Dynamics of Biomass and Carbon Stocks during Reforestation on Abandoned Agricultural Lands in Southern Ural Region
, Svetlana Zhigunova 1,2, Elvira Baisheva 1,2, Ilshat Tuktamyshev 1,2, Ilnur Bikbaev 1,2, Mikhail Komissarov 1,2, Gleb Zaitsev 1,2, Raphak Giniyatullin 1,2, Ilyusya Gabbasova 1,2, Ruslan Urazgildin 1,2, Aleksey Kulagin 1,2, Ruslan Suleymanov 1,2, Dilara Gabbasova 1,2, Albert Muldashev 1,2 and Shamil Maksyutov 2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS analyzes the carbon sequestration dynamics in the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants, as well as in the litter and soil in abandoned croplands overgrown with birch in broadleaf forest zone of the Cis-Ural in Mishkinsky District of RB. The research results are to accurately assess the impact of land use change on carbon sink function, and provide scientific basis for regional carbon sink management. But there are some deficiencies that need to be addressed before it could be published.
1. It is recommended to supplement the data of woody and herbaceous plants biomass.
2. It is suggested to change Table 2 to a graph to make the results more intuitive.
3. It is recommended to add a graph showing the ratio of aboveground and belowground carbon storage in forest land to ecosystem carbon storage in different years.
Author Response
The MS analyzes the carbon sequestration dynamics in the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants, as well as in the litter and soil in abandoned croplands overgrown with birch in broadleaf forest zone of the Cis-Ural in Mishkinsky District of RB. The research results are to accurately assess the impact of land use change on carbon sink function, and provide scientific basis for regional carbon sink management. But there are some deficiencies that need to be addressed before it could be published.
Answer: Dear Reviewer. We are thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments (in the text of article corrections are marked in green color).
- It is recommended to supplement the data of woody and herbaceous plants biomass.
Answer: We agree with your opinion. We added data on the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants to our manuscript (Table 3).
- It is suggested to change Table 2 to a graph to make the results more intuitive.
Answer: Thanks for comment. We added several graphs to our manuscript showing soil, mortmass, and root carbon content, as these values varied with the reforestation stage.
- It is recommended to add a graph showing the ratio of aboveground and belowground carbon storage in forest land to ecosystem carbon storage in different years.
Answer: Thank you for the valuable comment. We have added graphs showing the ratio of above-ground to below-ground carbon storage as a function of reforestation stage and soil type. This allowed us to illustrate our conclusions more clearly.
Nikolai Fedorov
Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia
fedorov@anrb.ru
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Dynamics of biomass and carbon stocks during reforestation on abandoned agricultural lands in Southern Ural region’. This is an excellent manuscript aimed to analyze the carbon sequestration dynamics in the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants, as well as in the litter and soil in abandoned croplands overgrown with birch in broadleaf forest zone of the Cis-Ural. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the presentation and writing of the manuscript. However, I have two major concerns about the methodology part-
1. use of 105 degree C for oven drying soil sample, which is certainly not the accurate way of drying soil sample for analyzing SOC.
2. SOC was analyzed using bulk soil via Walkley and Black method, which is technically total C (inorganic + organic). Wasn't there any Inorganic C in the studied soil? All organic carbon in soil are not sequestered, so using the term 'carbon sequestration' is too far from the method used in this study.
I would suggest major revisions and give the chance to the authors to overlook the errors in the manuscript. Please find my comments and corrections as sticky notes in the PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Dynamics of biomass and carbon stocks during reforestation on abandoned agricultural lands in Southern Ural region’. This is an excellent manuscript aimed to analyze the carbon sequestration dynamics in the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants, as well as in the litter and soil in abandoned croplands overgrown with birch in broadleaf forest zone of the Cis-Ural. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the presentation and writing of the manuscript. However, I have two major concerns about the methodology part-
Answer: Dear Reviewer. We are thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments (in the text of article corrections are marked in blue color).
- use of 105 degree C for oven drying soil sample, which is certainly not the accurate way of drying soil sample for analyzing SOC.
Answer: Acknowledged. You are absolutely right; the soil samples were air-dried before the SOC analyses. We dried samples at 105 °C in oven for the soil bulk density determination/calculation, so in this part is not need to mention. The text was modified (“air-dried” added, “in an oven at 105 °C” – omitted).
