Modelling Soil Organic Carbon as a Function of Topography and Stand Variables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very well drafted and comprehensive. The mansucript attempted to cover the study of the forested area of Nepal largely varying in altitude from 250 m asl to treeline. Sample size is very large and extensive covering all five geographical regions of the nation. The objectives and methodologies of the research is coherent and well described in the manuscript. Despite all efforts of authors, there are some areas to improve, which are suggested in the following:

1. There are some typos in the manuscript e.g. Authors introduction (Line 4): Typos Not 12 but 1,2

2. Line 74: Typos: Department not department

3. Line 237: Number of Table is not correct, it should Table 2 but not Table 1.

4. The variability of the predictor and response variables in the Table 2 is very high. What are the justification of such a high variability for SOC and AGTB? Please describe for better understanding of the large number of the audience.

5. Line 333: "51.5% of the forest in Nepal is accessible", it is described in the cited publication differently. This also includes the forests in Protected Areas system where forest management activities is not permitted. But, in the manuscript the samples were collected even from PAs. So, it is not relevant citation here.

6. The authors described their finding as SoC increases with the Altitude, which is proxy of lowering temperature as we go upward. However, there is not any corelation with the Aspect. That counters the claim of the authors, as the aspects in the hill has more impacts on the temperature compared to altitude. The Easter Aspect is found warmer than wester. Similarly, southern receives more solar radiation than North. Therefore, there is the impacts of the Aspects on the availability and distribution of the the species in Nepal. How will the authors put forward their general statements of increasing SoC with decreasing temperature in the light of the Aspects?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Unfortunately, the analyses performed are not properly described and used to test the planned hypothesis and fulfill the aims of this study. Perhaps the whole manuscript would benefit from formulating some clearer and more solid hypotheses.

Overall, this study could to high interest a wide audience related to the fields of soil features in mountain regions. Although the study has the potential to provide useful insights into soil features responses of elevation, there are major issues that need to be addressed before they can reconsider it for publication.

Good luck and congratulations for the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations

Author Response

Response to Reviewer (2nd round)

Point1: Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved (Reviewers view)

Response1: Thank you. In the introduction setion, research design (theretical framework, research questions) has been well addressed. Except for the first paragraph in the introduction section, all have been revised.

Point2: Are the methods adequately described? Can be improved (Reviewers view)

Response2: Thank you. We did not find the area in the method to improve it. We believe that the method described in our manuscript is sufficient.