Comparing GHG Emissions from Drained Oil Palm and Recovering Tropical Peatland Forests in Malaysia
, Iain McTaggart 4, Takamitsu Kai 5 and Kosuke Noborio 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your exploration of how we can better consider GHG emissions. Here are some suggestions that should improve the quality of your paper:
- In Abstract, the thesis should be mentioned and the results should be addressed to the relevant institutions.
- In Introductiion the authors should clarify the thesis.
- In Materials and Methods, the authors should state for what purpose they compare GHG emissions. What do they want to prove? What were the expectations?
- In Discussion, the authors should clear who should manage this issue, and what achievement is important to gain in that management.
- In Conclusion: should be mentioned management, environmental warnings, addressed relevant institutions, and authors' suggestions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
Thank you for your feedback. Kindly find the attached file for your reference.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study compared the Greenhouse gas emissions from three tropical peatland systems with conditions of land-use; that is drained oil palm plantation; rewetting-restored forest and undrained natural forest found in Malaysia. The study will definitely be of relevance, especially in our dispensation where climate-related activities have become topical issues. Generally the manuscript is well-written except for some minor
(Line 28) What does GWL mean. Define terms at their first mention in the text.
(Line 134) Replace the image with a better quality - images are blurred.
(Line 143) Write "approx." in full.
(Line 168-169) Recheck the wording and sentence structure.
(Line 201) "After sample" should be "After sampling".
(Line 206-208) This sentence together with the equation should be the last entry under section 2.3. By that the authors can present the equation and term definitions in the standard format as accepted by this journal.
Figure 2a - The ordinate title should stand independent of the labels.
Figure 2d - Improperly placed abscissa labels; obstructs the clarity of the figure. Authors can move the labels above the abscissa line.
(Line 292) On what comparative basis did the authors conclude that an "r2" value of 0.65 suggests strong correlation?
Figure 3 - The authors should reduce the size of the label marker to reduce the cluster; or define a shorter range of abscissa values to spread out the points.
(Line 287) Is the 'r' suppose to be r2? Check and correct where appropriate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Kindly find the attached file for your reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
