Contribution of Litter Layer to Greenhouse Gas Fluxes between Atmosphere and Soil Varies with Forest Succession

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The abstract should be revised considering the results. Major parameters findings/value need to be added
2. Need 2-3 citation about tropical forest. Describe the research purpose more clearly in the Introduction.
3. The problem statement is not properly written. There should be a sequence according to 5 points-

Previous study,

Gaps in literature,

Challenges and overcome,

Significant (contribution for friendly environment/food security) and

Novelty.

4. Line 108 (Table 1), need SE value of C, N, P…………Organic C, Total N)
5. Line 145: 20 ⁰C
6. Line 156: soil CO₂ efflux (need method reference)
7. contributions of fL-L or fL-S to GHG fluxes (need method reference)
8. Line 193: litter removal (LR) treatment significantly………
9. Line 210 (Table 3): content (ng g-1) superscript)
10. Discussion: need revise according to points

Best treatment findings

Why increase or decrease

Mechanism

Similar findings with result in details

11. The conclusion part should rewrite according to these 3 points-

Findings,

limitations, and

recommendation

12. All the references mentioned in the text must be included in the references and vice-versa. Unused references must be deleted. All references should be in the same style.

Line: 415, Line, 440, 443 (short or italic)

13. Some English grammatical errors occurred. Please check the English expression and style carefully.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Open Review

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract should be revised considering the results. Major parameters findings/value need to be added

Response:

Thanks for the excellent suggestions. In the revised manuscript, we added major parameters findings/values in the Abstract part.

2. Need 2-3 citation about tropical forest. Describe the research purpose more clearly in the Introduction.

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested. We made a big revision of the Introduction, and tried our

best to make the purpose of this study more distinct. Please see the revised Introduction.

All changes are highlighted in the text.

3. The problem statement is not properly written. There should be a sequence according to 5 points-Previous study, Gaps in literature, Challenges and overcome, Significant (contribution for friendly environment/food security) and Novelty.

Response:

Agree. In the revised manuscript, we rewrote the part of Introduction according to your

excellent suggestions. Please see the revised Introduction. All changes are highlighted

in the text.

1. Line 108 (Table 1), need SE value of C, N, P…………Organic C, Total N)

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. Line 145: 20 ⁰C

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. Line 156: soil CO₂ efflux (need method reference)

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. contributions of fL-L or fL-S to GHG fluxes (need method reference)

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. Line 193: litter removal (LR) treatment significantly………

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. Line 210 (Table 3): content (ng g-1) superscript)

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. Discussion: need revise according to points

Best treatment findings, Why increase or decrease, Mechanism, Similar findings with result in details

Response:

Agree. We have significantly revised the Discussion. Please see the new version.

1. The conclusion part should rewrite according to these 3 points-Findings, limitations, and recommendation

Response:

Agree. We have rewrote the Conclusion part according to your good suggestions. Please see the revised manuscript.

1. All the references mentioned in the text must be included in the references and vice-versa. Unused references must be deleted. All references should be in the same style.

Response:

Agree. In the revised manuscript, all references were rearranged according to the requirements of the journal.

Line: 415, Line, 440, 443 (short or italic)

Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

1. Some English grammatical errors occurred. Please check the English expression and style carefully.

Response:

Agree. We have corrected quite a few grammatical errors in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The current study entitled “Surface litter layer plays an important role in greenhouse gas fluxes between atmosphere and soil in subtropical forests” is good. For a better understanding in-depth, it is a need for time to work on this topic. Furthermore, the achievement of potential benefits by using current technology is also dependent on the extensive research work for more exploration. Although the experiment is well organized, yet I suggest a major revision due to the following deficiencies.

Major Concerns

Title

• Please modify the title it is descriptive.

Abstract

• Systematic abstract is missing. Introduce the need for study in 1-2 lines.
• Please give a clear-cut point problem source as a problem statement that is tackled in the current study.
• Give logical reason for the selection of current strategy i.e., Surface litter layer.
• Quantitative data is also important to support your conclusion. I request the authors please carefully check and rewrite the results part in the abstract. Please provide a percentage increase or decrease in the result part.
• Please provide a conclusive conclusion that is withdrawn through research in a single line.
• Please conclude with a statement that shows a knowledge gap covered, potential beneficiaries and specific recommendations as well.
• Give future prospective in a single line. At least declare one best treatment. Please do not make vague statements as in science no space for that.
• As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords

 

Introduction

• Please follow the title in the introduction section, i.e., Surface litter layer, greenhouse gas fluxes, atmosphere and soil in the context of GHG, knowledge gap, hypothesis and aims.
• Also, provide a novelty statement at the end. What new things authors have done or correlated in this research compared to old ones?
• Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap which your research has covered along with the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-specific) hypothesis statement?

 

Material and methods

• ok.

Results

• ok.

