Improving Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands Using Native Poplar Genotypes for Reforestation Purposes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a significant amount of similar research in this field, and your manuscript fails to demonstrate sufficient innovation or a new perspective. The data analysis is not thorough or contains errors, and it does not effectively support the research conclusions.The literature review does not adequately cover key studies in this field or does not clearly elaborate on the relationship between your research and existing literature. Although the research is executed well, the results and conclusions have limited practical or theoretical contributions to the field.

Author Response

thanks for your suggestions "There is a significant amount of similar research in this field, and your manuscript fails to demonstrate sufficient innovation or a new perspective. The data analysis is not thorough or contains errors, and it does not effectively support the research conclusions.The literature review does not adequately cover key studies in this field or does not clearly elaborate on the relationship between your research and existing literature. Although the research is executed well, the results and conclusions have limited practical or theoretical contributions to the field."

We submitted another version according to your and other reviewers' suggestions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented manuscript might beneficial for policy makers and other readers. However, its formatting and text composure needs more attention. Please, see some particular remarks in the .pdf.

Figures and graphs also deserve more professional formatting and finish.

Results need to be more clearly pointed out, including in Abstract

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

thanks for your suggestions.

1. "Most important points from Results should be also present in Abstract". we improved it
2. "Very very general. Please, provide numbers - how much forests really store. Or at least provide more suitable citations. The beginning should be more straight-to-point. The text as it is now is unconvincing" we changed the beginning of introduction
3. "Really just one sentence in a paragraph?
   Other paragraphs are also very short and as a result, the text is incoherent." we checked it and modified.
4. "Smarter formatting of Table, please
   Maybe transpose?" thanks, we provided a supplementary material with tree species

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several questions and remarks regarding the paper by Cantamessa et al. “Improving carbon sequestration in wetlands using native poplar genotypes for reforestation purposes”.

 

The abstract should be significantly improved. The abstract should include the significance of the study, its goals and objectives, and a description of the key research findings.

Keywords need to be corrected. The Latin or common names of the plant should be left as keywords (black poplar or P. nigra).

The study region cannot be adequately described by the information supplied. Provide a separate subsection "Site Descriptions" where you explain the region of investigation in further detail (climate, relief, soil, vegetation, etc.).

Plant growth is directly impacted by soil conditions. Provide data on the physicochemical properties of the soils at the test sites.

The results for poplar, black poplar, white poplar, and black poplar are indicated by the authors when describing the findings. But "poplar" is all that is displayed in all the pictures or tables. In cases where this was done, please clearly separate and show the data for black poplar and for black poplar and white poplar separately.

Subsection “3.2 Poplar C sink vs other species” What the poplar findings were compared against is not evident from the work. All information on "other species" is presented in a single column in Table 1, which solely lists "other species." Provide detailed data about each species (included in the "other species" category), such as the number of trees in the experiment, their average age, height, and diameter.

“The plantation of native species such as black and white poplar in river flooding areas…” (Lines 74-75) “Black and white poplar are native species typical of fluvial environments and naturally resistant…” (Lines 321-322) “The introduction of the two species represented an excellent solution for the tested plants…” (Lines 326-327) How can a native species be introduced (Lines 326-327)? Maybe "use two species for planting" is what you intended to say?

Add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section.

Author Response

thanks for your suggestions.

"The abstract should be significantly improved. The abstract should include the significance of the study, its goals and objectives, and a description of the key research findings." we changed it.

"Keywords need to be corrected. The Latin or common names of the plant should be left as keywords (black poplar or P. nigra)". we changed and preferred to maintain both.

"The study region cannot be adequately described by the information supplied. Provide a separate subsection "Site Descriptions" where you explain the region of investigation in further detail (climate, relief, soil, vegetation, etc.)." thanks, we provided supplemetary materila with soil and climate description.

"Plant growth is directly impacted by soil conditions. Provide data on the physicochemical properties of the soils at the test sites." we provided supplemetary materila with soil and climate description.

"The results for poplar, black poplar, white poplar, and black poplar are indicated by the authors when describing the findings. But "poplar" is all that is displayed in all the pictures or tables. In cases where this was done, please clearly separate and show the data for black poplar and for black poplar and white poplar separately." we separeted.

"Subsection “3.2 Poplar C sink vs other species” What the poplar findings were compared against is not evident from the work. All information on "other species" is presented in a single column in Table 1, which solely lists "other species." Provide detailed data about each species (included in the "other species" category), such as the number of trees in the experiment, their average age, height, and diameter." thanks, we provided a supplementary material with these informations.

“The plantation of native species such as black and white poplar in river flooding areas…” (Lines 74-75) “Black and white poplar are native species typical of fluvial environments and naturally resistant…” (Lines 321-322) “The introduction of the two species represented an excellent solution for the tested plants…” (Lines 326-327) How can a native species be introduced (Lines 326-327)? Maybe "use two species for planting" is what you intended to say?" thanks for your suggestion, we improve it.

