An Assessment of the Carbon Budget of the Passively Restored Willow Forests Along the Miho River, Central South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the potential of willow communities as new carbon sinks, providing important results with significant relevance in the context of climate change. However, several aspects need further clarification and improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Below are detailed review comments on the manuscript:

1.The development process of the allometric equation is clear, but I recommend adding more detail on data sources and sample selection in the methods section to enhance the study's credibility.

2.The method used for quantifying soil respiration should be further elaborated to enable other researchers to replicate your results.

3.The results are presented clearly and logically. However, I suggest delving deeper into how carbon sequestration capacity in willow communities may vary under different environmental conditions, particularly assessing the potential impacts of climate change.

4.The river restoration suggestions made in the conclusion are practical but could benefit from further exploration of the specific measures and steps needed for implementation, helping policymakers understand how to translate research findings into action.

5. The manuscript is generally well-written, but some sentences require rephrasing for clarity.

6. The authors should consider conducting a field survey or experiment to validate the model predictions.

7. It is recommended to include a discussion on ecosystem service functions, as willow forests provide a variety of services beyond carbon absorption.

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.

Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Chang Seok Lee

Reviewer #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the potential of willow communities as new carbon sinks, providing important results with significant relevance in the context of climate change. However, several aspects need further clarification and improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Below are detailed review comments on the manuscript:

1.The development process of the allometric equation is clear, but I recommend adding more detail on data sources and sample selection in the methods section to enhance the study's credibility.

☞ We revised this part by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comment. Lines 164 – 177.

2.The method used for quantifying soil respiration should be further elaborated to enable other researchers to replicate your results.

☞ We reinforced the part by rewriting the method in detail. Lines 179 – 224.

3.The results are presented clearly and logically. However, I suggest delving deeper into how carbon sequestration capacity in willow communities may vary under different environmental conditions, particularly assessing the potential impacts of climate change.

☞ We added the contents by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines

324 – 337.

4.The river restoration suggestions made in the conclusion are practical but could benefit from further exploration of the specific measures and steps needed for implementation, helping policymakers understand how to translate research findings into action.

☞ We reinforced the part by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines

458-467.

 

5. The manuscript is generally well-written, but some sentences require rephrasing for clarity.

☞ We went through an English review to correct those parts.

6. The authors should consider conducting a field survey or experiment to validate the model predictions.

☞ We wrote this paper based on field surveys and actual data obtained from the field.

7. It is recommended to include a discussion on ecosystem service functions, as willow forests provide a variety of services beyond carbon absorption.

☞ We added the contents by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines 330-333.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no doubt that the study is very much in line with current global efforts to find effective ways to reduce progressive climate change. The authors rightly point out that one of the fundamental ways from the ground up is the proper care of wetlands, which, properly used, can sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide and store it permanently. For this reason, I recognize the study as a very large contribution to the science of how to mitigate climate change. However, the structure of the paper needs to be corrected. Please separate theoretical chapter after the introduction, where a solid literature review will be conducted. I would like to emphasize that there are many studies, including from the European Union, indicating the importance of wetlands for carbon sequestration, it is worth citing them as well as others from other continents. Then the work will be even more interesting.

The research methods are appropriate and valid, and do not raise my doubts. They are carefully prepared and described. I appreciate the enormity of the analytical work. I consider the strength of the study to be the basing of the research on solid empirical material. It is interesting to use willow in the study as a plant needed in wetlands, which in Europe is mainly used as an energy resource. The authors conducted an interesting and insightful discussion of the results, congratulations. The summary is synthetic and this is how it should be in well-written studies.

With the addition of the literature review subsection, the text will meet my expectations. I am glad that such studies are conducted and published.  They indicate important directions to protect the environment.

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.

Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Chang Seok Lee

Reviewer #2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no doubt that the study is very much in line with current global efforts to find effective ways to reduce progressive climate change. The authors rightly point out that one of the fundamental ways from the ground up is the proper care of wetlands, which, properly used, can sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide and store it permanently. For this reason, I recognize the study as a very large contribution to the science of how to mitigate climate change. However, the structure of the paper needs to be corrected. Please separate theoretical chapter after the introduction, where a solid literature review will be conducted. I would like to emphasize that there are many studies, including from the European Union, indicating the importance of wetlands for carbon sequestration, it is worth citing them as well as others from other continents. Then the work will be even more interesting.

The research methods are appropriate and valid, and do not raise my doubts. They are carefully prepared and described. I appreciate the enormity of the analytical work. I consider the strength of the study to be the basing of the research on solid empirical material. It is interesting to use willow in the study as a plant needed in wetlands, which in Europe is mainly used as an energy resource. The authors conducted an interesting and insightful discussion of the results, congratulations. The summary is synthetic and this is how it should be in well-written studies.

With the addition of the literature review subsection, the text will meet my expectations. I am glad that such studies are conducted and published. They indicate important directions to protect the environment.

☞ Thank you for your encouragement. We reinforced the Introduction section by including the contents in the Introduction section without establishing a separate Literature Review section. Lines 72 – 98.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made some modifications to my first comments, but there are no visible changes in rivised manuscript. Additionally, the revised response was very simple, needs to be supplemented. Therefore, I would like to reiterate my first suggestion and ask the author to carefully response them and indicate the modified content in the main text.

 

1.The development process of the allometric equation is clear, but I recommend adding more detail on data sources and sample selection in the methods section to enhance the study's credibility.

2.The method used for quantifying soil respiration should be further elaborated to enable other researchers to replicate your results.

3.The results are presented clearly and logically. However, I suggest delving deeper into how carbon sequestration capacity in willow communities may vary under different environmental conditions, particularly assessing the potential impacts of climate change.

4.The river restoration suggestions made in the conclusion are practical but could benefit from further exploration of the specific measures and steps needed for implementation, helping policymakers understand how to translate research findings into action.

5. The manuscript is generally well-written, but some sentences require rephrasing for clarity.

6. The authors should consider conducting a field survey or experiment to validate the model predictions.

7. It is recommended to include a discussion on ecosystem service functions, as willow forests provide a variety of services beyond carbon absorption.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language should be improved.

Author Response

Response to reviewer’s comments

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for reviewers’ valuable advice and comments. We answered faithfully to reviewers’ questions and revised our manuscript by reflecting reviewers’ valuable advice and comments.

Thank you again for reviewers’ kind advice and comments.

Sincerely Yours,

Chang Seok Lee

Reviewer #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the potential of willow communities as new carbon sinks, providing important results with significant relevance in the context of climate change. However, several aspects need further clarification and improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Below are detailed review comments on the manuscript:

1.The development process of the allometric equation is clear, but I recommend adding more detail on data sources and sample selection in the methods section to enhance the study's credibility.

☞ We revised this part by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comment. Lines 162 – 176.

2.The method used for quantifying soil respiration should be further elaborated to enable other researchers to replicate your results.

☞ We reinforced the part by rewriting the method in detail. Lines 189 – 234.

3.The results are presented clearly and logically. However, I suggest delving deeper into how carbon sequestration capacity in willow communities may vary under different environmental conditions, particularly assessing the potential impacts of climate change.

☞ We added the contents by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines

369-382

4.The river restoration suggestions made in the conclusion are practical but could benefit from further exploration of the specific measures and steps needed for implementation, helping policymakers understand how to translate research findings into action.

☞ We reinforced the part by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines

501- 510.

5. The manuscript is generally well-written, but some sentences require rephrasing for clarity.

☞ We went through an English review to correct those parts.

6. The authors should consider conducting a field survey or experiment to validate the model predictions.

☞ We went through the statistical test for the allometric equation by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines 241 – 258 and 261-269. In addition, to help readers understand, we presented the allometric equations in Figure 2 instead of Table 2.

7. It is recommended to include a discussion on ecosystem service functions, as willow forests provide a variety of services beyond carbon absorption.

☞ We added the contents by reflecting reviewer’s valuable comments. Lines 372 - 378.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf