Soil Organic Carbon Storage in Different Land Uses in Tropical Andean Ecosystems and the Socio-Ecological Environment
, Apolinar Figueroa Casas 1, Diego Jesús Macias Pinto 1 and Rigoberto Rosas-Luis 2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors conducted a thorough revision of the entire manuscript. I think the new version get a remarkable promotion. However, some errors remain and should be corrected further. As I mentioned in the former review, I think this research is interesting and the authors should try their best to show the valuable data to the readers.
Line 96. The unit and number of tree density should be further checked. In Table 1, I think No. trees/ha was not updated e.g. “1138 ± 0.04”.
Line 148. Equation 1 should be in a formal format (e.g. edited by MathType).
Line 161. CEEC should be ECEC.
Figure 2. The legend of the green column should be added.
Author Response
The authors conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript. I think the new version has received excellent attention. However, there are still some errors that should be corrected. As I mentioned in the previous review, I find this research interesting and that authors should do their best to show the valuable data to readers.
Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for his positive feedback on the revised manuscript and his acknowledgment of the improvements made. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance and interest of our research. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to correct any remaining errors detected in your commentary, ensuring that all sections are clear, accurate, and conform to journal standards. We are committed to presenting our valuable data in the most rigorous and transparent way for the benefit of readers.
Line 96. The unit and number of trees in the density should be checked in more detail. In Table 1, I believe that the number of trees/ha was not updated, e.g., "1138 ± 0.04".
Answer: We appreciate your comment on the values of tree density and their associated units in Table 1. We have carefully verified the original field data and confirmed that the reported averages are correct and consistent with the values typically observed in tropical Andean forest ecosystems. Studies conducted in similar altitudinal ranges report comparable tree densities (800–1300 trees ha⁻¹ for DBH > 10 cm) and basal areas (12–20 m² ha⁻¹ in conserved forests, 5–10 m² ha⁻¹ in early successional stands) (Orrego 2001). These ranges are consistent with our results for riparian forest (RF), ecological restoration (ER), and natural regeneration (NR) sites. Line 116.
To avoid any misinterpretation of the variability values, we have revised the table to present the data as mean ± standard deviation (SD) rather than very small standard error (EE) values. This approach follows the recommendations of the forest measurement literature (Avery & Burkhart, 2015; West, 2014), which indicate that DE is more suitable for describing natural variability in field forest inventories, especially when the sample size by land-use type is small. The table legend now specifies that n = 3 transects per land use and clarifies that tree densities were scaled from 300 m² transects to hectares.
References:
- Avery, T.E., & Burkhart, H.E. (2015). Forest Measurements (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
- West, PW (2014). Measurement of trees and forests (3rd ed.). Springer.
- Orrego, S. & Del Valle, J. (2001). Stocks and net rates of increase of biomass and carbon in primary and secondary forests of Colombia. Bogota, Colombia .
Line 148. Equation 1 must be in a formal format (e.g., edited by MathType).
Answer: We appreciate your comment on the format of Equation 1. Following his suggestion, we reformatted it using Microsoft Word's formal equation editor (MathType-compatible format), making sure it fits the journal's style requirements. The equation is now editable and correctly incorporated into the manuscript. Line 176.
Line 161. CEEC must be ECEC.
Maria Zakharova: We appreciate your observation. The acronym "CEEC" was a typographical error. Fixed "ECEC" (Effective Cation Exchange Capacity) throughout the manuscript. Line 189.
Figure 2. The legend of the green column must be added.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Figure 2 and added the missing legend in the green column to ensure that all elements are clearly identified. Line 253.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript presents soil organic carbon storage in different land uses in tropical Andean ecosystems and the socio-ecological environment connected with it. Manuscript needs to be better organised and written... Some remarks regarding manuscript are given bellow:
Row 36 etc.: Please write correct CO2
Rows 52, 55 etc.: Please proper write references according to the instructions.
Rows 78-80: You say novel in Andan context... Please steate/put proper references where similar approaches have been used and briefly describe each reference...
Please put "Section 2" in a new row...
Row 83: Figure 1 or Figure 2?
Figure 1: Please put legend for each plant covers...
Methods section (2) must be better explained... for example: Rows 93-100: Please describe/explain in brief how you define, i.e. all threes with DBH>0,1 m... etc... how did you difine this, what have you used... etc... Methods section must be written in a way that says how something was done...
Section 2.2.1: Please define time period, which year (2024, or?), why only one year, why evry 30 days? is this year representative regarding dry/wet years, please explain and put references... This is important regarding obtained results...
Row 197: Define PCA...
Row 206: Please put reference for the statement regarding AIC...
Figure 2: Please put legend for the green square...?
Figure 3 etc... Please put figures in better resolution and put them according to the instructions...
Row 292: Which model, and how model was obtained...? Define how you get results...
Section 3.3.2: Please better explain what has been done in this section and how. Clearly presents the results and describe them, i.e. Table 3...
Rows 321-322: Please put references for the statement and where are contradictionary results reported... Also discuss this contradictionary results... Mention where your results belongs... Discuss it...
Rows 342-345: Please put proper reference for this statement.
In brief, authors need to put in a little more effort to organise the manuscript and present their research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome parts of the manuscript are "difficult" to read/understand.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Manuscript presents soil organic carbon storage in different land uses in tropical Andean ecosystems and the socio-ecological environment connected with it. Manuscript needs to be better organised and written... Some remarks regarding manuscript are given bellow:
Response: We thank the reviewer for the summary and the constructive remarks on the organization and writing of the manuscript. Following these suggestions, we have revised the structure to ensure a clearer flow between sections, improved the integration of methods and results, and refined the language throughout the text for better readability. Additionally, we have addressed each specific remark provided below in detail, ensuring that all concerns are fully incorporated into the revised version.
Row 36 etc.: Please write correct C O2
Response: Thank you for your observation. We have revised the manuscript and ensured that in all instances the “2” in CO₂ is now written as a subscript, following proper chemical notation. Line 36
Rows 52, 55 etc.: Please proper write references according to the instructions.
Response: Thank you for your observation. The references were originally managed using Mendeley; however, a formatting oversight occurred during the submission process. We have now carefully revised and corrected all references to fully comply with the journal’s instructions for authors. Lines 52,54
Rows 78-80: You say novel in Andan context... Please steate/put proper references where similar approaches have been used and briefly describe each reference...
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the section to include relevant references where similar approaches have been applied in the Andean context and provide a brief description of each. The paragraph now includes new citations, summarizing their methodologies and highlighting how our study differs by integrating socioecological data with SOC measurements. Lines 78,88
Please put "Section 2" in a new row...: We appreciate your suggestion. “Section 2” has now been placed on a new row in the manuscript for improved formatting and clarity.
Row 83: Figure 1 or Figure 2?
Response: Thank you for your observation. The correct reference is “Figure 1,” and this has been corrected in the manuscript. Line 94
Figure 1: Please put legend for each plant covers...: Thank you for your comment. The legend for each plant cover has been added to the description of Figure 1 to ensure all elements are clearly identified. Line 103.
Methods section (2) must be better explained... for example: Rows 93-100: Please describe/explain in brief how you define, i.e. all threes with DBH>0,1 m... etc... how did you difine this, what have you used... etc... Methods section must be written in a way that says how something was done...
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the Methods section (Rows 93–100) to provide a clearer description of how forest structure was assessed. The revised text now specifies the land-use types evaluated, the number and size of transects established, the criterion for including individuals (DBH ≥ 0.1 m), the measurement height (1.3 m above ground) and instrument used (diameter tape), the equation applied to calculate basal area, and the procedure used to calculate tree density and identify species. We have also cited an established reference [19] to support the protocol followed for tropical Andean forest structure assessment. Line 106
Section 2.2.1: Please define time period, which year (2024, or?), why only one year, why evry 30 days? is this year representative regarding dry/wet years, please explain and put references... This is important regarding obtained results...
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised Section 2.2.1 to clearly indicate the sampling period (October 2023–September 2024) and to explain the rationale for the monthly sampling frequency. In tropical Andean regions, unlike temperate zones, climate is relatively stable throughout the year, with variation driven mainly by elevation and rainfall patterns rather than temperature-based seasons. Popayán, Colombia, where the study was conducted, receives approximately 2 100–2 600 mm of rainfall annually and maintains an average temperature of 17–19 °C, with a bimodal rainfall distribution (April–June and October–December) [20]. According to IDEAM reports, no El Niño or La Niña events occurred during the study year, making it representative of typical climatic conditions in the region. Monthly sampling intervals have been used in similar SOC studies in tropical mountain ecosystems, allowing us to capture intra-annual variability while maintaining methodological consistency. Lines 127,133
Row 197: Define PCA...
Response: Thank you for your comment. PCA has been defined in the revised manuscript as Principal Component Analysis. Line 225
Row 206: Please put reference for the statement regarding AIC...
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the reference to support the statement regarding the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Line 237
Figure 2: Please put legend for the green square...?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Figure 2 and added the missing legend for the green column to ensure all elements are clearly identified. Line 252
Figure 3 etc... Please put figures in better resolution and put them according to the instructions...
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have verified that all figures meet the Earth MDPI resolution requirements (≥300 dpi) and comply with the journal’s guidelines.
Row 292: Which model, and how model was obtained...? Define how you get results...
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have updated the Methods section to clearly state the name of the model used (multinomial logistic regression) and to explain how it was obtained, including the variables included, the model selection criterion (AIC), and the software employed (R version 4.3.1). Lines 228, 240. In addition, in the Results section, we explicitly included the model name to ensure clarity and consistency between sections. Line 321
Section 3.3.2: Please better explain what has been done in this section and how. Clearly presents the results and describe them, i.e. Table 3...
Response: Thank you for your comment. Section 3.3.2 has been revised to clearly state the type of model used (generalized linear model with a multinomial logit link), the variables included (SOC, SBR, CL, C_MU, and BD), and the interpretation of the results. Model fit statistics (Residual Deviance and AIC) are now reported, and the description explicitly explains how the coefficients in Table 3 should be interpreted in relation to the reference category (High). This ensures that both the analytical approach and the results are clearly presented. Line 334.
Rows 321-322: Please put references for the statement and where are contradictionary results reported... Also discuss this contradictionary results... Mention where your results belongs... Discuss it... Thank you for your comment. We have revised the section to include the requested references and to discuss contradictory results reported in the literature. We now compare our findings with those of previous studies (e.g., [29], [30] and [31] ), highlighting possible reasons for discrepancies such as differences in soil type, altitude, management history, and sampling depth. We also indicate where our results align with prior research and integrate them with our own measurements, ensuring a clearer presentation of how the observed SOC patterns relate to both our study area and existing literature. Lines 355, 362
Rows 342-345: Please put proper reference for this statement.
Thank you for your comment. We've added the appropriate reference. Line 386.
In brief, authors need to put in a little more effort to organise the manuscript and present their research.
We appreciate the reviewer constructive suggestion to further organize and present our research. In response, we have carefully reviewed the structure of the manuscript, ensuring that each section follows a logical flow and that the presentation of methods, results, and discussion is clear and concise. Minor adjustments have been made to improve readability, the placement of figures and tables has been double-checked, and the language has been revised to enhance clarity. We believe these refinements will help present our research in a more organized and accessible manner to the readers.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors conducted a further revision of the manuscript. I think the manuscript is much better compared with the first version, but some little errors (most refer to the format, e.g. the equation and the font) should be further revised based on professional advice from the editors.
Author Response
The authors conducted a further revision of the manuscript. I think the manuscript is much better compared with the first version, but some little errors (most refer to the format, e.g. the equation and the font) should be further revised based on professional advice from the editors.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the revised manuscript. We carefully checked the entire document once again to correct the remaining minor issues related to format, equations, and font style. The manuscript has been revised according to the journal’s formatting guidelines, and we will also rely on the editorial team’s professional advice to ensure full compliance with the standards. Line 176
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter authors have done the revisons in the manuscript according to the reviewers instructions manuscript is much better. Some minor remarks:
Row 209: Please put reference for software ArcGIS.
Row 260 and elsewere: Please write proper units g/cm3 etc...
Row 273 and elsewere: Please write proper CO2...
Figure 4: Please put border line of the study area.
Table 3: Please difine which coefficients... Regression, determination...
Figure 6: Please put measurement units on the axis.
Conclusions section: Plese put guidelines for future work.
Author Response
After authors have done the revisons in the manuscript according to the reviewers instructions manuscript is much better. Some minor remarks:
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the improvements made in the revised manuscript. We have carefully addressed the minor remarks indicated, ensuring consistency in formatting, style, and clarity throughout the text. We believe these adjustments further strengthen the manuscript and align it with the journal’s standards.
Row 209: Please put reference for software ArcGIS.
Response: Thank you for your observation. We have now included the appropriate reference for the software used. Line 205
Row 260 and elsewere: Please write proper units g/cm3 etc...
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We carefully revised the manuscript and corrected all units to ensure consistency with international standards. For example, bulk density is now expressed as g/cm³, etc…Line 255
Row 273 and elsewere: Please write proper CO2...
Response: Thank you for your observation. We revised the manuscript to ensure that carbon dioxide is consistently written as CO₂, with the "2" correctly formatted as a subscript throughout the text. Line 268
Figure 4: Please put border line of the study area.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included the border line of the study area in Figure 4 to clearly delimit the watershed under study. This adjustment improves the readability and clarity of the figure. Line 303
Table 3: Please difine which coefficients... Regression, determination...
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. In the revised version, we clarified the meaning of the regression coefficients and model statistics in the note below Table 3. The table now specifies that the coefficients represent changes in the log-odds of belonging to the Medium or Low conservation importance category relative to High (reference category), per unit increase in the explanatory variable. We also explained the interpretation of positive and negative coefficients, the role of standard errors (SE) as a measure of precision, and the use of Residual Deviance and AIC as overall indicators of model fit. These clarifications are included in the revised manuscript (Table 3), lines 332, 338
Figure 6: Please put measurement units on the axis.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. In the revised version, Figure 6 has been updated to include the measurement units on both axes. The X-axis now specifies “SOC (Mg ha⁻¹)”, and the Y-axis indicates “ (%)”, making the figure clearer and more consistent with the variables presented in the text. Line 348
Conclusions section: Please put guidelines for future work.
Response Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the Conclusions section to include guidelines for future work. Specifically, we now emphasize the need for long-term monitoring of SOC dynamics under different land-use transitions, the integration of geospatial modeling and remote sensing to strengthen SOC mapping at broader scales, and the combination of biophysical and socioecological indicators to better understand the influence of land management decisions on carbon storage and ecosystem services. Line 524, 530.
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 AuthorsThe authors examine the relationship between land use and soil organic carbon (SOC) storage in tropical Andean ecosystems. SOC storage under different plant covers were investigated. A positive relationship was found between high conservation perception and greater SOC content. I think the authors offered an interesting report. However, this manuscript is not well prepared. Some contents, figures and tables are not in an official format. In addition, many little errors make it hard for the readers to understand the manuscript. A fully revision should be conducted before submitting to a SCI journal. I am sorry that I recommend a rejection. Some detailed comments are as follows, I hope these comments will be helpful to the authors.
Line 93. Fig. 1. The resolution of map is not fine enough.
