manuscript entitled “Dominant Tree Species and Their Age Group Drive the Forest Carbon Storage in Wuyi Mountain National Park, China” (Manuscript ID: forests-2865722). According to the really great suggestions, we have tried our best to improve and made extensive corrections in the manuscript based on helpful comments from three reviewers. In this text, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted by using red-colored text. Point-by-point responses to the reviewer 3 is listed below this letter.

We would like to express our great appreciation once again to you and reviewers for comments on our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Zhong-Sheng HE

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +86 130-6726-8912

College of Forestry

Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University

Reviewer 3

1. Introduction- Add details of how many years the area has been managed as a national park, and there was a new management system in 2016. Why not use data from 2016 but choose to use data from 2017? Explain further in the introduction section.

Reply: We greatly appreciate the valuable insights you provided in the introduction section. In the revised introduction, we provide more detailed information on the years in which the region was managed as a national park and the implementation of the new management system in 2016. Since 2016, China has established a pilot national park system, paving the way for the sustainable development of national forest parks. In 2017, Wuyi Mountain National Park Administration was officially established, representing the establishment of Wuyi Mountain National Park (WMNP). The forest resource survey of WMNP began in 2017, and the construction of the natural resource database was completed in 2020, marking the digitization of natural resources in the region. Therefore, we chose the data from 2017 as the initial data for this study. Please refer to the updated content in the introduction section.

L83-87:

In 2017, the Wuyi Mountain National Park (WMNP) was first established, and organized and drafted the relevant regulations and management systems for the pilot work of Wuyi Mountain National Park System. In addition, WMNP is fully responsible for the protection, management, planning, and construction of various natural resources within its jurisdiction.

2. Materials and methods- Details of tree forests, site quality levels, and terrain factors have been added to clarify the division.

Reply: We appreciate your attention to this issue. We have provided information on the classification criteria for forests, site quality levels, and terrain factors in the Materials and Methods section. In addition, Table 1 provides more detailed information on the basis for dividing the quality level of the site (https://www.docin.com/p-732564530.html). Please refer to the revised manuscript.

L158-161:

Forest types are divided into five categories based on the main tree species and vegetation structure of the forest, including broad-leaved forest, coniferous forest, shrub forest, economic forest, and bamboo forest.

L167-169:

Site quality grades are classified into four categories based on the second national soil sur-vey and related standards: fertile, sub-fertile, moderately fertile, and barren. Terrain factors include slope length, slope, aspect, and elevation data.

169-170:

Terrain factors include slope length, slope, aspect, and elevation data.

Table 1 Grade standards for main nutrients in soil

3. The method of deriving the regression model is clearly shown. Which factors are used? This is done in the form of a table of values used in the additional methods.

Reply: We appreciate your suggestions on the introduction section. In the forest carbon storage data for 2017 and 2020, various independent variables such as geomorphic type, slope length, slope position, slope aspect, site quality grade, dominant tree species, origin, age group, and forest type were considered, with unit area carbon storage as the dependent variable. Each factor was standardized qualitatively for analysis. Initially, a stepwise regression equation was established, and optimal variables were selected based on AIC values for regression analysis. After screening, the independent variables for forest carbon storage in 2017 were identified as slope length (x₁), site quality level (x₂), dominant tree species (x₃), forest origin (x₄), age group (x₅), and elevation (x₆). Similarly, for forest carbon storage in 2020, the independent variables were slope orientation (z₁), dominant tree species (z₂), age group (z₃), and elevation (z₄). Section 2.4.3, "Path analysis between forest carbon storage and influencing factors," clarifies that this process involves screening numerous influencing factors to identify the most significant ones, simplifying the analysis. We welcome any other feedback or suggestions for further discussion. Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript.

L206-225:

2.4.3. Path analysis between the forest carbon storage and influencing factors

To identify the primary influencing factors of forest carbon storage and understand their relationship with forest carbon storage, we conducted correlation analysis (Pearson correlation coefficient) and path analysis. In this analysis, the forest carbon storage data from 2017 and 2020 were considered, where carbon storage per unit area was the dependent variable (y), and factors such as slope length, aspect, site quality grade, dominant tree species, origin, age group, and forest types were considered as independent variables (x). Notably, since the estimation of carbon storage was based on the average diameter at breast height and tree height, these variables were not included as independent variables. We initially established a stepwise regression equation and applied the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to identify the optimal influencing factors. The results of the stepwise regression screening showed that the independent variables for forest carbon storage in 2017 were slope length (x₁), site quality grade (x₂), dominant tree species (x₃), forest origins (x₄), age group (x₅), and elevation (x₆). Similarly, for forest carbon storage in 2020, the independent variables were aspect (z₁), dominant tree species (z₂), age group (z₃), and elevation (z₃). Subsequently, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient among these independent variables. Finally, based on the correlation analysis, we employed path analysis to decompose the correlation coefficient of the impact factor. The direct, indirect, and combined effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable were determined through the direct path, indirect path, and total path coefficients [38].

