Eucalyptus Carbon Stock Research in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current manuscript entitled “Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil” by Morales et al. emphasized the role of trees in carbon stock in an integrated livestock-forestry system in Brazil. The study is based on the effects of eucalypt management and arrangement that influence carbon stock dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry (ILF) systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantation (F). The results of the study indicate that eucalypts in the study area contain a significant carbon stock, suggesting that the area is resilient to climate change. However, the authors need to modify several sections of their manuscript in order to deliver a clearer message to the readers. Also, several other improvements in terms of language improvement and syntax error corrections are desirable. I suggest a minor revision. My specific comments are:

1.      The title is too broad while the authors investigated only one tree species. As reflected by the methodology, it was an experimental study, so mentioning the country name in title is ambiguous. I suggest changing the title to: Role of Eucalyptus in Carbon Stock Dynamics in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System of Brazil (check if the country name is appropriate here?).

2.      Add the scientific name, botanical authority, and variety name of Eucalyptus in the abstract.

3.      The abstract doesn’t provide any major numerical findings to support the claims made.

4.      Avoid using abbreviations in the keywords, also, do not repeat the keywords which already appeared in the title.

5.      Avoid using personal terms in the manuscript, e.g., we, us, our, etc.

6.      Please add a map of the study area.

7.      Lines 95 and 96: Please mention the year of the month. Correct in the whole manuscript.

8.      The source of the aerial photograph in figure 1 is missing.

9.      References for equations and models used in the study are missing.

10.   Figure 2: conduct a test of significance to compare different systems as well as years (mark abc and ABC).

Author Response

The current manuscript entitled “Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil” by Morales et al. emphasized the role of trees in carbon stock in an integrated livestock-forestry system in Brazil. The study is based on the effects of eucalypt management and arrangement that influence carbon stock dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry (ILF) systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantation (F). The results of the study indicate that eucalypts in the study area contain a significant carbon stock, suggesting that the area is resilient to climate change. However, the authors need to modify several sections of their manuscript in order to deliver a clearer message to the readers. Also, several other improvements in terms of language improvement and syntax error corrections are desirable. I suggest a minor revision. My specific comments are:

1. The title is too broad while the authors investigated only one tree species. As reflected by the methodology, it was an experimental study, so mentioning the country name in title is ambiguous. I suggest changing the title to: Role of Eucalyptus in Carbon Stock Dynamics in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System of Brazil (check if the country name is appropriate here?).

Thank you for this suggestion, the title is much better the way you have suggested so we changed this.

2. Add the scientific name, botanical authority, and variety name of Eucalyptus in the abstract.

We provided this information, so thank you for this suggestion.

3. The abstract doesn’t provide any major numerical findings to support the claims made.

We provided this information, thank you.

4. Avoid using abbreviations in the keywords, also, do not repeat the keywords which already appeared in the title.

We changed the keywords based on your suggestions, and we also made sure that the keywords do not appear in the title as you suggested.

5. Avoid using personal terms in the manuscript, e.g., we, us, our, etc.

We have removed the words “we,” “us,” and “our” in the writing and we have re-written these sentences.

6. Please add a map of the study area.

We added a map as new (A) in Figure 1.

7. Lines 95 and 96: Please mention the year of the month. Correct in the whole manuscript.

We have included that these are averages over the time period 1971 to 2010.

8. The source of the aerial photograph in figure 1 is missing.

We have included the sources for this in Figure 1.

9. References for equations and models used in the study are missing.

We have cited the equations used for the models as follows:

Equations 1 & Equation 2 [20]

Equation 3 [21]

Equation 4 [22]

Equation 5 [26,27]

Equations 6, 7, & 8 [28]

Equation 9 & 10 [28]

10. Figure 2: conduct a test of significance to compare different systems as well as years (mark abc and ABC).

Once we did not have differences in systems and the differences under the year are clear we decided to add the row data (that shows the heterogeneity behavior after thinning) instead adding the letter to make the figure clearer and less cluttered.

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2289685

Title: Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil

For: Sustainability

Overview：

In this work, the authors quantified the effects of eucalyptus management and arrangement on carbon storage dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantations. And, based on three uses of eucalyptus, carbon storage behavior was simulated and calculated for three scenarios. Overall, the study findings are plausible, but the experimental design is crude. Moreover, the paper has some unclear logical expressions, and the analysis and discussion of the results are not deep enough. Therefore, I recommend a major revision so that the manuscript needs to be improved in quality and readability.

General Comments:

1. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis? Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus. What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

2. The reviewer suggests the manuscript should be improved in English language and style, especially paying attention to the usage of articles, grammar, and logical structure. Because I did not see the relevant language editing certificate from the downloaded manuscript. I suggest that you have your manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague or use a professional English editing service.

Specific Comments:

Title section 

3. Can the title include research? Please consider revisions.

Abstract section 

4. The research's importance is very well presented. However, the scientific question in the abstract is presented in a very large number of words, please streamline it. Also, please use more descriptions for the presentation of the result.

5. There are too few valuable conclusions, please consider to add.

Introduction section 

6. Lines 61-74, The science questions are still not elicited smoothly enough. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis?

Materials and Methods section

7. Basic physicochemical properties and background values of soil planted with eucalyptus need to be tested. If possible, please provide the statistical methodology and a GIS map of the study area.

8. The study methodology and research objectives were slightly simple. Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus. What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

"Results and Discussion" section

9. Fig. 3-5 can be optimized.

10. Lines 290-292, this explanation is not comprehensive. Why is the integrated ILF system shorter? Moreover, if the experimental design is such that each growing system receives a different incidence of sunlight, then this difference is a factor to be considered separately, and the F and ILF systems cannot be compared. the conclusions so drawn are not credible.

11. The discussion in subsection 3.4 is not deep and needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to compare the differences between this study and previous reports from an eco-statistical point of view. Please prove it with scientific data.

12. Lines 398-409, This is more like a study of implications than a discussion or a conclusion drawn from a discussion. Please revise and strengthen the discussion. For example, what are the factors that influence the ILF system? What are the applications of forest management?

"Conclusions " section

13. There are still too few valuable research conclusions, and this paper is more like a report on calculations than a research paper.

References section

14. Please double-check all literature in the full paper to avoid errors.

Author Response

Overview：

In this work, the authors quantified the effects of eucalyptus management and arrangement on carbon storage dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantations. And, based on three uses of eucalyptus, carbon storage behavior was simulated and calculated for three scenarios. Overall, the study findings are plausible, but the experimental design is crude. Moreover, the paper has some unclear logical expressions, and the analysis and discussion of the results are not deep enough. Therefore, I recommend a major revision so that the manuscript needs to be improved in quality and readability.

General Comments:

1. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis? Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus. What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

We chose these three scenarios based on the life cycle of eucalyptus in Brazil, specifically in Mato Grosso state, where the eucalyptus biomass is mainly used for energy purposes in a 6-year to-7-year growth cycle. To be clear, there are not three types of eucalyptus species but rather three different types of utilization.

2. The reviewer suggests the manuscript should be improved in English language and style, especially paying attention to the usage of articles, grammar, and logical structure. Because I did not see the relevant language editing certificate from the downloaded manuscript. I suggest that you have your manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague or use a professional English editing service.

One of the co-authors to this manuscript is a native English speaker and has done additional edits for English grammar and clarity.

Specific Comments:

Title section 

3. Can the title include research? Please consider revisions.

We have modified the title and included the word “Research” here.

Abstract section 

4. The research's importance is very well presented. However, the scientific question in the abstract is presented in a very large number of words, please streamline it.

We have streamlined this sentence in the abstract so that it is more concise and clear.

Also, please use more descriptions for the presentation of the result.

We have gone back through the Results and Discussion section and improved the writing so that there are more descriptions used.

5. There are too few valuable conclusions, please consider to add.

We think that the conclusions are sufficient to answer the question/hypothesis.

Introduction section 

6. Lines 61-74, The science questions are still not elicited smoothly enough. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis?

We have clarified the research hypotheses in the first half of the last paragraph in the Introduction section.

Materials and Methods section

7. Basic physicochemical properties and background values of soil planted with eucalyptus need to be tested. If possible, please provide the statistical methodology and a GIS map of the study area.

We have provided the statistical methodology in section 2.3. and have added GIS maps of the study area to Figure 1.

8. The study methodology and research objectives were slightly simple. Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus. What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

We chose these three scenarios based on the life cycle of eucalyptus in Brazil, specifically in Mato Grosso state, where the eucalyptus biomass is mainly used for energy purpose.

"Results and Discussion" section

9. Fig. 3-5 can be optimized.

We have increase the sizes for Figures 3, 4, & 5 so they are more clearly visible.

10. Lines 290-292, this explanation is not comprehensive. Why is the integrated ILF system shorter?

Because the spacing between trees in the ILF system promotes less competition among trees for available sunlight, water, and nutrients and alters the dynamics and the culmination of the incremental curve for trees. We have added this clarification to the end of section 3.1.

Moreover, if the experimental design is such that each growing system receives a different incidence of sunlight, then this difference is a factor to be considered separately, and the F and ILF systems cannot be compared. the conclusions so drawn are not credible.

Our variable response is carbon stock, which can be influenced by the experimental arrangements once these arrangements promote more or less sun light access to the trees. We disagree with this assessment since the F and ILF systems can be compared because the system receives the same incidence of sunlight. The available sunlight is the same for both systems. It is a constant variable. Both treatments have the same probability of receiving light because they are blocked and randomized (Figure 1B).  What we mean is that the differences occur because the spacing between trees in ILF system promote less competition among trees for available sunlight.

11. The discussion in subsection 3.4 is not deep and needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to compare the differences between this study and previous reports from an eco-statistical point of view. Please prove it with scientific data.

We compared our research results to other studies in section 3.4. Eco-statistical contrasts to the previous studies studied is challenging since the raw data from these studies are not published. We have added to the Results and Discussion section by creating a new section 3.5.

12. Lines 398-409, This is more like a study of implications than a discussion or a conclusion drawn from a discussion. Please revise and strengthen the discussion. For example, what are the factors that influence the ILF system? What are the applications of forest management?

We have created a new sub-section 3.5. Future Research Directions and Challenges where we have included what was originally written. We have also added a second paragraph on factors that influence producer adoption of the ILF system as well as applications of IFL to more general forest management.

"Conclusions " section

13. There are still too few valuable research conclusions, and this paper is more like a report on calculations than a research paper.

We think that the conclusions made are sufficient to answer the question/hypothesis. We have added to the Results and Discussion section by creating a new section 3.5.

References section

14. Please double-check all literature in the full paper to avoid errors.

We have double-checked all cited references so they adhere to the required formatting of the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2289685

Title: Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil

For: Sustainability

Overview：

In this work, the authors quantified the effects of eucalyptus management and arrangement on carbon storage dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantations. And, based on three uses of eucalyptus, carbon storage behavior was simulated and calculated for three scenarios. Overall, the study findings are plausible, but the experimental design is crude. Moreover, the paper has some unclear logical expressions, and the analysis and discussion of the results are not deep enough. Therefore, I recommend a major revision so that the manuscript needs to be improved in quality and readability.

General Comments:

1. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis? Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus. What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

2. The reviewer suggests the manuscript should be improved in English language and style, especially paying attention to the usage of articles, grammar, and logical structure. Because I did not see the relevant language editing certificate from the downloaded manuscript. I suggest that you have your manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague or use a professional English editing service.

Specific Comments:

Title section

3. Can the title include research? Please consider revisions.

Abstract section

4. The research's importance is very well presented. However, the scientific question in the abstract is presented in a very large number of words, please streamline it. Also, please use more descriptions for the presentation of the result.

5. There are too few valuable conclusions, please consider to add.

Introduction section

6. Lines 61-74, The science questions are still not elicited smoothly enough. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis.

Materials and Methods section

7. Basic physicochemical properties and background values of soil planted with eucalyptus need to be tested. If possible, please provide the statistical methodology and a GIS map of the study area.

8. The study methodology and research objectives were slightly simple. Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus? What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees.

"Results and Discussion" section

9. Fig. 3-5 can be optimized.

10. Lines 290-292, this explanation is not comprehensive. Why is the integrated ILF system shorter? Moreover, if the experimental design is such that each growing system receives a different incidence of sunlight, then this difference is a factor to be considered separately, and the F and ILF systems cannot be compared. the conclusions so drawn are not credible.

11. The discussion in subsection 3.4 is not deep and needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to compare the differences between this study and previous reports from an eco-statistical point of view. Please prove it with scientific data.

12. Lines 398-409, This is more like a study of implications than a discussion or a conclusion drawn from a discussion. Please revise and strengthen the discussion. For example, what are the factors that influence the ILF system? What are the applications of forest management?

"Conclusions " section

13. There are still too few valuable research conclusions, and this paper is more like a report on calculations than a research paper.

References section

14. Please double-check all literature in the full paper to avoid errors.

Author Response

Overview：

In this work, the authors quantified the effects of eucalyptus management and arrangement on carbon storage dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantations. And, based on three uses of eucalyptus, carbon storage behavior was simulated and calculated for three scenarios. Overall, the study findings are plausible, but the experimental design is crude. Moreover, the paper has some unclear logical expressions, and the analysis and discussion of the results are not deep enough. Therefore, I recommend a major revision so that the manuscript needs to be improved in quality and readability.

General Comments:

1. Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis? Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus. What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

We chose these three scenarios based on the life cycle of eucalyptus in Brazil, specifically in Mato Grosso state, where the eucalyptus biomass is mainly used for energy purposes in a 6-year to-7-year growth cycle. To be clear, there are not three types of eucalyptus species but rather three different types of utilization.

2. The reviewer suggests the manuscript should be improved in English language and style, especially paying attention to the usage of articles, grammar, and logical structure. Because I did not see the relevant language editing certificate from the downloaded manuscript. I suggest that you have your manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague or use a professional English editing service.

One of the co-authors to this manuscript is a native English speaker and has done additional edits for English grammar and clarity.

Specific Comments:

Title section

3. Can the title include research? Please consider revisions.

 We have modified the title and included the word “Research” here.

Abstract section

4. The research's importance is very well presented. However, the scientific question in the abstract is presented in a very large number of words, please streamline it.

We have streamlined this sentence in the abstract so that it is more concise and clear.

Also, please use more descriptions for the presentation of the result.

We have gone back through the Results and Discussion section and improved the writing so that there are more descriptions used.

5. There are too few valuable conclusions, please consider to add.

We think that the conclusions are sufficient to answer the question/hypothesis.

Introduction section

6. Lines 61-74, The science questions are still not elicited smoothly enough.Please consider whether the hypothesis you propose is reasonable. And does the research content perfectly answer or test this hypothesis.

We have clarified the research hypotheses in the first half of the last paragraph in the Introduction section.

Materials and Methods section

7. Basic physicochemical properties and background values of soil planted with eucalyptus need to be tested.

This is not necessary! The physicochemical and chemical properties and background values of soil where the experiment was planted are the same, i.e., the site quality is the same for both systems (F and ILF). They are constant variables. Both treatments have the same probability of receiving these variables because they are blocked and randomized (Figure 1B).

If possible, please provide the statistical methodology and a GIS map of the study area.

We have provided the statistical methodology in section 2.3. and have added GIS maps of the study area to Figure 1.

8. The study methodology and research objectives were slightly simple. Consider whether it is reasonable to set up simulations of carbon storage based on the three use types of eucalyptus? What is the scientific basis? Are these three simulation scenarios included in the full life cycle of eucalyptus trees?

We chose these three scenarios based on the life cycle of eucalyptus in Brazil, specifically in Mato Grosso state, where the eucalyptus biomass is mainly used for energy purpose.

Results and Discussion section

9. Fig. 3-5 can be optimized.

We have increase the sizes for Figures 3, 4, & 5 so they are more clearly visible.

