Aboveground Carbon Stocks across a Hydrological Gradient: Ghost Forests to Non-Tidal Freshwater Forested Wetlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript entitled ‘ Aboveground carbon stocks across a hydrological gradient: 2 ghost forests to non-tidal freshwater forested wetlands’ is well organized and meaningful to coastal wetland management. The authors investigated the carbon stock in different type of coastal wetland, which were distinguished by variable flooding duration and frequency that caused by sea water intrusion. The methods and results were reliable, and leading to a more precise evaluation of carbon storage change under tidal forces. However, there is still some deficiencies in this manuscript, see below.

1.      As ‘ghost forest’ was used in the title, it should be introduced in the main text.

2.      L54, delete ‘future’.

3.      L61, what does the decrease of 0.7 - 7 % refer to?

4.      In table 1 and L269, what do CWD and FWD mean?

5.      In table 2, is W. tupelo same to water tupelo? If yes, select one instead of use both.

6.      Change ‘Table 2’ in L247 to ‘Table 3’.

7.      L361-L363. The sentence is quite confusing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is a well-written manuscript with high quality of English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The file "Forest Reviewer 1 Response" contains only information on changes you directly suggested. See the file "Forests Compiled Review Responses" for information on all changes within the updated manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript "Aboveground carbon stocks across a hydrological gradient: ghost forests to non-tidal freshwater forested" provided interesting results about C stock in aboveground vegetation separated into several types. The presented study focuses on not investigating a tough topic and provides new information about the C stock of the environmental gradient of specific forest ecosystems. This type of information is important due to the global model's estimated carbon emissions due to climate change.
Overall, the manuscript is well-designed and structured. Thus, only some minor comments should be addressed, which might improve the submitted manuscript. Those comments are listed as comments and suggestions in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The file "Forest Reviewer 2 Response" contains only information on changes you directly suggested. See the file "Forests Compiled Review Responses" for information on all changes within the updated manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

authors have researched the above ground carbon along two major coastal river 15 systems: Winyah Bay in South Carolina and the Savannah River in Georgia. Overall, the research is extensively done, but can be improved for wider acceptance by international readership of "Forests". I am noting my observations below,

1. Authors started the Introduction section with reference to "Blue carbon". But instead of assuming that readers known what is ble carbon, itcan be explained briefly, qith recent researches pertaining to this across the world. I will suggest the incorporation of research on blue carbon from across the globe and not restricting only to North America, as this will add up to the 'novelity' as well as 'need for such studies, even if that is regionally set'. Sone, recent publications on blue carbon as I can get after a rapid search are, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-024-33918-2 (deltaic mangroves), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11676-018-0793-4 (semi-arid wetlands), https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/sr20040 (temperate coastal wetlands), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X20302861 (south-east Asia). The idea is to introduce authors to the cosmopolitan and multinational research on blue carbon taking place across the world.

2. Introduction: I will suggest authors bring in references of similar works undertaken across the world and then focus on the importance of this study/study area.

3. Lines 85-116: Authors mentioned 5 study sites. Why only 5? What is the rationale for this selection. This explanation is required to understand the sampling strategy and the data evolved from that.

4. Coastal wetlands are influences by tidewater as well as soil parameters, which is not coverd in this MS in detail. The possible reason is the focus on aboveground biomass as is evident from the title. But these are important consideration for understand coastal wetlands. Authors need to focus on why they choose only above ground biomass. Possible reason can be (like https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/13/7/1539) more research focus on soil- salinity-below ground biomass, compared to above ground biomass, which is a research gap this research may want to address.

 I find the article interesting and publication worthy, after addressing above mentioned comments.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine

Author Response

Please see the attachment. The file "Forest Reviewer 3 Response" contains only information on changes you directly suggested. See the file "Forests Compiled Review Responses" for information on all changes within the updated manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted in the current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine