Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Atmosphere from the Northern Peatlands Using the Wetland-DNDC Simulation Model: A Case Study of the Great Vasyugan Mire, Western Siberia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this is an interesting research that focuses on Greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere from northern peatlands by the Wetland-DNDC simulation model. The experiment design is reasonable. However, the manuscript needs careful revising paying attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to reader. The summary needs to be rewritten. Meanwhile, the figures are lack of descriptions of abscissa, ought to be modified clearly in the text. The interpretation of results needs to be clearer.

Author Response

However, the manuscript needs careful revising paying attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to reader. The summary needs to be rewritten. Meanwhile, the figures are lack of descriptions of abscissa, ought to be modified clearly in the text. The interpretation of results needs to be clearer.

Thanks for the comments. We have revised the text, improved the English grammar, and the summary has been significantly revised. In the introduction, the purpose of the research was more clearly indicated. The interpretation of the results was expanded, the figures were corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors!

The subject of the manuscript is relevant both for the region of study and for other regions. The material presented in the article is of great current interest useful for a wide range of researchers. I have a few comments to the text of the article. I hope that the authors will make the necessary changes.

1. The text (P.6 l.225) indicates: “Sphagnum mosses stand out (95-100%), of which 80% are Sphagnum fuscum…”, while in the diagram (Figure.5.) the upper part of the deposit is dominated by Sph. balticum.

2. In the text, the authors in the botanical description and in the scheme (Figure.5.) indicate the presence of Sp. magelianicum. According to modern ideas, taking into account the region of study, it should be identified as Sph. divinum or Sph. medium.

3. P.8 l.275-289. The text has nothing to do with the content of the article.

Author Response

The text (P.6 l.225) indicates: “Sphagnum mosses stand out (95-100%), of which 80% are Sphagnum fuscum…”, while in the diagram (Figure.5.) the upper part of the deposit is dominated by Sph. balticum.

Thank you. This is really important. Corrections have been made to the text of the manuscript, an additional reference to previously conducted studies is provided.

In the text, the authors in the botanical description and in the scheme (Figure.5.) indicate the presence of Sp. magelianicum. According to modern ideas, taking into account the region of study, it should be identified as Sph. divinum or Sph. medium.

Figure 5 corrected

P.8 l.275-289. The text has nothing to do with the content of the article.

Sorry, this is an annoying oversight. The paragraph has been removed.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere from northern peatlands by the Wetland-DNDC simulation model: a case study of the Great Vasyugan Mire, Western Siberia” simulated the GHG emission using the Wetland-DNDC model in a peatland in Western Siberia. This paper is interesting and provided a practice in estimating the GHG emission in north Peatland. Overall, the paper is organized well, except some minor modifications.

 

Here is the specific comments,

Line 313, please lowercase the “A+M” and check throughout the manuscript

Line 326, I can not understand the equation

Line 331, what’s the difference between ground-CO2 and soil-CO2?

Line 337, the equation RA+M=CO2 and GPP=grossPsn(NEE=CO2-GrossPsn) is unclear

Author Response

Line 313, please lowercase the “A+M” and check throughout the manuscript

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. Changes throughout the manuscript were made

Line 326, I can not understand the equation

This is a fair remark, to make it easier to understand the equations and the text, the notation of variables has been corrected and a Section of Abbreviation has been added.

Line 331, what’s the difference between ground-CO2 and soil-CO2?

Changes throughout the manuscript were made

Line 326, I can not understand the equation

This is a fair remark, to make it easier to understand the equations and the text, the notation of variables has been corrected and a Section of Abbreviation has been added.

Line 331, what’s the difference between ground-CO2 and soil-CO2?

Clarification added to the manuscript: "ground vegetation CO2"

Line 337, the equation RA+M=CO2 and GPP=GrossPsn(NEE=CO2-GrossPsn) is unclear

RM (microbial respiration) notation changed and Section of Abbreviation added.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled Greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere from northern

peatlands by the Wetland-DNDC simulation model: a case study of the Great Vasyugan Mire, Western Siberia after Major Revision.

 

In my opinion, the subject of this work is relevant for the Journal Atmosphere after Major revisions and medium corrections.  

 

The topic of the paper is very interesting and important, especially in the content of Greenhouse gas emissions and peatlands

 

The Journal Atmosphere MDPI wants interesting and quality papers.

 

First, before all the paper has the next sections and sub-sections (i.e. Abstract, Materials and Methods, Study area, Sampling Design, Model Wetland-DNDC, Climate, Hydrology, Vegetation, Peat deposit, Model input values, Assessment of modelling performance, The Tale coefficient, Results, Modelled outputs, Discussion, Sensitivity assessment, Conclusions, etc.)

 

First, I recommend that the authors add Section of Abbreviation before the section of Conclusion because of many short terms and many specific scientific words within text.

 

 

 

The section Abstract

 

The section of Abstract is necessary to extend with few sentence which explain the main results of this research. Especially one sentence which explain why the authors used to investigated Western Siberia in Russia, because Russia has many peatlands in other territories.

 

The section Introduction

 

 

I strongly recommend to the authors to add more text into this section. The rank of this Journal wants best research and valuable papers. This section in my opinion is overall short and must be mandatorily extended. In this section the authors must add more sentences (references) which explain carbon storage at regional and national scale in connection with peatlands vegetation. Also for peatlands vegetation it is not crucial only influence of climate and atmospheric conditions there are many other factors which connected by anthropogenic activity. Because of all listed I recommend to the authors to add two valuable references to extend and explain this state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 - Aleksandar Valjarević, Tatjana Djekić, Vladica Stevanović, Radomir Ivanović, Bojana Jandziković, GIS numerical and remote sensing analyses of forest changes in the Toplica region for the period of 1953–2013, Applied Geography, Volume 92,2018, Pages 131-139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.01.016.