10. Lines 290-292, this explanation is not comprehensive. Why is the integrated ILF system shorter?

Because the spacing between trees in the ILF system promotes less competition among trees for available sunlight, water, and nutrients and alters the dynamics and the culmination of the incremental curve for trees. We have added this clarification to the end of section 3.1.

Moreover, if the experimental design is such that each growing system receives a different incidence of sunlight, then this difference is a factor to be considered separately, and the F and ILF systems cannot be compared. The conclusions so drawn are not credible.

Our variable response is carbon stock, which can be influenced by the experimental arrangements once these arrangements promote more or less sun light access to the trees. We disagree with this assessment since the F and ILF systems can be compared because the system receives the same incidence of sunlight. The available sunlight is the same for both systems. It is a constant variable. Both treatments have the same probability of receiving light because they are blocked and randomized (Figure 1B).  What we mean is that the differences occur because the spacing between trees in ILF system promote less competition among trees for available sunlight.

11. The discussion in subsection 3.4 is not deep and needs to be strengthened. It is recommended to compare the differences between this study and previous reports from an eco-statistical point of view. Please prove it with scientific data.

We compared our research results to other studies in section 3.4. Eco-statistical contrasts to the previous studies studied is challenging since the raw data from these studies are not published. We have added to the Results and Discussion section by creating a new section 3.5.

12. Lines 398-409, This is more like a study of implications than a discussion or a conclusion drawn from a discussion. Please revise and strengthen the discussion. For example, what are the factors that influence the ILF system? What are the applications of forest management?

We have created a new sub-section 3.5. Future Research Directions and Challenges where we have included what was originally written. We have also added a second paragraph on factors that influence producer adoption of the ILF system as well as applications of IFL to more general forest management.

Conclusions section

13. There are still too few valuable research conclusions, and this paper is more like a report on calculations than a research paper.

We think that the conclusions made are sufficient to answer the question/hypothesis. We have added to the Results and Discussion section by creating a new section 3.5.

References section

14. 14. Please double-check all literature in the full paper to avoid errors.

We have double-checked all cited references so they adhere to the required formatting of the journal.

Reviewer 4 Report

This research topic seems exciting and appropriate for publication in Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). The manuscript, titled "Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil" (sustainability-2289685), quantified the effects of eucalypt management and arrangement influence on carbon stock dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantation. Overall, it appears that the content information is satisfactory. Here are a few suggestions that should be considered prior to approving the manuscript for publication.

1. 2.2. Statistical analyses should be presented at the end of the Materials and Methods section.

2. There is no information regarding the limitations of the study.

3. The content between lines 31 and 32 may be supported by this advised study “Biomass and carbon stocks estimation in Chichawatni irrigated plantation in Pakistan” << Arif, M.; Shahzad, M.K.; Elzaki, E.E.A.; Hussain, A.; Zhang, B.; Yukun, C. Biomass and carbon stocks estimation in Chichawatni irrigated plantation in Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 1339–1349.>>.

Author Response

This research topic seems exciting and appropriate for publication in Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). The manuscript, titled "Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil" (sustainability-2289685), quantified the effects of eucalypt management and arrangement influence on carbon stock dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantation. Overall, it appears that the content information is satisfactory. Here are a few suggestions that should be considered prior to approving the manuscript for publication.

1. 2.2. Statistical analyses should be presented at the end of the Materials and Methods section.

We have moved the 2.2. statistical analysis methods to the end of the Materials and Methods section as you have suggested.

2. There is no information regarding the limitations of the study.

We have added a new section 3.5. to the Results and Discussion section and this discusses limitations related to adoption of integrated livestock-agroforestry systems in this Center-Western region as well as other areas in Brazil.

3. The content between lines 31 and 32 may be supported by this advised study “Biomass and carbon stocks estimation in Chichawatni irrigated plantation in Pakistan” << Arif, M.; Shahzad, M.K.; Elzaki, E.E.A.; Hussain, A.; Zhang, B.; Yukun, C. Biomass and carbon stocks estimation in Chichawatni irrigated plantation in Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 1339–1349.>>.

