Quantifying the Unvoiced Carbon Pools of the Nilgiri Hill Region in the Western Ghats Global Biodiversity Hotspot—First Report
, Cherukumalli Srinivasarao 2, Duraisamy Selvi 1, Subramanium Thiyageshwari 1, Thangavel Kalaiselvi 3, Aradhna Kumari 4, Santhosh Kumar Singh 5, Keisar Lourdusamy 6, Ramalingam Kumaraperumal 1, Victor Allan 7, Munmun Dash 1, P. Raja 8, U. Surendran 9 and Biswajit Pramanick 10,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript titled ‘’ Quantifying the Unvoiced Carbon Pools of the Nilgiri Hill Region in the Western Ghats Global Biodiversity Hotspot – (first report)’’ is a very interesting work in the case of soil-biochar-plant interaction with valuable results. However, there are some points that need to be corrected before further processing.
Abstract
Lines 31-32: We discovered, LUC significantly decreased the concentration of carbon pools in the altered ecosystems. -> how much was that decrease? In %.
Lines 21-31: Experimental explanation is too long. Please make it shorter. The maximum number of words for the Abstract should be 200!
Lines 31-38: Please bring some number in % or value for presenting results here.
Introduction
Line 65: 2mm -> 2 mm
Line 66 -> 0.053 mm (check it across the text and put a space between number and unit- I’m not going to mention it further).
Line 73: …soil quality (Chan et al. 2001; Nath et al. 2018). -> Check the reference style!
Material and Methods
Line 109: 25 °C to 1 °C -> ??? check the temperature range.
Line 114: weathered class (Caner et al. 2001). -> check the reference style
Line 120: −200C -> -20°C
Results:
Figure 2: Why there is NOT any significant sign on the top of the column? To better visualization of results and make an understandable comparison between different land uses, it needs to show differences between them with a, b, c, …
Figure 4 is unreadable and needs to be changed!
Table 2 -> please check the table style in ‘’instruction for authors’’.
Discussion
Lines 471-499: Here is one newly published paper that fits with your scope, also add it here: https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020459
Good luck!
Author Response
|
S.No |
Reviewer Comments |
Authors Response |
|
Abstract |
||
|
1. |
Lines 31-32: We discovered, LUC significantly decreased the concentration of carbon pools in the altered ecosystems. -> how much was that decrease? In %. |
As per the suggestion, we have now explained the percent decrease. |
|
2. |
Lines 21-31: Experimental explanation is too long. Please make it shorter. The maximum number of words for the Abstract should be 200! |
We agree with the comments of the reviewer. As per the suggestion, we have revisited and revised the abstract. |
|
3. |
Lines 31-38: Please bring some number in % or value for presenting results here. |
We have now added the values in %. |
|
Introduction |
||
|
4. |
Line 65: 2mm -> 2 mm |
We authors checked it across the manuscript and added the space between the number and the unit. |
|
5. |
Line 66 -> 0.053 mm (check it across the text and put a space between number and unit- I’m not going to mention it further). |
We are extremely sorry for this error and now, we have checked thoroughly to avoid these errors. |
|
6. |
Line 73: …soil quality (Chan et al. 2001; Nath et al. 2018). -> Check the reference style! |
We have updated the reference style as per the journal style. |
|
Material and Methods |
||
|
7. |
Line 109: 25 °C to 1 °C -> ??? check the temperature range. |
We have rechecked and updated the temperature range. |
|
8. |
Line 114: weathered class (Caner et al. 2001). -> check the reference style |
We, the authors, have updated the reference style. |
|
9. |
Line 120: −200C -> -20°C |
We are sorry for this mistake. We have corrected this, now. |
|
Results: |
||
|
10. |
Figure 2: Why there is NOT any significant sign on the top of the column? To better visualization of results and make an understandable comparison between different land uses, it needs to show differences between them with a, b, c, … |
We appreciate this valuable comment. We have updated the figures with the addition of a significant sign on the top of the column. |
|
11. |
Figure 4 is unreadable and needs to be changed! |
We have updated the figure 4 to a readable format. |
|
12. |
Table 2 -> please check the table style in ‘’instruction for authors’’. |
We have checked the table style in ‘’instruction for authors’ and modified the style of table 2. |
|
Discussion |
||
|
13. |
Lines 471-499: Here is one newly published paper that fits with your scope, also add it here: https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020459 |
We have updated the manuscript through the addition of a new reference (https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020459) |
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have undertaken a challenging and yet, timely study, which is very interesting to read.
In terms of language, the structure and punctuation have to be improved. In the manuscript sent for review, I have highlighted some places where improvements are needed. Additionally, the single sentences under sections 2.8 and 2.10 are somewhat to long. I suggest to split them for easy understanding.
It seems a little odd to have only the sub-heading for section 2.5. I suggest to either join it to a suitable sub-section or to flesh it out with some additional information.
Legends, axes, and other text in all figures must be made readable. They are too small when compared with the figure itself.
Figures 2 and 3, and Tables 1 and 2 - give the abbreviations within parenthesis since you have used them throughout the text.
Figure 4 - I suggest to make it landscape and fit to a full page to improve readability.
Line 380 - 394 - I am slightly skeptical about the mention of hypothesis at this stage, since it makes more sense to mention these at the beginning of the research - before the Methodology. I would like to request the authors to rethink this.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer
In response to your valuable comments and suggestions, the scientific information with relevant supporting data was incorporated and reorganized. Responses to your comments and suggestions are attached herewith for your kind consideration.
|
S.No |
Reviewer Comments |
Authors Response |
|
1. |
The single sentences under sections 2.8 and 2.10 are somewhat to long. I suggest to split them for easy understanding. |
As per the suggestion, we have revised sections 2.8 and 2.10 in the manuscript to an understandable form. |
|
2. |
It seems a little odd to have only the sub-heading for section 2.5. I suggest to either join it to a suitable sub-section or to flesh it out with some additional information. |
We have updated the manuscript by joining 2.5 to a suitable sub-section, as per the suggestion. |
|
3. |
Legends, axes, and other text in all figures must be made readable. They are too small when compared with the figure itself. |
We have reworked on all figures to a readable format. |
|
4. |
Figures 2 and 3, and Tables 1 and 2 - give the abbreviations within parenthesis since you have used them throughout the text. |
We have updated the manuscript with the addition of abbreviations within parenthesis for the figures 2 and 3, and Tables 1 and 2. |
|
5. |
Figure 4 - I suggest to make it landscape and fit to a full page to improve readability. |
We have updated the figure to a readable form |
|
6. |
Line 380 - 394 - I am slightly skeptical about the mention of hypothesis at this stage, since it makes more sense to mention these at the beginning of the research - before the Methodology. I would like to request the authors to rethink this. |
We are thankful for this valuable suggestion. We have revisited and updated the manuscript as per the respected reviewer’s comment. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
