Derivation and Application of Allometric Equations to Quantify the Net Primary Productivity (NPP) of the Salix pierotii Miq. Community as a Representative Riparian Vegetation Type
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study aims to derive the allometric equation as a basic tool to estimate the willow 102 community's carbon absorption capacity. The study is certainly relevant and will be of interest to many researchers. However, when reading the manuscript, several questions arose:
As in the case of lowland forests, it is obvious that wetland forests are carbon sinks up to a certain age. In mature forests, carbon dioxide emissions are often higher than sequestration. How was the age of the stands taken into account in your study?
How were trees per hectare counted? Were Lidar data or multispectral imagery data used? Otherwise, such a method is also quite labor-intensive.
It is obvious that at different stand densities, there will be different ratios of the phytomass of trunks, branches, and leaves. How was this factor taken into account in your calculations? Was your allometric equations varied in dense and sparse stands?
Figure 1. Collection sites are indicated, not rivers. It would be advisable to add rivers and the names of at least a few settlements to the map.
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.
Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Chang Seok Lee
Reviewer #1
This study aims to derive the allometric equation as a basic tool to estimate the willow 102 community's carbon absorption capacity. The study is certainly relevant and will be of interest to many researchers. However, when reading the manuscript, several questions arose:
As in the case of lowland forests, it is obvious that wetland forests are carbon sinks up to a certain age. In mature forests, carbon dioxide emissions are often higher than sequestration. How was the age of the stands taken into account in your study?
Thank you for your considerate comments. Recently, such perception has changed, but not long ago, riparian vegetation in Korea was frequently removed because it was recognized as interfering with water flow during flooding. Therefore, most riparian vegetation is composed of young plants. In this study, stands under 30 years old were selected.
How were trees per hectare counted? Were Lidar data or multispectral imagery data used? Otherwise, such a method is also quite labor-intensive.
The density was investigated by installing a quadrat. Line 185.
It is obvious that at different stand densities, there will be different ratios of the phytomass of trunks, branches, and leaves. How was this factor taken into account in your calculations? Was your allometric equations varied in dense and sparse stands?
You are right. However, we selected stands of similar ages (20 to 30-year-old stands), so the density difference was not significant. Refer to Table 3.
Figure 1. Collection sites are indicated, not rivers. It would be advisable to add rivers and the names of at least a few settlements to the map.
We revised Figure 1 by reflecting the reviewer’s comment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
While the use of allometric equations is quite standard as a method, there is a need to document additional equations particularly at the local level. The main thrust of this manuscript is to contrast allometric estimates with those based on stem analysis. The authors also seem to want to estimate the carbon sequestration capacity of willow in their study area.
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
Overall the manuscript is excessively wordy and poorly organized. The abstract is very wordy and could be cut by 25% or so by using more direct phrasing. The introduction is repetitive with the points being made in several paragraphs. The points should be made once in the order than leads to a logical flow of ideas. The methods are poorly organized with some points repeated and others are out of logical sequence. The results section is a bit repetitive with an excessive number of figures (some of which could be in supplemental material. In the discussion many of the contrasts are confusing because the basis contrast is not clear, the items being compared is not clear and values of differences are not presented.
There are also some conceptual issues that need to be addressed. While it is fine to present estimates of NPP one has to explain the limitations of used NPP as a surrogate for carbon sequestration rates. At best these are potential upper limits of carbon sequestration, but even as that NPP is misleading. That is because NPP is not necessarily carbon accumulation in vegetation. One must account for mortality rates. A prime example is that leaf/foliage biomass does not usually increase much, but it is a high fraction of aboveground NPP. Another example involves the riparian to upland forest contrasts made. I don’t doubt that the NPP differs, but that does not account for the lifespan of trees in the riparian versus upland setting. It is highly likely the lifespan in the riparian forests is shorter, which means much of the NPP is going toward replacement of mortality and not carbon accumulation. That is why it is also important to contrast the store and the NPP. A high NPP and a low store keeps less carbon out of the atmosphere than a low NPP and a very high store. These nuances need to be explained by the authors, certainly in the discussion, but also in the methods as they describe how they used/interpreted NPP.
There are also methodological issues. NPP of roots cannot be estimated by only harvesting coarse roots, which is the most likely result of excavating roots as was done. NPP of fine roots has to be estimated using standing stocks and mortality rates. As fine root-related NPP can be over half of total NPP the estimates of NPP offered are likely low. While no one would expect that a fine root NPP study was to be conducted, the authors should have made the limitations of their methods clearer.
Specific comments (line)
3 I think the phrase “newly discovered” is problematical. First, it is very vague and could apply to pretty much anything. Second, it is inaccurate. Wetlands have been discussed as a carbon store and sink for at least a decade if not longer. That is hardly new. Perhaps just specific “wetland” as that what it is specifically about and does not indicate when this discovery occurred.
21 perhaps it would be better to provide a range of numbers?
23 ditto
23 NPP is likely related to carbon sequestration rate, but it is a gross version of it. Upland forests could have a lower NPP than willow stands, but the latter is likely to have a higher mortality rate and thus store less carbon. These nuances need to be considered before making management recommendations.
58 I think the same could be written about any ecosystem. Why imply this is only the case for riparian ecosystems as written?
70 Would this not pertain to any ecosystem with trees? This seems to suggest this pertains only to riparian ecosystems.
73-75 I am not this is an actual example of what is discussed in the previous sentence. To be an example it would need to contrast at least one of the factors listed. This does not.
117 If this was a plant community allometric equation, then would it not include all the species? Isn’t this an allometric equation for a single species?
121 If this is how moisture content was derived then it could not be used to correct the field weights for moisture. It would have to be relative to the amount of dry mass or wet mass.
116-136 This section is confusing, in part because it seems to repeat some of the methods. Also it is not in a logical order. Perhaps first describe how trees were selected, then harvests, then processed, etc.
137 This title is confusing because it does not list items in the order than they are presented. NPP estimates are first in the heading, but second in the description. That is confusing.
147 At which height were the disks taken?
150 Diameter growth over which period of time?
153-167 This section seems to describe the method estimate mass from the stem analysis. That should go earlier after the other method is described. The NPP methods should just be the NPP methods.
168-174 This equation should go earlier, before the NPP methods.
188-190 Most of this is methods and is not needed in the results section.
192 what does high mean? Would it not be better to list the range of r2’s or the minimum value?
211 What is the red curved line on the stem plot? That could not be the predictions from the equation presented.
214 I am not sure the following section verifies the allometric equations. Certainly it assesses them, but I view validation as something else.
217 Don’t RMSE, MAE, and MPE all have units? Please provide them.
218 the whole tree equation? Not clear which equation is being presented.
229 Ditto
230 I don’t think this heading is accurate. This section is about NPP and not about carbon absorption capacity. Perhaps one could make the case this is potential carbon absorption capacity. It would be better to call it what it is: NPP.
238 This is actually the mean NPP. It does not make sense to change how the variables are described.
241 Why not present the store as well in this table?
245 This is one example of excessive wording. “Appeared as” could have been written as “was” or “were”.
254 Do the authors mean “expansion factor”?
255 The ratio has to have two items in it to make sense. Was this the root to stem ratio? Or root to whole mass ratio?
259 Doesn’t this also include the total?
261 Isn’t a bit odd that none of the parameters listed in the table involve carbon? Would not that be expected for a carbon coefficient?
267 as before a range of values or a lower limit would be more informative.
286 Don’t these have units?
295 ditto
304 same comment as for line 238
309 this is really a comparison not a validation.
327-332 This paragraph is not needed and just a repeat of what is in the introduction.
334 To have one hand, one needs another.
352 To have one hand, one needs another. Also it implies a contrast. This is not a contrast it is an elaboration of an earlier idea, so as written it makes little sense.
357 It is not clear if this comparison was published earlier or if it is based on a comparison of the current study and a past study. And since numbers are not presented it is not clear what the differences are.
360 more issues with hands so to speak. Do the authors mean “in contrast”?
368 Why is this sink new? Forests have been discussed for decades as sinks.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Many suggestions under specific comments. In general it is excessively wordy, uses incorrect constructions (for example on one hand, on the other hand with one hand missing).
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.
Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Chang Seok Lee
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comments
While the use of allometric equations is quite standard as a method, there is a need to document additional equations particularly at the local level. The main thrust of this manuscript is to contrast allometric estimates with those based on stem analysis. The authors also seem to want to estimate the carbon sequestration capacity of willow in their study area.
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
Overall the manuscript is excessively wordy and poorly organized. The abstract is very wordy and could be cut by 25% or so by using more direct phrasing. The introduction is repetitive with the points being made in several paragraphs. The points should be made once in the order than leads to a logical flow of ideas. The methods are poorly organized with some points repeated and others are out of logical sequence. The results section is a bit repetitive with an excessive number of figures (some of which could be in supplemental material. In the discussion many of the contrasts are confusing because the basis contrast is not clear, the items being compared is not clear and values of differences are not presented.
☞ In the abstract, the background and purpose of this study, the results obtained, and the verification and importance of the results were described.
In the Introduction section, to explain the direction of this study, we dealt with the necessity of balancing the emission source and absorption source as a countermeasure against climate change, the importance of conserving and restoring nature as a countermeasure, the importance of riparian vegetation as a carbon sink, and allometric equation as a method of estimating carbon absorption capacity.
In the method section, we covered the method applied to this study in detail.
In the results section, the results obtained through this study were shown in graphs and tables, and the contents were described. By the way, there are many similar graphs, so it seems somewhat redundant.
In the discussion section, the consideration for feasibility of the applied method, the comparison of the carbon absorption capacity calculated by applying the derived equation, the comparison between methods of measuring carbon sinks, and the need to discover carbon sinks were addressed.
There are also some conceptual issues that need to be addressed. While it is fine to present estimates of NPP one has to explain the limitations of used NPP as a surrogate for carbon sequestration rates. At best these are potential upper limits of carbon sequestration, but even as that NPP is misleading. That is because NPP is not necessarily carbon accumulation in vegetation. One must account for mortality rates. A prime example is that leaf/foliage biomass does not usually increase much, but it is a high fraction of aboveground NPP. Another example involves the riparian to upland forest contrasts made. I don’t doubt that the NPP differs, but that does not account for the lifespan of trees in the riparian versus upland setting. It is highly likely the lifespan in the riparian forests is shorter, which means much of the NPP is going toward replacement of mortality and not carbon accumulation. That is why it is also important to contrast the store and the NPP. A high NPP and a low store keeps less carbon out of the atmosphere than a low NPP and a very high store. These nuances need to be explained by the authors, certainly in the discussion, but also in the methods as they describe how they used/interpreted NPP.
☞ We respect the reviewer's valuable comments. However, the purpose of this study is a little different from revealing the carbon cycle. The first purpose is to derive the allometric equation and the biomass expansion coefficient as basic tools for estimating the carbon absorption capacity. In addition to this, another purpose is to apply it to estimate the carbon absorption capacity. Therefore, in this study, we derived the allometric equation and the biomass expansion coefficient of the willow stand by faithfully applying the widely known method for a long time.
Riparian vegetation that is established around wetlands, including rivers, is exposed to frequent and intense disturbances. But it has long been known that the place where it is established has a higher content of nutrients than the terrestrial ecosystem and is particularly productive because of its good moisture conditions. The results of this study prove such a fact. On the other hand, willow trees tend to adapt well to such environments because their stems are flexible. In addition, because the willow stands where this study was carried out are located somewhat far from the waterway, the intensity of disturbance is relatively low. Therefore, it is judged that the results obtained in this study can be compared with those obtained in upland forest vegetation.
On the other hand, NPP is the amount of organic matter remaining after excluding the respiration amount from the amount of photosynthesis, which was converted to the amount of carbon by applying the IPCC standard. Therefore, it can be interpreted as the amount of carbon absorption. In addition, Biomas refer to the biomass at any given time, so NPP can be calculated by analyzing the change in the amount over a certain period, usually one year.
Considering the amount of carbon sequestration or carbon accumulation of forests, wetlands, and riparian zones, studies on the carbon flux of soil and water environmental conditions should also be conducted. The NPP products of most living vegetation ultimately die out after a certain period, are supplied to soil and water environments in the form of various litter, decomposed, and stored in soil or water. Therefore, in the evaluation of the carbon budget considering the mortality of a certain vegetation, it is desirable to analyze the amount carbon absorption/emission by obtaining the NEP (net ecosystem production) of the whole ecosystem including both soil and water environments beyond the NPP, which means the carbon absorption capacity inherent to vegetation. However, this study has progressed to the previous stage.
There are also methodological issues. NPP of roots cannot be estimated by only harvesting coarse roots, which is the most likely result of excavating roots as was done. NPP of fine roots has to be estimated using standing stocks and mortality rates. As fine root-related NPP can be over half of total NPP the estimates of NPP offered are likely low. While no one would expect that a fine root NPP study was to be conducted, the authors should have made the limitations of their methods clearer.
☞We carefully mined all the roots with forklanes, so our root samples contain fine roots.
Specific comments (line)
3 I think the phrase “newly discovered” is problematical. First, it is very vague and could apply to pretty much anything. Second, it is inaccurate. Wetlands have been discussed as a carbon store and sink for at least a decade if not longer. That is hardly new. Perhaps just specific “wetland” as that what it is specifically about and does not indicate when this discovery occurred.
☞ Various wetland ecosystems distributed on the planet are known as potential carbon stores and sinks. However, few studies quantitatively reveal the carbon absorption capacity and carbon coefficient of wetlands compared to forest ecosystems. Therefore, the meaning of "newly discovered" in the title of this paper means that the allometric equation, which is the basic tool for measuring carbon budget, has not yet been determined.
21 perhaps it would be better to provide a range of numbers?
☞The R2 value was added to the manuscript, reflecting the advice of the reviewer. Lines 25 - 27.
23 ditto
23 NPP is likely related to carbon sequestration rate, but it is a gross version of it. Upland forests could have a lower NPP than willow stands, but the latter is likely to have a higher mortality rate and thus store less carbon. These nuances need to be considered before making management recommendations.
☞As was mentioned above, considering the amount of carbon sequestration or carbon accumulation of forests, wetlands, and riparian zones, studies on the carbon flux of soil and water environmental conditions should also be conducted. The NPP products of most living vegetation ultimately die out after a certain period, are supplied to soil and water environments in the form of various litter, decomposed, and stored in soil or water. Therefore, in the evaluation of the carbon budget considering the mortality of a certain vegetation, it is desirable to analyze the amount carbon absorption/emission by obtaining the NEP (net ecosystem production) of the whole ecosystem including both soil and water environments beyond the NPP, which means the carbon absorption capacity inherent to vegetation. However, this study has progressed to the previous stage.
58 I think the same could be written about any ecosystem. Why imply this is only the case for riparian ecosystems as written?
70 Would this not pertain to any ecosystem with trees? This seems to suggest this pertains only to riparian ecosystems.
☞ Of course, this can be applied to all terrestrial ecosystems, including riparian ecosystems. However, we only emphasized the importance of evaluating the carbon absorption capacity of riparian vegetation.
73-75 I am not this is an actual example of what is discussed in the previous sentence. To be an example it would need to contrast at least one of the factors listed. This does not.
☞ As you pointed out, weadded the key elements of the previous sentence and revised it. Lines 84 - 87.
117 If this was a plant community allometric equation, then would it not include all the species? Isn’t this an allometric equation for a single species?
☞ The willow community of the site where this study was conducted is a pure stand composed of a single species.
121 If this is how moisture content was derived then it could not be used to correct the field weights for moisture. It would have to be relative to the amount of dry mass or wet mass.
☞ You are right. We measured the biomass as follows. We measured the fresh weight of the excavated individuals by dividing them into stems, branches, leaves, and roots in the field. Then, a part of each organ was sampled, transported to a laboratory, and oven-dried at 80 °C to a constant weight. The moisture content was calculated from the difference between the fresh and dry weights.
116-136 This section is confusing, in part because it seems to repeat some of the methods. Also it is not in a logical order. Perhaps first describe how trees were selected, then harvests, then processed, etc. 137 This title is confusing because it does not list items in the order than they are presented. NPP estimates are first in the heading, but second in the description. That is confusing.
