Review Reports
- Yong Wu1,2,
- Jiechen Wu1 and
- Shennan Kuang3
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article addresses the important issue of the carbon benefits from a comprehensive soil and water conservation management. The topic is relevant to the global agenda of climate change mitigation and carbon-neutral strategies. In general, the paper is well-structured, but several weaknesses remain, such as unclear research objectives, insufficiently robust method selection due to minimal justification, and limited soil sampling depth. The results and discussion demonstrate overly simplistic assumptions, and most significantly, across all sections, there is a lack of citation/literature support for the statements, secondary data, and methods used. Therefore, this manuscript should be rewritten as it requires thorough revision, taking into account the following review findings:
Introduction
Line 50-59: Use appropriate citations and references. Reference [1] only covers a local case in Jiangxi Province.
L.109–113: The maize carbon footprint is not a relevant example. The authors should provide relevant comparative examples linking soil and water conservation measures.
L.114-136: The research objectives are not clearly stated. It is unusual for this section to have no citations at all. RTK Navigation
Methods
L.128: Are you sure no citations are needed in this section? Given the large amount of secondary data presented.
L.168-170: Provide existing land cover maps for the study area.
L.198: There is no justification for selecting two land cover types as sampling areas. Historical data is needed to strengthen the validity of the baseline.
L.209, 320: What is the author's justification for choosing this interpolation method? Several methods have advantages in carbon stock interpolation, such as regression-kriging, Random Forest, etc.
L.225: The authors used the Ziyuan-3 satellite in 2024, even though the study ended in 2023. This needs to be clarified.
L.253: Explain what RTK stands for for the first time.
L.267-275: Each method description must be accompanied by a citation.
L.269: Why were soil samples taken only at a depth of 0–30 cm? Don't IPCC standards recommend up to 1 m?
Results and Discussion
L.344–346: The assumption is too simplistic that soil carbon stocks in 2002 are the same as in 2023. Authors should include supporting literature or use soil carbon modeling (e.g., RothC).
L.395–397: Thinning resulted in the highest uptake rate, but the authors should discuss its long-term effects.
L.419–423: The authors should have mentioned the limitations of this study, as soil sampling was only conducted at a depth of 0–30 cm.
L.450 vs. L.537: Inconsistencies in the carbon contributions of vegetation vs. soil (39.5% vs. 60.5% and 51% vs. 49%).
Conclusions
L.484: This section is still too long and contains many repetitions of the study results. Authors should summarize the main points more concisely to address the stated research objectives. Avoid discussing technical details that should be included in the discussion section. The conclusion should focus on answering the research objectives, highlighting the study's main contributions, practical implications, limitations, and directions for further research.
L. 506–510: This conclusion suggests that area is the only dominant factor, even though other factors such as tree species, stand age, and management quality are also important.
L. 575–587: The recommendation is interesting, but it doesn't address the study's weaknesses (baseline, soil depth). Please link it more clearly to the study's limitations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- Some sentences are overly long, repetitive, and wordy, which reduces readability. Some technical terms are awkwardly translated, making them feel unnatural in academic English.
- Various terms such as carbon sink capacity, carbon storage, and net carbon sink should be operationally defined in the methods section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-The title is quite long, please shorten it.
-Lines 14-45: Abstract is too long. Please focus on the key findings.
-Lines 114-136: This paragraph is very confuse. What are the research gaps? What are the actual objectives? Please improve it.
-Lines 155-160: Which year of weather data were provided here?
-Lines 161-164: The values of these soil properties should be presented?
-Lines 267-275: More details for soil sampling are needed. How to analysis soil bulk density and nutrients? What kind of soil nutrients?
-Lines 398-401: How the bamboo forest enhances carbon sink? This need the research support. Please see this paper
[https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081293]
-Lines 472-473: The slope and topology play the important role for carbon sink due to the erosion and runoff. Please mention and be noted about it. You can add “increasing SOC is the best strategy to minimize soil erodibility and erosion”. Please see this paper [https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020537]
-Conclusion is very long. What are the key findings based on the objectives?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Background on similar research works (Carbon Sink Benefits analysis) is missing in the introduction section.
- Briefly mention how this work is novel.
- Were projects implemented in 2001? What was the reason behind choosing this particular year as the starting point?
- Why is R2-value for modelling and validation lower (less than 0.85)? How can you say that the model you developed works for this scenario?
- How did you pick a baseline? Could you please elaborate on detail?
- Is there a way to present results in bar graphs or other visual aids instead of Tables 5, 6, & 7?
- Some sentences are way too long and complicated, can you simplify long sentences?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Two additional references could not be found. Please check again carefully, including other articles in their entirety:
Shi, Z.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, H. Recent Decade's Research Progress and Prospects on Soil Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation. Acta Pedologica Sinica 2020, 57, 1117-1127.
Peng, W.; Zhang, K.; Chen, Y.; et al. Study on Soil Property Changes After Converting Slope Farmland to Forestland on the Loess Plateau. J. Nat. Resour. 2005, 20 , 272-278.
- The conclusion is still too long, please make it more concise according to the first review's suggestion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx