Carbon Storage Expectations on Swamp Jelutung (Dyera polyphylla Miq. Steenis.) on Peatland for Tackling Climate Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author accounted the carbon stocks of three cultivated peatlands with different ages. However, this manuscript have not been organized in proper publication style and lacked clear aim and conclusion. For methods, allometric model was used to estimated the tree biomass, but the key parameters for these models were missing. For result, the figures missed X and Y axis ticks. Moreover, the discussion reads like result but lack explaining the results.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study of changes in biomass components after tree planting is a classic task. The manuscript deals with a rather interesting object, important both from different perspectives, including carbon storage, of interest in terms of climate change mitigation. However, to put this aspect in the title of the paper is not, in our opinion, worthwhile. It seems that some of the tables could be replaced by figures, which would be clearer for the reader. Besides Supplementary material, it would be good to have some photos, illustrating plantings of different ages, directly in the article. The authors note the need to plant trees in connection with fires, but this issue is not discussed further. For example the effects of fire on carbon stock changes, soil properties, etc. The authors do not mention the 2013 IPCC Wetland Supplement, which addresses issues related to those discussed in the manuscript.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper focused on the carbon storage after forestry in peatland. This study could be helpful to understand the carbon cycle after restoring in peatland. In addition, it is also helpful to deal with the issue of global warming. However, there are lots of points that require close attention.
Comments:
1) On page 2, lines 45-47: Peatlands are the source of CO2 of the atmosphere. But it should be a significant source of CO2. It was also the source of CH4. So, the authors should think about this point.
2) There were also some format mistakes, such as “200g” change to “200 g” on page 5 line 142. Please check the paper carefully.
3) In the “2. Materials and Methods”, use the equation to calculate the above-below biomass of trees. Thess equations were used to the forest ecosystem. But the tree growing could be different in the peatlands. How considering the applicability of these equations in peatlands? In the results, the root biomass of plant age class 17 years almost be twice as much as the 13 years. Which reason cause these changes just for four years?
4) In the “4. Discussion”, the authors stated more results about this study and more phenomenon. There were also lots of researches about the carbon storage after restoration. It is suggested that this paper add discussion with other studies. To explore the reason for increasing carbon storage.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has improved from the original version. However, many of my concerns have not been solved yet. For example, I did not find this study’s specific aims (or questions). Although the authors added some information about the GHG and IPCC supplements, still do not focus on the importance of the carbon storage of Swamp Jelutung. In the methods section, the allometric model was used to estimate the tree biomass, but the parameters for these models were missing. The author supplied five equations to calculate the aboveground biomass based on the diameter at breast height. I wonder whether all the five equations were applied in this study, or only one or two, and what the value of parameters a and b. In the result section, the tick values of figures 4 and 5 were still missing. And finally, the references are not in a publishable style.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
