A Study on the Prediction of Long-Term Carbon Absorption by Applying the Renewal Scenario of Forest in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research describing the potential carbon sequestration capacity of forests. The location of the study was South Korea. This influences the selection of species considered in assessing carbon absorption.

 

Abstract

Separate descriptions of the purpose, method , results and conclusions are redundant, The description of the purpose and methods is correct, but (4) the results are redundant if it is the conclusions that provide the primary information for the reader.

 

Keywords

The keywords are too elaborate

I suggest instead of Representative species of afforestation; insert “natural species”

Instead of Long-term carbon uptake; simplify and state” CO2 uptake:

 

Introduction

The authors have described the state of forests in South Korea very well, . They pointed out the problem of CO2 emissions and the changing capacity of forests to absorb them.

It is very good that the authors pointed out the changing CO2 absorption capacity of older forests. They pointed out the influence of species on the ability to absorb carbon.

The authors referred to European forest management.

There was a lack of indication of native species playing a key role in the counters of South Korea

 

Methodology

The exact tops assessed and verified were shown. Species present in the plot (dominant) were indicated.

Representative species were selected.  Are the CO2 uptake data supported by other documents besides the National Institutr 2019?

The method for assessing forest regeneration is briefly and precisely described .

Scenarios of regeneration in years are presented.

Scenarios of regeneration in years are presented.

What is the breakdown of changes in CO2 uptake for different species lacks information on the method of assessing species and possible labeling of these scenarios which would facilitate comparison of results.

 

Results and discussion

The results are presented in an unstructured manner, the results are described well, but the presentation in tables and graphs is not very clear.

Discussion weak. Reference to dawn literature is missing.

 

Conclusions

Conclusions supported by results .

Indicators of the value of changes in CO2 absorption are missing

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research describing the potential carbon sequestration capacity of forests.

The location of the study was South Korea. This influences the selection of species considered in assessing carbon absorption.

 

Abstract

Separate descriptions of the purpose, method , results and conclusions are redundant, The description of the purpose and methods is correct, but (4) the results are redundant if it is the conclusions that provide the primary information for the reader.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) I have revised and supplemented the overlapping parts of the conclusion and results in what you said. Thank you so much for your Sincerely comments.

 

(Additional inserted sentence) 3. Results and Discussion

“Based on these results, we compared and analyzed them from two aspects. First, when compared with the statistical data of the Ministry of Environment's Greenhouse Gas Information Center, it was confirmed that the forestry sector sink, which had been offset by more than 6.26% as of 2019, could be changed by up to 8.74%. Second, when analyzed within the scope of this study, it was confirmed that the comparison value between the maximum and minimum sinks could increase by up to 36% depending on the forest management method. In addition, among the research data mentioned in the text, there is a result that pine trees absorb 11.0 tons of CO₂ per ha per year, and the sink offsets the greenhouse gases emitted by 5.7 passenger cars per year. When the maximum comparison value of 17,996,977 t CO₂ of carbon sinks is combined with the greenhouse gas offset effect of passenger cars, the conclusion is that it offsets the greenhouse gases emitted by approximately 9.32 million passenger cars per year. This is a figure that can offset more than 37.43% based on the 24.91 million domestically registered automobiles as of the end of 2021 announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. It is judged that it will be difficult to achieve the carbon sink target unless various interpretations and models for long-term renewal scenarios such as this study are developed in the forestry sector in the future. The major issues that have been recently debated in forest management are the extension of age ranges and the preservation and maintenance of forests from logging or deforestation, but this is far from the actual development and cultivation of forest resources. It is realistically impossible to increase carbon sinks with only small-scale forest management activities such as thinning and mowing. In order to continuously strengthen and increase carbon absorption capacity, forest circulation management should be strengthened based on expanded afforestation projects and planted tree species. By planting, cultivating, and harvesting tree species sustainably and utilizing them, added value such as the environment (carbon sink) and the economy (stable wood production) should be stably created. To do so, it is necessary to implement a more strategic approach, such as long-term afforestation, age reduction, and systematic logging systems in line with the circular economy. The important implication of this study is to maximize the utilization value of forest resources focusing on carbon sinks more efficiently.”

 

Keywords : The keywords are too elaborate. I suggest instead of Representative species of afforestation; insert “natural species”. Instead of Long-term carbon uptake; simplify and state “CO2 uptake:”

[Answer] (Revision Completed) I have revised some of the keywords as you mentioned.

(Before) (1) “Representative Afforestation Species”, (2) “Long-term Carbon”

(After) (1) “Natural Species”, (2) “CO₂ Untake”

 

Introduction

The authors have described the state of forests in South Korea very well, . They pointed out the problem of CO2 emissions and the changing capacity of forests to absorb them. It is very good that the authors pointed out the changing CO2 absorption capacity of older forests. They pointed out the influence of species on the ability to absorb carbon. The authors referred to European forest management. There was a lack of indication of native species playing a key role in the counters of South Korea

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As you mentioned, I changed the location of [Fig. 1.] for Korean afforestation species, and through this, I supplemented the additional information on coniferous and broadleaf tree species as follows.

 

(Additional inserted sentence)

“In South Korea, seven representative species are planted and managed according to the climate and terrain. These include five species of broadleaf trees, two species of coniferous trees, as well as mixed forests. These were selected as the research subjects.”

  

Methodology

The exact tops assessed and verified were shown. Species present in the plot (dominant) were indicated.

Representative species were selected. Are the CO2 uptake data supported by other documents besides the National Institutr 2019? The method for assessing forest regeneration is briefly and precisely described . Scenarios of regeneration in years are presented. Scenarios of regeneration in years are presented. What is the breakdown of changes in CO2 uptake for different species lacks information on the method of assessing species and possible labeling of these scenarios which would facilitate comparison of results.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) I have changed the diagram [Fig. 2.] to classify conifers and deciduous trees in more detail, and have supplemented the related content in detail in the text. Thank you.

 

Results and discussion

The results are presented in an unstructured manner, the results are described well, but the presentation in tables and graphs is not very clear. Discussion weak. Reference to dawn literature is missing.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) I have revised the graph as you mentioned and strengthened the discussion throughout the main text. Thank you.

 

Conclusions

Conclusions supported by results .

Indicators of the value of changes in CO2 absorption are missing

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As you mentioned, I have supplemented the content on the value of CO2 absorption changes in the conclusion. Thank you for your comment.

 

(Additional inserted sentence)

[1] “There is a limitation in not being able to reflect the dynamic stand growth changes under climate change scenarios (such as RCP, SSP, etc.) considering factors like temperature and precipitation.”

[2] “To successfully execute the afforestation after harvesting timber without delays, a systematic seedling system should be in place. Additionally, efforts should be made to maximize carbon storage and the substitution effect of carbon-intensive materials by prioritizing the use of timber produced for long-life span, high-value purposes such as wooden construction and furniture.”

[3] “Efforts should be accompanied by prioritizing the use of wood produced through species renewal for long-life, high-value-added applications such as timber construction and wooden furniture, in order to maximize carbon storage and the effect of substituting carbon-intensive materials.”

[4] “This study is expected to be used as basic data for establishing detailed implementation plans for the forestry sector based on scientific evidence to carry out carbon neutrality policies. In the future, we aim to develop an integrated forecasting model that incorporates forest dynamic growth models, forest disasters such as wildfires, and trends in wood utilization, in order to predict more accurately the changes in forest carbon absorption.”

 

"Thank you once again, dear reviewer, for your thorough examination."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

 

The authors wrote a research article entitled "Impact of Tree Species Diversity on Carbon Absorption Capacity in Forest Regeneration". The research has some practical significance and application value. Since the result are novel, and provide nice instructions for forest management in South Korea. Research themes and quality fit journals Forests). I listed some comments in the specific comments below. I recommend can be accept but need major revision.

 

Some detailed comments.

 

1. By reading the abstract and the body of the article, I realized that the Title of the article didn't seem to be appropriate.

