Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Chinese Loess
, Liankai Zhang 5,6,*, Pengyu Liu 1,2, Jianhua Cao 1,2 and Xiaoqun Qin 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved and it can be published in present form
Author Response
Reviewer 1: In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved and it can be published in present form.
Re: Thank you for your encouraging remarks!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This review article is dealing with Chinese loess studies in terms of carbonate mineral dissolution which influences the carbon sink effect in these deposits. The introduction is quite descriptive and detailed, in terms of the universal and Chinese loess topic, and it gives details about the topic. The authors present the methods used to determine the carbon cycle of the loess deposits, using a criticism way regarding the pros and cons in every case. In general, they conclude that more studies should be performed, in terms of appropriate methods and focus.
In general, I believe that the article is appropriate to be published in the Journal of Land, but some points should be taken into consideration:
1. Line 54. Please, check the value and unit of Chinese overall weight.
2. Section 2.1. I believe that this section belongs to the Introduction.
3. Section 2.2.2. Regarding XRD, some things are explained not quite clearly and they can be misinterpreted. For example,
A. “X-rays pass through mineral crystals”, better “interact”
B. “into diffraction patterns with different intensities when they pass”, again, “interact” and we don’t only see different intensities, but peaks at various angles. In my opinion, this should be shortened into 2-3 lines. Moreover, the measurement details for both TGA and XRD are missing (instrument/manufacturer, atmosphere and its rate, heating rate, kind of crucible, angle 2-Theta, etc).
C. “the diffraction lines in the spectrum”. Please, this is not a spectrum, change it to “pattern” or “diffractogram”.
Finally, please check your whole manuscript in terms of typos or language. Some examples:
1. Lines 111. PCM and SCM abbreviations are explained above as plural. Please, take care of the grammar of it.
2. Line 133. “believe”
3. Lines 187-191. Please, rewrite this sentence, something is off.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: This review article is dealing with Chinese loess studies in terms of carbonate mineral dissolution which influences the carbon sink effect in these deposits. The introduction is quite descriptive and detailed, in terms of the universal and Chinese loess topic, and it gives details about the topic. The authors present the methods used to determine the carbon cycle of the loess deposits, using a criticism way regarding the pros and cons in every case. In general, they conclude that more studies should be performed, in terms of appropriate methods and focus.
In general, I believe that the article is appropriate to be published in the Journal of Land, but some points should be taken into consideration:
Re: Thank you for your encouraging remarks! According to your suggestions, we have made detailed changes to, for example, the introduction and materials and methods as follows:
- Line 54. Please, check the value and unit of Chinese overall weight.
Re: Thank you for your detailed feedback. It has been changed accordingly (Line 54). The relevant text now reads:
“The overall weight of Chinese loess is 1.89~9.47×104 Pg.”
- Section 2.1. I believe that this section belongs to the Introduction.
Re: Thank you for highlighting this. We have moved Section 2.1. to the Introduction (Lines 70-104) (Check he details in manuscript which is marked with “track changes”).
- Section 2.2.2. Regarding XRD, some things are explained not quite clearly and they can be misinterpreted. For example,
- “X-rays pass through mineral crystals”, better “interact”
Re: Thank you for your comment. It has been changed accordingly (Lines 226-227). The relevant text now reads:
“XRD is a physical method to analyze the structure and phase of minerals using the diffraction effect produced when X-rays interact with mineral crystals.”
- “into diffraction patterns with different intensities when they pass”, again, “interact” and we don’t only see different intensities, but peaks at various angles. In my opinion, this should be shortened into 2-3 lines. Moreover, the measurement details for both TGA and XRD are missing (instrument/manufacturer, atmosphere and its rate, heating rate, kind of crucible, angle 2-Theta, etc.).
Re: We thank the referee for the insightful comments. We have modified the relevant expressions (Lines 228-231). The relevant text now reads:
“Since the wavelength of X-rays is close to the atomic distance in mineral crystals, X-rays are diffracted into diffraction patterns with different intensities and angles when interacting with mineral crystals so that the crystal structure and phase of mineral can be determined.”
In addition, we have added measurement details for TGA and XRD (Lines 215-225 and Lines 231-237).
- “the diffraction lines in the spectrum”. Please, this is not a spectrum, change it to “pattern” or “diffractogram”.
Re: Thank you for the suggestion. We have deleted the previous sentence and modified the relevant expressions (Lines 228-231). The relevant text now reads:
“Since the wavelength of X-rays is close to the atomic distance in mineral crystals, X-rays are diffracted into diffraction patterns with different intensities and angles when interacting with mineral crystals so that the crystal structure and phase of mineral can be determined.”
Finally, please check your whole manuscript in terms of typos or language. Some examples:
- Lines 111. PCM and SCM abbreviations are explained above as plural. Please, take care of the grammar of it.
Re: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been changed accordingly (Lines 71-74). We revised all manuscript and made the necessary (grammatical) changes on it.
- Line 133. “believe”
Re: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been changed accordingly (Lines 91-94). The relevant text now reads:
“Based on [42], it suggested that the dissolution of the SCM in loess can consume atmospheric CO2 and the CO2 generated by SOC decomposition, which would, to a certain extent, influence atmospheric CO2 regulation and the global carbon cycle.”
- Lines 187-191. Please, rewrite this sentence, something is off.
Re: Thank you for the suggestion. We have rewritten this sentence (Lines 239-243). The relevant text now reads:
“The TGA combined with the XRD method is technically mature and an effective tool for identifying carbonate minerals in loess [75-77]. For example, Liang et al. successfully distinguished between primary and secondary carbonates in two loess profiles, Jingyuan and Gulang, on the northwestern Chinese Loess Plateau using the above method [74, 77]).”
In addition, we revised all manuscript and made the necessary (grammatical) changes on it.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
ok to publish as it is!
Author Response
Comments: Ok to publish as it is!
Response: Thank you for considering our article for publication. We are extremely grateful. Thank you again for taking the time to review our article. We hope to stay in touch in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the review has good academic value, but the content is not enough to show the research status in this field. In addition to the Introduction, Methods and Conclusions, the content of the review is less than 2 pages. Moreover, there seems to be no relation between 2.1 and Materials and Method.
Although the part of Introdution is interesting, the rest parts were disappointing. The authors should patiently study the writing of the review paper, firstly.
Author Response
Comments: The subject of the review has good academic value, but the content is not enough to show the research status in this field. In addition to the Introduction, Methods and Conclusions, the content of the review is less than 2 pages. Moreover, there seems to be no relation between 2.1 and Materials and Method.
Response: Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion; we evaluated the articles and made proper changes to our manuscript, which was indicated in our manuscript with “track changes”. We hope that you will accept it.
Comments: Although the part of Introdution is interesting, the rest parts were disappointing. The authors should patiently study the writing of the review paper, firstly.
Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. Yeah, we agree with this point, that the articles must meet the required word, paragraph, or page. But if we will evaluate the topics in future paragraphs, it will sound choppy. So we understand the necessity of each section then we explain it in detail. If we say that a good title can make an article play the role of drawing the dragon and bright, and can also stimulate the reader’s interest in reading. Then a good topic selection is the core of an article. Orientation point of view is fundamentally important, a good topic is generally reflected in a title, and a good title can express the author’s point of view, and the whole article is closely related to this topic. How to plan a puzzle, how to plan a theme that readers like to see, that is a problem. In fact, before writing this review article, we also shared with colleagues about planning topics and methods for collecting materials, to make a summary. We made proper changes to the manuscript. We hope that you will accept it.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
your work presents an interesting combination of data relating with the Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Loess while future prospects and new research fields are presented in a summary.
In my opinion It is characterized as e brief review article and it is an effort worthy of publication at this journal after some minor revision:
Please give/ check explanations of abbreviations eg SOC.
You are referred mostly in China area (or not? ). Please clarify this in your text in order to be more clear and after that reconsider your title of manuscript if it is necessary.
Kind regards
Author Response
Comments: Your work presents an interesting combination of data relating with the Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Loess while future prospects and new research fields are presented in a summary.
Response: We have such deep respect for your diligent efforts and the time you have taken to do this so well. Our gratitude to you runs deep. Thank you.
Comments: In my opinion It is characterized as e brief review article and it is an effort worthy of publication at this journal after some minor revision:
Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion, we properly revised it.
Comments: Please give/ check explanations of abbreviations eg SOC.
Response: Thanks for asking this; SOC “Soil organic carbon” is a collective term for humus, animal and plant residues, and symptomatic organisms formed by the action of microorganisms. Carbon in soil includes inorganic carbon and organic carbon. Soil organic carbon refers to various positive valence carbon-containing organic compounds in soil.
Comments: You are referred mostly in China area (or not?). Please clarify this in your text in order to be more clear and after that reconsider your title of manuscript if it is necessary.
Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Due to the typicality of the Loess Plateau in China (such as the widespread distribution of loess and deep soil layers), our research is mainly focused on the loess region in China. Therefore, in order to give readers a clearer understanding of our work, we changed the title of the article to the [Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Chinese Loess].
Reviewer 4 Report
I am pleased to read the manuscript titled “Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Loess". The paper has interesting results and is properly presented in the context of a scientific problem (as review type of article). The Authors sharing of the current knowledge on the topic and indicates that there are several questions that need to be addressed in the future. I do not propose any additional comments. I recommend its publication in the present form.
Author Response
Comments: I am pleased to read the manuscript titled “Carbonate Mineral Dissolution and Its Carbon Sink Effect in Chinese Loess". The paper has interesting results and is properly presented in the context of a scientific problem (as review type of article). The Authors sharing of the current knowledge on the topic and indicates that there are several questions that need to be addressed in the future. I do not propose any additional comments. I recommend its publication in the present form.
Response: We appreciate you taking the time to review our article. Thank you so much for your help.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The responses are insufficient, and the changes in the revised paper do not address the issues of the reviewer.
