Effects of Thinning on Carbon Storage in a Mixed Broadleaved Plantation in a Subtropical Area of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following suggestions may help to improve the quality of the manuscript further.

1.     The abstract and introduction must be revised: it starts with the statement that something   was investigated.

2.     Key words repeated from the title and it should be different from the title of the manuscript.

3.     Furthermore, the most important suggestion, the aims of the paper need to be better explained in the section. They are too shallow focusing on the methods rather than the purpose of the study.

4.     The actual state of knowledge and gap in knowledge has to be stated briefly.

5.     Materials and methods section may improve and elaborate i.e. 2.3 and 2.5 subheading

6.     In results section 3.1, Line NO 144 please show the Carbon concentration values before C storage?? Similarly, in Line 177, SOC concentration value will be reflected??

7.     In results section 3.5 mentioned about the diversity of understory plants but not mentioned in materials and method section, please brief how to determine th various diversity indices in methodology section??

8.     All the figures and maps are illustrated in proper manner.

9.     Discussions and conclusions section is appropriate and well written.

10.  Plagiarism or similarity index may be reduced upto 15% or as per permissible limit of the Journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions of our manuscript.

The attached ducument is our point-by-point response.

Best regards,

Na Lin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study investigated the impact of thinning on carbon storage in a mixed broadleaved plantation in southern China. The topic is trendy yet important. Overall, the study was reasonably designed; measurements were properly taken; results are clearly presented; and conclusions are solidly supported. The article would be ready for its publication should the following comments be carefully addressed.

1) The introduction section is weak in providing evidence to support the originality and novelty of this study. The authors should consider adding more information regarding previous studies on forest thinning, especially those related to carbon storage. A clear and more in-depth analysis of what has been done and what has not should be provided to justify the uniqueness of this current study.

2) Page 2 Line 76: There are 12 square plots for the study. Is the area of each plot 625 square meters? Or is 625 square meters the total area of the 12 plots? The sentence is confusing. Please clarify.

3) Page 3 Line 86: Are the recorded data for the coverage of understory plant species available?

4) Page 4 Line 105: Is the soil/water suspension 1:2.5 by weight or by volume?

5) Figure 2: Are the figures sharing the same scales? It seems like B and D do not have their own scales (y-axis). Please clarify. The figure caption is very confusing, difficult to read. Consider rewriting it.

6) Section 3.1: The results presented are not discussed/described enough.

7) Section 3.2: The results presented in Figure 3 and Table 3 are not sufficiently discussed/described. In these figures and tables, explain the meanings of a, b, ab, bA, abA in their captions.

8) Section 3.3, Section 3.4, Section 3.5: The results are not sufficiently discussed/described. Figure 6 should be four parts (A, B, C, and D) rather than one. Remake the figure.

9) Section 4: The authors should discuss the possible effects of various parameters on the carbon storage changes by associating the results displayed. The authors should also provide clear hypothetical explanations or supporting evidences from other studies to explain the carbon storage changes observed.

10) Add a couple of sentences for future direction and/or significance of the current research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is fine. Proofread the article before its re-submission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions of our manuscript. We have followed your advices to revise our manuscript.

The attached ducument is our point-by-point response.

Best regards,

Na Lin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction section has no significant improvement. Please rewrite the whole section and highlight the revised parts. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We revised the  introduction section, which almost be rewritten, and highlight with the yellow colour.  

Thank you for your suggestions.

Wish you all the best.

Na Lin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf