Seasonal Variation of Emission Fluxes of CO2, CH4, and N2O from Different Larch Forests in the Daxing’An Mountains of China
, Yining Wu 1,2,†, Jianbo Wang 1, Jiawen Liang 1, Haipeng Dong 1, Qing Chen 3,* and Haixiu Zhong 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Li Forests-2499407
Type
Article
Title
Seasonal Variation of Emission Fluxes of CO2, CH4 and N2O from different larch forests in Daxing’An Mountains of China
Authors
Jinbo , Yining Wu , Jianbo Wang , Jiawen Liang , Haipeng Dong , Qing Chen * , Haixiu Zhong *
Section
Dear Authors
The article needs to make the following additions.
1. It is necessary to expand the summary and conclusions.
1. 1а in the conclusion and in the text, it is necessary to emphasize the different locations of the sites and their properties
2. It is necessary to emphasize the differences in the behavior of greenhouse gases by season
3. One plot differs significantly from the other three plots in temperature and humidity throughout the growing season.
4. It is necessary to single out this area separately and consider its properties and emission or sink of greenhouse gases
5. The sites vary significantly in altitude and in the steepness of the slope on which they are located, this must be emphasized in the conclusions and write how soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions differ in them
6. CH4 emission is noted in one plot throughout the growing season, CH4 absorption is detected in the other three plots, it is necessary to explain the reason for these differences
7. The article points to the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and soil properties. And then it is noted that there are no differences in the behavior of greenhouse gases between the 4 sites.
8. There are fairly large differences between sites in greenhouse gas emissions or sinks. Even if the differences are statistically unreliable, this should be written
9.valley site has better soil properties compared to other sites, this needs to be emphasized and its greenhouse gas dynamics described separately
10. The article can be published after making the above additions.
Good luck with your work
02.07.2023
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present manuscript, some of basic weaknesses are detected in this manuscript as below:
(1) The introduction is very general and does not focus on the objectives of the research. The introduction needs to be well reorganized. For example, the first 3 paragraphs are suggested to be combined and shorted.
(2) Please add the latitude, longitude and elevation information of the sample site to 2.1 section. Also, why selected the time from May to September 2019, please explain.
(3) Figure 1~3, I personally suggest that you should use a line chart instead of a bar chart.
(4) The warming potential of greenhouse gases should be calculated using the total emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
(5) Please calculate the total greenhouse gas emissions from different types of forest soils, instead of describing the results for each month.
(6) Were the different soil layers (5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm) also measured for greenhouse gases? If not, how were the results of the relative analyses obtained?
(7) Structural equations can be used to reveal the relationship between environmental factors and greenhouse gas emissions.
(8) The discussion is mainly descriptive, need to be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
ID: forests-2499407
The authors revised and supplemented the article according to the comments. All comments and advice on the revision of the article are taken into account.
Article may be published
Good luck with your further research
Sincerely
12.07.2023
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments and providing good suggestions for my manuscript. We have changed the non-standard formatting and units in the text and images， and corrected the format of the references according to the style of the journal. We marked in yellow on our revised manuscript.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely
Jinbo Li
Reviewer 2 Report
The author made extensive revisions to the article, which made it more readable. There are still formatting errors in the literature and text, please make corrections. After the modifications, I personally suggest that the article can be published.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments and providing good suggestions for my manuscript. We have changed the non-standard formatting and units in the text and images， and corrected the format of the references according to the style of the journal. We marked in yellow on our revised manuscript.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours sincerely
Jinbo Li