2. The writing style of the Abstract does not meet the requirements of the journal (Forests). The Abstract is too thin and does not provide a good summary of the results of this study. In addition,  this is an appropriate research question, but poorly written about the importance of the findings. The last sentence needs to mention your study's key points and significance. 

3. Keywords, they should be arranged in alphabetical order. “Forest Management”, problems with the format of ‘F’. “Long-term Carbon bsorption” should be “Long-term carbon absorption”.

4. Table 1, Unit: Thousand ha, should be in table, for example, Sortation (year), Afforestation Area (Thousand ha), Planting Trees (n, tree)

5. Table 2, need to clarify what species are included in mixed forests.

6. Figure 2, it is recommended that Figure 2 be placed in the corresponding Table 2 table.

7. Line 37, “MtCO₂” should be “Mt CO₂”, I suggest double checking the full text for similar issues

8. Line 76-77, “Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and common birch (Betula pendula Roth)” should be “Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and common birch (Betula pendula Roth)” 

9. Data and Methods, Are the CO₂ uptake data in this paper measured by the authors experiments and investigations or based on government reports?

10. Line 323, “3,164,058 tCO2/ha” should be “3,164,058 t CO₂ ha^-1”, I suggest double checking the full text for similar issues

11. The results section needs more work. However, the results are exciting but should be presented meaningfully. 

12. Conclusion, Please present it concisely in one paragraphs, with future implications based on the outcomes of this study.

13. In addition, there are formatting and writing issues that need to be double-checked.

14. References, I do not understand why so many identical or similar reports (references 5-7, 32-35, 46) have to be quoted over and over again, and it is generally necessary to quote the latest government report. For example the IPCC Intergovernmental Working Report.     5. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.  6. KFP(Korea Forestry Promotion Institute), Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013  7. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Effectiveness and policy application of the Forest Carbon Managemen Model roject; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.  32. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.  33. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Forest Forestry Stati stical Yearbook Designation Status; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.  34. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.  35. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.  46. Korea Forestry Promotion Institute, Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013.

15. References, A large number of formatting errors, such as journal abbreviations and DOI. In addition, Forests, as an international academic journal, should cite more references from international high-quality journals, and should appropriately reduce citations to national non-international journals

Comments on the Quality of English Language

medium

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors - General Comments

The authors wrote a research article entitled "Impact of Tree Species Diversity on Carbon Absorption Capacity in Forest Regeneration". The research has some practical significance and application value. Since the result are novel, and provide nice instructions for forest management in South Korea. Research themes and quality fit journals Forests). I listed some comments in the specific comments below. I recommend can be accept but need major revision.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) Yes, Thank you for your sincere comments. I have numbered them in order below and added my answers after revising them one by one.

 

Some detailed comments.

By reading the abstract and the body of the article, I realized that the Title of the article didn't seem to be appropriate.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) I have rewritten the title of the paper to match the abstract and main text. Thank you for your comment.

 

<Title of the article>

(Before) “Impact of Tree Species Diversity on Carbon Absorption Capacity in Forest Regeneration”

(After) “A Study on the Prediction of Long-term Carbon Absorption by Applying the Renewal Scenario of Forest in Korea”

 

2. The writing style of the Abstract does not meet the requirements of the journal (Forests). The Abstract is too thin and does not provide a good summary of the results of this study. In addition, this is an appropriate research question, but poorly written about the importance of the findings. The last sentence needs to mention your study's key points and significance.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As you mentioned, I have completed the entire revision to fit the abstract format by mentioning the key points and importance of the research in the last sentence.

 

“Abstract: As global warming has emerged as an essential global solution, the role of carbon neutrality is required to respond to rapidly changing environmental policies. Forests are an important means for achieving carbon neutrality as a key carbon sink, and among them, forest management called afforestation is emerging as a decisive factor. However, although various studies are being conducted to enhance carbon absorption capacity, there are not many long-term research cases through afforestation. In this study, the cumulative carbon absorption for a total of 90 years from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2019 was set as the baseline. Various changes were made according to the cyclical trend of the species and age-classes planted nationwide, and various results were derived through the regeneration scenario. As a result of the study, the difference between the maximum value and the baseline CO₂ absorption was approximately 130 million t CO₂ ha^-1 when compared with the 90-year cumulative value. When converted into an annual unit, it increased by more than 14 million t CO₂ ha^-1. Based on the highest figures, compared with statistics from the Ministry of Environment's Greenhouse Gas Information Center, it was confirmed that the forest absorption source, which was offset by 6.26 percent in 2019, could be changed by up to 8.74 percent. When analyzing the maximum figures from this study, depending on the method of afforestation, the greenhouse gases emitted by approximately 9.32 million passenger cars per year could be offset. In conclusion, among the carbon neutrality tasks that must be addressed at the national level, it is very important to establish long-term direction decisions and detailed plans for the forest sector, which is the core of carbon sinks, and a strategic approach is essential. Based on this study, it is expected that a more systematic direction can be presented for planning and implementing future afforestation.”

 

3. Keywords, they should be arranged in alphabetical order. “Forest Management”, problems with the format of ‘F’. “Long-term Carbon bsorption” should be “Long-term carbon absorption”.

[Answer] (Edit Completed) As you mentioned, I have organized the keywords in alphabetical order.

 

(Before) Keywords: “Forest Management; Representative Afforestation Species; Regeneration Scenarios; Long-term Carbon bsorption”

(After) (Revision Ver.) Keywords: “CO2 Untake; Forest Management; Natural Species; Regeneration Scenarios”

 

4. Table 1, Unit: Thousand ha, should be in table, for example, Sortation (year), Afforestation Area (Thousand ha), Planting Trees (n, tree)

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As you mentioned, I have entered the units for [Table 1].

 

5. Table 2, need to clarify what species are included in mixed forests.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) The definition and concept of mixed forest are explained separately in the text.

 

(Additional inserted sentence)

“Here, the Korean forest statistics are distinguished by the following classification criteria that are different from those used in other developed countries in the definition of mixed forests in the context. The classification criteria for mixed forests are defined as stands where the basal area ratio of conifers and broad-leaved trees exceeds 25% and less than 75%, respectively.”

 

(Additional inserted References)

“33. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Guidelines for the 7th National Forest Survey and Forest Health Vitality Field Survey(Ver. 88) ; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2017.”

 

6. Figure 2, it is recommended that Figure 2 be placed in the corresponding Table 2 table.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As you said, I have revised Figure 2 by rearranging it in Table 2.

 

7. Line 37, “MtCO2” should be “Mt CO2”, I suggest double checking the full text for similar issues

[Answer] (Revision Completed) Changed the entire text, including line 37, to the form “Mt CO2”.

 

8. Line 76-77, “Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and common birch (Betula pendula Roth)” should be “Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and common birch (Betula pendula Roth)”

[Answer] (Edit Complete) I changed it as you said and changed it to italics.

 

9. Data and Methods, Are the CO2 uptake data in this paper measured by the authors experiments and investigations or based on government reports?

[Answer] (Revision Completed) The calculation of CO2 absorption in this paper is based on a government report, and the authors have developed a new method.

 

10. Line 323, “3,164,058 tCO2/ha” should be “3,164,058 t CO2 ha^-1”, I suggest double checking the full text for similar issues

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As per your comment, the units have been changed to “t CO2 ha^-1” format for the entire text, including line 323.

 

11. The results section needs more work. However, the results are exciting but should be presented meaningfully.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) We have supplemented the existing results and presented additional results. Thank you.

 

(Additional inserted sentence)

(1) “To successfully execute the afforestation after harvesting timber without delays, a systematic seedling system should be in place. Additionally, efforts should be made to maximize carbon storage and the substitution effect of carbon-intensive materials by prioritizing the use of timber produced for long-life span, high-value purposes such as wooden construction and furniture.”

(2) “Efforts should be accompanied by prioritizing the use of wood produced through species renewal for long-life, high-value-added applications such as timber construction and wooden furniture, in order to maximize carbon storage and the effect of substituting carbon-intensive materials.”

 

12. Conclusion, Please present it concisely in one paragraphs, with future implications based on the outcomes of this study.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) Based on the conclusion, we have added future implications to the text. Thank you.

 

(Additional inserted sentence)

“This study is expected to be used as basic data for establishing detailed implementation plans for the forestry sector based on scientific evidence to carry out carbon neutrality policies. In the future, we aim to develop an integrated forecasting model that incorporates forest dynamic growth models, forest disasters such as wildfires, and trends in wood utilization, in order to predict more accurately the changes in forest carbon absorption.”

 

13. In addition, there are formatting and writing issues that need to be double-checked.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) I have reviewed the entire format and writing again. Thank you.

 

14. References, I do not understand why so many identical or similar reports (references 5-7, 32-35, 46) have to be quoted over and over again, and it is generally necessary to quote the latest government report. For example the IPCC Intergovernmental Working Report.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) Our research team has created a new method and has cited a lot of research data from the Forest Service, a government agency, to include various assumptions within a realistic range. As you mentioned, we have also added IPCC guidelines. Thank you for your detailed review.

 

(Additional inserted References)

“41. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, 2006.”

 

15. References, A large number of formatting errors, such as journal abbreviations and DOI. In addition, Forests, as an international academic journal, should cite more references from international high-quality journals, and should appropriately reduce citations to national non-international journals

[Answer] (Revision Completed) We have supplemented it by adding the IPCC and other related journals you mentioned. Thank you.

 

"Thank you once again, dear reviewer, for your thorough examination."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several questions and remarks regarding the article by Kwon et al. “Impact of Tree Species Diversity on Carbon Absorption Capac- ity in Forest Regeneration”.

 

The basis of various climate change scenarios is an increase in carbon dioxide emissions due to human activities. This results in variations in the ways in which various types of ecosystems sequester carbon. Changes in environmental conditions and, eventually, changes in rate of tree growth, are the most major effects of these changes. How are climate change models considered in your models (e.g., RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5)?

Figure 6. According to these data, you try analyse tree plant growth, and as a result, carbon sequestration as a linear process. However, the growth of woody plants with age is not a linear process. The growth rate of tree plants and carbon storage slows with age.

The Results and Discussion section should be revised substantially. As presented, it is only a discussion of the results. This section makes no attempt to compare results obtained in other studies.

This article does not contain a Conclusion section. Add Conclusion to the article.

Add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several questions and remarks regarding the article by Kwon et al. “Impact of Tree Species Diversity on Carbon Absorption Capac- ity in Forest Regeneration”.

 

The basis of various climate change scenarios is an increase in carbon dioxide emissions due to human activities. This results in variations in the ways in which various types of ecosystems sequester carbon. Changes in environmental conditions and, eventually, changes in rate of tree growth, are the most major effects of these changes. How are climate change models considered in your models (e.g., RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5)?

 

[Answer] (Revised) There is a limitation in not being able to reflect the dynamic stand growth changes under climate change scenarios (such as RCP, SSP, etc.) considering factors like temperature and precipitation. I have predicted the future based on the current forest-related statistics in Korea. There may be changes due to human activities and forest options. I thought that we should check it numerically and implement policies that are linked to achieve the maximum effect in the forestry sector within that range. I will answer the relevant questions you have mentioned in their entirety along with the questions below. Thank you for your valuable comment.

 

Figure 6. According to these data, you try analyse tree plant growth, and as a result, carbon sequestration as a linear process. However, the growth of woody plants with age is not a linear process. The growth rate of tree plants and carbon storage slows with age. The Results and Discussion section should be revised substantially. As presented, it is only a discussion of the results. This section makes no attempt to compare results obtained in other studies. This article does not contain a Conclusion section. Add Conclusion to the article. Add research limitations and perspectives for future exploration to the Discussion section.

 

[Answer] Yes, that's correct. As a final result, Figure 6 shows the cumulative carbon absorption at 10-year intervals, considering growth rates. Accordingly, I have revised Figure 6 and supplemented the main text as you suggested. Thank you.

 

(Additional inserted sentence) 3. Results and Discussion

“Based on these results, we compared and analyzed them from two aspects. First, when compared with the statistical data of the Ministry of Environment's Greenhouse Gas Information Center, it was confirmed that the forestry sector sink, which had been offset by more than 6.26% as of 2019, could be changed by up to 8.74%. Second, when analyzed within the scope of this study, it was confirmed that the comparison value between the maximum and minimum sinks could increase by up to 36% depending on the forest management method. In addition, among the research data mentioned in the text, there is a result that pine trees absorb 11.0 tons of CO₂ per ha per year, and the sink offsets the greenhouse gases emitted by 5.7 passenger cars per year. When the maximum comparison value of 17,996,977 t CO₂ ha^-1 of carbon sinks is combined with the greenhouse gas offset effect of passenger cars, the conclusion is that it offsets the greenhouse gases emitted by approximately 9.32 million passenger cars per year. This is a figure that can offset more than 37.43% based on the 24.91 million domestically registered automobiles as of the end of 2021 announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. It is judged that it will be difficult to achieve the carbon sink target unless various interpretations and models for long-term renewal scenarios such as this study are developed in the forestry sector in the future. The major issues that have been recently debated in forest management are the extension of age ranges and the preservation and maintenance of forests from logging or deforestation, but this is far from the actual development and cultivation of forest resources. It is realistically impossible to increase carbon sinks with only small-scale forest management activities such as thinning and mowing. In order to continuously strengthen and increase carbon absorption capacity, forest circulation management should be strengthened based on expanded afforestation projects and planted tree species. By planting, cultivating, and harvesting tree species sustainably and utilizing them, added value such as the environment (carbon sink) and the economy (stable wood production) should be stably created. To do so, it is necessary to implement a more strategic approach, such as long-term afforestation, age reduction, and systematic logging systems in line with the circular economy. The important implication of this study is to maximize the utilization value of forest resources focusing on carbon sinks more efficiently.”

 

(Additional inserted sentence) 4. Conclusions

[1] “There is a limitation in not being able to reflect the dynamic stand growth changes under climate change scenarios (such as RCP, SSP, etc.) considering factors like temperature and precipitation.”

[2] “To successfully execute the afforestation after harvesting timber without delays, a systematic seedling system should be in place. Additionally, efforts should be made to maximize carbon storage and the substitution effect of carbon-intensive materials by prioritizing the use of timber produced for long-life span, high-value purposes such as wooden construction and furniture.”

[3] “Efforts should be accompanied by prioritizing the use of wood produced through species renewal for long-life, high-value-added applications such as timber construction and wooden furniture, in order to maximize carbon storage and the effect of substituting carbon-intensive materials.”

[4] “This study is expected to be used as basic data for establishing detailed implementation plans for the forestry sector based on scientific evidence to carry out carbon neutrality policies. In the future, we aim to develop an integrated forecasting model that incorporates forest dynamic growth models, forest disasters such as wildfires, and trends in wood utilization, in order to predict more accurately the changes in forest carbon absorption.”

 

"Thank you once again, dear reviewer, for your thorough examination."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reviewing your revised manuscript, I am pleased to see significant improvements compared to the previous version. Most questions have been addressed, and I am satisfied with the revisions (the references section is still not up to the quality of international academic journals, i.e., it is not comprehensive (does not cover the progress of research) and does not reflect the latest results). I recommend can be accept but need minor revision. Below are my suggestions for your research article:

 

I do not understand why so many identical or similar reports (references 5-7, 32-35, 46) have to be quoted over and over again, and it is generally necessary to quote the latest government report. For example the IPCC Intergovernmental Working Report, The most important thing is to quote the latest one, not all the previous versions. (For example, If there is an IPCC (2021), then there is no need for an IPCC (2020), (2018), (2006), etc. IPCC, 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., P´ean, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J.B.R., Maycock, T.K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., Zhou, B. (Eds.), The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001

Please see: 5. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.  6. KFP(Korea Forestry Promotion Institute), Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013  7. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Effectiveness and policy application of the Forest Carbon Managemen Model roject; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.  32. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.  33. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Forest Forestry Stati stical Yearbook Designation Status; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.  34. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.  35. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.  46. Korea Forestry Promotion Institute, Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013.

In addition, Forests, as an international academic journal, should cite more references from international high-quality and specializing journals in forestry (e.g. Forests, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Forest Policy and Economics, Forest Ecology and Management, Forest Ecosystems, European Journal of Forest Research, and so on), and should appropriately reduce citations to national non-international journals. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (Round 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reviewing your revised manuscript, I am pleased to see significant improvements compared to the previous version. Most questions have been addressed, and I am satisfied with the revisions (the references section is still not up to the quality of international academic journals, i.e., it is not comprehensive (does not cover the progress of research) and does not reflect the latest results). I recommend can be accept but need minor revision. Below are my suggestions for your research article:

[Answer] I have thoroughly understood the comments you provided.

As per the reviewer’s instructions, We have sincerely reflected the changes as shown below. Thank you again.

I do not understand why so many identical or similar reports (references 5-7, 32-35, 46) have to be quoted over and over again, and it is generally necessary to quote the latest government report.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) After deleting all (5~7), (32~35) (46), I updated to the latest version and completed the modification.

(Before) (5~7), (32~35) (46) Full integration with the latest version

(After) (5) KFS(Korea Forest Service). STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF FORESTRY (No. 54); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2024.

For example the IPCC Intergovernmental Working Report, The most important thing is to quote the latest one, not all the previous versions. (For example, If there is an IPCC (2021), then there is no need for an IPCC (2020), (2018), (2006), etc. IPCC, 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., P´ean, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J.B.R., Maycock, T.K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., Zhou, B. (Eds.), The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.001

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As the reviewer said, I have updated it to the latest version. Thank you very much.

(Before) 41. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, 2006.

(After) 41.▶35. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023.(doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647)

Please see:

5. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.  
6. KFP(Korea Forestry Promotion Institute), Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013  
7. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Effectiveness and policy application of the Forest Carbon Managemen Model roject; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.  
8. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.  
9. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Forest Forestry Stati stical Yearbook Designation Status; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.  
10. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.  35. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.  
11. Korea Forestry Promotion Institute, Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013.

[Answer] (Revision Completed) As per your comments, I have consolidated all references listed below into the latest versions. Thank you.

Please see:

(Before) [Delete all references]

5. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.
6. KFP(Korea Forestry Promotion Institute), Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013
7. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Effectiveness and policy application of the Forest Carbon Managemen Model roject; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.
8. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.
9. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Forest Forestry Stati stical Yearbook Designation Status; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2021.
10. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Report on the opportunities and challenges of the forest resource circulation system; KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2020.
11. KFS(Korea Forest Service). Standard carbon absorption of major forest species (ver. 1.2). Briefing materials (November); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.
12. Korea Forestry Promotion Institute, Forest Resource Evaluation in Korea 2006-2012; South Korea, 2013.

 (after) [Latest integrated version]

5. KFS(Korea Forest Service). STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF FORESTRY (No. 54); KFS: Daejeon, Korea, 2024.

In addition, Forests, as an international academic journal, should cite more references from international high-quality and specializing journals in forestry (e.g. Forests, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Forest Policy and Economics, Forest Ecology and Management, Forest Ecosystems, European Journal of Forest Research, and so on), and should appropriately reduce citations to national non-international journals. 

[Answer] (Revision Completed) Yes, as you commented, we have changed the domestic non-international journal to an international academic journal with the latest version of the relevant content as follows. Thank you.

(Before)

