Next Article in Journal
Functional Role of Extrafloral Nectar in Boreal Forest Ecosystems under Climate Change
Next Article in Special Issue
Roads Impact Tree and Shrub Productivity in Adjacent Boreal Peatlands
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing and Modeling Soil Detachment Capacity by Overland Flow in Forest and Woodland of Northern Iran
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inorganic Nitrogen Addition Affects Soil Respiration and Belowground Organic Carbon Fraction for a Pinus tabuliformis Forest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/f11010066
Review Report
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Warming Effects on Topsoil Organic Carbon and C:N:P Stoichiometry in a Subtropical Forested Landscape

Forests 2020, 11(1), 66; https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010066
by Yuqiao Su, Zhuoling Wu, Peiyun Xie, Lu Zhang and Hui Chen *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Forests 2020, 11(1), 66; https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010066
Submission received: 5 November 2019 / Revised: 24 December 2019 / Accepted: 4 January 2020 / Published: 6 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Carbon Dynamics under Changing Climate and Disturbance Regimes)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the paper was well written. The measurements taken were appropriate for the study conducted to answer the research questions. The main issue I have with the experimental design is that it was conducted in one location on one soil-type only. This limits the scientific value of the findings and it would be better if this study were repeated in different locations on different soils to determine whether the findings of this site are consistent with other similar sites.

The content of the research is interesting, and worthwhile pursuing. There has been some good work put in on the chosen site. The statistical tools used were appropriate, and apart from the issue that exists with data derived from a single location, the general premise of the work has good merit.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and evaluation. Please see the attachment for our replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

A relevant, well written and scientifically sound paper. Excellent language.

I have only two minor comments:

Lines 42–48 (and following lines): Three different symbols/fonts are used for ‘°C’. Authors should be consistent. There should also be space between a number and its unit (e.g. 1.5 °C). Correct font is used in Line 102 and Line 163.

Lines 147–148: The sentence “2.6. Soil sampling and laboratory determination” appears to be a misplaced heading.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and evaluation. Please see the attachment for our replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well written and every part of the manuscript is well presented. The topic of the manuscript is very contemporary and the findings would enrich the scientific content after publication. I read the manuscript twice and after that reading I found a few minor queries/suggestions which needs to be included in the revised manuscript before final publication. The comments are generally related to improvement in introductory and discussion part. And a few more elaboration in the methodology part is required at some points. The detailed comments are marked in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and evaluation. Please see the attachment for our replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop