Soil Organic Carbon as Response to Reforestation Age and Land Use Changes: A Qualitative Approach to Ecosystem Services
, Danielle Vieira Guimarães 2, João José Granate de Sá e Melo Marques 1, Adnane Beniaich 3, Salvador Francisco Acuña-Guzman 1,4, Marx Leandro Naves Silva 1 and Nilton Curi 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
pleased to review your study. Some minor concerns were indicated in the file attached.
Although there are some limitations regarding the number of plots and replicates (3 replicates and a single plot per treatment) and the some differences between the forest reference and old reforestation treatment (30% clay in native forest and old reforestation x 55-60% in the remaining treatments), the overall quality could be considered acceptable, considering the proposition is interesting (use of the carbon management index with different references), and the data presented are quite relevant (total and labile carbon contents and carbon accumulation rates).
Kind regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript treats a very interesting subject with clear methodology and important results within the aim and the scope of the journal. However, the manuscript requires minor revisions to increase the quality of the paper. In the section introduction may be added clear definitions and characterization of used scientific terms to remove confusion for debutant reader and explain the choice of the studied area and the used methodology. In section materials and methods there is a lack of the presentation of the different features of important. Add a flow chart or a figure that summarizes the used methods before explaining them to get an overview of the work. There are some details that may be synthesized and summarized in an illustration. In section Results and Discussion there is lot of repetitions of the clearly observed results and it is not a simple description. This section should be carefully revised to get more robust interpretation with clear ideas within the interesting studied theme and to highlight the value of the work. In the manuscript should also include a review/comparison with more other authors who have dealt with similar experiments and results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Sir,
Greetings!
After a careful revision found that there is no need to modify the paper.
It could be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The findings of the manuscript „Soil organic carbon as response to reforestation age and land use changes: a qualitative approach to ecosystem services” will be of interest to readers of Sustainability Journal, as well as to experts in reforestation and biodiversity management and not only.
The methodology is specific described and can be replicated.
The results and conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and they address the main question posed in the study.
Figures are well visible and provide suficient information.
I recommend that the manuscript can be published in Sustainability after a minor revision that consists of:
- Additional polishing of English and fixing some grammar mistakes
- The quality control of the treatments should be provided in the method, if possible
- Tabel 4 needs to be rearranged
- References can be improved with more recent studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