9. Kim, Y.H. Developing a large-scale carbon offset project based on forest management: In the case of Jin-An leading forest management zone. J.Climate Change Res. 2016, 7, 137-142. (http://dx.doi.org/10.15531/KSCCR.2016.7.2.134)
10. Kim, D.Y., Han, H. & Chung, J.S., Recalculation of forest growing stock for national greenhouse gas inventory. J. Climate Change Res. 2016, 7, 485-492. (http://dx.doi.org/10.15531/KSCCR.2016.7.4.485)
11. Ryu, D.H.; Lee, W.K.; Song, C.H.; Lim, C.H.; Lee, S.G.; Piao, D. Assessing effects of shortening final cutting age on future CO2 absorption of forests in Korea. J. Climate Change Res. 2016, 7, 157-167. (http://dx.doi.org/10.15531/KSCCR.2016.7.2.157)
12. JO, H.K.; Kim, J.Y; Park, H.M. Carbon storage and Uptake by Evergreen trees for urban landscape – for Pinus densiflora and Pinus koraiensis. Korean J. Environ. Ecol. 2013, 27, 571-578. (http://dx.doi.org/10.13047/KJEE.2013.27.5.571)
13. Choi, K.M.; Kim, M.I.; Lee, W.K.; Gang, H.U.; Chung, D.J.; Ko, E.J.; Yun, B.H.; Kim, C.H. Estimating radial growth response of major tree species using climatic and topographic conditions in South Korea. J. Climate Change Res. 2014, 5, 127-137. (http://dx.doi.org/10.15531/KSCCR.2014.5.2.127)
14. Kim, D.Y., Han, H. & Chung, J.S., Recalculation of forest growing stock for national greenhouse gas inventory. J. Climate Change Res. 2016, 7, 485-492. (http://dx.doi.org/10.15531/KSCCR.2016.7.4.485)
15. Kim, H.K.; Choi, S.W.; Kim, J. Research trends and future directions for sustainable agricultural and forest management. KJAFM. 2015, 17, 236-247. (DOI: 10.5532/KJAFM.2015.17.3.236)

(After)

9. ▶7. Allen, K.; Bellingham, P J.; Richardson, S J.; Allen, R B.; Burrows, L E.; Carswell, F E.; Husheer, S W.; John, M G S.; Peltzer, D A. Long-term exclusion of invasive ungulates alters tree recruitment and functional traits but not total forest carbon. Ecological Applications. 2023, 33, e2836. (https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2836)
10. ▶8. Richy, E.; Fort, T.; Odriozola, I.; Kohout, P.; Barbi, F.; Martinovic, T.; Tupek, B.; Adamczyk, B.; Lehtonen, A.; Mäkipää, R.; Baldrian, P. Phosphorus limitation promotes soil carbon storage in a borealforest exposed to long-term nitrogen fertilization. Glob Change Biol. 2024, 30, e17516. (DOI: 10.1111/gcb.17516)
11. ▶25. Miner, R A.; Abt, R C.; Bowyer, J L.; Buford, M A.; Malmsheimer, R W.; O'Laughlin, J.; Oneil, E E.; Sedjo, R A.; Skog, K E. Forest Carbon Accounting Considerations in US Bioenergy Policy. Journal of Forestry, 2014, 112, 6. (https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-009)
12. ▶26. Yu, Z.; Liu, S.; Li, H.; Liang, J.; Liu, W.; Piao, S.; Tian, H.; Zhou, G.; Lu, C.; You, W.; Sun, P.; Dong, Y.; Sitch. S.; Agathokleous, E. Maximizing carbon sequestration potential in Chinese forests through optimal management. Nature Communications. 2024, 15, 3154. (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47143-5)
13. ▶29. Zheng, X.; Sheng, M.; Zhang, Y.; Gong, Z.; Wang L. PhytOC sequestration characteristics and phytolith carbon sink potential of karst Masson pine forest in southern China. Science of The Total Environment. 2024, 913, 169688. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169688)
14. ▶32. Zhang, H.; Liu, S.; Yu, J.; Lia, J.; Shangguan, Z.; Deng, L. Thinning increases forest ecosystem carbon stocks. Forest Ecology and Management. 2024, 555, 121702. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2024.121702)
15. ▶40. Wei1, N.; Xia, J. Robust projections of increasing land carbon storage in boreal and temperate forests under future climate change scenarios. One Earth. 2024, 7. 88-99. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.11.013)

 [Round2 Answer] "Thank you once again for your thorough review. I truly appreciate it."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the authors have considered all of the comments and made significant changes to the manuscript. Thanks to the authors for their work.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (Round 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the authors have considered all of the comments and made significant changes to the manuscript. Thanks to the authors for their work.

[Final Answer] "Thank you once again for your thorough review. I truly appreciate it."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf