Carbon Sequestration Potential in Rubber Plantations: A Complementary Approach to Tropical Forest Conservation Strategies, a Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the best.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.

We have revised certain parts of our manuscript to improve clarity and make the text flow even more smoothly. You will find the changes in the revised manuscript. We have also adjusted the format of the article. In particular, we have modified the layout and presentation of the sections to bring the manuscript more into line with the journal's requirements. All table format adjustments were made in compliance with Earth/MDPI journal publication guidelines.

Once again, thank you for your support in improving our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

 

The most of the studies on rubber plantations focuse on their negative and deleterious impacts, such as biodiversity loss when its conversion of natural tropical forests into monoculture. This bias precludes a comprehensive evaluation of their potential benefits and advantages. To objectively evaluate their role in carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation, it is urgent and pressing to perform in-depth researches on their ecological and climatic contributions. This research include in carbon storage dynamics, biodiversity, and sustainable management practices in order to appraise the carbon sequestration potential of rubber plantations and their complementary role in tropical forest conservation strategies to relieve climate change. The subject completely falls within the general scope of this Journal. The topic is very interesting. Generally, the review is well-structurally organized. This is comparatively a fully new and original contribution in this field. All stated above, this literature review is complete, accurate and comprehensive. It can be published with a few changes in wording and format. The English level of the authors is very high.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for

providing your valuable feedback. Please find below the answers to your concerns.

Question 1. All stated above, this literature review is complete, accurate and comprehensive. It can be published with a few changes in wording and format. The English level of the authors is very high.

Answer 1. Thank you for your much appreciated comment, in Response to this concern, we have revised parts of the article to improve clarity and make the text flow even more smoothly. You will find in the revised manuscript the changes made in response to your recommendations. We have also adjusted the format of the article in line with your suggestions. In particular, we have modified the layout and presentation of the sections to bring the manuscript more into line with the journal's requirements. All format adjustments have been made in compliance with the Earth/MDPI journal's publication guidelines.

Once again, thank you for your helpful comments and support in improving our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My observation are in the file in attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualify to express a valuation  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for

providing your valuable feedback. Please find below the answers to your concerns.

Question 1. The data reported in the tables, from my point of view, should be improved and enriched, specifically the data related to management factors.

Answer 1. We have taken into account your comment concerning the improvement and enrichment of the interpretation of the data presented in the tables, in particular those relating to management factors. We have revised and improved the interpretation of the tables in question to incorporate additional information and make them more complete. We have also enriched the interpretation of management factors by adding relevant details such as plantation density, bleeding practices and frequency, soil type and water management techniques, to better reflect the impact of these factors on the study results (lines 299 - 348). The manuscript clearly emphasizes that these factors directly influence the ability of rubber plantations to store carbon. The analysis of this review shows that rubber plantations, if integrated with sustainable management practices, can be a complementary approach to the conservation of natural tropical forests. They could thus become a key lever in strategies to combat global warming in areas at high risk of deforestation, while ensuring the economic viability of local communities.

Question 2. The Authors stressed the problem about the density of forest plantation, but no one data have been reported.

Answer 2. We fully understand your concern about the lack of precise data on forest plantation density in our study. However, our analysis focused primarily on rubber plantations, with an emphasis on the impact of density (number of trees per hectare) on carbon sequestration. The aim of our approach is to assess specifically how the density of rubber plantations affects carbon storage potential, both in above-ground biomass and in the soil (lines 124 - 134).

Within this framework, we have integrated empirical results from different localities into our analysis (Table 1), illustrating carbon stocks (Mg C ha-¹) as a function of plantation density, pedoclimatic conditions and measurement methods used. These data make it possible to assess variations in carbon storage as a function of plantation structural parameters, including tree density, age, and applied forest management practices.

The approach adopted in our study emphasizes that optimal plantation density cannot be generalized but must be adapted to local ecological conditions to maximize both productivity and carbon sequestration. Excessive density could compromise tree growth by increasing competition for resources, while too low a density would limit the overall carbon storage potential per hectare.

We recognize that further investigations, incorporating larger-scale comparative studies and modeling analyses, would be required to refine these results and lead to robust recommendations for the sustainable management of rubber plantations (lines 696 - 722). We therefore see our work as an initial contribution to this issue, paving the way for future research aimed at clarifying the interactions between plantation density, carbon sequestration and ecological resilience of rubber agroecosystems (lines 752 - 764).

Question 3. In the last part, the authors distinguished between areas that are deforested and areas covered by tropical forests. I agree with the proposal to cultivate rubber plantations in deforested areas. However, the government should promote a long-term plan and guarantee a consistent amount of resources for managing these plantations.

Answer 3. We fully agree with you on the importance of a long-term sustainable management framework to ensure the success and viability of rubber plantations, particularly in deforested areas. As you have pointed out, it is essential that governments in tropical countries put in place sound policies and strategies, backed by adequate financial resources, to ensure the effective management of these plantations. We have emphasized this in the concluding section of our manuscript. We have reformulated recommendations concerning the importance of developing long-term management plans, including sustainable financing mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation measures, and public-private partnerships to enhance the impact of this initiative and sustainably maintain the carbon sequestration potential of rubber plantations (lines 743-751).

Question 4. On the second hypothesis, that of introducing rubber plantations in tropical forests, I disagree. The comparison recognizes that tropical forests have high carbon storage capacities, so it would be appropriate to create conditions for natural renewal of bare areas. The implementation of this hypothesis is already problematic and would require much more in-depth and multidisciplinary studies.

Answer 4. We fully understand your concerns about the intrinsically high capacity of tropical forests to store carbon and the fundamental importance of the natural renewal of denuded areas. We also share your demand for an approach based on in-depth, multidisciplinary studies. In the concluding section, we stress that the absence of empirical data from experimental fields and long-term monitoring limits this study and the in-depth understanding specific to different regions and rubber plantation management contexts (lines 763-775). This is why we have stressed throughout the manuscript the importance of integrating field data to better understand the dynamics of carbon sequestration potential in rubber plantations.

However, our hypothesis is by no means intended to substitute natural forest regeneration processes, but rather to explore a complementary approach specifically adapted to areas already heavily degraded or subject to intense anthropogenic pressure, where natural regeneration dynamics are compromised. In our study, we stressed that the introduction of rubber plantations should only be considered in areas where deforestation has already severely altered carbon sequestration capacity, and where natural renewal alone cannot ensure effective and sustainable restoration (lines 523 - 535).

Furthermore, we insist that any reforestation strategy, including rubber plantations, must be conceived in terms of ecosystem integration and not in opposition to natural tropical forests. The aim of our manuscript is twofold: on the one hand, to restore forest cover in areas where deforestation has reduced carbon storage capacity, and on the other, to propose an economically viable alternative that reduces pressure on primary tropical forests by promoting sustainable production.

Our manuscript also points out that the introduction of rubber plantations in these contexts requires a rigorous, multidimensional approach, integrating ecological, economic, and social assessments. In conclusion, we stressed the need for in-depth research into long-term impacts, particularly in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and environmental sustainability (lines 757 - 764). Implementing such an approach requires strict scientific monitoring, evidence-based planning, and consideration of local specificities to avoid any risk of conflict with the natural resilience of tropical forest ecosystems.

Ultimately, our results show that, far from being a substitute for tropical forests, rubber plantations are an intermediate measure that can alleviate the pressure on these ecosystems in specific contexts of advanced degradation. Its integration into a broader conservation strategy could thus not only enhance carbon sequestration, but also generate socio-economic benefits for local populations, thereby strengthening the acceptability, ownership, and sustainability of reforestation initiatives.

Once again, thank you for your helpful comments and support in improving our manuscript.

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 main theme of the entire paper is not prominent, the summary and conclusion are not well-structured, the results are rather chaotic, and the readability is poor.

 

L73-76, are the numbers for global forest? How about tropical forests?

 

Literature search strategy, e.g., which keywords, union or intersection are adopted? should be supplemented in the method section.

 

How many papers were obtained finally? This should be supplemented in the method section as well.

 

All the CO2 should be replaced by CO₂, CO₂ can be used directly after its first appearance, which should be defined at first time. Please check all throughout the paper.

 

The section “3.1. Carbon sequestration in non-traditional tropical plantations” is too lengthy.

It would be better to summarize it and divide it into several parts to improve readability.

 

The section “3.2. Comparative analysis of rubber plantations and tropical forests” . Only when the places or the natural conditions such as climate and geography are similar can they be comparable. And the forest density, age affect the carbon sequestration also. Therefore, there is no need to compare so many forests in an ineffective way. Instead, we should compare different forests in similar environments and conduct in-depth analysis.

 

The logical structure of the thesis is rather chaotic and needs to be further streamlined. For example, 3.5 Measuring carbon sequestration in rubber plantations should be mentioned earlier.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is well.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. You below are our responses to your concerns.

Firstly, taking into account your comments as well as feedback from two other reviewers, we have decided to completely revise our manuscript.

Question 1. The main theme of the entire paper is not prominent, the summary and conclusion are not well-structured, the results are rather chaotic, and the readability is poor.

Answer 1. Following this very pertinent comment, we have taken the time to reorganize the abstract and conclusion in order to improve their clarity and structure, clearly highlighting the central objective of the research, which is to assess the carbon sequestration potential of rubber plantations in comparison with tropical forests. As far as the results are concerned, we have revisited the entire manuscript to make it more coherent and fluid, while ensuring optimum readability.

Question 2. L73-76, are the numbers for global forest? How about tropical forest ?

Answer 2. Thank you for your pertinent comment. Indeed, the figures mentioned in lines 73-76 in the original document refer to the global forest as a whole. We have clarified in the text that these data are from the global forest and added a distinction between these figures and those specifically relating to tropical forests (lines 79-80). This update clarifies the scope of the data, and their context as regards tropical forests.

Question 3. Literature search strategy, e.g., which keywords, union or intersection are adopted? should be supplemented in the method section.

Answer 3. Thank you for your suggestion. We have taken your comment into account and have added details on the literature search strategy in the methodology section. We have detailed the keywords used, as well as the union and intersection criteria applied to ensure complete and relevant coverage of sources (lines 155-165). This update provides a clearer understanding of the approach adopted for the selection of articles in this review.

Question 3. How many papers were obtained finally? This should be supplemented in the method section as well.

Answer 3. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We have taken your suggestion into account and added this information to the “Method” section (lines 170-171). After applying the defined selection criteria, we obtained a total of 185 articles relevant to this review. This figure reflects the articles that were retained after a rigorous filtering process, which took into account the quality of the sources and their relevance to our research objective.

Question 4. All the CO2 should be replaced by CO₂, CO₂ can be used directly after its first appearance, which should be defined at first time. Please check all throughout the paper.

Answer 4. Thank you for this very useful comment. We have taken your comment into account and revised the entire document. All “CO₂” terms have been standardized and replaced where necessary. We have also ensured that the term “CO₂” is defined from its first appearance to guarantee greater clarity and consistency throughout the text. Careful proofreading has been carried out to correct any remaining inconsistencies.

Question 5. The section “3.1. Carbon sequestration in non-traditional tropical plantations” is too lengthy. It would be better to summarize it and divide it into several parts to improve readability.

Answer 5. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We have taken your suggestion into account and reorganized the section “3.1. Carbon sequestration in non-traditional tropical plantations”. We have reformulated and reduced its length by removing repetitions and simplifying certain parts. In addition, this section has been divided into more concise subsections to improve overall readability and clarity. We believe that this reorganization will make this section more accessible and coherent for the reader.

Question 6. The section “3.2. Comparative analysis of rubber plantations and tropical forests”. Only when the places or the natural conditions such as climate and geography are similar can they be comparable. And the forest density, age affect the carbon sequestration also. Therefore, there is no need to compare so many forests in an ineffective way. Instead, we should compare different forests in similar environments and conduct in-depth analysis.

Answer 6. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We have taken your comment into account and have revised section “3.2. Comparative analysis of rubber plantations and tropical forests”. We have reduced the number of forests compared, focusing only on those whose natural conditions, such as climate, geography, density, and age, are similar to those of rubber plantations. This enables a more targeted and accurate comparison, taking into account the factors that actually influence carbon sequestration. In addition, we have added an in-depth analysis of the specific differences in these similar environments, to enrich the interpretation of the results (lines 438-554).

Question 7. The logical structure of the thesis is rather chaotic and needs to be further streamlined. For example, 3.5 Measuring carbon sequestration in rubber plantations should be mentioned earlier.

Answer 7. Thank you for your constructive comment. We have taken into account your comment regarding the logical structure of the manuscript and have reorganized it to improve clarity and coherence. In particular, the section “3.5 Measuring carbon sequestration in rubber plantations” has been moved to a more appropriate place in the current version of the manuscript (Results 1), to allow a more fluid progression of ideas (lines 236-315). We have also readjusted the order of the sections to ensure better logic between the different points addressed. This reorganization is intended to make reading more pleasant and the structure more streamlined, thus facilitating understanding of the work as a whole.

We would like to thank you again for your valuable comments, which helped us greatly to improve our work

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please simplify the content of the abstract and simply describe the main results and important findings of this study. At present, the abstract is too lengthy to get effective information as soon as possible;
2. Please briefly explain the methods, techniques and main logical ideas involved in this study in the last paragraph of Introduction;
3. Please subdivide all the sub-chapters of Discussion according to the specific content. The current structure can only see endless text descriptions, and it is difficult to capture important information;
4. Please put Table 3 as an attachment at the end of the manuscript;
5. The text of Figure 2 is too small to be recognized;
6. The conclusion of the study lacks depth. At present, the conclusion similar to "further research on carbon sequestration mechanism and optimization of management mode" is too broad, and a similar conclusion can be drawn even without this study.
7. The author should add a detailed figure to vividly show the logic of this article. At present, there are only large paragraphs of text and lengthy tables, so this writing method is unacceptable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should look for a professional institute to improve the quality of English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. You below are our responses to your concerns.

Firstly, taking into account your comments as well as feedback from two other reviewers, we have decided to completely revise our manuscript.

Question 1. Please simplify the content of the abstract and simply describe the main results and important findings of this study. At present, the abstract is too lengthy to get effective information as soon as possible

Answer 1. Thank you for your very pertinent comment. We have simplified the content of the summary by making it more concise and direct (lines 40-58). The main results and conclusions of the study have been clearly highlighted, so as to provide a quick and effective overview of the key points of the research. We have reduced unnecessary detail and focused on the essential elements that accurately summarize the aim, methodology, results, and implications of the study. This revision aims to improve the readability and clarity of the summary while facilitating rapid comprehension for the reader.

Question 2. Please briefly explain the methods, techniques and main logical ideas involved in this study in the last paragraph of Introduction.

Answer 2. Thank you for your constructive comment. We have added a final paragraph to the introduction to briefly explain the methods, techniques and main logical ideas used in this study. This paragraph highlights the methodological approach adopted, including the comparative analysis between rubber plantations and tropical forests, as well as the use of tools to assess carbon sequestration potential (lines 130-136).

Question 3. Please subdivide all the sub-chapters of Discussion according to the specific content. The current structure can only see endless text descriptions, and it is difficult to capture important information.

Answer 3. Thank you for your comment. We have revised the discussion section to make it clearer and better structured. The sub-chapters have been subdivided into separate sections, each corresponding to a specific aspect of the content, in order to facilitate understanding and improve readability. For example, each sub-chapter now deals with a specific aspect related to the results of the study, such as measures of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations, factors influencing carbon sequestration, differences between rubber plantations and tropical forests, and the implications of these results for sustainable ecosystem management. We have also added sub-headings for each section to orient the reader and enable him or her to grasp the essential information quickly (lines 235-741).

Question 4. Please put Table 3 as an attachment at the end of the manuscript

Answer 4. Thank you for your suggestion. We have taken your comment into account and have moved Table 3 to the end of the manuscript as an appendix, as suggested.

Question 5. The text of Figure 2 is too small to be recognized.

Answer 5. Thank you for your comment. We have enlarged the text in figure 2 to make it easier to read, and we have made sure that all the graphic elements are now clearly visible (lines 658-659).

Question 6. The conclusion of the study lacks depth. At present, the conclusion similar to "further research on carbon sequestration mechanism and optimization of management mode" is too broad, and a similar conclusion can be drawn even without this study.

Answer 6. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We have revised the conclusion to give it more depth and precision (lines 742-782). We have highlighted the main findings of the study, emphasizing the importance of sustainable management of rubber plantations to maximize their carbon sequestration potential and their contribution to the conservation of tropical ecosystems. In addition, we have suggested concrete avenues for future research to better understand the specific mechanisms involved in carbon sequestration within these plantations, taking into account ecological particularities and management practices. We have thus taken care to avoid overly general conclusions and to reinforce the relevance of the study in the context of sustainable plantation management.

Question 7. The author should add a detailed figure to vividly show the logic of this article. At present, there are only large paragraphs of text and lengthy tables, so this writing method is unacceptable.

Answer 7. In response to your very pertinent comment, we have added a detailed figure summarizing the logic of the study (lines 174-177), highlighting the key processes and the links between the various elements discussed. This figure will enable readers to better grasp the sequence of ideas and the methodology employed, making it easier to understand the concepts developed in the article. We have also simplified certain tables and reworded certain paragraphs to make the text more fluid and accessible.

We would like to thank you again for your valuable comments, which helped us greatly to improve our work

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reviews the carbon sequestration potential of rubber plantations in tropical forests on the base of many other studies in the field. The authors have reviewed and analysed recent publications in the field of study. However, after a thorough evaluation of the submitted manuscript, I regret to inform that substantial revisions are necessary for it to meet the standards of academic standards and clarity required for publication in “Earth”. Below are my primary concerns, regarding the structural, linguistic, and scientific aspects of the paper:

1. The manuscript suffers from excessively lengthy paragraphs that hinder readability and disrupt the logical flow of ideas. I strongly recommend restructuring the content into concise, focused paragraphs, each addressing a single concept or finding.
2. Many citations appear tangential or unrelated to the content, undermining the paper’s credibility. The authors should reassess the relevance of each citation to ensure direct connections to the discussion.
3. The text redundantly emphasizes the importance of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations, often within the same sentence or paragraph. While this topic is central to the study, excessive repetition detracts from the manuscript’s novelty and reader engagement.
4. A portion of the manuscript is written in French, disrupting linguistic consistency. All content should be uniformly presented in English to ensure accessibility for the professional community.

I also have identified numerous questions and concerns throughout the manuscript.

59, 62, 64 [1,2,3] I’m not sure that these reference are relevant in this context. IPCC reports will be more appropriate. According to the requirements of the MDPI, upper case is not required for the links.

70 [5] Please also check relevance of this paper for the tropical forests.

71 [6] The same concern.

68 [4] – 75,76 [8,9] I recommend providing readers with the English version of the reports, as the manuscript is written in English.

81-88 I recommend add several additional references for this paragraph. 

101 [15] Not sure that this reference is relevant in this context.

102 References needed.

104, 111 [16,17] The publications are not accessible.

112-116 To strengthen the evidence base of this paragraph, it would be advisable to incorporate additional supporting references alongside or in place of [3, 11].

124 [19] The reference is not relevant in this context.

124-129 This part of the manuscript requires rephrasing and a clearer specification of the constraints and needs related to the previously discussed topics. Additionally, the conclusion should be revised to establish a stronger connection to the preceding content, ensuring that it effectively summarizes the main ideas presented.

132-135 The objective of the manuscript requires further clarification, particularly in the context of it being a review article. In this context, the research objective appears too vague.

172 [20] The reference is not relevant in this context.

176-209 There is no need to elaborate on how carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed and stored in tree biomass and soils, as this is well understood by the scientific community. [23] This reference is in Chinese and inaccessible.

247 [36] The reference is not relevant in this context.

272-306 / 332-339 These text lacks new insights into the role of rubber plantations in carbon sequestration or their environmental ecosystem services. Instead of offering original research, innovative methodologies, or fresh perspectives on enhancing these ecological functions, it mainly reiterates well-known benefits of these agroecosystems.

324 [13] Not sure that these reference is relevant in this context. “Some studies suggest….”.

357 [13] The same question related to the reference.

383-395 The text is written in French.

Recommendation: While the topic of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations is scientifically and practically relevant, the manuscript, in its current state, does not meet the threshold for publication. The authors should undertake a comprehensive revision addressing the concerns outlined above, with particular attention to structural coherence, referencing accuracy, linguistic precision, and interpretive depth.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. You below are our responses to your concerns.

Firstly, taking into account your comments as well as feedback from two other reviewers, we have decided to completely revise our manuscript.

Question 1. The manuscript suffers from excessively lengthy paragraphs that hinder readability and disrupt the logical flow of ideas. I strongly recommend restructuring the content into concise, focused paragraphs, each addressing a single concept or finding.

Answer 1. In response to your very pertinent comment, we have reorganized the text by dividing long paragraphs into shorter, more focused sections. Each new paragraph deals with a single concept or discovery, which improves the flow of the text and makes it easier for the reader to follow the reasoning. We have also taken care to ensure that each paragraph is directly linked to the idea in the section, reinforcing the coherence of the document in its current format.

Question 2. Many citations appear tangential or unrelated to the content, undermining the paper’s credibility. The authors should reassess the relevance of each citation to ensure direct connections to the discussion.

Answer 3.  In response to your very pertinent comment, we have carefully re-evaluated all the quotations used in the manuscript. We have removed those that seemed tangential or not directly related to the content, and we have readjusted some others to make them more relevant and in line with the points discussed. We have also added a few additional references where necessary to reinforce the strength of our arguments.

Question 4. The text redundantly emphasizes the importance of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations, often within the same sentence or paragraph. While this topic is central to the study, excessive repetition detracts from the manuscript’s novelty and reader engagement.

Answer 4. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We have taken into account your remark concerning the excessive repetition of the importance of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations. To improve the flow and interest of the text, we have revised the passages concerned, removing redundancies while preserving the impact of the central message. We have restructured certain paragraphs to avoid repeating the same idea in close proximity, and we have ensured that each mention of carbon sequestration brings added value or clarification. Question 5. A portion of the manuscript is written in French, disrupting linguistic consistency. All content should be uniformly presented in English to ensure accessibility for the professional community.

Answer 5. Thank you for your constructive comment. In fact, we have completely revised the text to translate all sections written in French into English. This has ensured a better flow and that the content is accessible to the entire scientific community. We also ensured that terminology was consistent and adapted to the scientific context, and that the journal's linguistic standards were respected.

Question 6. 59, 62, 64 [1,2,3] I am not sure that these references are relevant in this context. IPCC reports will be more appropriate. According to the requirements of the MDPI, upper case is not required for the links.

Answer 6. Thank you for this pertinent comment. We have reviewed the references you mentioned and replaced them with IPCC and FAO reports that are more directly related to the context of carbon sequestration and climate change (lines 64-80). We have therefore updated the citations to include the most recent IPCC reports, ensuring that they are directly relevant to the study. In addition, we have also adjusted the links according to the requirements of the MDPI journal by removing unnecessary capitalization.

Question 7. 70 [5] Please also check relevance of this paper for the tropical forests.

Answer 7. We have therefore replaced this reference with a more relevant study on tropical forests, which directly addresses aspects of forest management and carbon sequestration in this type of ecosystem (lines 72-75). This update has strengthened the scientific relevance of our manuscript.

Question 8. 71 [6] The same concern.

Answer 8. We have therefore replaced this reference with a more appropriate source that directly addresses the issues of tropical forest management and their role in carbon storage (lines 72-75).

Question 9. 68 [4] – 75,76 [8,9] I recommend providing readers with the English version of the reports, as the manuscript is written in English.

Answer 9. These are FAO reports on the state of the world's forests. Often these reports are written in English, available online through the DOI provided. We have also decided to provide the English version of the cited reports, where applicable, in order to ensure the clarity and accessibility of our references and reinforce the credibility of our manuscript.

Question 10. 81-88 I recommend add several additional references for this paragraph. 

Answer 10. We have revised this section and added several relevant references to support the points discussed, ensuring that they are up to date and in line with the content of the paragraph (lines 82 - 102).

Question 11. 101 [15] Not sure that this reference is relevant in this context.

Answer 11. We have decided to replace it with a more relevant source that better reflects the objectives and concepts of our study (lines 91-96). Thank you for this constructive comment, which has improved the quality of our manuscript.

Question 12. 102 References needed.

Answer 12. We have added the necessary references to this section to support our assertions and strengthen the credibility of our argument (line 102). The new references are now integrated and better adapted to the context of the study. We thank you for your attention to this detail and for helping to improve the scientific rigor of our manuscript.

Question 13. 104, 111 [16,17] The publications are not accessible.

Answer 13. We have replaced these references with other relevant and accessible sources, to ensure the transparency and scientific rigor of our work (lines 102-110). The new references are now included in the text and available for consultation.

Question 14. 112-116 To strengthen the evidence base of this paragraph, it would be advisable to incorporate additional supporting references alongside or in place of [3, 11].

Answer 14. We have taken your suggestion into account and added several additional references to strengthen the evidence base of this paragraph (line 112-113). These references have been supplemented with recent and relevant sources that further support the arguments presented.

Question 15. 124 [19] The reference is not relevant in this context.

Answer 15. We have therefore withdrawn it.

Question 16. 124-129 This part of the manuscript requires rephrasing, and a clearer specification of the constraints and needs related to the previously discussed topics. Additionally, the conclusion should be revised to establish a stronger connection to the preceding content, ensuring that it effectively summarizes the main ideas presented.

Answer 16. Thank you for this comment. We have taken your suggestion into account and have reworded this section to clarify the constraints and needs related to the topics previously discussed. We have taken care to specify the key points more clearly, highlighting the issues in a more precise and structured way (lines 119-129). In addition, the conclusion has been revised to strengthen the link with the content of the manuscript and more effectively summarize the main ideas presented throughout the study (lines 742-782).

Question 17. 32-135 The objective of the manuscript requires further clarification, particularly in the context of it being a review article. In this context, the research objective appears too vague.

Answer 17. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We have taken your suggestion into account and have clarified the objective of our manuscript by rewording it to make it more specific and precise. In the context of this review article, we have emphasized that the main objective is to compare the carbon sequestration potential of rubber plantations versus tropical forests, focusing on management factors and ecological conditions. We have also further detailed the context of this analysis, to better align the research objective with the subject matter (lines 137-148).

Question 18. 172 [20] The reference is not relevant in this context.

Answer 18. We have therefore withdrawn it.

Question 19. 176-209 There is no need to elaborate on how carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed and stored in tree biomass and soils, as this is well understood by the scientific community. [23] This reference is in Chinese and inaccessible.

Answer 19. Thank you for your comment. We have taken your suggestion into account and simplified this section by eliminating the detailed explanation of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorption and storage in tree biomass and soils. As this information is well established in the scientific literature, we felt there was no need to go into further detail. We have tried to summarize this mechanism at the level of the methodological approach (194-234). With regard to the Chinese reference, we have replaced it with an accessible and relevant source in English, to ensure the transparency and credibility of our study (line 217).

Question 20. 247 [36] The reference is not relevant in this context.

Answer 20. We have therefore withdrawn it.

Question 21. 272-306 / 332-339 These text lacks new insights into the role of rubber plantations in carbon sequestration or their environmental ecosystem services. Instead of offering original research, innovative methodologies, or fresh perspectives on enhancing these ecological functions, it mainly reiterates well-known benefits of these agroecosystems.

Answer 21. Thank you for this pertinent comment. We have taken your comments into account and have reworked these sections to incorporate new and more original ideas concerning the role of rubber plantations in carbon sequestration and their ecosystem services. Rather than simply reiterating the known benefits of these agroecosystems, we have explored innovative methodologies and novel perspectives for improving the ecological efficiency of rubber plantations. We have also proposed a whole section on future research avenues focusing on the integration of sustainable practices and improved plantation management to maximize their contribution to carbon sequestration and ecosystem conservation (lines 715-741).

Question 22. 324 [13] Not sure that these reference is relevant in this context. “Some studies suggest….”.

Answer 22. We have decided to replace this reference with sources more directly related to the topic of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations. We have also clarified the ideas put forward in this section to avoid any ambiguity and strengthen the validity of the arguments presented.

Question 23. 357 [13] The same question related to the reference.

Answer 23. We have therefore withdrawn it.

Question 24. 383-395 The text is written in French.

Answer 24. Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the use of French in one section of the manuscript. In accordance with the journal's requirements, we have now translated the entire text into English to ensure the linguistic consistency of the document and to ensure its accessibility to a wider audience. We have taken care to ensure that all sections of the manuscript are now uniformly written in English.

Question 25. Recommendation: While the topic of carbon sequestration in rubber plantations is scientifically and practically relevant, the manuscript, in its current state, does not meet the threshold for publication. The authors should undertake a comprehensive revision addressing the concerns outlined above, with particular attention to structural coherence, referencing accuracy, linguistic precision, and interpretive depth.

Answer 25. Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments. We have made a thorough revision to address the concerns raised, including strengthening the structural coherence of the text, checking, and updating references, and making adjustments to ensure linguistic accuracy. In addition, we have taken care to interpret the results to offer a richer, more nuanced analysis of the subject.

We would like to thank you again for your valuable comments, which helped us greatly to improve our work