Soil Respiration Variability Due to Litter and Micro-Environment During the Cold-Temperature Season in a Temperate Monsoon Deciduous Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The authors investigate the contribution of the winter period (November–March) to the annual soil respiration flux (Rs) and the effect of litter layer development on the microenvironment in a temperate deciduous forest of the Korean Peninsula. An automated chamber system was used, continuously recording Rs, Ts (5 cm), SMC (0–10 cm), Ta, and precipitation. It was shown that Rs is exponentially related to Ts in winter, the Rs–SMC relationship is weak, and winter Rs accounts for ~12% of the annual total, varying with litter development, where a more developed litter layer increases Ts and reduces SMC.

General Comments on the Concept

1. The research objective is clearly formulated. The topic is timely and underexplored. However, the causal hypothesis regarding the effect of the litter layer on Rs remains insufficiently testable, since the litter gradient is natural and associated with other covariates (roots, microrelief, distance to trunk, exposure, etc.).
2. Continuous chamber measurements in winter are a strong methodological choice. Nevertheless, the absence of manipulative litter experiments (addition/removal), root biomass/turnover assessments, and snow cover characteristics limits the interpretation of mechanisms.
3. The five chamber points within one stand represent more of a microsite gradient than true independent replicates. The litter gradient partly coincides with distance from the trunk (and likely root density), which may explain high Rs in Ch1 despite a thin litter layer. Without randomization/blocking and replication across multiple trees/slopes and/or years, the causal link “litter – Rs” remains weakly supported.
4. The authors divide winter into “cooling/freezing/warming” phases, but criteria and thresholds (based on Ts/Ta, snow presence/thickness) are not formalized in the Methods. Please clearly specify the segmentation algorithm.
5. Winter precipitation was measured by a rain gauge on the forest floor, but snow was not converted to precipitation equivalents; instead, snow dynamics were inferred from SMC. This introduces systematic uncertainty in explaining SMC and Rs. Data on snow depth/density, SWE, throughfall, and infiltration beneath the litter are needed.
6. No separation of autotrophic/heterotrophic components was attempted, although the Discussion mentions root contributions. This is critical, since winter affects the two components differently, and the distance-to-trunk gradient may bias their shares.
7. The Methods section reports one-way ANOVA/ANCOVA and linear regression, while the Results discuss exponential Rs–Ts relationships and report R² for nonlinear fits. Please unify and explicitly describe model forms, include Q₁₀ estimates and confidence intervals for parameters.
8. One winter season limits extrapolation to “~10–15%” of annual Rs. Add a second year, or otherwise qualify this figure with uncertainty and caveats.
9. A single-event ΔSMC graph cannot be used as a central conclusion; keep it as an illustrative example or remove it.
10. Conversion from mg CO₂ m^–2 h^–1 to t CO₂ ha^–1 is correct, but for comparability with literature and carbon balance, please also provide values in t C ha^–1 with uncertainty. Describe the integration method (trapezoidal or otherwise).
11. The reference list contains a high proportion of the author’s/ co-authors’ own works. I recommend broadening the international context on winter Rs and hysteresis (studies in boreal/temperate forests, permafrost, freeze–thaw experiments), while reducing the share of regionally limited and “out-of-scope” references.
12. There are duplicates/anomalies: numbering error (“21” repeated for two different references); the same paper listed in multiple places. Please carefully revise references and bring them into the journal’s standard format.

Specific Comments on Lines, Sections, Tables, and Figures

1. Methods 2.2 (lines ~116–137): clarify chamber area A and volume V, ring installation depth and method, chamber switching sequence, LI-840 calibration, handling of curve artifacts, and leak control. Insert the equation into the text (Eq. 1) with parameter units instead of as a figure.
2. Methods 2.3 (lines ~139–146): add snow cover measurements/estimates (thickness, density, SWE) or explicitly acknowledge this limitation; describe snow-to-precipitation conversion if added.
3. Results 3.1 (lines ~173–179): logical inconsistency: minimum Ts reported as −0.7 °C, but later stated “never fell below 2 °C” (do you mean daily average Ts?).
4. Table 1: title duplicates “Table 1. Table 1.”; letter indices (a,b,…) next to “Full season Ts” are all “a” for every chamber, though the text says differences exist — clarify criteria and n; add n (number of days).
5. Figure 3: specify that bars represent rainfall only, not snow; add a snow graph or explicitly note its absence, otherwise SMC interpretation is misleading.
6. Figure 4: based on a single event (stated in caption). Move to Supplementary Materials as an illustration; do not use in the main text for general conclusions.
7. Figure 6: present Q₁₀ values by chamber.
8. Discussion (lines ~433–455): the authors correctly note the weak Rs–SMC relationship in winter; add analysis of why this occurs.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Summary

è The authors investigate the contribution of the winter period (November–March) to the annual soil respiration flux (Rs) and the effect of litter layer development on the microenvironment in a temperate deciduous forest of the Korean Peninsula. An automated chamber system was used, continuously recording Rs, Ts (5 cm), SMC (0–10 cm), Ta, and precipitation. It was shown that Rs is exponentially related to Ts in winter, the Rs–SMC relationship is weak, and winter Rs accounts for ~12% of the annual total, varying with litter development, where a more developed litter layer increases Ts and reduces SMC.

* Response: Thank you for the constructive comment. We revised the manuscript accordingly—clarifying methods, tightening claims, and adding limitations where appropriate. Specific changes are noted in the Methods (Sections 2.1–2.4), Results (Sections 3.1–3.2), Discussion (Section 4), and the relevant figure/table captions.

General Comments on the Concept

è The research objective is clearly formulated. The topic is timely and underexplored. However, the causal hypothesis regarding the effect of the litter layer on Rs remains insufficiently testable, since the litter gradient is natural and associated with other covariates (roots, microrelief, distance to trunk, exposure, etc.).

* Response: We appreciate this important point. Because our study leveraged a natural litter-gradient, we agree that causal attribution remains limited. To reduce confounding, we (i) selected chamber locations within a single 8×8 m area of homogeneous slope, (ii) screened for thick roots with a probe prior to ring installation, and (iii) verified comparable canopy conditions (LAI = 3.5 ± 0.3). We state these limitations explicitly and frame our claims accordingly. We also highlight, in the Discussion, that manipulative litter addition/removal, root biomass/turnover measurements, and snow metrics will be essential for future causal tests (Sections 2.1–2.2, 4).

 

è Continuous chamber measurements in winter are a strong methodological choice. Nevertheless, the absence of manipulative litter experiments (addition/removal), root biomass/turnover assessments, and snow cover characteristics limits the interpretation of mechanisms.

* Response: Thank you. We agree that manipulative experiments would strengthen mechanistic inference. Our revision (Discussion) explicitly acknowledges this limitation and outlines future litter-addition/removal experiments, partitioning of autotrophic/heterotrophic respiration, and dedicated snow observations as next steps. We also clarify why the automated chamber approach was chosen for continuous winter coverage and high temporal resolution (Sections 2.2, 4).

 

è The five chamber points within one stand represent more of a microsite gradient than true independent replicates. The litter gradient partly coincides with distance from the trunk (and likely root density), which may explain high Rs in Ch1 despite a thin litter layer. Without randomization/blocking and replication across multiple trees/slopes and/or years, the causal link “litter – Rs” remains weakly supported.

* Response: We recognize the risk of pseudoreplication across a microsite gradient. To mitigate this, we sited five chambers within a compact 8×8 m area of uniform aspect and slope, prioritized tree proximity/DBH to reduce root-density biases, and used a pointed probe to avoid thick roots at installation depth (~5 cm). Canopy conditions (LAI) and litter inputs were also measured and showed little within-site variation. We temper any causal language linking litter to Rs and add caveats on spatial independence and year effects; a multi-tree, multi-slope, multi-year design is proposed for future work (Sections 2.1–2.2, 4).

 

è The authors divide winter into “cooling/freezing/warming” phases, but criteria and thresholds (based on Ts/Ta, snow presence/thickness) are not formalized in the Methods. Please clearly specify the segmentation algorithm.

* Response: Done. We formalized the phase definitions and thresholds in Methods and figure captions. Specifically, we segment the cold season using the daily minimum Ts at 5 cm: cooling (from Nov 1, 2021 until the first day with daily min Ts < 0 °C), freezing (days with daily min Ts < 0 °C), and increasing (from the first day with daily min Ts ≥ 0 °C to Mar 31, 2022). These definitions appear in Section 2.4 and the captions for Figures 1–2.

 

è Winter precipitation was measured by a rain gauge on the forest floor, but snow was not converted to precipitation equivalents; instead, snow dynamics were inferred from SMC. This introduces systematic uncertainty in explaining SMC and Rs. Data on snow depth/density, SWE, throughfall, and infiltration beneath the litter are needed.

* Response: We agree. We added a description of how snowfall was handled: a 15 cm transparent acrylic collar top the rain gauge captured snowfall, which melted and drained into the rain gauge; thus timestamps reflect melt rather than fall. We tatted the associated timing and conversion uncertainty and explicitly acknowledge the absence of direct snow depth/density/SWE, throughfall, and subsurface infiltration measurements (Section 2.3).

 

è No separation of autotrophic/heterotrophic components was attempted, although the Discussion mentions root contributions. This is critical, since winter affects the two components differently, and the distance-to-trunk gradient may bias their shares.

* Response: We agree that partitioning is important. We did not conduct trenching or isotopic partitioning, so we cannot quantify autotrophic vs. heterotrophic shares. We emphasize this limitation and cite nearby-stand studies showing winter declines in both total Rs and root respiration with Ts. We also discussed how the distance-to-trunk gradient could bias component shares and outline partitioning as a priority for future work (Discussion).

 

è The Method section reports one-way ANOVA/ANCOVA and linear regression, while the Results discuss exponential Rs–Ts relationships and report R2 for nonlinear fits. Please unify and explicitly describe model forms, include Q10 estimates and confidence intervals for parameters.

* Response: Revised. Methods (Section 2.4) described the exponential Rs–Ts model used for inference, with parameter units, fitting procedure, and 95% confidence intervals. We also reported chamber-wise Q₁₀ estimates and their 95% CIs in Results (Section 3.2), and we clarified that linear regression was used only for short gap-filling, not for the Rs–Ts relationship.

 

è One winter season limits extrapolation to “~10–15%” of annual Rs. Add a second year, or otherwise qualify this figure with uncertainty and caveats.

* Response: We toned down extrapolations and removed the generalized “~10–15%” statement. We showed the observed range for November–March per chamber and explicitly caution against broad generalization from a single winter. We also added text noting that multi-year data exist at the site but are analyzed elsewhere, and we frame additional winters as essential future work (Discussion).

 

è A single-event ΔSMC graph cannot be used as a central conclusion; keep it as an illustrative example or remove it.

* Response: Thank you for the constructive comment. It was reorganized using various materials in Figure 5. We revised the manuscript accordingly—clarifying methods, tightening claims, and adding limitations where appropriate. Specific changes are noted in the Results (Sections 3.4, Figure 5), Discussion (Section 4), and the relevant figure/table captions.

 

è Conversion from mg CO₂ m–2 h–1 to t CO₂ ha–1 is correct, but for comparability with literature and carbon balance, please also provide values in t C ha–1 with uncertainty. Describe the integration method (trapezoidal or otherwise).

* Response: We reported cold-season totals in t C ha⁻¹, alongside mg CO₂ m⁻² h⁻¹, and we described the temporal integration approach (hourly to daily averaging followed by trapezoidal integration over the study window). We also reported uncertainty where appropriate (Table 1; Sections 2.4, 3.1).

 

è The reference list contains a high proportion of the author’s/ co-authors’ own works. I recommend broadening the international context on winter Rs and hysteresis (studies in boreal/temperate forests, permafrost, freeze–thaw experiments), while reducing the share of regionally limited and “out-of-scope” references.

* Response: We thoroughly revised the reference list: numbering fixed, duplicates removed, and the bibliography broadened with international studies on winter Rs, hysteresis, permafrost and freeze–thaw experiments to better situate the work within the global literature. Also, the author's references were replaced with other references.

 

è There are duplicates/anomalies: numbering error (“21” repeated for two different references); the same paper listed in multiple places. Please carefully revise references and bring them into the journal’s standard format.

* Response: We thoroughly revised the reference list: numbering fixed, duplicates removed, and the bibliography broadened with international studies on winter Rs, hysteresis, permafrost and freeze–thaw experiments to better situate the work within the global literature.

 

Specific Comments on Lines, Sections, Tables, and Figures

è Methods 2.2 (lines ~116–137): clarify chamber area A and volume V, ring installation depth and method, chamber switching sequence, LI-840 calibration, handling of curve artifacts, and leak control. Insert the equation into the text (Eq. 1) with parameter units instead of as a figure.

* Response: We specified chamber area (A), headspace volume (V), chamber installation depth and method, the automated 5-min switching across the five chambers, monthly LI‑840 zero/span calibration, handling of curve artifacts, and leak checks. The flux equation (Eq. 1) with parameter units was inserted in-text (Section 2.2).

 

è Methods 2.3 (lines ~139–146): add snow cover measurements/estimates (thickness, density, SWE) or explicitly acknowledge this limitation; describe snow-to-precipitation conversion if added.

* Response: Added detail in Section 2.3 on how snowfall was converted to rainfall-equivalent in the rain gauge collar, and we explicitly acknowledged the lack of direct snow depth/density/SWE measurements and the resulting uncertainty.

 

è Results 3.1 (lines ~173–179): logical inconsistency: minimum Ts reported as −0.7 °C, but later stated “never fell below 2 °C” (do you mean daily average Ts?).

* Response: Corrected. We distinguished instantaneous minima from daily means: the instantaneous minimum Ts reached −2.0 °C (Ch1, Feb 21, 2022), whereas the daily mean Ts did not fall below ~2 °C. The text has been amended for consistency (Section 3.2).

 

è Table 1 title duplicates “Table 1. Table 1.”; letter indices (a,b,…) next to “Full season Ts” are all “a” for every chamber, though the text says differences exist — clarify criteria and n; add n (number of days).

* Response: The corrections were made to faithfully reflect the points raised.

 

è Figure 3: specify that bars represent rainfall only, not snow; add a snow graph or explicitly note its absence, otherwise SMC interpretation is misleading.

* Response: Clarified in the Figure 3 caption that bars represent rainfall-equivalent input (including snowmelt captured via the collar). Because melted snow was reflected as precipitation, there was no need to convert snowfall to rainfall.  However, we noted the absence of an independent snow-depth time series and direct SWE, and we discussed interpretation limits (Methods 2.3).

 

è Figure 4 based on a single event (stated in caption). Move to Supplementary Materials as an illustration; do not use in the main text for general conclusions.

* Response: Removed the single-event panel as requested. Also, we reorganized the data using various data on the increase in precipitation and SMC in Figure 5.

 

è Figure 6: present Q10 values by chamber.

* Response: We reported chamber-wise Q₁₀ values with 95% CIs in the Results (Section 3.3, 4, and in Figure 3) and include them alongside the Rs–Ts relationships. This facilitated comparison across litter layer conditions.

 

è Discussion (lines ~433–455): the authors correctly note the weak Rs–SMC relationship in winter; add analysis of why this occurs.

* Response: We discussed why Rs–SMC correlations weaken in winter: (i) microbial and root activity are primarily temperature‑limited, (ii) freeze–thaw and cryosuction decouple near‑surface volumetric water from liquid‑phase availability, and (iii) thicker litter reduces both wetting pulses and Ts variability. We also contrast this with parabolic Rs–SMC responses reported for warm seasons and note implications for winter modeling (Section 4).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript present local experiment, which importance is based on detail time series analysis. Thus, enough detail time series description should to be certain point of the study view. To enhance this temporal point of view, I suggest major revision:

1) The study title is not pregnant, because it does not define relations between mentioned phenomenas of litter, respiration and micro-environment. Additionaly, your specific localization suggested that wider generalization of the results onto temperate forests could be impossible. That is why I suggest change to "Soil respiration variability due to litter and micro-environment during the low-temperature season in a temperate monsoon deciduous forest".

