Coarse Woody Debris and Carbon Stocks in Pine Forests after 50 Years of Recovery from Harvesting in Northeastern California

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of this article is to establish a carbon stock assessment at the forest scale. It focuses on all compartments, which is a commendable effort.

The work is based on a solid experimental set-up, with sampling that seems rigorous.

The results are interesting, showing a certain recovery of the forest, 50 years after a drastic thinning.

The approach to link these stocks to a flow between the different compartments, from biomass, to dead wood, to the soil, seems to me particularly innovative.

The article is clear, well constructed, the results nicely presented and easy to read. The discussion is rich.

I look forward to sharing this article with my colleagues when it will be published. Thank you for the preview!

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reported the changes in coarse woody debris and carbon stocks in pine forests after 50 years of recovery from harvesting in northeastern California. The results are interesting and can be useful for improving carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems in this region via reasonable forest management. This paper was clearly written, and the results could be nicely explained. It has a value for publication in the journal Forests following a minor revision. The following comments would be used for the authors' personal revisions.

1) At present the authors did not conform to the style of the journal Forests such as references (e.g. citation in the text and the reference section).

 

2) In the M&M section, the authors performed the drying of forest soils at 105 degrees for a constant weight. Following the drying of soil samples, the contents of soil total organic C and total N were determined. Here why did the authors select the oven-dried soil samples, rather than air-dry soil samples, for the measurements of soil total organic C and total N? For the readers, some necessary references should be added to support this selection for pre-treatment manners of soil samples.

 

3)  In the M&M section, the authors may explain the uncertainty of estimating carbon stocks in trees and different organs of the pine forest and in the 0-30-cm soils, which can further strengthen the interest of the readers.

 

4)  In Figure 8, the authors gave the overall of stand level carbon pools in the treatment and control plots of selected pine forests. For all selected components of the forest ecosystem, there were no significant differences in the carbon stocks. However, a significant difference in the carbon stock was observed in the forest ecosystem. Probably, this can, to some extent, result from the above-mentioned uncertainty of estimation. The authors may give some explanations in the text.   

 

5) At the end of the whole text, the authors reported that overall system C changes are small at years 50 following recovery from heavy harvest of the pine stands in northeastern California. However, as shown in Figure 8, there was a significant difference in the carbon stock of the pine forest ecosystem (e.g. Uncut control versus Harvest plots, 203.7 versus 188.0 Mg C ha-1). The authors may consider this difference for revisions. 

Author Response

Please see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
The manuscript needs improvement as suggested below:
1. The manuscript is not in the journal format. References should be written with numbering.
2. Grammatical errors and punctuation are seen in the manuscript. Needs correction.
3. Delete old references and add recent references in the introduction portion.
4. What was the year of study? Mention properly.
5. Add lat and long in figure 1.
6. Write the results and conclusion properly.
Regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx