Carbon Fluxes from Soils of “Ladoga” Carbon Monitoring Site Leningrad Region, Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Line 32 CO2 and Line 131 CO2, CH4 and H2O: Numbers should be subscript.

2. Table 1 No.6 plant communities, please use English instead of Russian.

3. The observation time is only one day and is not representative.

4. The discussion section is missing and should be supplemented.

5. Line184-195, relevant evidence only comes from literature and lacks data support from this study.

6. What is the main contribution of this study?

7. Key scientific issues not clearly stated.

8. This study lacks innovation.

9. This study lacks innovation and lacks deeper analysis and discussion, such as the key factors affecting carbon emissions from three different land use types.

Author Response

Response to a review of the manuscript “Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia.”

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, they were completely taken into account, which improved the quality of the article for publication in Journal.

Text that has been changed is marked by yellow color.

General comments:

1. Line 32 CO2 and Line 131 CO2, CH4 and H2O: Numbers should be subscript.

Response: Thank you! It was corrected.

2. Table 1 No.6 plant communities, please use English instead of Russian.

Response: Thank you! It was corrected.

3. The observation time is only one day and is not representative.

Response: Thank you! The research was carried out in just one day, but the data obtained are unique for the "Ladoga" carbon monitoring site and the area where soils form due to transitioning to a fallow state, wetland soils, as well as zonal soils of the boreal zone.

4. The discussion section is missing and should be supplemented.

Response: Thank you! The Result and Discussion section was fully reworked.

5. Line184-195, relevant evidence only comes from literature and lacks data support from this study.

Response: Thank you! Yes, we combined the Result and Discussion sections, and discuss the evidence about carbon fluxes in forest zone.

6. What is the main contribution of this study? Key scientific issues not clearly stated. This study lacks innovation.

Response: Thank you! We reworked Abstract, Introduction and Result and Discussion section to improve the quality of article.

7. This study lacks innovation and lacks deeper analysis and discussion, such as the key factors affecting carbon emissions from three different land use types.

Response: Thank you! We reworked the Abstract, Introduction, MM and Discussion sections.

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal: atmosphere

Manuscript ID: atmosphere-2880445

Title: Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia

 Dear Editor,

 I have read the manuscript entitled "Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia" submitted to atmosphere. In this study, the authors monitored CO₂ and CH₄ in various field conditions in the Ladoga region of Russia. It is clearly stated in the literature that these variables are important parameters for climate change. Therefore, their measurement is also very important. Despite its limited scope, I think the study is considered worthy of publication in this context. However, I find it appropriate to request a major revision at this stage. It would be appropriate to consider the following suggestions before the publication of the study in the atmosphere journal.

 Major

 * The first sentence in the abstract section is crucial to emphasize the significance of the study; however, it is advisable to relate the findings obtained within the scope of the study with this sentence in the final part of the abstract.

 * "How the carbon cycle changes during successional change of former agriculture lands and wetland plant communities remains poorly studied." The placement of this sentence within the section where the study findings are presented in the abstract is not appropriate. Furthermore, it is also not meaningful. Please remove it.

 * CH4, CH₄, CO2, CO₂  Please check the subscripts and superscripts within the article.

 * Line 37: [1] [3], [1,3]

 * Line 50-55: Please avoid long sentences

* Line 88: cmonitoring, monitoring

* The reason for the different codings of the stations identified within the scope of the study is not understood. If there is a specific reason, it should be explained. If not, a sequential naming convention should be preferred.

* It has been stated that measurements were conducted within specific time intervals on November 9, 2023. However, the reason for choosing this date and time has not been explained. It is not possible for me to make a seasonal, hourly, or daily comparison. Please clarify this section.

* Line 123-125: It has been stated that at some points, two measurements were taken, while at others, only one measurement was conducted. Please explain the reason for this in the manuscript.

* Line 151-155: The statements provided in this section do not contain any findings. The reason for writing this is not understood.

*Line 160: FCO2-  Please modify it.

* The discussion provided in the Results section is very limited. To further highlight the significance of the study, it is recommended to conduct more extensive discussion. Additionally, only a small number of references have been cited within the scope of the study. Please conduct a more in-depth literature review and provide the Discussion section under a separate heading.

 * In the conclusions section, it is crucial to reiterate the originality, necessity, and practicality of the current study. Simultaneously, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations and suggest potential avenues for future research. Place emphasis on clearly defining the beneficiaries of the findings, addressing any study limitations, and offering detailed insights into potential directions for future research.

 *The relevant citations from the journal atmosphere are strongly recommended.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to a review of the manuscript “Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia.”

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, they were completely taken into account, which improved the quality of the article for publication in Journal.

Text that has been changed is marked by yellow color.

General comments:

1. The first sentence in the abstract section is crucial to emphasize the significance of the study; however, it is advisable to relate the findings obtained within the scope of the study with this sentence in the final part of the abstract.

Response: Thank you! We reworked text of the article and increase the quality of the work.

2. "How the carbon cycle changes during successional change of former agriculture lands and wetland plant communities remains poorly studied." The placement of this sentence within the section where the study findings are presented in the abstract is not appropriate. Furthermore, it is also not meaningful. Please remove it.

Response: Thank you! It has been removed.

3. CH4, CH4, CO2, CO2 Please check the subscripts and superscripts within the article.

Response: Thank you! It has been changed.

4. Line 37: [1] [3], [1,3]

Response: Thank you! It has been changed

5. Line 50-55: Please avoid long sentences

Response: Thank you! The sentences have been reworked.

6. Line 88: cmonitoring, monitoring

Response: Thank you! It has been corrected

7. The reason for the different codings of the stations identified within the scope of the study is not understood. If there is a specific reason, it should be explained. If not, a sequential naming convention should be preferred.

Response: Thank you! We changed plot ID to numbers (1-8).

8. It has been stated that measurements were conducted within specific time intervals on November 9, 2023. However, the reason for choosing this date and time has not been explained. It is not possible for me to make a seasonal, hourly, or daily comparison. Please clarify this section.

Response: Thank you! We reworked the MM sections and added information about strategy of work.

9. Line 123-125: It has been stated that at some points, two measurements were taken, while at others, only one measurement was conducted. Please explain the reason for this in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you! We added explanation in MM section.

10. Line 151-155: The statements provided in this section do not contain any findings. The reason for writing this is not understood.

Response: Thank you! The section has been reworked.

11. Line 160: FCO2- Please modify it.

Response: Thank you! It has been modified.

12. The discussion provided in the Results section is very limited. To further highlight the significance of the study, it is recommended to conduct more extensive discussion. Additionally, only a small number of references have been cited within the scope of the study. Please conduct a more in-depth literature review and provide the Discussion section under a separate heading.

Response: Thank you! We improve the Result and Discussion section

13. In the conclusions section, it is crucial to reiterate the originality, necessity, and practicality of the current study. Simultaneously, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations and suggest potential avenues for future research. Place emphasis on clearly defining the beneficiaries of the findings, addressing any study limitations, and offering detailed insights into potential directions for future research.

Response: Thank you! We reworked the Conclusions section.

14. The relevant citations from the journal atmosphere are strongly recommended.

Response: Thank you! The References section has been improved.

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer Report for the Manuscript: atmosphere-2880445

Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia

Journal Name: Journal of Atmosphere

REVIEWER REPORT

Abstract and Keywords

1-     The method needs to be more specified in this section. The methodology along with analytical tools used need to be mentioned in this section

2- The abstract has not been well and scientifically organized as it, for instance, refers to the literature review in the abstract (lines 11 and 12) while that is the matter of literature review and theoretical background section

Introduction

3-     This section lacks a comprehensive literature review particularly studies that have been done on the carbon fluxes from soils in similar cases around the world.

4-      This sections also suffer from a critical approach to the state of the art in the research area so that it can highlight the contributions of the present study to the concurrent literature

5-     A compelling argument is needed on the root causes of the carbon cycle changes in agricultural lands

Presentation

6-     Figure 1 is vague and it is better for the author to draw a clear map showing the exact situation of the case study

Methods

Analysis and results

8-     The structure of this section is more like a report instead of scientific analytical text which is prevalent in articles. Therefore, it is highly recommendable to reorganize the section based on a scientific approach so that the text would be changed to article section than a report chapter.

9-     The conclusion section is rather weak and insufficiently addressed. This section is supposed to develop the state of the art in the field and have contributions to the literature

Policy implications

10- This section seems to be necessary due to the importance of the results of the paper for policymakers and global environmental activities.

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Response to a review of the manuscript “Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia.”

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, they were completely taken into account, which improved the quality of the article for publication in Journal.

Text that has been changed is marked by yellow color.

1. The method needs to be more specified in this section. The methodology along with analytical tools used need to be mentioned in this section

Response: Thank you! We improve the MM section.

2. The abstract has not been well and scientifically organized as it, for instance, refers to the literature review in the abstract (lines 11 and 12) while that is the matter of literature review and theoretical background section.

Response: Thank you! We reworked the Abstract section.

3. This section lacks a comprehensive literature review particularly studies that have been done on the carbon fluxes from soils in similar cases around the world. This sections also suffer from a critical approach to the state of the art in the research area so that it can highlight the contributions of the present study to the concurrent literature. A compelling argument is needed on the root causes of the carbon cycle changes in agricultural lands.

Response: Thank you! We reworked Introduction section.

4. Figure 1 is vague and it is better for the author to draw a clear map showing the exact situation of the case study

Response: Thank you! We reworked the Figure 1.

5. There are many statements in section 2.3 Ecosystem carbon flux measurement which need to be justified by the latest scientific works.

Response: Thank you! We reworked MM section.

6. The structure of this section is more like a report instead of scientific analytical text which is prevalent in articles. Therefore, it is highly recommendable to reorganize the section based on a scientific approach so that the text would be changed to article section than a report chapter. The conclusion section is rather weak and insufficiently addressed. This section is supposed to develop the state of the art in the field and have contributions to the literature.

Response: Thank you! We reworked the Result and Discussion section.

7. This section seems to be necessary due to the importance of the results of the paper for policymakers and global environmental activities.

Response: Thank you! We improved Conclusions section.

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is dedicated to green house gas emission measurements in the number of representative points within the Ladoga carbon monitoring site. The results allow to discern characteristic trends in gas fluxes described as wether sinks or source in various soil environments. The discovered features are quite clear for an understanding by reader and valuable for both biogeochemistry and climatology issues. The text is much shorter than average reserach manuscript, but the research itself looks quite complete. the minor comments mostly on small mistakes and misprints throughout the text are given as comments in the attached pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to a review of the manuscript “Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia.”

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, they were completely taken into account, which improved the quality of the article for publication in Journal.

Text that has been changed is marked by yellow color.

We've expanded such sections as Abstract, Introduction, MM, Result and Discussion, Conclusions and Figures.

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Atmosphere.

Author Response

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have implemented all the suggested changes. It is appropriate to publish the manuscript in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.

Reviewer 3 Report

I can see some improvements in the paper. However, some comments remained untouched as follows;

The abstract section still needs some work for be a scientific one 

-- Figure 1 is vague and the author should draw a clear map showing the exact situation of the case study- a map in which the country, region, and study area are presented

- Policy recommendations section needs to be added 

- 

Moderate editing of the English language required

Author Response

Response to a review of the manuscript “Carbon fluxes from soils of “Ladoga” carbon monitoring site Leningrad region, Russia.”

Dear reviewer!

Thank you for your comments, they were completely taken into account, which improved the quality of the article for publication in Journal.

Text that has been changed is marked by red color.

1. The abstract section still needs some work for be a scientific one

Response: Thank you! We added additional information in abstract section.

2. Figure 1 is vague and the author should draw a clear map showing the exact situation of the case study- a map in which the country, region, and study area are presented

Response: Thank you! We reworked Insert map in Figure 1. Figure 1, together with Figure 2 now present the necessary location and environmental information.

3. Policy recommendations section needs to be added

Response: Thank you! We added section 2.4 in MM section with policy recommendations.

Thank you for work of our article.

Sincerely,

Professor of Saint-Petersburg State University, Evgeny V. Abakumov.

Junior researcher of Saint-Petersburg State University, Vyacheslav I. Polyakov.