2) Line 9: The information about lack of soil respiration during winter (low-temperature) season is not true. Soil respiration is followed by decrease to minimums, but without total inhibition. Here, I sugget to inform about respiration decrease instead of "lack".

3) Lines 55-59 need generalization. The situation is still serious and first predictions about impacts of global warming on nothern temperate forests were published before 2000. Nowdays, this information is not about prediction, but it is about observed threatment. Additionaly, it is very problematic to distinguish total vulnerability level between tropical and temperate forests, because tropical forests are aflicted due to drought very hard.

3) Chapter Material and method is too simplified. We require more facts about the experimental design.  What about period of the research? What about area of the observed natural forest? What was age of the main stand storey? What about stock volume of the woods there? What can you write about the naturalness level of the forest? What type of vegetation do you define there according to obtained species? All new facts about the investigated forest is necessary to follow with adequate references.

3) Lines 119-123 require to be reordered to logical series from thin litter layer to thickest litter layer. Here also information about canopy over each chamber is missing. Please, add facts about canopy in per cents in relation with particular chambers because we need consider if different canopy could to be cause of various litter production and soil respiration.

4) Subchapter 2.4 requires to be rewritten. First, we need to know what did you want to observe through data analysis? Then, you should explain, how you had obtained particular points of the data analysis. Subsequently, you wrote about linear regression, although presented graphs showed non-linear outputs. Here is necessary to write only about really used procedures such as about non-linear modelling.

6) The subchapter Data treatments should to be expanded with procedures of time series analysis. In the present manuscript form, we do not know nothnig about trend analysis, total variability etc. 

6) Lines 156-161 should not repeat information from Material and methods. First occurrences of all abbreviations in every subchapter should to be defined completly. Do not write only about Ta etc.

7) The Result chapter require to be expanded with detail time series analysis besed on additional methodical background.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The manuscript present local experiment, which importance is based on detail time series analysis. Thus, enough detail time series description should to be a certain point of the study view. To enhance this temporal point of view, I suggest major revision:

* Response: Expanded Section 2.4 to describe the time‑series handling (aggregation, segmentation by phases, and comparisons across phases/chambers) and how variability was quantified.

 

1) The study title is not pregnant, because it does not define relations between mentioned phenomena of litter, respiration and micro-environment. Additionally, your specific localization suggested that wider generalization of the results onto temperate forests could be impossible. That is why I suggest change to "Soil respiration variability due to litter and micro-environment during the low-temperature season in a temperate monsoon deciduous forest".

* Response: We changed the title to “Soil Respiration Variability due to Litter and Micro‑environment during the Cold‑temperature Season in a Temperate Monsoon Deciduous Forest.”

 

2) Line 9: The information about lack of soil respiration during winter (low-temperature) season is not true. Soil respiration is followed by decrease to minimum, but without total inhibition. Here, I suggest to inform about respiration decrease instead of "lack".

* Response: Revised the wording to indicate a decrease in soil respiration during winter rather than a lack thereof.

 

3) Lines 55-59 need generalization. The situation is still serious and first predictions about impacts of global warming on northern temperate forests were published before 2000. Nowadays, this information is not about prediction, but it is about observed treatment. Additionally, it is very problematic to distinguish total vulnerability level between tropical and temperate forests, because tropical forests are afflicted due to drought very hard.

* Response: Updated to reflect that impacts are broadly observed rather than merely predicted, and we nuance vulnerability comparisons between temperate and tropical forests, with appropriate citations.

 

3) Chapter Material and method is too simplified. We require more facts about the experimental design. What about period of the research? What about area of the observed natural forest? What was age of the main stand story? What about stock volume of the woods there? What can you write about the naturalness level of the forest? What type of vegetation do you define there according to obtained species? All new facts about the investigated forest is necessary to follow with adequate references.

* Response: Expanded Section 2.1 with site extent (20×20 m plot), stand structure (dominant species, age 60–70 y, DBH/height distributions), canopy metrics (LAI), litter input, and conservation context. Section 2.2 adds chamber installation and measurement sequencing details.

 

3) Lines 119-123 require to be reordered to logical series from thin litter layer to thickest litter layer. Here also information about canopy over each chamber is missing. Please, add facts about canopy in per cents in relation with particular chambers because we need consider if different canopy could to be cause of various litter production and soil respiration.

* Response: We reordered the chamber descriptions from the thinnest to thickest litter and added canopy information (LAI) and litter input near each chamber, which showed little within‑plot variation (Sections 2.1–2.2).

 

4) Subchapter 2.4 requires to be rewritten. First, we need to know what did you want to observe through data analysis? Then, you should explain, how you had obtained particular points of the data analysis. Subsequently, you wrote about linear regression, although presented graphs showed non-linear outputs. Here is necessary to write only about really used procedures such as about non-linear modelling.

* Response: Section 2.4 has been rewritten to state analytic objectives first, then procedures: data aggregation (30‑min → hourly → daily), gap‑filling, phase segmentation, model forms (exponential Rs–Ts), and statistical tests. We removed references to unused models.

 

6) The subchapter Data treatments should to be expanded with procedures of time series analysis. In the present manuscript form, we do not know nothing about trend analysis, total variability etc.

* Response: Expanded Section 2.4 to describe the time‑series handling (aggregation, segmentation by phases, and comparisons across phases/chambers) and how variability was quantified.

 

6) Lines 156-161 should not repeat information from Material and methods. First occurrences of all abbreviations in every subchapter should to be defined completely. Do not write only about Ta etc.

* Response:  First occurrences of all abbreviations are defined in full in each subsection.

 

7) The Result chapter require to be expanded with detail time series analysis based on additional methodical background.

* Response: Expanded Section 2.4 to describe the time‑series handling (aggregation, segmentation by phases, and comparisons across phases/chambers) and how variability was quantified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the responses are persuasive and the revisions are reflected across the Methods/Results/Discussion. Nevertheless, several key issues remain unresolved:

1. Explicitly state that the five chambers represent a microsite gradient rather than independent replicates, and that the results should not be generalized beyond the studied stand/season without additional replication. Add a sentence in the Conclusions to temper any causal inference.
2. In the Limitations, explicitly note the possibility of a systematic shift in component shares (autotrophic vs. heterotrophic) due to distance from the trunk/root density.
3. A remaining hydrometeorological issue: the text suggests that “no conversion of snow is needed,” yet the timestamps reflect melt rather than snowfall. The Methods should include the following sentence: “Note that timestamps capture melt rather than snowfall; thus, our precipitation series represents precipitation-equivalent input with a variable melt lag that may blur event timing relative to SMC and Rs.”

Author Response

Most of the responses are persuasive and the revisions are reflected across the Methods/Results/Discussion. Nevertheless, several key issues remain unresolved:

* Response: Thank you for your progressive comments. The reviewer's comments were reflected and revised as follows, and the revisions are marked in red within the manuscript.

Comment 1: Explicitly state that the five chambers represent a microsite gradient rather than independent replicates, and that the results should not be generalized beyond the studied stand/season without additional replication. Add a sentence in the Conclusions to temper any causal inference.

* Response 1: As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 2.2 (line 173-176). “Because the measurement points were selected based on litter layer development level, the five chambers represent a microsite gradient rather than independent replicates, and that the results should not be generalized beyond the studied stand/season without additional replication.”

Comment 2: In the Limitations, explicitly note the possibility of a systematic shift in component shares (autotrophic vs. heterotrophic) due to distance from the trunk/root density.

* Response 2: As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 2.2 (line 179-181). “However, the possibility of a systematic shift in component shares (autotrophic vs. heterotrophic) is due to distance from the trunk/root density.”

Comment 3: A remaining hydrometeorological issue: the text suggests that “no conversion of snow is needed,” yet the timestamps reflect melt rather than snowfall. The Methods should include the following sentence: “Note that timestamps capture melt rather than snowfall; thus, our precipitation series represents precipitation-equivalent input with a variable melt lag that may blur event timing relative to SMC and Rs.”

* Response 3: Agree. As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 2.3 (line 253-255).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author! Thank you for acceptance of major part from the reviewers comments. For this moment, I still see some points to improve the manuscript. The most serious problems are situated in abstract and as discrepancies between statistical procedures used and results. Totally, please, improve these points of your study:

1) Lines 11-12 in abstract informed us about spurious lack in understanding to winter soil respiration despite some pioneer studies as Volánek et al. (2025), Forests 16: doi.org/10.3390/f16020350. Here, please, rewrite this sentense to generalized information about importance of soil respiration to annual C flux estimation.

2) Line 60: Please, expand this statement based on references 22-25 with specific result short mentions such as were provided in the study Volánek et al. (2025). Of course, I expect that the study Volánek et al. (2025) will be also cited here.

3) Lines 149-153: Rewrite the sentense to form with gradual series of chambers from 1 to 5 as recommended in previous review.

4) Lines 269-273 in subchapter 2.4 still define linear regression, although you really used non-linear model. Here is serious discrepancy between statisticaql methods and presented results. Correct this part to correspondence with really used exponencial functions.

Author Response

Dear author! Thank you for acceptance of major part from the reviewer’s comments. For this moment, I still see some points to improve the manuscript. The most serious problems are situated in abstract and as discrepancies between statistical procedures used and results. Totally, please, improve these points of your study: * Response : All of the reviewer's comments were accepted and revised.  # Comment 1.  Lines 11-12 in abstract informed us about spurious lack in understanding to winter soil respiration despite some pioneer studies as Volánek et al. (2025), Forests 16: doi.org/10.3390/f16020350. Here, please, rewrite this sentense to generalized information about importance of soil respiration to annual C flux estimation. * Response 1: As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 5 (line 11-13). “ for ecosystems with long winters, it can significantly impact the annual carbon flux estimation.”  # Comment 2. Line 60: Please, expand this statement based on references 22-25 with specific result short mentions such as were provided in the study Volánek et al. (2025). Of course, I expect that the study Volánek et al. (2025) will be also cited here. * Response 2: As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 1 (line 63-75). The main content of the reference is presented. However, this section suggests that winter soil respiration is currently measured at a significant level and is expected to increase further due to climate change. Therefore, the content of the reference is not highly relevant and therefore not cited. However, there is relevant information cited in Section 4. Discussion (line 493-495).  # Comment 3. Lines 149-153: Rewrite the sentence to form with gradual series of chambers from 1 to 5 as recommended in previous review. * Response 3: As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 5 (line 164-167).  # Comment 4. Lines 269-273 in subchapter 2.4 still define linear regression, although you really used non-linear model. Here is serious discrepancy between statisticaql methods and presented results. Correct this part to correspondence with really used exponencial functions. * Response 4: As pointed out in the comment, the term was modified to "an exponential regression function" in 2.4 (line 256).

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is substantially improved. The authors have clarified the methodological framework, strengthened the statistical reporting, and appropriately framed key limitations. One minor textual refinements remain to ensure interpretive precision and transparency. Add in Conclusions section one sentence explicitly stating that the five chambers represent a microsite gradient rather than independent replicates and that causal attribution/generalization is limited to the studied stand and season.

Author Response

I deeply appreciate the reviewer's critical comments, which greatly improved our results. It was revised to reflect the reviewer's comments, and the contents are as follows. # Comment 1. The revised manuscript is substantially improved. The authors have clarified the methodological framework, strengthened the statistical reporting, and appropriately framed key limitations. One minor textual refinements remain to ensure interpretive precision and transparency. Add in Conclusions section one sentence explicitly stating that the five chambers represent a microsite gradient rather than independent replicates and that causal attribution/generalization is limited to the studied stand and season. * Response 1: As pointed out in the comment, the following was added to section 5 (line 632-634).

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf