Greenhouse Gases Trade-Off from Ponds: An Overview of Emission Process and Their Driving Factors
, Omkar Singh 1, Amit Kumar 2,*, Gagan Anand 3, Rajesh Singh 4, Sandeep Singh 4, Zhiguo Yu 2, Jhlaesh Kumar 1, Ram K. Fagodiya 5 and Amit Kumar 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A manuscript represents a critical, constructive analysis of the literature on the topic of Greenhouse gases trade-off from ponds. It does not only present an overview of relevant streams of thought in a topic covered, but also adds new insights on developments in the area, indicating what the open questions are.
However, undertaking a review of the related literature assessment is an important part of any discipline. It helps to maps and assesses the existing knowledge and gaps on specific issues which will further develop the knowledge base. Systematic literature review differs from traditional narrative reviews by adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent producers. It helps to collect all related publications and documents that fit our pre-defined inclusion criteria to answer a specific research question. It uses unambiguous and systematic procedures to minimize the occurrence of bias during searching, identification, appraisal, synthesis, analysis, and summary of studies. When the procedure is done properly and has the minimal error, the study can provide reliable findings and reliable conclusion that could help decision-makers and scientific practitioners to act accordingly. Well done procedure for the systematic literature review process is essential and it ensures that the work is carefully planned before the actual review work starts.
This is why the systematic reviews (like this one) must have a DETAILED methods section. This section enables motivated researches to repeat the review. The information should contain data sources (e.g., bibliographic databases), search terms and search strategies, selection criteria (inclusion/exclusion of studies), the number of studies screened and the number of studies included, timespan taken into account etc. Please provide this info to the readers.
Author Response
|
Comment: |
However, undertaking a review of the related literature assessment is an important part of any discipline. It helps to maps and assesses the existing knowledge and gaps on specific issues which will further develop the knowledge base. Systematic literature review differs from traditional narrative reviews by adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent producers. It helps to collect all related publications and documents that fit our pre-defined inclusion criteria to answer a specific research question. It uses unambiguous and systematic procedures to minimize the occurrence of bias during searching, identification, appraisal, synthesis, analysis, and summary of studies. When the procedure is done properly and has the minimal error, the study can provide reliable findings and reliable conclusion that could help decision-makers and scientific practitioners to act accordingly. Well done procedure for the systematic literature review process is essential and it ensures that the work is carefully planned before the actual review work starts. This is why the systematic reviews (like this one) must have a DETAILED methods section. This section enables motivated researches to repeat the review. The information should contain data sources (e.g., bibliographic databases), search terms and search strategies, selection criteria (inclusion/exclusion of studies), the number of studies screened and the number of studies included, timespan taken into account etc. Please provide this info to the readers. |
|
Response |
The authors are highly thankful for a critical evaluation of the manuscript done by the reviewer and providing very thoughtful comments. As per reviewer suggestions, detailed adopted methodology has been added in section no 2 of the manuscript. |
Reviewer 2 Report
The review is, as authors indicates, very useful to understand the GHG emissions mechanisms associated to ponds.
In general, the review can be improved with more references and preparing some more tables or diagrams explaining the processes. However, in my opinion this is not a demerit and, the article gives interesting information.
I wonder if authors can give some explanation (reference) about the limit (surface) of a watershed to be consider as a pond as authors used ponds (<10000 m2). In line 40, 2 hectares is given as a limit. It is to know when we have to consider a water mass as a pond.
Line 23, check the formula CH4, it maybe with subscript (4)
Please to make easy the reading of the text considers the position of the hyphens at the end of the lines, for instance: line 60: Min-eralization maybe Mi-neralization, and check line 380,
Check line 75, “emis-sion” in the middle of the line
Check line 169, “carbon-di-oxide”
Author Response
|
Comment |
In general, the review can be improved with more references and preparing some more tables or diagrams explaining the processes. However, in my opinion this is not a demerit and, the article gives interesting information. |
|
Response |
Thank you for the positive comments. The needful change has been incorporated in the revised manuscript. |
|
|
|
|
Comment |
I wonder if authors can give some explanation (reference) about the limit (surface) of a watershed to be consider as a pond as authors used ponds (<10000 m2). In line 40, 2 hectares is given as a limit. It is to know when we have to consider a water mass as a pond. |
|
Response |
The reference no 3 in the list belong to limit (surface) of a ponds ((<10000 m2). |
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Line 23, check the formula CH4, it maybe with subscript (4) |
|
Response |
Correction done, thank you for remark |
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Please to make easy the reading of the text considers the position of the hyphens at the end of the lines, for instance: line 60: Min-eralization maybe Mi-neralization, and check line 380, |
|
Response |
Thank you for your critical observation, needful change incorporated. |
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Check line 75, “emis-sion” in the middle of the line |
|
Response |
Needful correction done in revision |
|
|
|
|
Comment |
Check line 75, “emis-sion” in the middle of the line |
|
Response |
Needful correction done in revision |
