Pinus tabulaeformis Forests Have Higher Carbon Sequestration Potential Than Larix principis-rupprechtii Forests in a Dryland Mountain Ecosystem, Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titledCarbon budget of coniferous forest ecosystems and its response to environmental factors in semi-arid area“ by Chun Han and co-authors. Researchers conducted a systematic study of the carbon and water fluxes of two coniferous forest ecosystems in the semi-arid region, as well as investigated the environmental driver factors controlling variations of carbon and water fluxes of the forest ecosystem. I find the work interesting and in line with the aim of the journal. The abstract is poorly written, it should contain an introduction aim hypothesis aim result, and conclusion. The introduction section is too long in the abstract; one line of the background of the study in the abstract attracts the reader the most. A connective link is missing between different sections. Also, the concluding part of the introduction is missing at the end of the introduction. The author should make the introduction section crisp and to the point related to research, which I don't find in the present form of the manuscript. Moreover, the rationale behind some of the data presented was not entirely clear. I also recommend to the authors improve their references by conducting a more extensive review of international literature.  All the pictures in the manuscript are blurred, I suggest the author change the pictures to high definition.

• I suggest to modify the title title should be more crisp and brief. 

• Abstract introductary statment is too long, it has to be improved with more specific rational of the study. Abstract should have crisp information about aim meterials method result and conclusion, which I dont find. method is missing.
• Line No 110: Statment „ . In this study, the eddy correlation method was used to measure the CO2 and water vapor fluxes of two coniferous forests i“ needs a citation statement „Scots pine blister rust and red ring rot are the dominant pathologies in the Priangarye pine stands“ I SUGGEST AUTHOR TO CITE PREVIOUS PAPER SAME METHOD WAS USED.
• The conclusion in the Introduction is missing.
•  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The results of the paper are interesting, as they allude to possible differences in ecosystem functioning resulting from physiological differences of the plant species dominant at each site. However, with only 1 year worth of data to compare, the conclusions and impact of the study may be diminished. While the conclusions would benefit from waiting to include more years, it may be publishable now, though I recommend addressing the abbreviated time in the discussion and conclusions.

Additionally, there are some serious formatting issues with the manuscript. The resolution is too low on the figures, making it difficult to read. For instance, the axes, text, and labels on Figures 3, 4 are unreadable and therefore the content in unable to be evaluated. As a result I can not recommend publication at this time. Please resubmit with higher resolution figures.

The paper requires moderate to significant editing with respect to English grammar for a native speaker.

Additional Line Edits (Not including English Style, Spelling, & Grammar Corrections):

Line 191 : Eddy Covariance does not provide continuous measurements of GPP and RECO, it does measure NEE but the other products are derived.

Line 582 : The recommendation that P. tabulaeformis should be planted to increase carbon sequestration is too strong a statement from the results shown here and needs to be softened. Particularly given that there is only 1 year worth of data.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx