Carbon and Oxygen Gas Exchange in Woody Debris: The Process and Climate-Related Drivers
, Daria K. Diyarova 1, Mikhail L. Gitarskiy 3,4 and Dmitry G. Zamolodchikov 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article entitled “Carbon and oxygen gas exchange in woody debris: the process and climate-related drivers”, published in the journal “Forests”, provides an interesting analysis for quantifying the CO2 emission and O2 uptake in the woody debris (WD).
First, the authors analyzed the CO2 and O2 fluxes of WD and founded they were positively correlated, but the correlation contingency depended on neither temperature nor wood moisture (Figure 1). Moreover, no significant relationship was found between the CO2 to O2 ratio and temperature/moisture/fungi species in WD (Table 1 and 2). These results suggested that the carbon and oxygen gas exchange in WD was physiologically entailed, with an average ratio of 0.9 suggesting a high efficiency of oxidation conversion. However, both the intensities of CO2 emission and O2 uptake had closely positive correlation with temperature/moisture and were differentiated by fungi species (Table 3-5). The temperature and moisture were independent but interacting drivers and the outcome of their interaction depended on the direction of the changes. This could be investigated in a larger scale covering a range of temperature and precipitation gradients. The effects of warmer and drier vs. colder and wetter climates might be full of uncertainty with the interacting changing direction. Finally, the CO2 to O2 ratio and CO2 emission intensity of a brown and white rot fungi were analyzed and results showed that, the former was independent from temperature and the latter increased with temperature in the range of 10℃ to 30℃ but dropped at 40℃ (Table 6). This is inconsistent with results from Table 4 which showed that the highest CO2 emission intensity occurred at 40℃. While the authors did not explain this discrepancy. Furthermore, the authors considered that fungi species played the role of main prerequisite and biotic factor in gas exchange of WD, due to their different mycelium and biomass. Whereas features of the eight basidiocarps species were not illustrated in more details. As the critical bond of wood gas exchange and environmental factors, fungi species could be discussed from a functional perspective, such as some species are more sensitive to temperature and have greater potential for carbon emission.
Overall, this study highlighted that the qualitative and quantitative parameters of oxygen and carbon exchange in woody debris primarily depended on the composition of Basidiomycetes fungi, whose physiological activity was determined by temperature and moisture. The experimental design was thoughtful and statistical analysis was comprehensive. The authors clearly described the process of carbon and oxygen gas exchange in woody debris and provided references for future researches.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madame,
We highly appreciate the Reviewer of the comment and a high score provided to our work “Carbon and oxygen gas exchange in woody debris: the process and climate-related drivers”.
There are four questions in your review that, in our opinion, require clarification and discussion (please see the attachment).
No changes have been made for the manuscript in response to the Reviewer comment, and we hope that Reviewer understands our rationale for this. We would like again to sincerely thank the Reviewer for their valuable and helpful comments and for the time and efforts that they have spent for our manuscript.
On behalf of the authors,
Victor Mukhin.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This seems like an interesting study, but the English and writing structure need to be improved before it can be accepted.
Consider using an editorial service or have an English speaking colleague help with the manuscript if it is re-submitted.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madame,
We highly appreciate the Reviewer of the comment and a high score provided to our work “Carbon and oxygen gas exchange in woody debris: the process and climate-related drivers”.
In your review, you noted the need to improve almost all sections of the manuscript. As far as we understand, this requirement has been fulfilled, since all your suggestions for improving the English language have been taken into account, all your suggestions have been rewritten. At the same time, we did not change anything more than what you noted. The only thing that we offer is a small editorial plan for editing the title of the figures (Figure 1, Figure A1), as well as tables (Table 4, Table 5, Table B1, Table B2, Table B3). We have marked these changes in the text of the manuscript (please see the attachment), you can see it using the “Track Changes” function in MS Word.
We would like again to sincerely thank the Reviewer for their valuable and helpful comments and for the time and efforts that they have spent for our manuscript. We hope that the quality of the manuscript has been improved through the revisions made and that it would help for its further consideration.
On behalf of the authors,
Viсtor Mukhin.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Much improved.
