Review Reports

Comments 1: Title: revise the title so that it reflects the content in the manuscript.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the manuscript title. In response, we have revised the title to better reflect the scope and content of the study, particularly its focus on DOC dynamics across mangrove restoration gradients under typhoon disturbance. The updated title is now highlighted in the revised manuscript using track changes for clarity.

Comments 2: Objective: write the objective clearly, make sure the objective in the abstract is in line with the objective in the introduction section. it should be in line with the first paragraph in the discussion section.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify and align the objective across the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections. In response, we have revised the objective statement to ensure consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript. The updated objective now explicitly reflects the study’s focus on DOC dynamics in mangrove ecosystems of varying restoration ages under typhoon disturbance. These changes have been incorporated into both the abstract and introduction, and are consistent with the framing in the first paragraph of the discussion. All revisions are highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 3: Methods: there are two subsections of experimental sites, so better to improve them.

Response 3: Thank you for the reviewer for pointing out the redundancy in the experimental site descriptions. In response, we have revised and consolidated the two subsections to improve clarity and flow. The updated section now provides a unified overview of all site types (primary mangrove, restored plots, and bare land), including their geographic locations, restoration histories, and ecological characteristics. These revisions are highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 4: Assessing impact is better using numerical statistical analysis. plots can be subjective.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for emphasizing the importance of numerical statistical analysis in assessing impact. In response, we have incorporated appropriate statistical tests to support our interpretations, including ANOVA method used. These results are now clearly presented in the revised manuscript alongside the visual plots to ensure objectivity and analytical rigor. All relevant updates have been highlighted in the resubmitted version using track changes.

Comments 5: Provide info on the occurrence of the typhoon. Do they take place in the same year?

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion to clarify the timing of the typhoon events. In response, we have added a statement in the Methods section indicating that all three typhoons—Maliksi, Yagi, and Trami—occurred within the same calendar year. This clarification helps contextualize the temporal framework of our sampling and analysis. The revision has been highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 6: Assessing impact is better using numerical statistical analysis. plots can be subjective.

Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer for pointing out the need to clarify the statistical notation in Table 3. In response, we have added a clear note in the table caption indicating that the values (e.g., 26.1 ± 1.5) represent the mean and standard deviation. This clarification ensures transparency and consistency in data presentation. The revision has been highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 7: Table 3 should be in subsection 2.1.

Response 7: To improve clarity and coherence in the Methods section, Table 3 has been relocated to subsection 2.1, as suggested. This adjustment ensures closer alignment with the description of experimental sites and sampling design. We have also added explanatory text to contextualize the variables presented in the table. All changes are clearly marked in the revised manuscript using track changes.

Comments 8: In Fig. 2, there is. no bare land plot info.

Response 8: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the absence of bare land plot information in Figure 2. In response, we have updated the figure to include the missing data for bare land plots. Additionally, we have revised the Results section to incorporate a more comprehensive analysis of Figure 2, ensuring that the DOC dynamics across all site types—primary mangrove, restored plots, and bare land—are clearly interpreted. These changes are highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 9: Add ANOVA result in Fig. 2.

Response 9: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion to include ANOVA results in Figure 2. In response, we have added the relevant statistical outcomes to the figure to support the visual interpretation of DOC differences across site types and typhoon phases. This addition enhances the analytical rigor and clarity of the figure. The updated version is included in the resubmitted manuscript and clearly marked using track changes.

Comments 10: Explain Fig. 3 (RDA) clearly.

Response 10: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to provide a clearer explanation of Figure 3 (RDA). In response, we have reanalyzed the figure and expanded the interpretation in the Results and Discussion sections. The revised text now offers a more detailed account of the relationships between environmental variables and DOC dynamics, as revealed by the redundancy analysis. This includes clearer descriptions of axis loadings, site clustering patterns, and the ecological implications of the ordination results. All updates are highlighted in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 11: Change Fig. 4 to a table, and add ANOVA results/mean difference significance.