☞ The sentences were rearranged to reduce confusion as follows. Lines 135 - 158.
147 At which height were the disks taken?
☞ We collected the disks at 0.2 m (base disk) and 1.2 m and then at 1 to 2 m intervals. However, we measured the final length in the case of the top part. Lines 167 - 170
150 Diameter growth over which period of time?
☞ The entire growth period was measured through annual ring analysis. Lines 188 – 191.
153-167 This section seems to describe the method estimate mass from the stem analysis. That should go earlier after the other method is described. The NPP methods should just be the NPP methods.
☞ We rearranged our manuscript by applying reviewer’s advice. Lines 158 - 198.
168-174 This equation should go earlier, before the NPP methods.
☞ We rearranged our manuscript by applying reviewer’s advice. Lines 158 - 198.
188-190 Most of this is methods and is not needed in the results section.
☞ They are graphs of the analysis results.
192 what does high mean? Would it not be better to list the range of r2’s or the minimum value?
☞ This means that the R2 value is high, meaning that the significance of the regression equation is high.
211 What is the red curved line on the stem plot? That could not be the predictions from the equation presented.
☞ The red dotted lines indicate the trend line. We added the sentence to the caption of the graph.
214 I am not sure the following section verifies the allometric equations. Certainly it assesses them, but I view validation as something else.
☞ We revised the part. Line 248
217 Don’t RMSE, MAE, and MPE all have units? Please provide them.
☞ We added the unit by the reflecting reviewer’s advice. Lines 255 – 267.
218 the whole tree equation? Not clear which equation is being presented.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Lines 224 – 269.
229 Ditto
230 I don’t think this heading is accurate. This section is about NPP and not about carbon absorption capacity. Perhaps one could make the case this is potential carbon absorption capacity. It would be better to call it what it is: NPP.
☞ We revised the heading by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 271.
238 This is actually the mean NPP. It does not make sense to change how the variables are described.
☞ We revised the heading by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 281.
241 Why not present the store as well in this table?
☞ As this study is focused on NPP, we did not include storage values in the table.
245 This is one example of excessive wording. “Appeared as” could have been written as “was” or “were”.
☞ We revised the heading by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Lines 290 – 302.
254 Do the authors mean “expansion factor”?
☞ We revised ‘biomass extension factor’ to ‘biomass expansion factor’.
255 The ratio has to have two items in it to make sense. Was this the root to stem ratio? Or root to whole mass ratio?
☞ The ratio is the ratio of root biomass to above ground biomass as was shown in Table 4.
259 Doesn’t this also include the total?
☞ The ratio is the ratio of root biomass to above ground biomass.
261 Isn’t a bit odd that none of the parameters listed in the table involve carbon? Would not that be expected for a carbon coefficient?
☞ The variables are about biomass, but they can be converted to the amount of carbon by applying carbon conversion coefficients of IPCC (0.5), so they are usually expressed as carbon conversion coefficients rather than biomass conversion coefficients.
267 as before a range of values or a lower limit would be more informative.
☞ We revised the heading by reflecting reviewer’s advice. Lines 315 – 319.
286 Don’t these have units?
☞ We added the unit by reflecting reviewer’s advice. Lines 336 – 344.
295 ditto
304 same comments as for line 238
☞ We revised the heading by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 355.
309 this is really a comparison not a validation.
☞We revised the heading by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 362.
327-332 This paragraph is not needed and just a repeat of what is in the introduction.
☞ This part explains the advantages and disadvantages of the allometric method and is a necessary paragraph for the overall composition of the Discussion section.
334 To have one hand, one needs another.
☞ We revised this part by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 387.
352 To have one hand, one needs another. Also, it implies a contrast. This is not a contrast it is an elaboration of an earlier idea, so as written it makes little sense.
☞ We revised the part by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 405.
357 It is not clear if this comparison was published earlier or if it is based on a comparison of the current study and a past study. And since numbers are not presented it is not clear what the differences are.
☞ We revised the part by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 411.
