Aboveground Carbon Stock in a Bottomland Hardwood Forest in the Southeastern United States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, a comprehensive analysis of carbon stocks in trees, woody shrubs and seedlings, herbaceous vegetation, downed woody debris, leaf litter, and soil was carried out to quantify the carbon stored in each ecosystem components of Bottomland Hardwood Forests (BHFs) along the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) in Northeast Louisiana. Overall, this manuscript is fine.
However, revisions are still needed to improve the manuscript before it could be considered for publication. For this manuscript, I have two major concerns. First, it seems that the title didn’t cover the whole content in this manuscript. This research covers not only the aboveground carbon stock but also the carbon stock in soil. It seems that the title missed the latter. Second, the calculation of carbon stock (especially carbon stock in soil) needs to be checked. According to figure 4, the soil carbon stock should be 71.33 Kg C ha-1. But it is not so as indicated in the lines 374-375. If the soil carbon stock is 71.33 Mg C ha-1 as said in line 375, then the total carbon stock should be 204.82 Mg C ha-1 rather than 133.594 Mg C ha-1 as shown in line 317. In addition, the total carbon for species in table 2 and figure 5 needs to be checked, especially for species QUTE, FRPE and PLAQ. The carbon stock for the above mentioned three species in figure 5 are different from that in table 2, meanwhile the carbon stock for the other species in figure 5 and table 2 are the same. I highly suggest that you double check the calculations and analysis.
The minor comments are listed below:
1. The figure 1 map of the study site is not clear enough for readers understand where the research was conducted. It would be helpful if you could add a map to enlarge the research site and mark the names of the areas on the map. It would be even better if the position of the 64 plots could be marked on the map in order to see how these plots representing the study sites.
2. The unit should read as Kg C ha-1 in line 367-368, where C are missing.
3. In line 380, the C is missing for the unit “g m-2”.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
The reviewed manuscript is a case study demonstrating the assessment of a carbon stock within the local study area in the Southeastern US. Generally, the study can be interesting for certain research groups. I have some specific comments and suggestions to improve the structure of the manuscript.
Specific comments
L41-42: The methods should be better classified because now it mixes sampling and modeling approaches. I am also confused with "models based on previous studies" - in which way such studies are used, e.g., as a source of reference data sets or prepared models? Please clarify what it means. I would also want to learn from the introduction more about the state of the art of carbon assessment, what specific outcomes were obtained in earlier studies, who conducted research within the study area or similar territories, what are the main challenges, etc.
L63-68: This information fits the Methods section, not the Introduction. The introduction is not too long to divide it into sub-sections. Additionally, 1.2. Background looks more like the site description, so it must be placed in 2. Methods.
L102: Use uppercase for square meters, and check spaces between numbers and units throughout the text.
L107: I am wondering, how the authors can justify the selection of the number of sample plots in this study. Do they adequately characterize a variance in the population?
L267: The selected form (logarithmic) of the equation does not look to be adequate (Fig. 3). I also do not think that developing height-diameter relationships for mixed species makes sense.
L269: Fix reference.
Figure 4: Providing labels of untransformed data for the Y-axis is recommended (with unequal breaks).
L354: Fix the reference.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have kindly addressed all my comments.
