Forest Structure and Carbon Reserve in Natural and Replanted Mangrove Forests in Different Years in the Limpopo Estuary, Gaza Province, Mozambique
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a wealth of information, but the discussion and analysis could be more in-depth.
In general, a thorough review of the presentation is necessary. Not only are there language errors, but, for example, there is missing information on the map, the internal text of which is in Portuguese. If the topic is of interest and topicality, more care is needed to attract potential readers.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Line 24, "anoumts" for "amounts", "stabel" for "stable".
Line 61, the comma after "The" is unnecessary.
Line 65, the comma after "like" is unnecessary.
Line 91, Estuary should not be written with an initial capital letter.
Line 109, "... all trees above (300 cm height and 2.5 cm in diameter) were classified as adults..." the brackets are not necessary.
Line 320, table 5: "Apparently density" should be "Bulk density".
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for Authors
The research provides an up-to-date study and comparison of mangrove forests in southeast Africa. Today it is of enormous importance for the countries of Africa and south-east Asia due to the degradation of mangrove lands and the increasing frequency of floods. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of a pristine mangrove forest with restored forests. Data are provided on above- and below-ground biomass, carbon and mangrove forest development for the period 2010-2016.
General concept comments
Article: The authors of the article need to improve:
1. Check the scientific translation of the English language again for punctuation and Portuguese words in the text;
2. Present a high-quality figure 1 in the article, format the formulas according to the instructions;
3. Edit References.
Review: To improve the article, you need to focus on comments.
A small part of the literature does not correspond to the context of the article.
Specific comments
1. Lines 6 and 8. The word "Universidade" is written in Portuguese. Correct to English.
2. Lines 12 and 13. There is no need to duplicate the purpose of the research in the abstract of the article, since it is mentioned in the introduction.
3. Lines 14-16. This applies to section 2. Materials and Methods. It is better to pay attention to the results obtained in the abstract.
4. Lines 97 and 98. Figure 1 is edited and replaced with a better-quality drawing: the text and scale are not clearly visible; the terrain is blurred.
5. Lines 138, 140, 161, 169, 178 and 184. Bring the formulas to a single format, correct the font. Subsection 2.2.2. must be edited according to the requirements of the publisher: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions.
6. Lines 210 and 229. Tables extend beyond the required format, edit.
7. Lines 222-224. Dear authors, please check the source data. There was no difference in mangrove density between 2010 and 2014? You have identical planting density, which is impossible in a natural environment, even a restored one. Or is it the number of trees planted?
8. Lines 552-687. Prepare References in accordance with https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests/instructions and https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references.
Indicate the language in which articles are cited if they are not in English.
9. Line 426. The link to article number 38 is mentioned after numbering 39-41 and further in the text. To correct.
10. In the text, there is no link to article number 60. To correct.
11. Line 478. Ray et al., 2011 not in References. To correct.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEliminate Portuguese words from the article and check punctuation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents the composition, structure, and above and below-ground living biomass in the mangrove forests of Limpopo estuary. The authors have also presented soil carbon data for both natural and artificially planted mangroves. The authors have done extensive field visits with 40 transacts, but they should mention how many trees were present in each transact. The methodology is well established, and the results are acceptable, though the DBH and height relation is very weak in artificially planted mangroves. The authors should find a probable reason behind such observation. Overall, the paper is well written, but the authors should address the following comments:
Comments:
1. Abstract line 24: “that soil is a stable…” probably a typing error. The authors are requested to go through the manuscript once again to remove such errors.
2. Line 43-44: “and a source of CO2 for the atmosphere, mostly, through changes in land.” The authors are requested to split the sentence and convey the message that mangrove degradation could be fatal as it can add CO2 to the atmosphere in a separate sentence.
3. The authors should mention the previous studies on the mangroves of the Limpopo estuary and Mozambique and mention how this study makes a difference in carbon reserve estimation. Also, the authors need to state the motivation of this paper clearly.
4. The study area map should be produced with better accuracy, the legend should be in English, and the map should consist of scale and lat/long indicators.
5. The authors need to provide a theoretical basis for classifying the trees above 3m as adults. What are the mean and median of the tree heights of the mangroves in the study area?
6. The authors are requested to provide a map of sampling points to understand the systematic stratified sampling method.
7. Line 130-131: based on the methodology described by Kauffman and Donato” firstly, the reference needs to be corrected; secondly, the general equation was not provided by Kauffman and Donato. The authors should check the references to omit such errors in the manuscript and cite the original paper.
8. Diversity is usually calculated by the Shannon index. While the importance value index is still valid, but the authors should adopt other indices that will contribute more towards the understanding of the relative abundance.
9. The caption of table 5, “1Average ± Standard deviation 2Kruskal-Wallis” what are those numbers 1 and 2 indicate? Are these references?
10. How the total carbon reserve has been calculated?
11. The authors have presented the carbon sequestration rate in Table 5 but did not mention the methodology of calculating it. Also, why the carbon sequestration rate is not calculated for natural forests and planted forests 2010?
12. The edaphic variables responsible for carbon storage and sequestration varies from place to place; therefore, comparing African mangroves with Indonesian or Indian mangroves are not valid (line 438, 453, 477, 479).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComparing the carbon sequestration and storage of mangroves under restoration with natural mangroves in the Limpopo estuary identifies practical ways to manage restored forests and maximise their potential. The study provides valuable information for planning and managing mangrove restoration projects in Mozambique and other countries. It can also be used to develop carbon offset programs and attract funding for potential restoration projects.
While several studies estimate the amount of carbon in Mozambican mangroves, none specifically address the performance of restored forests regarding sequestration and storage. Monitoring changes over time would establish the long-term potential of mangroves under restoration.
It is known that restored mangroves in the Philippines had less biomass than natural forests but stored similar amounts of carbon in the soil (Donato et al., 2011). Likewise, restored mangroves in Vietnam stored less above- and below-ground biomass than natural forests, but their carbon sequestration rates were similar (Alongi et al., 2016). In that context, one might expect in the discussion that differences between the results of the manuscript and those cited above result, for example, from the species planted, environmental conditions, or management practices.
It would be worthwhile to pick up on these aspects and find out which factors (forest age, restoration techniques, environmental conditions, etc.) generate the differences in sequestration capacity and carbon storage between restored and natural mangroves in the Limpopo estuary.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAlthough the authors claim to have made the required corrections, oversights still leave much to be desired. For example, on l. 21, the word "amoumt" persists. In the following one, it says "Morever" (for "moreover") and, in parentheses, in l. 23 "an" is left out. Several other errors of form persist.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNow Can be accepted.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
