Analysis of Soil Carbon Stock Dynamics by Machine Learning—Polish Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This article has been revised and I propose to adopt it.
Author Response
Thank you for the review.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The corrections have been made by the authors.
Author Response
Thank you for the review.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
There are a few minor English language fixes to be made, but nothing serious.
I am not an expert in machine learning, so I am unable to comment intelligenly on much of the methodolgy.
I appreciated the effort to describe Results and put them in context in Discussion.
Generally I would not regard a model that returned a 0.05 R2 value as noteworthy, however, compared to the studies cited in the Discussion, that value seems like an improvement.
In light of the ability of your model and methodology to improve on existing efforts in modeling in this area, I find that your work is valuable.
You will find attached edits that I made or suggested.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The opening sentence was nearly incomprehensible, but aside from that, there were few issues, and none were major.
Author Response
Point 1: There are a few minor English language fixes to be made, but nothing serious. You will find attached edits that I made or suggested..
Response 1: We are grateful for pointing out the numerous language errors in the text and for proposing corrections. In most cases (lines 27, 28, 271, 404, and Table 1), we applied the proposed corrections. In the case of the first sentence (lines 22-23) and sentences in lines 215-217 (now in lines 216-220), they have been slightly rephrased to make it easier to understand and correct linguistically. Information about the statistical software used was shifted (lines 257-258) to methodology (lines 210-211) according to the suggestion.
Only references to figures have not been changed (suggestion in line 112) because the full form, that is, “Figure 1” instead of the abbreviation “Fig. 1”, is recommended and used in Land MDPI.
Point 2: I appreciated the effort to describe Results and put them in context in Discussion.
Generally I would not regard a model that returned a 0.05 R2 value as noteworthy, however, compared to the studies cited in the Discussion, that value seems like an improvement.
In light of the ability of your model and methodology to improve on existing efforts in modeling in this area, I find that your work is valuable.
Response 2: Thank you for your review.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, based on machine learning, soil carbon storage dynamics were carried out in typical regions of Poland. I have some suggestions for changes:
1. What are the improvements or advantages of the model proposed in this paper compared with other models?
2. How accurate is the model? Is the accuracy of the model verified?
3. Please further summarize the application conditions of the model and the problems that may occur under different conditions.
4. What are the advantages of the model established in this paper or what needs to be improved?
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Analysis of soil carbon stock dynamics by machine learning Polish case study" was thoroughly reviewed. Here are the comments:
1) The statistical methods used in the manuscript are interesting, especially the Lasso regression.
2) The methodology and results of this research can be useful for other researchers.
3) The way of writing sentences needs to be revised because long sentences were seen a lot. For example, the introduction section starts with a one-sentence paragraph consisting of 50 words! Another example is a sentence of 63 words at the end of the second page.
4) Nowadays, in scientific writing, long sentences should be avoided. I have highlighted some long sentences in the attached file. A famous rule in scientific writing is: One sentence = one idea
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
1) The way of writing sentences needs to be revised because long sentences were seen a lot. For example, the introduction section starts with a one-sentence paragraph consisting of 50 words! Another example is a sentence of 63 words at the end of the second page.
2) Nowadays, in scientific writing, long sentences should be avoided. I have highlighted some long sentences in the attached file. A famous rule in scientific writing is: One sentence = one idea