"Add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section." we added it.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented for consideration is very interesting and important in the context of studying carbon sequestration and sustainability in wetlands.

Some additions have been suggested to improve the perception of the article.

The introduction focuses on strategies for improving biodiversity and reforestation to maintain the carbon balance. Information on the methodology and studies of carbon absorption by different plant species in Europe should be added.

85 - there is no conclusion for task 3 in the conclusion section.

192 - in Fig. 2 there is no spread of values. It is necessary to present the formula for calculating the Survival percentage in the methodological section.

211 - For a better understanding of the materials, it is necessary to indicate the level of significance of the differences on the Fig.  2 and 3 directly.

308 - it is necessary to add information about the plant species with which poplar was compared in terms of carbon absorption and what results for other plant species were obtained in other studies.

343 - The list of references in the work needs to be updated. It is necessary to add relevant studies of the last 5 years. Now your list of references contains only 9% of articles written in the last 5 years.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

thanks for your suggestions.

"85 - there is no conclusion for task 3 in the conclusion section." we added it in the conclusion section

"192 - in Fig. 2 there is no spread of values. It is necessary to present the formula for calculating the Survival percentage in the methodological section." We inserted the p-value and calculate for each site the survival percentage.

"211 - For a better understanding of the materials, it is necessary to indicate the level of significance of the differences on the Fig.  2 and 3 directly." we added it

"308 - it is necessary to add information about the plant species with which poplar was compared in terms of carbon absorption and what results for other plant species were obtained in other studies." we compared them with other studies in the discussion

"343 - The list of references in the work needs to be updated. It is necessary to add relevant studies of the last 5 years. Now your list of references contains only 9% of articles written in the last 5 years." we updated it

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment

This study evaluates the productivity and carbon sequestration potential of native black poplar clones in the POBIA group compared to those in the non-POBIA group, specifically planted along riverbanks and flood-prone areas in Italy. The research offers a significant contribution to the fields of nature restoration and carbon sequestration, with implications for carbon neutrality efforts. However, substantial improvements are needed in the introduction, methodology description, and discussion sections to meet publication standards. The study is recommended for publication, but only after major revisions.

Abstract

The abstract begins well, but it needs to include a summary of the results and conclusions.

Introduction

The literature review is insufficient. There should be a more detailed discussion of carbon sequestration-related studies.

Materials and Methods

The experimental sites and carbon calculation methods are well described. However, the statistical analysis section is weak. The Wilcoxon test, which is later mentioned in the results section, should be introduced and explained here.

Results

The results section needs improvement in clarity and detail.

• Lines 194-195: It is mentioned that Figure 3 shows m3/ha values, but the figure actually displays tCO2/ha/year values. This discrepancy needs to be corrected.
• Lines 262-266: The sentences are unclear and need rephrasing.
• Figures 3 and 4: The legends need larger font sizes to enhance readability. The figures should also be provided in higher resolution.

Discussion

The discussion is very weak. More references to other research should be included, and the current study's findings should be compared with those of other studies. The limitations of the study should also be discussed.

• Lines 312-313: The sentence is unclear and needs rephrasing.

Conclusions

• Lines 326-327: The sentence is unclear and should be rephrased.

Other Comments

Extensive English language editing is necessary, as some sentences are difficult to understand, and the overall wording needs improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive English language editing is necessary, as some sentences are difficult to understand, and the overall wording needs improvement.

Author Response

thanks fo tour suggestions.

"Abstract

The abstract begins well, but it needs to include a summary of the results and conclusions." we changed it

"Introduction

The literature review is insufficient. There should be a more detailed discussion of carbon sequestration-related studies." we added studies in the discussion section.

"Materials and Methods

The experimental sites and carbon calculation methods are well described. However, the statistical analysis section is weak. The Wilcoxon test, which is later mentioned in the results section, should be introduced and explained here." we changed it. thanks for your suggestions.

"Results

The results section needs improvement in clarity and detail.

• Lines 194-195: It is mentioned that Figure 3 shows m3/ha values, but the figure actually displays tCO2/ha/year values. This discrepancy needs to be corrected.
• Lines 262-266: The sentences are unclear and need rephrasing.
• Figures 3 and 4: The legends need larger font sizes to enhance readability. The figures should also be provided in higher resolution." we provided new version in according to your suggestions.

"Discussion

The discussion is very weak. More references to other research should be included, and the current study's findings should be compared with those of other studies. The limitations of the study should also be discussed.

• Lines 312-313: The sentence is unclear and needs rephrasing." we changed it.

"Conclusions

• Lines 326-327: The sentence is unclear and should be rephrased." we changed it

"Other Comments

Extensive English language editing is necessary, as some sentences are difficult to understand, and the overall wording needs improvement." we improved the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the issues I cared about were addressed by the authors. Thanks to the authors.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved and is now recommended for publication. However, minor English editing is still needed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing is still needed.