The Impact of Beach Wrack on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Coastal Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

English is not my native language,  but I think some grammar and spelling errors need to be corrected. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammar and spelling errors need to be corrected

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your participation in improving our article and your valuable comments.

Comment 1: Some grammar and spelling errors need to be corrected.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We checked the text of the article and indeed found grammatical and spelling errors. We tried to fix them.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your participation in improving our article and your valuable comments.

Comment 1: In general, it is acceptable. Noted: It doesn't seem very clear when reading the statistical analysis because each treatment's replication sampling (measurement gas?) is not same as in the Results. Both experiments in August and September should indicate the replication.

For example, the study in August has four treatments and has 3 three replicates in each treatment. Then, comparing these four differences is μ1, μ2, μ3,μ4 (WM, DM, CR, ST). The steps for data analysis may be as follows: 1) Test normal distribution using the Shapio-Wilk test among the data set and get the results like line 436. The current results in ms seem to compare among the replications (1,2,3) of each station (see table 1, table 2), whereas the Normal test shows the box-cox instead Shapio-Wilk test like in line 436. This part is confusing. 2) Compare mean value (or median) using parametric or nonparametric methods for Tables 5 and 6, which are acceptable.

For the study in September, the replication is also unclear because it seems to set the experiment to compare the before and after of removing the algae. Then the treatment is two (μ1, μ2). The comparison means just two; however, the author compares the two treatments in each No. (No1...No5). How many replications are there in each No? and how μ1 comes from? (10 measurements?). If done separately, it should be tested for normal distribution 5 times. The five values of the Shapiro-Wilk test will show in the results (?). In addition, where does N in the table of mean and median come from?

Response 1: 1. Expansion of the Experimental Section:

In the Materials and Methods section, we clarified that measurements in August were conducted in triplicate replicates at each plot (WM, DM, CR, ST) to assess spatial variability.

In September, single measurements were performed per plot (No. 1–5) before and after macrophyte removal. This decision was based on August data, where repeated measurements within the same plot showed no significant differences (p > 0.05, Shapiro-Wilk test), allowing us to reduce field time without compromising accuracy.

2. Updates to Statistical Analysis:

Tables now include Shapiro-Wilk test results, confirming the non-normal distribution of the data (p < 0.001 for all groups).

For August data comparisons (WM, DM, CR, ST), the Mann-Whitney U test was applied as it is more suitable for independent groups. We note that the results were consistent regardless of the method (Mann-Whitney vs. Wilcoxon).

For September data (paired WM-HM measurements), the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used, appropriate for related samples.

3. Adjustments to Data Visualization:

Figures 4 and 6 have been replaced with tables, which we believe provide a clearer presentation of statistical results (e.g., median values, confidence intervals).

4. Methodological Clarifications:

All calculations were performed using nonparametric methods (Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon), as normality was exclusively assessed via the Shapiro-Wilk test (α = 0.05). Box-Cox transformation was not applied in this study.

These revisions have enhanced the rigor of our analysis and ensured methodological alignment with the real-world conditions of the study. We are happy to provide updated tables and sections for further review.

Comment 2: The scientific name of algae should be Italic style

Response 2: We used Italic style for scientific names.

We thank the reviewer for his comments. Corrections have been made to the text.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is important and useful, it contains important measurement data. However, there are a number of comments that need to be fixed

Comments:

1. In this work, you analyze only 2 dates (August and September) when the measurements were carried out. However, for any calculations, calculations of the greenhouse gas emissions per year are necessary. It is necessary to add some considerations on how often such emissions of macrophytes occur in a year. Please add

2. A section with an assessment of the recurrence of storms should be added to this work, since it is these storms (typhoons) that cause wracks of macrophytes. For Example you can find works where storm repeatability studied (I find in gogle search Number of Storms in Several Russian Seas: Trends and Connection) or better you need to get wind waves reanalysis data (Era5 or local Japan sea reanalysis) and calculate multiyear Climatic variability. But you need a criteria - which wave height cause the wracks. May be you can find it in the literature.

In the introduction I do not see several articles about macrophyte wracks and works about carbon poligons in near your region:

Sea wrack delivery and accumulation on islands: factors that mediate marine nutrient permeability

A preliminary exploration of the physical properties of seagrass wrack

Carbon Observational Site ‘Carbon-Sakhalin’

 PROSPECTIVE USES OF THE MACROPHYTE STORM DEBRIS IN THE WRACK ZONE OF THE AZOV AND BLACK SEA

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your participation in improving our article and your valuable comments.

Comment 1: In this work, you analyze only 2 dates (August and September) when the measurements were carried out. However, for any calculations, calculations of the greenhouse gas emissions per year are necessary. It is necessary to add some considerations on how often such emissions of macrophytes occur in a year. Please add

Response 1: Thanks a lot for the comment. This study was the initial stage of our work to assess the contribution of coastal soils with macrophyte beach wrack to greenhouse gas fluxes. We were interested in whether there is a difference in greenhouse gas fluxes from soils without macrophyte beach wrack and soils with macrophyte beach wrack on the surface. This is indicated in the text of the manuscript. We understand that a small amount of data can lead to incorrect conclusions, so we draw very cautious conclusions and point this out.

Comment 2: A section with an assessment of the recurrence of storms should to ,sinceit is these storms (typhoons) cause wracks macrophytes. For Example you can find works where storm repeatability studied (I find in gogle search Number of Storms in Several Russian Seas: Trends and Connection) or better you need to get wind waves reanalysis data (Era5 or local Japan sea reanalysis) and calculate multiyear Climatic variability. But you need a criteria - which wave height cause the wracks. May be you can find it in the literature.

Response 2: Thanks for the comment, this is very valuable information for us. The purpose of this work is to evaluate greenhouse gas fluxes from coastal soils with and without macrophyte beach wrack. The assessment of the causes of the appearance of the macrophyte beach wrack was not part of the task of this study. However, this information is really very useful and we will try to take it into account in further research.

Comment 2: In the introduction I do not see several articles about macrophyte wracks and works about carbon poligons in near your region:

Sea wrack delivery and accumulation on islands: factors that mediate marine nutrient permeability

A preliminary exploration of the physical properties of seagrass wrack

Carbon Observational Site ‘Carbon-Sakhalin’

PROSPECTIVE USES OF THE MACROPHYTE STORM DEBRIS IN THE WRACK ZONE OF THE AZOV AND BLACK SEA

Response 2: Thanks for the recommended research. We have read the publications offered for citation very carefully. Unfortunately, some of the manuscripts do not quite correspond to the subject of our own. For example, in the manuscript "Sea wrack delivery and accumulation on islands: factors that mediate marine nutrient permeability", the object of research is island marine territories, and the Kievka Bay we are exploring differs in hydrodynamic conditions as it belongs to the zone of the underwater continental slope by the Sea of Japan. The manuscript "A preliminary exploration of the physical properties of seagrass wrack" discusses in detail the physical causes of seagrass on the beach, which is also not the direct purpose of our research. "Carbon Observational Site 'Carbon-Sakhalin'" is the work of our colleagues from Sakhalin. We monitor their publication activity, but we have different goals, objectives, and research objects. The recommended work describes the hydrochemical properties of the water column of the Aniva Bay and does not correspond to the subject of our work.

As for the publication «PROSPECTIVE USES OF THE MACROPHYTE STORM DEBRIS IN THE WRACK ZONE OF THE AZOV AND BLACK SEA», we have added it to the list of cited literature at number 48.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the authors did not do the work according to my comments. The comments and their correction make the work better. Unfortunately, in your case, the article doesn't get any better.

In this case, the quality of the work and the main conclusions are far from the standards of the Climate journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We regret that our response to your recommendations was unsatisfactory for you. 
Your recommendations are really useful, but they do not correspond to the purpose and objectives of this study. However, we will apply this knowledge in other works.

Thank you for your assessment. This is very valuable to us.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study was designed to assess the impact of beach marine macrophytes on carbon dioxide fluxes and the possibility of using coastal emissions of marine macrophytes as a feedstock for biochar production. The intention of study was good, however, the manuscript was present was bad manner, which make it was very hard for publication; First, the Introduction was presented with poor writing, which make it very difficult for readers to understand the significance of science; Second, the field measurement was carried out with short time, which likely make the results are doubtful; Third, the Discussion section was lack, and it is hard to understand the main findings and the implications. Overall, the whole manuscript reads just like a Report with low novelty, the quality of the manuscript was very low, and it is not suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is important and useful, it contains important measurement data. However, there are a number of shortcomings that need to be fixed

General comments:

1. The work says almost nothing about the oceanographic conditions of Kievka Bay. How the temperature changes seasonally, wind, ice, currents, upwellings. We need some idea of the biological productivity of macrophytes. Preferably some kind of long-term data or at least seasonal estimates. Please add

2. A section with an assessment of the recurrence of storms should be added to this work, since it is these storms (typhoons) that cause wracks of macrophytes. For Example you can find works where storm repeatability studied (I find in gogle search Number of Storms in Several Russian Seas: Trends and Connection) or better you need to get wind waves reanalysis data (Era5 or local Japan sea reanalysis) and calculate multiyear Climatic variability. But you need a criteria - which wave height cause the wracks. May be you can find it in the literature.

3. There is no Discussion section. I would like to see the Conclusion section expanded with specific conclusions. We need to add and expand

Minor comments:

1. Please add to keywords: Japan Sea 

2. I think term " macrophyte beach wrack" is more popular in recent articles. May be better to include this term to the paper title.

3. In the introduction I do not see several articles about macrophyte wracks and works about carbon poligons in near your region:

Sea wrack delivery and accumulation on islands: factors that mediate marine nutrient permeability

A preliminary exploration of the physical properties of seagrass wrack

Carbon Observational Site ‘Carbon-Sakhalin’

 PROSPECTIVE USES OF THE MACROPHYTE STORM DEBRIS IN THE WRACK ZONE OF THE AZOV AND BLACK SEA