Line 93. Some words were in Spanish which should be in English. e.g. Line 93, 142.
Line 94. The location of the 3 transects in each land use should be displayed in a figure or in a table with longitude and latitude.
Line 96 to 98. The description of forestry structure to the plant covers was appeared several times (Line 101 to 110, and table 1). I think the authors should make the manuscript more concise.
Line 108. “riparian forest (BR)” should be “riparian forest (RF)”
Line 112. In Table 1, “15,75 ± 0,03” should be “15.75 ± 0.03”. And further, No. trees/ha should be checked. Did “1538 ± 0,04” represent “1538 ± 0.04”? I think these data are not reasonable.
Line 152. I think the equation is not in a regular format and there are some mistakes in this equation. COS should be SOC in the equation. However, SOC has been defined as soil organic carbon before, so “SOC: organic carbon stored in the soil (Mg ha-1)” is not proper.
Line 159. “Da: bulk density of the soil (Mg/cm3)”. Line “Bulk density (BD) g/cm3 was determined by the soil core method”. For most researches, BD represents bulk density (g/cm3). The authors should check the consistency and unit of the words used in the manuscript.
Line 160. “P: depth of the soil layer. Since the content was estimated for the first 30 cm of soil depth, P=0.1 m.” P should be 0.3 m rather than 0.1 m.
Line 182. Socio-ecological information recompilation needs a more detailed introduction.
Line 194, 213 and 228. Abbreviations need an explanation when first show e.g. SBR, C-LL, C-Mulch, MS (%). (I can see SBR stands for basal respiration soil, but what does C-LL stands for?)
Line 244. This table should be Table 2. Table 1 is in line 112.
Line 364. I think the subtitle should not be “Regression model”. It’s kind of weird.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome words were in Spanish which should be in English. e.g. Line 93, 142.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Rev 1
The authors examine the relationship between land use and soil organic carbon (SOC) storage in tropical Andean ecosystems. SOC storage under different plant covers were investigated. A positive relationship was found between high conservation perception and greater SOC content. I think the authors offered an interesting report. However, this manuscript is not well prepared. Some contents, figures and tables are not in an official format. In addition, many little errors make it hard for the readers to understand the manuscript. A fully revision should be conducted before submitting to a SCI journal. I am sorry that I recommend a rejection. Some detailed comments are as follows, I hope these comments will be helpful to the authors.
RESPONSE: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful reading of our manuscript and for acknowledging the relevance of our study, particularly the relationship found between land use, soil organic carbon (SOC) storage, and community conservation perception in tropical Andean ecosystems.
We acknowledge that several aspects of the manuscript needed improvement in terms of format, clarity, and consistency. In response, we have conducted a thorough revision of the entire manuscript. Specifically, we have:
- Corrected formatting issues in equations, tables, and figures, aligning them with scientific publishing standards.
- Standardized the use of abbreviations and units (e.g., SOC, BD, Mg ha⁻¹), and clarified all acronyms upon first mention.
- Revised the English language and grammar throughout the document to improve clarity and fluency.
- Addressed all specific technical and editorial comments in detail, as outlined in our point-by-point responses.
We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback and hope that the revised version of the manuscript now meets the quality and scientific standards expected for publication in a SCI journal. We are fully committed to improving the rigor, clarity, and overall quality of our work.
Line 93. Fig. 1. The resolution of map is not fine enough. Response: Thank you for your observation. In response, Figure 1 has been replaced with an enhanced version at 400 DPI, improving the clarity of the terrain, labels, and the location of sampling plots. This updated figure meets high-resolution publication standards and ensures better visual quality for readers and reviewers.
Line 93. Some words were in Spanish which should be in English. e.g. Line 93, 142. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The text has been carefully reviewed, and the Spanish words in lines 93 and 142 have been corrected and translated into English to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.
Line 94. The location of the 3 transects in each land use should be displayed in a figure or in a table with longitude and latitude. Response: Thank you for your comment. We clarify that the three transects established for each land-use type correspond to the same locations where the soil and vegetation data were collected. In response to this suggestion and that of the second reviewer, we have updated Figure 1 to include the geographic location of the sample plots by land use (RF, ER, NR, LS). This figure now provides a spatial reference for the collected field data and improves the clarity and traceability of the sampling design.
Line 96 to 98. The description of forestry structure to the plant covers was appeared several times (Line 101 to 110, and table 1). I think the authors should make the manuscript more concise. Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. In response, we have revised and condensed the text to eliminate redundancy. The description of forest structure is now presented in a single, concise paragraph that refers directly to Table 1 for details. This improves the clarity and flow of the manuscript.
Line 108. “riparian forest (BR)” should be “riparian forest (RF): Response: Thank you for noting this inconsistency. The abbreviation has been corrected from BR to RF to maintain consistency with the rest of the manuscript
Line 112. In Table 1, “15,75 ± 0,03” should be “15.75 ± 0.03”. And further, No. trees/ha should be checked. Did “1538 ± 0,04” represent “1538 ± 0.04”? I think these data are not reasonable. Response: Thank you for your careful review. The numerical formatting has been corrected throughout the manuscript and tables, replacing commas with decimal points in accordance with English-language scientific conventions (e.g., 15.75 ± 0.03).
Additionally, we have reviewed the values for number of trees per hectare. The standard deviation values were initially reported with overly high precision, which may have caused confusion. We have revised and rounded them appropriately to reflect biologically meaningful variability (e.g., 1538 ± 45), based on the actual variation among sampling plots. These corrections have been updated in Table 1.
Line 152. I think the equation is not in a regular format and there are some mistakes in this equation. COS should be SOC in the equation. However, SOC has been defined as soil organic carbon before, so “SOC: organic carbon stored in the soil (Mg ha-1)” is not proper. Response: Thank you for your comment. The errors identified in the equation have been corrected. Specifically, the abbreviation COS was replaced with SOC, in accordance with the previously defined term Soil Organic Carbon (SOC), ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript.
Regarding the unit Mg ha⁻¹ used to express soil organic carbon content, we consider it appropriate and widely accepted. In fact, numerous peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals use Mg ha⁻¹ for reporting SOC, as it facilitates comparison at the landscape scale and is a standardized unit in soil carbon studies
Line 159. “Da: bulk density of the soil (Mg/cm3)”. Line “Bulk density (BD) g/cm3 was determined by the soil core method”. For most researches, BD represents bulk density (g/cm3). The authors should check the consistency and unit of the words used in the manuscript. Response: The notation has been corrected and standardized throughout the manuscript. In accordance with the methodology described (“bulk density (BD) g/cm³ was determined by the soil core method”), the unit Mg/cm³ was replaced with g/cm³, which is the commonly used format in the scientific literature. The abbreviation BD (bulk density) has also been used consistently in both the equation and the main text.
Line 160. “P: depth of the soil layer. Since the content was estimated for the first 30 cm of soil depth, P=0.1 m.” P should be 0.3 m rather than 0.1 m. Response: Thank you for your correction. You are absolutely right — this was a typographical error. The depth considered for estimating soil organic carbon was indeed 30 cm, so the correct value is D = 0.3 m. This has been corrected both in the equation and throughout the relevant sections of the manuscript.
Line 182. Socio-ecological information recompilation needs a more detailed introduction. Response: Thank you for your observation. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the introduction of Section 2.4 – Socio-ecological information recompilation to provide a clearer and more detailed description of the objectives, methodology, and purpose of the surveys conducted. We now specify that data collection was carried out through structured surveys using ArcGIS Survey123, and that the questionnaire included aspects related to land use practices, perceptions of ecosystem services, and community participation. Additionally, we have added information regarding the spatial correlation between community perceptions and soil biophysical variables, such as carbon storage and bulk density. We hope this expansion improves the clarity and relevance of this section.
Line 194, 213 and 228. Abbreviations need an explanation when first show e.g. SBR, C-LL, C-Mulch, MS (%). (I can see SBR stands for basal respiration soil, but what does C-LL stands for?) Response: The abbreviations SBR (soil basal respiration), C-LL (carbon in leaf litter), and C-MULCH (carbon in mulch) have been clearly and fully defined upon their first appearance in Section 2.2.1. Determination of Soil Carbon Inputs and Outputs, to enhance reader understanding and clarity. Regarding the abbreviation MS, this was a typographical error. The correct term is SM (soil moisture), which is properly explained in Section 2.3.2. Soil physical properties. The corresponding correction has been made in the manuscript.
Line 244. This table should be Table 2. Table 1 is in line 112. Response: Thank you for pointing that out. The table numbering has been corrected accordingly to maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.
Line 364. I think the subtitle should not be “Regression model”. It’s kind of weird. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that the subtitle “Regression model” was too generic and did not fully reflect the scope of the section. Therefore, we have revised it to “Socio-ecological Relationships Between Soil Variables and Conservation Perception”, which better represents the content, especially the link between soil biophysical indicators, carbon storage, and community perceptions of natural resource conservation.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents soil organic carbon storage in different land uses in tropical Andean ecosystems and the socio-ecological environment. The manuscript is well written, but some corrections must be made. Manuscript needs to be arranged according to the Instructions to Authors (template).
In the Introduction section, in brief, please write what have you done in this research and indicate the novelty.
Subsection 2.2.2: Please mark sampling plots on Figure 1.
Rows 142-146: Please translate the text into English.
Subsection 2.3.2: Please put soil physical properties for each sampling plot in the table...
Section 2.4: Please describe in brief 65 surveys and provide a reference for ArcGIS. Also, please show the results of this surveys in the Results section (Maps, etc...)
The conclusion section needs to be expanded with the obtained results, summarize your overall arguments or findings and then suggest the key takeaways from your paper.
Author Response
Subsection 2.2.2: Please mark sampling plots on Figure 1. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have updated Figure 1 to include the sampling plots for each land use (RF, ER, NR, LS), clearly marked within the study area. These labels provide spatial reference for the fieldwork conducted and improve the interpretability of the figure in relation to the sampling methodology described in Section 2.2.2.
Rows 142-146: Please translate the text into English. Response: Thank you for your observation. The text in rows 142–146 has been translated into English to ensure consistency and accessibility for all readers. We appreciate your attention to detail.
Subsection 2.3.2: Please put soil physical properties for each sampling plot in the table... Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have created a new table (Annex A1) that presents the soil physical and chemical properties for each of the four sampling plots per land use. This detailed breakdown complements the summary statistics presented in the original Table 2. We have retained the original table for clarity and comparison, and we leave it to the editorial team to select the version they consider most appropriate for the main manuscript.
Section 2.4: Please describe in brief 65 surveys and provide a reference for ArcGIS. Also, please show the results of this surveys in the Results section (Maps, etc...) Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have included a brief methodological description of the 65 surveys conducted using ArcGIS Survey123 and provided the corresponding reference. In addition, we have summarized the main survey findings in the Results section, supported by descriptive statistics and visual outputs (charts and maps). These results complement the biophysical data and strengthen the socio-ecological perspective of the study.
The conclusion section needs to be expanded with the obtained results, summarize your overall arguments or findings and then suggest the key takeaways from your paper. Response: we have expanded the Conclusion section to summarize the main findings of the study, including the relationships between land use, soil biophysical properties (SOC, SBR, BD), and conservation perception. We have also highlighted key insights from the survey results and emphasized the broader implications of adopting socio-ecological approaches in land management and restoration planning. The updated conclusion now provides a clearer synthesis of our arguments and the main takeaways from the study.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
