Association of Carbon Pool with Vegetation Composition along the Elevation Gradients in Subtropical Forests in Pakistan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall Assessment:
This study presents a comprehensive analysis of carbon pool dynamics in subtropical forests of Pakistan, focusing on the impact of elevation gradients on forest carbon stock. The research is of high quality and provides valuable insights into how environmental factors, particularly elevation and DBH classes influence carbon sequestration. The main finding is that there is an inverse correlation between total carbon stock and altitude.
Overall, the study makes a significant contribution to the understanding of carbon dynamics in subtropical forests of Pakistan. With some improvements to the Abstract and improved descriptions in the Materials and Methods section, the paper will be clearer and easier for readers to understand.
I recommend accepting this study for publication after addressing the below comments.
Detailed Comments:
1. The Abstract needs improvement. It is currently too detailed and lacks the main conclusions.
2. Materials and Methods/Carbon Pool Calculation: This section should clearly describe how the C-ABG and C-BG values were calculated.
3. Materials and Methods/Carbon Pool Calculation: The term "CSB = carbon in sapling biomass [t C ha-1]" needs clarification. Please explain what this term means and its role in the carbon pool calculation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate English language editing is required.
Author Response
Question: The Abstract needs improvement. It is currently too detailed and lacks the main conclusions.
Answer: We have revised the abstract accordingly. For details, please see the manuscript file (MS).
Question: Materials and Methods/Carbon Pool Calculation: This section should clearly describe how the C-ABG and C-BG values were calculated.
Answer: C-AGB and C-BGB were calculated by summing the values of each DBH class for each elevation gradient. We have added the short description in the MS, for details, please see the MS.
Question: Materials and Methods/Carbon Pool Calculation: The term "CSB = carbon in sapling biomass [t C ha-1]" needs clarification. Please explain what this term means and its role in the carbon pool calculation.
Answer: C-SB stands for carbon in sapling biomass. Just like a tree, sapling also has its importance in carbon sequestration. In this study, we included saplings as an important individual just like a tree that plays a vital role in carbon sequestration. We calculated the sampling biomass using the equation 1. Further, we sum up all the values of the sapling for each DBH class at each elevation gradient to calculate the total carbon stock value of the sapling of each DBH class at each elevation gradient. We have added the short description in the MS, for details, please see the MS.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnderstanding the effect of stand structural characteristics and climate factors on aboveground biomass on a large scale is critical for accurate forest carbon-storage prediction and sustainable forest management. Estimating biomass of terrestrial vegetation is not only a rapidly expanding research area, but also a subject of tremendous interest for reducing carbon emissions associated with deforestation and forest degradation.
In the manuscript submitted by Inam Khan et al. the main aims of the present study were to determine the tree biomass and carbon stock at different elevation gradients. The authors hypothesized that the elevation gradient significantly influences various aspects of forest ecosystems, including tree growth rates, diameter class distribution, regeneration status, species diversity, and soil.
The manuscript is written in good style. Clearly defined purpose of the work and research hypotheses. A well-planned and conducted experiment. The authors precisely described the experimental results and interpreted them correctly.
Detailed comments:
1. Please adapt the abstract to the requirements of the Forests journal ((approximately 200 words maximum; highlight the purpose of the study Forests | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com))
2. Table 1. Use bold in the table head.
3. Line 145: Add information about the manufacturer of measuring instruments: Vernier caliper and Spiegel relay scope.
4. Please standardize the notation of units throughout the manuscript. Once they are written in round brackets (…) once in square brackets […] e.g. lines 260 and 272
5. Figure 3. Please improve the quality of this figure (increase the size of letters and numbers)
6. Reference Lines 660-874: References not prepared in accordance with the requirements journal Forests. Forests | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Question: Please adapt the abstract to the requirements of the Forests journal ((approximately 200 words maximum; highlight the purpose of the study Forests | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com))
Answer: We have revised the abstract accordingly. For details please see MS.
Question: Table 1. Use bold in the table head.
Answer: Modified as suggested.
Question: Line 145: Add information about the manufacturer of measuring instruments: Vernier caliper and Spiegel relay scope.
Answer: Added as suggested.
Question: Please standardize the notation of units throughout the manuscript. Once they are written in round brackets (…) once in square brackets […] e.g. lines 260 and 272
Answer: Modified as suggested.
Question: Figure 3. Please improve the quality of this figure (increase the size of letters and numbers)
Answer: Figure 3 has been modified as suggested.
Question: Reference Lines 660-874: References not prepared in accordance with the requirements journal Forests. Forests | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com) Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Answer: We have revised the reference list accordingly. For detail please see the MS.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented manuscript is primarily connected to a very significant, namely, forest carbon storage –one of the important environmental benefits of forests, and possible way for mitigation of climate change
Nevertheless, I have a number of suggestions for the authors of the manuscript:
1. In Abstract: line 29 include the full name of the abbreviated variable (DBH), before its abbreviation.
2. In Introduction:1) lines 72-73, “However, the amount of space that high mountain plants can grow varies throughout time”, please rewrite the phrase it is not clear what is meant; 2) lines 101-107, rewrite, since here you should state the aim of the study, which is what scientific questions you are addressing. For example: Exploration of the relationships between the measured (or calculated) variables. Acquiring data for the studied variables does not seem to be the main aim of your study.
3. In Materials and Methods: you have section “2.2. Sampling and inventory” and then “2.3. Tree and sapling biomass calculation”, it sould be lower-level subtitle: 2.2.3. Tree and sapling biomass calculation, since it is part of the sampling methods. Please reorder the how section materials and methods in this order: first only sampling methods for all of the measured variables; second all of the calculation of metrics (like indexes); third the statistical analysis applied in the study. In the present version you are switching from sampling to calculation and statistical analysis when talking for each of the variables separately, and it is hard to follow. Think about using additional tables instead of text in the amnuscript for more concise presentation of the methods. 2) you are using mainly Anova, Tukey’s multiple comparison test, and Linear Regression, but did you test all of the variables for normality and heterogeneity? Such tests are mentioned on line 278, but it is unclear, if they were applied to all of the variables involved in statistical tests assuming normality (Anova, Tuky’s multiple comparison test, Linear regression). Therefore make a more clear statment.
4. In Results: “3.5. Association between little and deadwood carbon with elevation gradients”, correct “little” to “litter”. I suggest instead of text here to use even more tables or figures with shorter comments in the text, when the given results are presented in table or figure.
Kind regards
Author Response
Question: In Abstract: line 29 include the full name of the abbreviated variable (DBH), before its abbreviation.
Answer: Modified as suggested.
Question: In Introduction:1) lines 72-73, “However, the amount of space that high mountain plants can grow varies throughout time”, please rewrite the phrase it is not clear what is meant; 2) lines 101-107, rewrite, since here you should state the aim of the study, which is what scientific questions you are addressing. For example: Exploration of the relationships between the measured (or calculated) variables. Acquiring data for the studied variables does not seem to be the main aim of your study.
Answer: We have rewritten and revised the study objectives as you suggested.
Question: In Materials and Methods: you have section “2.2. Sampling and inventory” and then “2.3. Tree and sapling biomass calculation”, it sould be lower-level subtitle: 2.2.3. Tree and sapling biomass calculation, since it is part of the sampling methods. Please reorder the how section materials and methods in this order: first only sampling methods for all of the measured variables; second all of the calculation of metrics (like indexes); third the statistical analysis applied in the study. In the present version you are switching from sampling to calculation and statistical analysis when talking for each of the variables separately, and it is hard to follow. Think about using additional tables instead of text in the amnuscript for more concise presentation of the methods. 2) you are using mainly Anova, Tukey’s multiple comparison test, and Linear Regression, but did you test all of the variables for normality and heterogeneity? Such tests are mentioned on line 278, but it is unclear, if they were applied to all of the variables involved in statistical tests assuming normality (Anova, Tuky’s multiple comparison test, Linear regression). Therefore make a more clear statment.
Answer: We have revised and modified the Martials and methods section accordingly. For details, please see the MS.
Question: In Results: “3.5. Association between little and deadwood carbon with elevation gradients”, correct “little” to “litter”. I suggest instead of text here to use even more tables or figures with shorter comments in the text, when the given results are presented in table or figure.
Answer: We did the correction as you suggested. Thank you for your comment dear reviewer, but we already presented the results in most brief way. I think if we try to delete some text or make it more short it will effect the readers understanding.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript certainly touches on an interesting topic. The relationship between carbon reserves and the ecological composition of vegetation at different altitudes is relevant. But in this form the manuscript cannot be published. Firstly, the title of the manuscript does not reflect the entire essence of the work and should be changed. The text of the manuscript in different chapters is mixed and should be moved to the appropriate chapters. Many sentences are repeated. Some figures and tables require editing. In many methodological aspects, the authors leave out important information. It should be added. The comparative part of the discussion needs to be expanded. The focus should be on writing the conclusion of the manuscript based on the simulations performed with specific numerical values. The authors obtained interesting results, presented them, and based on the proposed hypothesis, they should be disclosed in the conclusions of the manuscript. After all comments have been eliminated, the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript certainly touches on an interesting topic. The relationship between carbon reserves and the ecological composition of vegetation at different altitudes is relevant. But in this form the manuscript cannot be published. Firstly, the title of the manuscript does not reflect the entire essence of the work and should be changed. The text of the manuscript in different chapters is mixed and should be moved to the appropriate chapters. Many sentences are repeated. Some figures and tables require editing. In many methodological aspects, the authors leave out important information. It should be added. The comparative part of the discussion needs to be expanded. The focus should be on writing the conclusion of the manuscript based on the simulations performed with specific numerical values. The authors obtained interesting results, presented them, and based on the proposed hypothesis, they should be disclosed in the conclusions of the manuscript. After all comments have been eliminated, the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Answer: We have addressed all the comments as you mention above and in the attached pdf file. For detail of changes please see the MS file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for considering the suggestions I have provided.
Kind regards
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I am pleased with the correction of the manuscript. Corrections and additional data have been added to the manuscript. This study has demonstrated that elevation and DBH classes impact forest growth and carbon stock. The review of the study results was selected accordingly, as were the statistical methods used to analyze it. The article takes into account comments on the methodology. The analysis and conclusion for each chapter are sufficient and unobjectionable. References to literature sources have been corrected. The results of previous studies by other authors are taken into account. I recommend it for journal Forests.