 

-Poeplau, C.; Schroeder, J.; Gregorich, E.; Kurganova, I. Farmers’ Perspective on Agriculture and Environmental Change in the Circumpolar North of Europe and America. Land 2019, 8, 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8120190.

 

 

This part also can compare another research previously published.

 

 

 

The Section Materials and Method

 

This section also must be mandatorily extended.

 

 

Figure 1, must be little bit redesigned. First, the authors must put larger geographical coordinates to be more visible. Is possible to put border of the research area please do this!!!

 

Line 100, CO2 explain better or cite this state.

 

The sub-section Model Wetland-DNDC

 

In this section the authors must explain better regional properties of this research. In this section the authors explained general properties but it is necessary to inform autorships about peatland investigated in this research.

 

 

 

Sub-section Climate

 

Line 174 the authors used to research climate from 1970-2019, to explain climate properties. I know that one climate cycle has 30 years, because the authors didn’t use 2020 year too? Explain?

 

 

 

Sub-section Hydrology

 

This section could be most important for this research and could be mandatory extended.

Sub-section Peat deposit

 

This section is crucial for this work and authors must extend and explain better peat deposit and properties.

 

Subs-section Assessment of modelling performance

 

Equation must be quoted

 

Equation must be written in MathType or similar simulator.

 

Sub-section The Tale coefficient

 

The same for this Equation

 

 

 

Section Discussion

 

In this section the authors must add more sentences which described similar and before published research. Also is not clearly explained how the authors compare this research with similar methodology and procedures.

 

 

 

Section Conclusion

 

 

 

The section must be mandatory extended it is too short.

 

The authors must have answered on followed questions?

 

Why this research is important?

 

Did the authors found the connection between peatlands and clmate properties only for Western Siberia or for whole Siberia?

 

Please, add more main results in the section of Conclusion.  

 

 

This paper has the potential to be published. The authors did a lot of things within this manuscript. The paper is very interesting and scientifically correct. 

 

 

In the end, I recommend Major Revision.

 

Good luck to the authors 

The Reviewer#2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First, I recommend that the authors add Section of Abbreviation before the section of Conclusion because of many short terms and many specific scientific words within text.

Thank you, this is a useful note for us. Added Section of Abbreviation to facilitate understanding of equations and text.

The section of Abstract is necessary to extend with few sentence which explain the main results of this research. Especially one sentence which explain why the authors used to investigated Western Siberia in Russia, because Russia has many peatlands in other territories.

The section of Abstract has been amended to include this important information.

I strongly recommend to the authors to add more text into this section. The rank of this Journal wants best research and valuable papers. This section in my opinion is overall short and must be mandatorily extended. In this section the authors must add more sentences (references) which explain carbon storage at regional and national scale in connection with peatlands vegetation. Also for peatlands vegetation it is not crucial only influence of climate and atmospheric conditions there are many other factors which connected by anthropogenic activity. Because of all listed I recommend to the authors to add two valuable references to extend and explain this state.

The section Introduction has been expanded, more references have been added that explain the features of the formation and structure of the Great Vasyugan Mire and the accumulation of C reserves. Links to recommended authors added. The necessary emphasis is placed on the fact that the studied area of the swamp is in its natural state and has not been disturbed by anthropogenic activity.

Line 100, CO2 explain better or cite this state.

Necessary changes have been made, the measurement technique is described in more detail.

The sub-section Model Wetland-DNDC. In this section the authors must explain better regional properties of this research. In this section the authors explained general properties but it is necessary to inform autorships about peatland investigated in this research.

The section has been expanded, additional information and links to studies of peat bogs in Western Siberia have been added.

Sub-section Climate Line 174 the authors used to research climate from 1970-2019, to explain climate properties. I know that one climate cycle has 30 years, because the authors didn’t use 2020 year too? Explain?

Thank you. Indeed, this is our mistake. Changes have been made, a period of 30 years has been considered.

Sub-section Hydrology. This section could be most important for this research and could be mandatory extended.

The section has been updated. In addition to the water table, a reference is made to a special study that deals with hydrology in detail.

Sub-section Peat deposit. This section is crucial for this work and authors must extend and explain better peat deposit and properties.

Changes have been made, the composition of the peat of the study area has been corrected. Links to studies of peat bogs are given.

Subs-section Assessment of modelling performance. Equation must be quoted. Equation must be written in MathType or similar simulator.

The text of the manuscript is amended, the equations are corrected and numbered. The equations are written in the formula editor.

Section Conclusion. The section must be mandatory extended it is too short. The authors must have answered on followed questions? Why this research is important? Did the authors found the connection between peatlands and clmate properties only for Western Siberia or for whole Siberia? Please, add more main results in the section of Conclusion. 

Thank you, really the conclusionы is too short. The section has been updated. We expanded the section and added additional information about the need for the study and its results.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, I think  the revised manuscript has improved, it can be considered to be accepted.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript Greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere from northern peatlands by the Wetland-DNDC simulation model: a case study of the Great Vasyugan Mire, Western Siberia. The authors answered all of my comments and corrected all of the mistakes within the text.

 

In my opinion, this manuscript can be accepted in its present form. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

The Reviewer #3