Response 11: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion to convert Figure 4 into a table and include statistical results. To enhance clarity and support both visual and numerical interpretation, we have chosen to present the data using both formats: the original figure is retained for intuitive visualization, and a corresponding table has been added to display mean values, ANOVA results, and significance levels. We believe this dual-format approach more effectively conveys the patterns and statistical differences discussed in the manuscript. All additions are clearly marked in the resubmitted version using track changes.

Comments 12: Change Fig. 5 to a table, and add ANOVA results/mean difference significance.

Response 12: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion to convert Figure 5 into a table and include ANOVA results and mean difference significance. To enhance clarity and facilitate both visual and numerical interpretation, we have chosen to present the data using both formats: the original figure is retained for intuitive comparison, and a corresponding table has been added to display mean values, ANOVA outcomes, and significance levels. We believe this combined presentation more effectively communicates the key findings. All revisions are clearly marked in the resubmitted manuscript using track changes.

Comments 13: DOC value should be positive. explain the minus DOC value (Fig.5).

Response 13: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the negative DOC values shown in Figure 5. In response, we have added a detailed explanation in the Discussion section to clarify the possible causes of these values. Specifically, we discuss how negative DOC readings may result from instrument detection limits, background correction procedures, or transient biogeochemical conditions following typhoon disturbance. This clarification is now highlighted in the revised manuscript using track changes.

Comments 14: It seems vegetation type is irrelevant in this context (page 12, par 3).

Response 14: We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation that vegetation type may be irrelevant in the context of the discussion on page 12, paragraph 3. In response, we have removed the corresponding sentence from the manuscript to maintain focus and avoid potential confusion. This revision is clearly marked in the resubmitted version using track changes.

Comments 1: Include a reference “ Mean annual precipitation ranges from 1300 to 2000 mm, and mean annual temperature is approximately 26 °C”

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to support the climate description with appropriate references. In response, we have added a citation to support the statement: “Mean annual precipitation ranges from 1300 to 2000 mm, and mean annual temperature is approximately 26 °C.” The reference has been inserted in Section 2.3.3 and is included in the updated reference list. This addition ensures that the climatic context of the study area is properly grounded in published data.

Comments 2: Include references to support this:”The average annual temperature is 23.8℃, with a mean monthly maximum temperature of 28.4°C in July and a mean monthly minimum temperature of 16.9°C in January. The annual precipitation is 431.2 mm, and it is mostly concentrated from May to October. The annual total sunshine hours are 6.9 hours in one day, and the annual UV index range is 10.9 in the region”

Response 2: To address the reviewer’s request, we have revised the climate description in Section 2.3.3 to include specific references supporting the reported values for temperature, precipitation, sunshine duration, and UV index. The updated text now cites relevant regional meteorological sources to ensure transparency and traceability of the data. These references have also been added to the reference list in the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: Include details:”The characteristics of this area are there are a lot of ancient trees”

Response 3: To address the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the description of the study area to include more specific details regarding the presence of ancient trees. The updated text now highlights the dominant mangrove species, estimated tree age, and structural features such as canopy coverage and root systems. These additions provide clearer ecological context and are presented in the revised manuscript using track changes for easy reference.

Comments 4: “Figure 1. The experiment in the costal sample plot.”Location labels are difficult to read; please use larger, clearer fonts and improve figure resolution.

Response 4: To improve clarity and readability, Figure 1 has been revised with larger, high-contrast location labels and enhanced overall resolution. The updated figure ensures that all site markers and annotations are clearly legible. This modification has been incorporated into the resubmitted manuscript and is highlighted for easy reference.

Comments 5: “Please include information on the instrument’s data accuracy and any associated measurement limitations.” in Table 2. Data collection instruments in this study.

Response 5: In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised Table 2 to include a new column titled “Accuracy / Limitations,” which summarizes the analytical precision of each instrument and notes any relevant measurement constraints. This addition provides greater transparency regarding data quality and helps contextualize the reliability of environmental variable measurements. The updated table is clearly marked in the revised manuscript using track changes.

Comments 6: “Cite one or two relevant references showing that the procedure is similar to previously published work.Cite one or two relevant references showing that the procedure is similar to previously published work.”in 2.3.2. Preparation and Calibration

Response 6: To enhance the clarity and completeness of Table 2, we have added a new column titled “Accuracy / Limitations” as requested. This column outlines the analytical precision of each instrument and highlights any relevant measurement constraints, such as environmental sensitivity or calibration drift. These additions aim to improve transparency regarding data quality and support the interpretation of environmental variable measurements. The revised table is clearly marked in the manuscript using track changes.

Comments 7: “Please include brief details on whether the instruments were calibrated before use and provide information on their analytical accuracy.” in “...several environmental variables were monitored during the sampling...”

Response 7: Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have further expanded the “Accuracy / Limitations” column in Table 2 to include detailed specifications for all instruments used in this study. This includes manufacturer-reported analytical precision, detection limits, and known measurement constraints such as environmental sensitivity, calibration drift, and field deployment considerations. These additions provide a more comprehensive overview of data reliability and strengthen the methodological transparency of the manuscript. All updates are clearly highlighted in the revised version.

Comments 8: “Please use larger, clearer fonts and improve figure resolution.” in “Figure 2”

Response 8: To improve visual clarity as suggested, Figure 2 has been revised with larger, high-contrast fonts and enhanced image resolution. These adjustments ensure that all labels and graphical elements are easily readable. The updated figure has been incorporated into the revised manuscript and is clearly marked using track changes.

Comments 9: “Please use larger, clearer fonts and improve figure resolution.” in “Figure 3”

Response 9: In accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation, Figure 3 has been updated to improve visual clarity. We have enlarged the fonts used for all labels and annotations, and enhanced the overall image resolution to ensure readability. The revised figure has been incorporated into the resubmitted manuscript and is clearly marked using track changes.

Comments 10: “Use consistent style” in Table 4

Response 10: To address the reviewer’s concern regarding formatting consistency, we have revised Table 4 to ensure a uniform presentation style. This includes standardizing font size, alignment, spacing, and terminology across all columns and rows. The updated table improves readability and maintains a cohesive visual format throughout the manuscript. All changes are clearly marked in the revised version using track changes.

Comments 11: “Please use larger, clearer fonts and improve figure resolution.” in “Figure 4”

Response 11: Figure 4 has been redesigned to improve visual clarity in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion. We have increased the font size of all labels and annotations and enhanced the overall image resolution to ensure readability. The updated figure has been incorporated into the revised manuscript and is clearly marked using track changes.

Comments 1: The discussion did not indicate that the results had any implications for the mechanics of restoration strategies, such as whether planting immediately following a typhoon is wise or not. Is there any guidance you can provide concerning optimal restoration strategies?

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify the practical implications of our findings for mangrove restoration strategies. In response, we have added a paragraph to the Conclusion section that addresses the timing of restoration activities following typhoon events. Specifically, we suggest that delaying planting until after initial biogeochemical stabilization may improve restoration success and enhance DOC retention. This recommendation is based on our observed DOC volatility in the immediate post-disturbance phase and aims to provide actionable guidance for restoration planning in typhoon-prone coastal regions. The new content is clearly marked in the revised manuscript using track changes.

Comments 2: Should the article mention possible impacts of sea level rise on these stands in the discussion? The phenomenon changes the dynamics of cat ion retention and loss, and also the dynamics of DOC.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion to consider the potential impacts of sea level rise on mangrove stands and DOC dynamics. In response, we have added a paragraph at the end of the Discussion section addressing this issue. Specifically, we discuss how rising sea levels may alter tidal inundation frequency, salinity regimes, and soil redox conditions, thereby influencing cation retention and loss as well as DOC mobilization. Although sea level rise was not directly measured in this study, we acknowledge its relevance and highlight the need for future research that integrates both episodic disturbances and long-term climatic shifts. The new content is clearly marked in the revised manuscript using track changes.