We have added this citation as [2] where you have suggested and we have updated all citations following this.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have recently reviewed the manuscript titled “Eucalyptus Carbon Stock Research in an Integrated Livestock Forestry System in Brazil” (sustainability-2289685). After going through the main content, I found that the manuscript has the potential to publish in an international journal and would benefit from minor revisions.

The present manuscript quantified the effects of eucalyptus management and arrangement on carbon stock dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry (ILF) systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantings. The research question is very interesting and relevant to the sustainability’s scope.

However, what is the research hypothesis in this study? The hypothesis should be showed in the Introduction section, Meanwhile, in the whole Discussion section, the proposed hypotheses have never been mentioned. So, finally, were the hypotheses accepted or rejected? Moreover, please point to future research needs at the end of the Conclusion section.

Author Response

 I have recently reviewed the manuscript titled “Eucalyptus Carbon Stock Research in an Integrated Livestock Forestry System in Brazil” (sustainability-2289685). After going through the main content, I found that the manuscript has the potential to publish in an international journal and would benefit from minor revisions.

The present manuscript quantified the effects of eucalyptus management and arrangement on carbon stock dynamics in integrated livestock-forestry (ILF) systems versus monoculture eucalyptus plantings. The research question is very interesting and relevant to the sustainability’s scope.

However, what is the research hypothesis in this study? The hypothesis should be showed in the Introduction section, Meanwhile, in the whole Discussion section, the proposed hypotheses have never been mentioned. So, finally, were the hypotheses accepted or rejected? Moreover, please point to future research needs at the end of the Conclusion section.

Thank you for bringing it to our attention about the hypothesis missing. We focused on adjusting the hypothesis in the introduction and kept failing to present them in the results and discussions. We adjusted this in order to make these answers clearer. Also, we have inserted a topic with points for future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2289685_R2

Title: Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil

For: Sustainability

Overview：

The authors did not consider how to improve the manuscript in terms of scenario model and research details in just three days, but made a perfunctory answer. This is disrespectful to the reviewer, so I am very sorry and cannot give an accept. Please consider the previous comments again to improve the quality of the manuscript and to give a perfect and reasonable answer. Most importantly, the manuscript needs to be fully revised again. Because the study is still too simple and not innovative enough, there is a big gap between it and the paper published in Sustainability. Therefore, I recommend continuing with major revisions.

Author Response

The authors did not consider how to improve the manuscript in terms of scenario model and research details in just three days, but made a perfunctory answer. This is disrespectful to the reviewer, so I am very sorry and cannot give an accept. Please consider the previous comments again to improve the quality of the manuscript and to give a perfect and reasonable answer. Most importantly, the manuscript needs to be fully revised again. Because the study is still too simple and not innovative enough, there is a big gap between it and the paper published in Sustainability. Therefore, I recommend continuing with major revisions.

First, we sincerely apologized to make you fell disrespected with the way we answered you, as it was not our intention. We made a huge mistake trying to answer quickly. It happened due to one of the co-authors being on a trip with internet restrictions and at the same time we were trying to meet the deadline. We should had asked for more time instead rather than answer the way we did. We sincerely apologized about that! Be sure we learned this lesson!

Now more carefully, we work mainly in the point you brought to us about “full life cycle of eucalyptus trees” and we now understood why you point it out more than once! We were wrong in the approach, so we made fundamental edits to make the manuscript better and we corrected the calculations and adjusted the methodology and discussion.

We really appreciate your review and the second chance to make the manuscript better.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2289685
Title: Tree Role in Carbon Stock in an Integrated Livestock-Forestry System in Brazil
For: Sustainability

Overview:
Thank you very much for your serious consideration of my comments, and for having given reasonable modifications. I have seen a satisfactory response. I think the current version is perfect and meets Sustainability's publication requirements, and I look forward to more exciting work from you in the future. However, there are some details or errors that need to be checked again

Specific Comments:
1. Please double-check any possible hidden mistakes in the manuscript before publication to avoid regrets. I hope the manuscript will be published perfectly.