- SOC was analyzed using bulk soil via Walkley and Black method, which is technically total C (inorganic + organic). Wasn't there any Inorganic C in the studied soil? All organic carbon in soil are not sequestered, so using the term 'carbon sequestration' is too far from the method used in this study.
Answer: We agree with your opinion. There is no inorganic carbon in this soil. Under “carbon sequestration” we mean the absorption atmospheric CO2 by plants during of photosynthesis, and the further formation of soil organic matter from dead biomass.
I would suggest major revisions and give the chance to the authors to overlook the errors in the manuscript. Please find my comments and corrections as sticky notes in the PDF file.
Answer: Thanks for comments in PDF file, we revised text according to them. The comments related to text formalization/preparation we not changed because if paper accepted the technical staff will accurately check all text formats.
Nikolai Fedorov
Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia
fedorov@anrb.ru
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Editor Agriculture,
Dear Editor,
The manuscript agriculture-2467100 entitled ‘Dynamics of biomass and carbon stocks during reforestation on abandoned agricultural lands in Southern Ural region’ has been reviewed.
The work is interesting; the carbon sequestration dynamics in the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants, as well as in the litter and soil on abandoned arable lands were studied. The manuscript comes in the domain of the journal, and I appreciate the authors for their research work. However, there are the points which need considerable improvement. For example, Abstract could include a short about the need of the work and followed by the methods and then the results. Introduction critically demands authors to build a preamble about the background of the work, specifically in the last para of the introduction. The quality of figures 1 and 2 is to be improved. Daat in figure 3 could be moved to the text. Though the authors have mentioned that the carbon content in the birch trunk wood of the study area almost coincide with other regions. This important parameter needs considerable discission in the Discussion section. The section comprising the soil organic carbon and carbon in plant matter is to be improve din lien with possible implications. Line 424 ‘exploiting of’ be like ‘exploitation of’. The conclusion section is to be thoroughly rewritten, for example, it could focus on the key findings of the work and not just the repetition of the results.
Sincerely,
minor corrections needed throughout
Author Response
The manuscript agriculture-2467100 entitled ‘Dynamics of biomass and carbon stocks during reforestation on abandoned agricultural lands in Southern Ural region’ has been reviewed. The work is interesting; the carbon sequestration dynamics in the biomass of woody and herbaceous plants, as well as in the litter and soil on abandoned arable lands were studied. The manuscript comes in the domain of the journal, and I appreciate the authors for their research work. However, there are the points which need considerable improvement.
Answer: Dear Reviewer. We are thank you for careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments (in the text of article corrections are marked in red color).
Abstract could include a short about the need of the work and followed by the methods and then the results.
Answer: We agree with your opinion. We have added to the abstract a rationale for the relevance of our work.
Introduction critically demands authors to build a preamble about the background of the work, specifically in the last para of the introduction.
Answer: Thanks for comment. We added to the introduction the background of the study of carbon balance in overgrown abandoned agricultural lands of the Cis-Ural.
The quality of figures 1 and 2 is to be improved. Data in figure 3 could be moved to the text.
Answer: Acknowledged. We improved the quality of Figures 1 and 2 and moved the data in Figure 3 to the Figure note.
Though the authors have mentioned that the carbon content in the birch trunk wood of the study area almost coincide with other regions. This important parameter needs considerable discission in the Discussion section.
Answer: We completely agree with your comment. We have expanded this part of the discussion considerably, and it allowed us to draw some more important conclusions.
The section comprising the soil organic carbon and carbon in plant matter is to be improve in lien with possible implications.
Answer: Thanks for comment. We discussed our data in more detail in comparison with data obtained on soil organic carbon stocks and plant matter in birch forests of different ages in other regions.
Line 424 ‘exploiting of’ be like ‘exploitation of’.
Answer: Acknowledged. We agree that the term "using" is more appropriate in this context.
The conclusion section is to be thoroughly rewritten, for example, it could focus on the key findings of the work and not just the repetition of the results.
Answer: The conclusion section has been significantly revised. We focused on the key findings of the work and left a small part on the prospects for further research.
Nikolai Fedorov
Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia
fedorov@anrb.ru
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have tried to address all the issues. I am happy with the corrections.