Discussion

• Please provide definite mechanisms associated with the results. The discussion part is very weak. Please incorporate at least 3-4 paragraphs showing major mechanisms due to which authors got such results

Conclusion

• Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefits from this research.
• Also, give clear-cut recommendations
• Give future prospective regarding this research.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Open Review

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current study entitled “Surface litter layer plays an important role in greenhouse gas fluxes between atmosphere and soil in subtropical forests” is good. For a better understanding in-depth, it is a need for time to work on this topic. Furthermore, the achievement of potential benefits by using current technology is also dependent on the extensive research work for more exploration. Although the experiment is well organized, yet I suggest a major revision due to the following deficiencies.

Major Concerns

Title

• Please modify the title it is descriptive.

Response:

Agree. We have changed the title to “Contribution of litter layer to greenhouse gas fluxes between atmosphere and soil varies with forest succession”

Abstract

• Systematic abstract is missing. Introduce the need for study in 1-2 lines.
• Please give a clear-cut point problem source as a problem statement that is tackled in the current study.
• Give logical reason for the selection of current strategy i.e., Surface litter layer.
• Quantitative data is also important to support your conclusion. I request the authors please carefully check and rewrite the results part in the abstract. Please provide a percentage increase or decrease in the result part.
• Please provide a conclusive conclusion that is withdrawn through research in a single line.
• Please conclude with a statement that shows a knowledge gap covered, potential beneficiaries and specific recommendations as well.
• Give future prospective in a single line. At least declare one best treatment. Please do not make vague statements as in science no space for that.

Response:

We appreciate so many constructive comments from the reviewer. According to the excellent suggestions, we rewrote the Abstract part. We hope that the revised Abstract can address all concerns from the reviewer. Now we attach the revised Abstract:

Surface litter layer strongly influences CO₂, N₂O and CH₄ fluxes (F_CO2, F_N2O and F_CH4) between atmosphere and forest floor through litter decomposition (litter-internal, f_L-L) or interactions between litter and mineral soil (litter-induced, f_L-S). However, the relative contribution of f_L-L or f_L-S to these greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes in forests at different succession stages remains unclear. We conducted a field experiment where surface litter was either removed (LR), left intact (CT), doubled (LD) or exchanged (LE) in a Masson pine forest (PF, early stage of succession) and an evergreen broadleaved forest (BF, climax of succession) at the Dinghushan Nature Reserve in southern China, and studied the responses of F_CO2, F_N2O and F_CH4 from August 2012 to July 2013. The results showed that both F_CO2 and F_N2O were increased by LD treatment with the greater increase in BF (41% for F_CO2 and 30% for F_N2O), and decreased by LR treatment with the greater decrease in PF (-61% for F_CO2 and -58% for F_N2O). LD treatment decreased F_CH4 by 14% in PF and by 6% in BF, and LR treatment increased F_CH4 by 5% in PF and by 18% in BF. f_L-S contributed more to F_CO2 (36%) and F_N2O (45%) than f_L-L in PF, whereas contributions of f_L-L to F_CO2 (41%) and F_N2O (30%) were much bigger than f_L-S in BF. The greater F_CH4 in PF and BF were resulted from the contributions of f_L-L (-14%) and f_L-S (-12%), respectively. Our results indicated that f_L-L is the major source of GHG fluxes in BF, whereas f_L-S dominates GHG fluxes in PF. The results provide a scientific reference for quantifying the contributions of f_L-L and f_L-S to GHG fluxes during the subtropical forest succession, and should be taken into account in ecosystem models to predict global warming in the future.

• As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords

 Response:

Agree. Revised as suggested.

Introduction

• Please follow the title in the introduction section, i.e., Surface litter layer,greenhouse gas fluxes, atmosphere and soil in the context of GHG, knowledge gap, hypothesis and aims.
• Also, provide a novelty statement at the end. What new things authors have done or correlated in this research compared to old ones?

Response:

Thanks for the good suggestions. We have significantly revised the Introduction. All changes are highlighted in the text. Please see the revised manuscript.

• Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gapwhich your research has covered along with the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-specific) hypothesis statement?

Response:

Previous studies did not quantify the relative contribution of litter decomposition (litter-internal, fL-L) or interactions between litter and mineral soil (litter-induced, fL-S) to GHG fluxes, which will inevitably increase the difficulties in estimating GHG fluxes in forest ecosystems, and also increase the uncertainties in ecosystem models for predicting future GHG budgets. Therefore, this study attempts to provide a scientific reference for quantifying the relative contributions of the two aspects of litter contributing to GHG fluxes. The knowledge gap and our purpose were explained in detail in the revised Introduction.

Material and methods

•  

Response:

Many thanks.

Results

•  

Response:

Many thanks.

Discussion

• Please provide definite mechanisms associated with the results. The discussion part is very weak. Please incorporate at least 3-4 paragraphs showing major mechanisms due to which authors got such results

Response:

Agree. We have significantly revised the Discussion part. Please see the new version. All changes are highlighted in the text.

Conclusion

• Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefits from this research.
• Also, give clear-cut recommendations
• Give future prospective regarding this research.

Response:

Agree. We have rewrote the Conclusion part according to your good suggestions. Please see the new version. All changes are highlighted in the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I am satisfied with all the changes. The manuscript is now significantly improved.

Regards