360 more issues with hands so to speak. Do the authors mean “in contrast”?
☞ We revised the part by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 414 – 416.
368 Why is this sink new? Forests have been discussed for decades as sinks.
☞ Until now, quantitative evaluation of the carbon sink or source of the terrestrial ecosystem has been mainly conducted in upland forests. However, relatively, studies on the carbon absorption capacity and carbon budget of wetland and riparian ecosystems have been very insufficient. In particular, such an evaluation has not been made in Korea. Therefore, we expressed as such.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is interesting, relevant, and generally well-written. However, there are several weaknesses that should be addressed before publication. I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript.
Specific Comments:
Title:
The current title suggests the development of a novel method or methodology, which is not entirely accurate. The method itself does not appear to be new or groundbreaking. I suggest making the title more specific to the object of study (e.g., NPP, willow, riparian vegetation).
Throughout the Text:
Once an abbreviation is introduced (e.g., AGB), it should be used consistently throughout the rest of the manuscript instead of the full term.
The word “organs” is not appropriate in the context of tree biomass. Consider using “components” or “compartments” instead.
Abstract:
The Abstract should focus more on the methodology, key results, and the main findings of the study.
The first seven lines are overly general and could be significantly shortened.
Provide more specific details about the results, including some numerical values.
Conclude with a strong, clear take-home message summarizing the study’s main contribution.
Introduction:
Line 69: Please clarify which sources the reported outputs are derived from. Cite the relevant papers more precisely.
Lines 102–103: The study's aims should be elaborated more clearly, including specifying the type of ecosystem studied.
Materials and Methods:
Figure 1: The map lacks sufficient detail (“too blind”). Include additional elements such as rivers, vegetation cover, or other relevant geographic features.
Line 121: Drying biomass at 80°C is unusually low. Typically, 95°C is used for foliage and 105°C for woody parts. Please justify this choice and specify how long the biomass was dried.
Line 146: The term “installed” is inappropriate. Consider using “established” instead.
Line 150: Include the name of the manufacturer for the Vernier caliper.
The term “willow” or “Salix spp.” is used generally—please specify which Salix species were included in the study.
Results:
Section 3.1: Clarify which willow species are being discussed. If multiple species were used, write “Salix spp.”
Figure 2 (and others): Improve y-axis labels for clarity. Instead of general terms like “Biomass,” use more specific labels such as “Stem biomass,” “Branch biomass,” etc., to help readers interpret the figures more easily.
Discussion:
Lines 310–326: Avoid repeating detailed results already presented in the Results section. This part could be shortened.
Line 328: The explanation of “allometric equations” is unnecessary here. If needed, it should be provided in the Introduction. Otherwise, it can be omitted.
Conclusion:
The manuscript lacks a dedicated Conclusion section. Please add that.
Consider incorporating key ideas from section 4.4 into the Conclusion.
The Conclusion should provide a generalization of the main findings, discuss their potential scientific and practical implications, and suggest directions for future research.
Other Comments:
Page 18: The list of abbreviations is incomplete. Additional abbreviations such as AGB, BEF, DBH, WD, and R should be included.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I am not a native English speaker; however, I believe the text could be improved in terms of language quality
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.
Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Chang Seok Lee
Reviewer #3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is interesting, relevant, and generally well-written. However, there are several weaknesses that should be addressed before publication. I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript.
Specific Comments:
Title:
The current title suggests the development of a novel method or methodology, which is not entirely accurate. The method itself does not appear to be new or groundbreaking. I suggest making the title more specific to the object of study (e.g., NPP, willow, riparian vegetation).
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Throughout the Text:
Once an abbreviation is introduced (e.g., AGB), it should be used consistently throughout the rest of the manuscript instead of the full term.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
The word “organs” is not appropriate in the context of tree biomass. Consider using “components” or “compartments” instead.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Abstract:
The Abstract should focus more on the methodology, key results, and the main findings of the study.
The first seven lines are overly general and could be significantly shortened.
Provide more specific details about the results, including some numerical values.
Conclude with a strong, clear take-home message summarizing the study’s main contribution.
☞ We revised the abstract part by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Introduction:
Line 69: Please clarify which sources the reported outputs are derived from. Cite the relevant papers more precisely.
☞ We cited references of 26 and 27.
Lines 102–103: The study's aims should be elaborated more clearly, including specifying the type of ecosystem studied.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Lines 111 – 116.
Materials and Methods:
Figure 1: The map lacks sufficient detail (“too blind”). Include additional elements such as rivers, vegetation cover, or other relevant geographic features.
☞ We added Table 1, which includes environmental conditions of the sites studied.
Line 121: Drying biomass at 80°C is unusually low. Typically, 95°C is used for foliage and 105°C for woody parts. Please justify this choice and specify how long the biomass was dried.
☞ To reduce the risk of ignition, we dried samples in an 80°C dryer until it reach the constant weight.
Line 146: The term “installed” is inappropriate. Consider using “established” instead.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 185.
Line 150: Include the name of the manufacturer for the Vernier caliper.
☞ We added the manufacturer of the Vernier caliper by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 190.
The term “willow” or “Salix spp.” is used generally—please specify which Salix species were included in the study.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Results:
Section 3.1: Clarify which willow species are being discussed. If multiple species were used, write “Salix spp.”
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Figure 2 (and others): Improve y-axis labels for clarity. Instead of general terms like “Biomass,” use more specific labels such as “Stem biomass,” “Branch biomass,” etc., to help readers interpret the figures more easily.
☞ We marked it as a graph title.
Discussion:
Lines 310–326: Avoid repeating detailed results already presented in the Results section. This part could be shortened.
☞ In the result section, the results obtained from the allometric method and the stem analysis method are shown, and here in Discussion section, the results and the fitness of each method are compared to show differences.
Line 328: The explanation of “allometric equations” is unnecessary here. If needed, it should be provided in the Introduction. Otherwise, it can be omitted.
☞ It is meaningful to compare the allometric method and the stem analysis method as a method of evaluating the NPP, further the carbon absorption capacity of vegetation. Here, it is not a simple explanation of the method, but compares the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods to examine their effectiveness.
Conclusion:
The manuscript lacks a dedicated Conclusion section. Please add that.
Consider incorporating key ideas from section 4.4 into the Conclusion.
The Conclusion should provide a generalization of the main findings, discuss their potential scientific and practical implications, and suggest directions for future research.
☞ We added Conclusion section by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments.
Other Comments:
Page 18: The list of abbreviations is incomplete. Additional abbreviations such as AGB, BEF, DBH, WD, and R should be included.
☞ We added the contents by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines 525 -526.
Response to reviewer’s comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.
Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Chang Seok Lee
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is interesting, relevant, and generally well-written. However, there are several weaknesses that should be addressed before publication. I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript.
Specific Comments:
Title:
The current title suggests the development of a novel method or methodology, which is not entirely accurate. The method itself does not appear to be new or groundbreaking. I suggest making the title more specific to the object of study (e.g., NPP, willow, riparian vegetation).
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Throughout the Text:
Once an abbreviation is introduced (e.g., AGB), it should be used consistently throughout the rest of the manuscript instead of the full term.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
The word “organs” is not appropriate in the context of tree biomass. Consider using “components” or “compartments” instead.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Abstract:
The Abstract should focus more on the methodology, key results, and the main findings of the study.
The first seven lines are overly general and could be significantly shortened.
Provide more specific details about the results, including some numerical values.
Conclude with a strong, clear take-home message summarizing the study’s main contribution.
☞ We revised the abstract part by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Introduction:
Line 69: Please clarify which sources the reported outputs are derived from. Cite the relevant papers more precisely.
☞ We cited references of 26 and 27.
Lines 102–103: The study's aims should be elaborated more clearly, including specifying the type of ecosystem studied.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Lines 111 – 116.
Materials and Methods:
Figure 1: The map lacks sufficient detail (“too blind”). Include additional elements such as rivers, vegetation cover, or other relevant geographic features.
☞ We added Table 1, which includes environmental conditions of the sites studied.
Line 121: Drying biomass at 80°C is unusually low. Typically, 95°C is used for foliage and 105°C for woody parts. Please justify this choice and specify how long the biomass was dried.
☞ To reduce the risk of ignition, we dried samples in an 80°C dryer until it reach the constant weight.
Line 146: The term “installed” is inappropriate. Consider using “established” instead.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 185.
Line 150: Include the name of the manufacturer for the Vernier caliper.
☞ We added the manufacturer of the Vernier caliper by reflecting the reviewer’s advice. Line 190.
The term “willow” or “Salix spp.” is used generally—please specify which Salix species were included in the study.
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Results:
Section 3.1: Clarify which willow species are being discussed. If multiple species were used, write “Salix spp.”
☞ We revised the parts by reflecting the reviewer’s advice.
Figure 2 (and others): Improve y-axis labels for clarity. Instead of general terms like “Biomass,” use more specific labels such as “Stem biomass,” “Branch biomass,” etc., to help readers interpret the figures more easily.
☞ We marked it as a graph title.
Discussion:
Lines 310–326: Avoid repeating detailed results already presented in the Results section. This part could be shortened.
☞ In the result section, the results obtained from the allometric method and the stem analysis method are shown, and here in Discussion section, the results and the fitness of each method are compared to show differences.
Line 328: The explanation of “allometric equations” is unnecessary here. If needed, it should be provided in the Introduction. Otherwise, it can be omitted.
☞ It is meaningful to compare the allometric method and the stem analysis method as a method of evaluating the NPP, further the carbon absorption capacity of vegetation. Here, it is not a simple explanation of the method, but compares the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods to examine their effectiveness.
Conclusion:
The manuscript lacks a dedicated Conclusion section. Please add that.
Consider incorporating key ideas from section 4.4 into the Conclusion.
The Conclusion should provide a generalization of the main findings, discuss their potential scientific and practical implications, and suggest directions for future research.
☞ We added Conclusion section by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments.
Other Comments:
Page 18: The list of abbreviations is incomplete. Additional abbreviations such as AGB, BEF, DBH, WD, and R should be included.
☞ We added the contents by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines 525 -526.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the authors for the answers.The manuscript has been significantly improved and can be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much.
Best regards.
C.S. Lee
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSpecific comments
191 R2’s range between 0 and 1. It is not clear how one can have an r2 of 9351 or 9891
282 r2’s are coefficients of determination not explanatory rates. Please use standard names.
326 since there are two units in the table, it is misleading to say there is one in the heading. This reference to units can be removed.
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.
Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Chang Seok Lee
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Specific comments
191 R2’s range between 0 and 1. It is not clear how one can have an r2 of 9351 or 9891.
☞ As shown in the figures in Figure 2, the diameter at breast height of the tree showed a close correlation with the biomass of each organ of the tree and the biomass of the whole tree obtained by combining it.
282 r2’s are coefficients of determination not explanatory rates. Please use standard names.
☞ The R² value in a regression equation can be both the coefficient of determination and explanatory power (or "explanatory rate") of the regression model. For example, R² of 0.85 means 85% of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables, so the explanatory rate is 85%, and this is also the coefficient of determination.
326 since there are two units in the table, it is misleading to say there is one in the heading.This reference to units can be removed.
☞ Thank you. We removed the unit in the Table heading.
Response to reviewer’s comments
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.
Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.
Sincerely Yours,
Chang Seok Lee
Reviewer #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Specific comments
191 R2’s range between 0 and 1. It is not clear how one can have an r2 of 9351 or 9891.
☞ As shown in the figures in Figure 2, the diameter at breast height of the tree showed a close correlation with the biomass of each organ of the tree and the biomass of the whole tree obtained by combining it.
282 r2’s are coefficients of determination not explanatory rates. Please use standard names.
☞ The R² value in a regression equation can be both the coefficient of determination and explanatory power (or "explanatory rate") of the regression model. For example, R² of 0.85 means 85% of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables, so the explanatory rate is 85%, and this is also the coefficient of determination.
326 since there are two units in the table, it is misleading to say there is one in the heading.This reference to units can be removed.
☞ Thank you. We removed the unit in the Table heading.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo additional comments - well done!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much.
Best regards.
C.S. Lee
