Spatiotemporal Variability in Soil Properties and Composition in Mangrove Forests in Baía de Todos os Santos (NE Brazil)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

In my opinion the new version of the manuscript is much better and it can be acceptable for publication.

Thank you

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I find the paper reads much clearer after revision.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

1. In figure 3, given moisture/water content of mangrove forest varied from 24 to 153 per cent. The values seem to be high for sandy soils (PT, PG and CP). How it is possible? Kindly check the data or otherwise tell the reason.

2. In figure 4, two colour bars are given for surface (0-5cm and deep soil (15-30cm) but not mentioned which colour for surface and which colour for deep soil. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We send now the responses:

 

1. In figure 3, given moisture/water content of mangrove forest varied from 24 to 153 per cent. The values seem to be high for sandy soils (PT, PG and CP). How it is possible? Kindly check the data or otherwise tell the reason.

Water content in sandier soils (CP, PT and PG) varied between 23.4% and 90.3% and showed average values close to 70% in CP and around 30-40% in PT and PG. The values found are close to the results already found in other mangroves with sandier textures (McDonald et al., 2003; Xiong et al., 2018). The variations between these three mangroves also reflect the variations in the proportion of fine grains, even though these environments have shown sandy soils, and the configuration of the mangrove forest, with greater water retention in environments with a greater number of roots, in areas with monospecific Rhizophora mangle forests, and with higher proportions of silt+clay.

 

Xiong, Y., Liao, B., Proffitt, E., Guan, W., Sun, Y., Wang, F., Liu, X., 2018. Soil

carbon storage in mangroves is primarily controlled by soil properties: A study

at Dongzhai Bay, China. Science of the Total Environment 619–620,

1226–1235.

Kerrine O. McDonald, Dale F. Webber and Mona K. Webber, D. F., Webber, M.

K., 2003. Mangrove forest structure under varying environmental conditions.

Bulletin of marine science, 73(2): 491–505.

 

2. In figure 4, two colour bars are given for surface (0-5cm and deep soil (15-30cm) but not mentioned which colour for surface and which colour for deep soil. 

 

The colors in question were used to differentiate soil fractions (fine fraction: gray; and sand: blue), with the same color pattern for both superficial and deep soils.

 

 

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

The submitted manuscript, entitled “Spatiotemporal variability in soil properties and composition in mangrove forests in Baía de Todos os Santos (NE Brazil)” seems to have publication potential.

However, there are some points that need restructuring, clarification, and corrections.

The limited number of keywords used should be strengthened.

The abstract is short and merely describes the analyses and methodologies employed. It should be expanded and include some of the quantitative outcomes from the study.

The “Introduction” section, the primary section of the manuscript is insufficient. It lacks the theoretical basis that is necessary to understand the topic of study. Furthermore, the final paragraph of the introduction should highlight the study's aims as well as its distinctive characteristics.

Lines 60–63: The authors describe the analyses they conducted for their study, which is typically found in the chapter "Materials & methods" rather than the introduction.

The proposal is too long and the message is confusing. Kindly rewrite it in a way that is more understandable to the reader.

Line 57: Ultimately, why is it so important to do research on this particular area? It is not highlighted at any point in the manuscript by the authors.

Lines 141-146: All methods mentioned should be accompanied by bibliographical references.

No difference in nitrogen and organic matter with depth was noticed, according to lines 282 and 284, right? No seasonal variation was noticed; does the organic matter in the soil's top layer oxidize when it comes into touch with atmospheric oxygen? We require adequate geological explanations.

I believe the authors express the same issues on lines 535 and 540. Perhaps additional resources to explain the phenomenon should be looked for.

If someone searches with the name «Otero», the answer is that the name Otero is used 19 times in the text, indicating that there are 18 self-references. I find this unacceptable, at the very least, which is another reason why I suggest rejecting the submitted manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study investigated spatial heterogeneity in soil physiochemical properties and organic matter origin among 4 sites varying in forest composition and hydrodynamic characteristics in the mangrove forest in one of the largest bays in Brazil. The manuscript is well-written and data-rich. Environmental drivers that cause the observed spatial variability are discussed in detail. Despite these merits, some points need to be better explained/discussed in the revised version.

1) What would be the implications of the spatiotemporal variability observed in the study for the ecosystem services provided by mangrove forests?

2) The purpose of analyzing C and N isotope fractionation shall be introduced earlier in the manuscript (i.e., in the Introduction or M&M section). Meanwhile, what were the isotope standard samples used for fractionation calculation? 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. To calculate water content, 5g of each wet soil sample were dried in an oven at 60^oC for 48 hours. Is it ok with 60^oC for 48 hours to dry out the soil samples completely without any further moisture/water content?

2. In figure 2, what is the difference between two figures. X and Y axis name are same for both figures. Is it for different depths?. Clarification with respect to labelling or naming of axis required between two figures for differentiation.