Development of an Urban Turfgrass and Tree Carbon Calculator for Northern Temperate Climates
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A study was conducted to suggest an urban landscape carbon calculator for Canada based on an extensive literature review of the capability of turfgrass, urban trees and shrubs in sequestering carbon and their resulting hidden carbon cost, particularly for maintenance initiatives. The manuscript is well presented in terms of length and appropriate use of tables to summarize key findings from existing literature. However, there are a few concerns in relation to this paper. Firstly, it is unclear why Canada is included in the title while the paper's discussion is clearly not focused on Canada. Similarly, as elaborated in the paper, the findings are highlighting the HCC and C sequestration estimation for turfgrass (due to limited literature for the other plant types), hence, the title which includes urban landscape might not be an accurate representation of the whole paper. It is suggested that the authors can consider revising the title to be more accurate to the contents provided. Nonetheless, I find this paper a much needed literature for the sustainable development of an urban ecosystem.
Author Response
The title has been updated to reflect these comments. We have included trees in the title because the data exists although it is incomplete. We agree the data on other landscapes including shrubs was lacking and therefore have updated the title to represent this.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your confidence in being selected to evaluate the manuscript entitled: “Development of an urban landscape carbon calculator for Canada”. “The objective of this study is to assess the ability of urban plants to sequester carbon under a number of available management practices through the development and refinement of an accessible carbon calculator”.
This study is of great importance to the scientific community, as it raises the need to consider sustainable ways of evaluating urban vegetation.
In this context, I recommend that the manuscript can be revised with the following necessary corrections:
1 - Line 65-66 - Could you describe the most appropriate forms of maintenance.
2 - Line 88: Could discuss addressing harmful risk factors to human health related to air pollution, which would draw more attention from readers.
3 - Tables 1 to 8 need better interpretation in the text. I need you to do this, just the presence of these tables does not symbolize analysis or discussion, they have to be explained in the manuscript text.
4 - It is necessary to mention in the conclusion the possibility of future studies on a global scale.
5 - I didn't find any problems in English.
Author Response
Comments to the Authors
Thank you for your confidence in being selected to evaluate the manuscript entitled: “Development of an urban landscape carbon calculator for Canada”. “The objective of this study is to assess the ability of urban plants to sequester carbon under a number of available management practices through the development and refinement of an accessible carbon calculator”.
This study is of great importance to the scientific community, as it raises the need to consider sustainable ways of evaluating urban vegetation.
In this context, I recommend that the manuscript can be revised with the following necessary corrections:
1 - Line 65-66 - Could you describe the most appropriate forms of maintenance.
Added.
2 - Line 88: Could discuss addressing harmful risk factors to human health related to air pollution, which would draw more attention from readers.
While agreed I am not sure how this relates to the main focus of carbon sequestration which is not a human health risk in the form of air pollution.
3 - Tables 1 to 8 need better interpretation in the text. I need you to do this, just the presence of these tables does not symbolize analysis or discussion, they have to be explained in the manuscript text.
Added.
4 - It is necessary to mention in the conclusion the possibility of future studies on a global scale.
This has been added to the conclusion.
5 - I didn't find any problems in English.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the Authors
The study of “Development of an urban landscape carbon calculator for Canada” by Corey Flude et al assessed the ability of urban plants to sequester carbon through the development and refinement of an accessible carbon calculator. Firstly, the writing of the Abstract was not detailed enough, and the readers did not get enough information from the Abstract. Secondly, the whole paper mainly analyzed urban plant carbon sinks, but does not include shrubs due to lack of relevant data. I thought that the analysis was missing. This paper can only be used for reference by local authorities and lacks universality. Finally, the structure of the introduction was relatively chaotic, there was more paragraphs, lack of emphasis, and the lack of logical relationship between paragraphs. Therefore, the author needs to revise the paper carefully.
L10, is
L10-12, the two sentences are repetitive, you should increase contents about the importance of carbon sequestration, etc.
The authors need readjust the of structure the section of Abstract. After I read the abstract, I can not capture the useful information, such as, how you do this calculator? What/which is the available urban plant data? How to demonstrate it is an effective tool? Etc. Readers need to briefly know these information in the part of Abstract.
Keywords should increase and modify, it is not appropriate at present.
L24, delete a
L31-31, the largest characteristic of urban plants is serious human interference.
L41, This is different than urban trees, ….. I can not understand the structure. You also said earlier that the carbon storage of urban trees, this sentence denied. Is my understanding wrong, or there is a grammatical error?
What is the relationship between urban trees and turfgrass, how to adjust their overview in the text, highlight the key points. Now the introduction is a bit confusing.
At present, the introduction has a large number of paragraphs, which should be reduced, and the coherence between paragraphs should be paid attention, and the logical relationship should be made clear.
L129-131, I suggest that list the differences between the two studies.
L273, “Trees are not limited by the saturation of soil sinks as they tend to sequester their carbon in wood and not in the soil” I do not agree with that, it is too absolute.
L287, “This should be considered because the calculator is designed for making informed decisions for these specific uses.” I suggest the sentence should be mentioned in the introduction and method. A lot of data is not available, and calculators are not suitable for every situation.
L399, unchanged = stable
L403-406 long sentences.
L417-421, This paragraph doesn't belong here.
L423, In this paper, the author mainly considered urban trees and lawn grass, not include shrubs due to the lack of relevant data. Therefore, you could not use urban plants to cover everything when you're writing. In addition, this study is only applicable to the Ontario, Canada, not the whole world, which may provide data support for local government departments.
The literatures were not new enough.
Author Response
Comments to the Authors
The study of “Development of an urban landscape carbon calculator for Canada” by Corey Flude et al assessed the ability of urban plants to sequester carbon through the development and refinement of an accessible carbon
calculator. Firstly, the writing of the Abstract was not detailed enough, and the readers did not get enough information from Abstract. Secondly, the whole paper mainly analyzed urban plant carbon sinks, but does not include shrubs due to lack of relevant data. I thought that the analysis was missing. This paper can only be used for reference by local authorities and lacks universality. Finally, the structure of the introduction was relatively chaotic, there was more paragraphs, lack of emphasis, and the lack of logical relationship between
paragraphs. Therefore, the author needs to revise the paper carefully.
L10, is
The subject of the sentence is plural (urban plants), so the correct verb is are.
L10-12, the two sentences are repetitive, you should increase contents about the importance of carbon sequestration, etc. The authors need readjust the of structure the section of Abstract. After I read the abstract, I can not capture the useful information, such as, how you do this calculator? What/which is the available urban plant data? How to demonstrate it is an effective tool? Etc. Readers need to
briefly know these information in the part of Abstract. Keywords should increase and modify, it is not appropriate at present.
These lines were reworded
The abstract was reworded and a sentence was added to satisfy the reviewers concerns.
L24, delete a
This has been removed from the sentence.
L31-31, the largest characteristic of urban plants is serious human interference.
Current wording was maintained
L41, This is different than urban trees, ….. I can not understand the structure. You also said earlier that the carbon storage of urban trees, this sentence denied. Is my understanding wrong, or there is a grammatical error? What is the relationship between urban trees and turfgrass, how to adjust their overview in the text, highlight the key points. Now the introduction is a bit confusing. At present, the introduction has a large number of paragraphs, which should be reduced, and the coherence between paragraphs should be paid attention, and the logical relationship should be made clear.
Line 41 edited for clarity. We believe paragraphs are helpful and hope the edits that have been made help with the clarity of the introduction.
L129-131, I suggest that list the differences between the two studies.
This was within the same study.
L273, “Trees are not limited by the saturation of soil sinks as they tend to sequester their carbon in wood and not in the soil” I do not agree with that, it is too absolute.
Changed
L287, “This should be considered because the calculator is designed for making informed decisions for these specific uses.” I suggest the sentence should be mentioned in the introduction and method. A lot of data is not available, and calculators are not suitable for every situation.
Sentence added to the introduction (first sentence of last paragraph)
L399, unchanged = stable
This has been changed in text.
L403-406 long sentences.
This has been changed in text.
L417-421, This paragraph doesn't belong here.
Moved to the general discussion area
L423, In this paper, the author mainly considered urban trees and lawn grass, not include shrubs due to the lack of relevant data. Therefore, you could not use urban plants to cover everything when you're writing. In addition, this study is only applicable to the Ontario, Canada, not the whole world, which may provide data support for local government departments.
The title has been changed to rectify this.
The literatures were not new enough.
The literature is using the studies that are available and regard past science as relevant unless it has been reputed by more current literature and in this case it has not. We believe all available pertinent literature is included regardless of age of study.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accetp in presente form
