The Effect of Thinning Management on the Carbon Density of the Tree Layers in Larch–Birch Mixed Natural Secondary Forests of the Greater Khingan Range, Northeastern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I review this manuscript “The Effect of thinning on the carbon density of the tree layer in larch-birch mixed natural secondary forests” and found that this is an interesting issue in forestry fields. Moreover, I have some special comments as follows.
1. Title used carbon density. Authors should define this key word in Introduction chapter because it is similar to “carbon sequestration” and “carbon storage”.
2. Each equation, Table or Table is individual, therefore it should be individually noted. Such as, the title of (a) and (b) of Figure 2 should be added because audiences might not understand what is (a) and (b) (Other Figures also). Notes of Equation (2) should be more detailed.
3. I could not clearly understand the study purpose of this study. Usually, thinning treatment should present stands after thinning to 12 years after thinning not only stands 12 years after thinning. Therefore, whole text should be improved. The stands before and after thinning should be described in Materials and Methods.
4. I also suggested that authors could consider tree and stand levels to show finding of this study.
5. I could not understand why thinning intensity affects carbon content? (Table 3 Carbon content of organs of tree species under tending thinning intensity)
6. Figure 3 is tree number? I suggested that the ratios of biomass of this two species also should be added.
7. The status of after thinning might result in Figures 4, 5 and 7. Therefore, the information of after thinning should be contained in this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1：
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your comment with A point-to-point response. We upload the specific amendments to you with the attachment. The file name is "Respond Reviewer 1.dox".
Once again, thank you for reviewing our manuscript, and have a great day ahead.
Looking forward to your good news
Yours
Meng Yongbin
Northeast Forestry University
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors used in the abstract two abbreviations that were not previously explained: CK group and DBH. Even if for a specialist their meaning is known, they must still be listed in full in the text with the abbreviation in parentheses, in the first place where they appear.
On page 3 line 115 the name of the mountain "yilehuli" must begin with a capital letter.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2：
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript according to your comment with A point-to-point response. We upload the specific amendments to you with the attachment. The file name is "Respond Reviewer 2.dox".
Once again, thank you for reviewing our manuscript, and have a great day ahead.
Looking forward to your good news
Yours
Meng Yongbin
Northeast Forestry University
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I reviewed the revised manuscript and the document of authors’ reply. Most of my suggestions have been improved. I feel that this revised manuscript is suitable for publication in Forests. I have no further comment for it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1：
Thank you very much for you again review my manuscript revision. We deeply appreciate your recognition of our research work
Once again, thank you for reviewing our manuscript, and have a great day ahead.
Looking forward to your good news
Yours
Meng Yongbin
Northeast Forestry University
