Temporal Variation and Hysteresis of Soil Respiration and Sap Flow of Pinus densiflora in a Cool Temperate Forest, Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present paper reviews the seasonal variation of soil respiration and soil hysteresis of Pinus densiflora in a temperate forest in Japan. By using an automated closed chamber system, seasonal patterns of soil respiration and sap flow were characterized. There is a positive relationship between maximums of soil respiration and sap flow, with the latter one appearing during spring. Finally, soil respiration, which is the integration of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration, is significantly influenced by the increased leaf litterfall and the contribution of the heterotrophic respiration is increasing during that period.
It’s a well-organized experimental study. The method and the results are well described. The manuscript is clear. All Figures and Table are appropriate and easy to understand, but Figures should be hierarchized correctly in the text (Figures to which you are referring first in the main text, should be presented as the first ones and not beginning with Figure 4 and 6 (line 119)). References are correctly written. Revisions regarding the English language should be performed.
An itemized comment list follows.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your kind comments on our manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your comments, and the English has been corrected by two professional science editors (https://www.elss.co.jp/en/). And I added “3.2. Seasonal variation in soil respiration and sap flow” to results. We hope that this manuscript in its present form is suitable for publication in Forests.
>>All Figures and Table are appropriate and easy to understand, but Figures should be hierarchized correctly in the text (Figures to which you are referring first in the main text, should be presented as the first ones and not beginning with Figure 4 and 6 (line 119)).
Thank you very much for your comments. I deleted the “Figure 4 and 6” in line 119.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has great scientific merit. However, there is need for major language editing for readers to follow through the logic of the authors.
The objectives are not well constructed, results are poorly discussed while the conclusion is missing.
See attached PDF for detailed comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your kind comments on our manuscript. We revised the manuscript according to your comments, and the English has been corrected by two professional science editors (https://www.elss.co.jp/en/). And I added “3.2. Seasonal variation in soil respiration and sap flow” to results. We hope that this manuscript in its present form is suitable for publication in Forests.
>> I think it is given that all results obtained should be discussed. Use the correct term for objective 3.
Thank you very much for your comments. I rewrote the third objective in this manuscript (Line 68–69). And I added the conclusion in this manuscript (Line 233–246).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper may be accepted. The authors need to use the appropriate words for objectives 2 and 3.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sir;
I really appreciate your comments. According to your comments, I revised the manuscript.
>>Line 67−68, we revised the words in these sentences, as follows;
(2) predict the response of tree photosynthesis using sap flow and the contribution of plant activity (Ra) to Rs, and (3) discuss the hysteresis pattern of Rs and seasonal differences in the contribution of Ra and Rh to Rs.
>>Line182−183: I deleted this sentence.
We hope that this manuscript in its present form is suitable for publication in Forests.
Sincerely yours,
Minaco ADACHI
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
