Site-Level Modelling Comparison of Carbon Capture by Mixed-Species Forest and Woodland Reforestation in Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with an interesting area of carbon accounting models in Australia, and I thank you for the hard work done by the Australian authors. But the authors have some scope to improve the manuscript, and here are my specific suggestions:

1. I think the authors need to write a general recommendation at the end of the abstract based on the study’s findings.

2. The methodology section should be precise and more specific, that means the authors may reduce some descriptive information from the methodology section.

3. Figure 5 is small and hard to understand due to its small size.

4. At the end of the discussion, the authors try to summarize the results, however, I suggest inserting a separate conclusion section where the future direction of the study would be mentioned.

Actually, it is an excellent paper and well written from my point of view. Therefore, only a few modifications would be necessary, like increasing the size and resolution of Figure 5, a general recommendation at the end of Abstrat for world-wide readers based on this study. Also need to draw a conclusion (currently, it merges with the discussion) that summarizes key findings and a future direction for the readers. I do not have further observations on this article, and the English language and scientific soundness of this manuscript are excellent.

Good luck.

Author Response

The manuscript deals with an interesting area of carbon accounting models in Australia, and I thank you for the hard work done by the Australian authors. But the authors have some scope to improve the manuscript, and here are my specific suggestions:

1. I think the authors need to write a general recommendation at the end of the abstract based on the study’s findings.

• A recommendation is added at the end of the Abstract.

 

1. The methodology section should be precise and more specific, that means the authors may reduce some descriptive information from the methodology section.

• We agree that the Materials and Methods section is very extensive. We feel this is necessary as our paper includes field observation on several variables at multiple sites, 2 models, and model calibration. All these aspects need to be described in sufficient detail. It is unclear to us which description information could be reduced.

 

1. Figure 5 is small and hard to understand due to its small size.

• Figure 5 is expanded to cover the entire page width.

 

1. At the end of the discussion, the authors try to summarize the results, however, I suggest inserting a separate conclusion section where the future direction of the study would be mentioned.

• A conclusions section is added, including options for future model improvements.

 

Actually, it is an excellent paper and well written from my point of view. Therefore, only a few modifications would be necessary, like increasing the size and resolution of Figure 5, a general recommendation at the end of Abstract for world-wide readers based on this study. Also need to draw a conclusion (currently, it merges with the discussion) that summarizes key findings and a future direction for the readers. I do not have further observations on this article, and the English language and scientific soundness of this manuscript are excellent.

• Many thanks for these kind words

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find my comments in the attached file.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 2. Line numbers refer to numbering in the doc of the first submission

l.26: total number of trees added

l.31-32: we agree. sentence removed.

l. 96-99: a Conclusions section is added

l 146. this refers to the 14 sites where above ground biomass data was collected. (13 SDD sites and one additional site). This is made explicit in the text.

Table 1. Number of trees per site added

L.459-461. Caption of Figure 3 place below the figure

l. 464. the explanation of the grey dots is included in the caption of Figure 3

l. 548. Conclusion section is added

l. 690. The reference list now uses the MDPI style