4. Results-This is because the map can tell the size of the area's carbon storage. It should be shown how each carbon sequestration layer is divided in the report. The area in each management model should be shown, for example, 2031-4190 tons in Figures 2 and 3. How much is the management boundary area in Figure 1?

Reply: We appreciate your suggestions on how to divide each carbon sequestration layer and how to display the regions in each management mode in Figures 2 and 3. Regarding the results section, Figures 2 and 3 present the carbon storage size of each forest patch within the WMNP. Different colors or symbols are used in the report to indicate the level of carbon storage. Furthermore, based on your suggestions, a detailed explanation on how each carbon sequestration layer is divided has also been provided in the report to ensure that readers can comprehend it clearly. Concerning the regions in each management model that should be displayed in Figures 2 and 3, we would like to clarify that the management module in Figure 1 only offers an overview of the research area and is utilized to distinguish the four different functional zoning maps in the WMNP. There is no direct correlation with our assessment of the overall forest carbon storage of the WMNP. In Figures 2 and 3, the size and distribution of forest carbon storage are depicted by patches of various colors (ranging from green to red), which are divided based on the GPS coordinates of the patches and their corresponding forest carbon storage. Corresponding explanations and clarifications have been added in the revised draft. The areas of the four management areas in Figure 1 are as follows: the Fujian Wuyi Mountain National Nature Reserve, the Wuyi Mountain National Scenic Zone, the Jiuqu Stream Upper Protected Zone, and other newly zoned areas cover 56474.20 hm², 5357.53 hm², 25084.16 hm², and 13225.16 hm², respectively. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

L119-123:

WMNP encompasses Fujian Wuyi Mountain National Nature Reserve (56474.20 hm²), Wuyi Mountain National Scenic Zone (5357.53 hm²), Jiuqu Stream Upper Protected Zone (25084.16 hm²), and other newly zoned areas (13225.16 hm²) include adjacent public welfare forests (Figure 1).

L126-127:

Figure 1. Regional distribution of study site in WMNP

L261-271:

Figure 2. The forest carbon storage of WMNP in 2017. Note: The blue line indicates the boundary lines within the WMNP. Forest carbon storage size and distribution is depicted through patches of various colors, ranging from green to red, categorized according to the GPS coordinates of the patches and their corresponding forest carbon storage. Black patches within the WMNP denote forest land not accounted for in the forest statistics. The curved and narrow black line represents the river basin within the WMNP, with its carbon storage not factored into the statistics. The same below.

Figure 3. The forest carbon storage of WMNP in 2020.

5. -In pictures 2 and 3, enter additional latitude and longitude coordinates and add additional symbols of other areas, such as black and blue areas. What do they mean on the additional map?

Reply: We appreciate you pointing out this issue. We have added latitude and longitude to Figures 2 and 3 and added symbols to other areas (such as black and blue areas). Please refer to the modified image.

L261-271:

Figure 2. The forest carbon storage of WMNP in 2017. Note: The blue line indicates the boundary lines within the WMNP. Forest carbon storage size and distribution is depicted through patches of various colors, ranging from green to red, categorized according to the GPS coordinates of the patches and their corresponding forest carbon storage. Black patches within the WMNP denote forest land not accounted for in the forest statistics. The curved and narrow black line represents the river basin within the WMNP, with its carbon storage not factored into the statistics. The same below.

Figure 3. The forest carbon storage of WMNP in 2020.

6. Discussion-In addition to those that have been edited according to suggestions.

Conclusion-In addition to those that have been edited according to suggestions.

Reply: Thank you for your suggested modifications to our discussion and conclusion sections. In addition to the modifications made based on the suggestions, we have also conducted further review and revision of the discussion section. We believe that these adjustments will further enhance the quality and accuracy of the discussion section. If this manuscript has any other suggestions, please don’t hesitate to communicate with us at any time. Thank you for your support and assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No more comments

Acceptable