A Critical Review on Mathematical Descriptions to Study Flux Processes and Environmental-Related Interactions of Mangroves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Regarding the keywords, please consider removing mangrove, which is in the title, and add regeneration and co-benefits.

Introduction: please consider reorganizing/rewriting the introduction:

Paragraph 1 reads well. Place paragraph 7 (the last paragraph, “This study aims to …”) after paragraph 1. Correct the last sentence of paragraph 7 (i.e., “Selecting the investigations that dealt with the capture of CO₂  and the estimates to know the amount of carbon present in the mangroves” is not a complete sentence.

For example:

We select the investigations that deal with the capture of CO₂  and known estimates of carbon present in the mangroves and attempt to define data gaps that, if filled, will enable a more comprehensive assessment of the benefits and co-benefits of mangroves.

Paragraphs 2 is okay. Rewrite paragraphs 3-6. They need to be condensed. In these paragraphs, it seems you want to highlight the co-benefits of mangroves.

For example:

Mangroves also protect the coasts from strong winds and waves, dissipating the energy generated through their physical characteristics (e.g., abundant roots) [4]. They also influence cyclonic winds [7] and absorb and transfer energy and fix carbon [8, 9]. They have unique ecophysiological characteristics [10–16] that support essential functions such as water flow and gas exchange [17]. In the following sections, we evaluate several equations that characterize mangroves. Through our evaluation, we discover in many cases, each tree in a mangrove is unique and generalized equations do not capture the variability within a mangrove.  

General:

1. Use En dash not minus sign for a range of numbers (e.g., 10–16)
2. Rewrite sentences in the paragraph just before Figure 1: “Once the general database was obtained, …” instead:

For example:

We searched for these keywords in MDPI, IEEE Xplore, Elsevier, and Springer platforms, resulting in 2629 articles stored in a database. Then, we conducted a more extensive review and evaluation of select articles as described in section 2.2.

3. In Table 1: Remote sensing does not need to be capitalized.
4. In section 3.3, rather than stating that Marchio et al. [64] select two mangroves, one with a hydrological difference, etc. … provide an insight you gained from reading that article (e.g., a key assumption the authors considered in their model to account for the hydrological difference or other).
5. In section 3.4, move the paragraph starting with the words “Tale 4 presents the…” in section 3.3 (as the last paragraph in that section).
6. In the Discussion, see the first paragraph, change “the case study” to a case study
7. Also in the Discussion, remove the single ‘y’ leftover from the translation of y to and.
8. Also in the Discussion, add a reference after the sentence that says “…assigning 20% to the soil carbon [Reference].”
9. In the Conclusion, you define DBH a second time. Remove the words diameter chest height
10. Also in the Conclusion section, please consider rewriting the last sentences

For example:

It is possible to show the importance of studies to estimate the mangrove’s capture and storage of CO₂. Different governments and researchers need to obtain the information to propose new strategies for implementing modeling approaches rather than invasive, destruction means of estimating the multitude of benefits and co-benefits of mangroves. If conserved and expanded, mangrove forests can continue to help mitigate global climate changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper contains a purely technical review of variables used and functional forms applied in previous empirical investigations. It does not take any stance in the actual mechanisms, neither in any boundary conditions contributing to depollution, biomass content, growth, or carbon sequestration. Any mechanism is nature is a manifestation of some kind transition process on the one hand, and the boundary conditions applied on the other hand. Listing some empirical models, without clarifying corresponding boundary conditions, is not much of value.  This type of difficulties may or may not nullify the relevance of the paper. Consequently, the reviewer has some doubt whether the paper is repairable.

The technical presentation of the paper is far from adequate. The most striking feature is that there are many concepts presented as abbreviations, never explained in the text. It is not clear whether discussed biomass contents refer to one tree or to biomass per hectare. If the latter, how is it possible that biomass would depend on tree size but not on stem count per hectare? The reviewer is not sure if all the Equations are referenced in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript submitted is not a comprehensive review but a compilation of studies dealing with mangroves but with a broad range of topics. There is not a synthesis of the information or a critical analysis of what has been found as regards a specific topic or research area. I would suggest to center the scope to a specific research question (carbon sequestration, as an example) and to filter appropriately the papers, considering just the real mangroves (note for example that Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies are species belonging to ecosystems really far away of the mangroves.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The technical presentation of the paper has been improved a lot.

It is stated in the Discussion is that models not depending on empirical approximations might be favored. Such models instead appear to be based on ad-hoc approximations.

It can be taken for granted that the relationship of DBH and AGB is not linear. Apart from this triviality, the discussion between these quantities appears purely speculative.

The paper could be improved by introducing some dimensional analysis, and discussing the reviewed models from that perspective. However, this reviewer is not sure whether that kind of work is familiar to the Authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf