Prioritizing Tree-Based Systems for Optimizing Carbon Sink in the Indian Sub-Himalayan Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I very much enjoyed reading your submitted manuscript. this is a very interesting work on a very current topic. I have to give a very positive assessment of the overall level of the article, which is very high, the work methods are well established, the discussion is carried out very carefully and the conclusions are clear and concise. I like the work very much and I think it will be of great benefit to the scientific community.

 

Thank you

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript is very interesting for international scientific community readers. The authors have written it nicely and provided valuable information in this manuscript. All my comments will find in the revised version of your manuscript.

In addition, the authors need to modify the methodology and statistical analysis

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Prioritizing Tree Based Land Management Options for Optimizing Carbon Sink in the Indian sub-Himalayan Region" intends to examine the suitability of different tree-based land-use systems as an alternative to continuous cropping through the sys- tem’s ability to sequester and store carbon and to identify the most appropriate land-use system based on carbon stock. The study area was the Terai zone, i.e., foothills plains area of the Himalayas in the northern part of West Bengal in India. It is recommended to say something about the study area (a paragraph or two, a presentation map e.tc.).

The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure, and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a quite nice extent (about 7120 words) and it is comprehensive. The tables (2) and figures (11) make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. It is advised to revise figures, compare them, or use appendix or present some figures with tables.

Also use the appropriate research manuscript sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions, as journal needs (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).

Please, revise the line 1 - not the title - and put the type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.), as you can see in the template (see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).

Please revise the left side of the first page such as Citation: Lastname, F.; Lastname, F.; Lastname, F. Title. Land 2022, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx - Academic Editor: Firstname Last-name and of course type Publisher’s Note and Copyright with the standard image. Or you can let the editorial staff to fill in during production “To be added by editorial staff during production”. Use the template from the journal Land (https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot) you are in the previous year (2022).

The title, I think, is all right. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study but is too long. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)], and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work.

The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized but it wasn’t introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating. Moreover, it does not contain a clear formulation and description of the research problem. Please insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with. Your literature research should be critical and more informed, rather than listing previous research.

For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with comparable results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography.

The results section is good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. But the same does not apply to the Discussion and Conclusion. It is advised to revise the Discussion and Conclusion. Both sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section does not do justice to your work. Make your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion section.

More discussion is needed, comparing the results of this work related to attributes with those of other studies. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. I think, something more should be said about practical implications.

 

Please fill in the subchapters accordingly as: Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Informed Consent Statement, Data Availability Statement, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest and Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note after the References, according to the instructions of the International Journal Land [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation/ Back Matter - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors address an interesting and highly topical issue by highlighting how anthropogenic pressure leads to forms of degradation in the built environment. Nonetheless, it is necessary to determine a considerable improvement of the paper through suggestions that need to be grasped in order to enable the paper to be publishable. The paper often remains repetitive in recurring concepts especially in the introductory section. The title should be shortened, in the arrangement of names it is necessary to leave the space after the comma. In the abstract, the structure should be contracted and provide the research scope, research question, applied methodology, experimental case, and expected results of the research, including the level of innovation to which they tend. 

 

More emphasis should be given in the introduction to the urgency of addressing the topic in the contemporary research scenario and stress why ecosystem carbon accumulation in the Indian sub-Himalayan Region was chosen as the case study. At the end of the introduction, the sections that the paper presents and develops should be briefly presented in the text.

 

In the methodological section the table should be adjusted and especially the sources should be cited, in case it is determined by the authors it should be stated. In this session it is necessary to introduce a methodological outline of the research, which is totally missing and therefore determines the rewriting of this section. 

 

It turns out that it is necessary to review the iconographic apparatus of the paper's images, the use of colors would allow not only a better understanding but also a ranking evaluation of them (i.e., comparison of comparable histograms). 

 

In particular, the conclusions are to be rewritten as they should present both the limitations of the research and the potential. In addition, they should highlight the innovative aspects of the research and how the results presented significantly advance an advancement in the field of work and state of research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Prioritizing Tree Based Land Management Options for Optimizing Carbon Sink in the Indian sub-Himalayan Region" intends to examine the suitability of different tree-based land-use systems as an alternative to continuous cropping through the system’s ability to sequester and store carbon and to identify the most appropriate land-use system based on carbon stock. The study area was the Terai zone, i.e., foothills plains area of the Himalayas in the northern part of West Bengal in India.

The manuscript has not been revised according to the first review comments. The authors studied the comments and revised the manuscript by considering few of the comments. Five or six of the comments are responded in the new manuscript. 

The following have not been satisfactorily developed:

1.    Insert a clear description and justification of the problem the article deals with.

2.    It is advised to revise figures, compare them, or use an appendix or present some figures with tables. Now you have 8 figures with color and 3 black and white, why? Use color in all figures.

3.    Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)], and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work.

4.    Include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. I think something more should be said about practical implications.

5.    Use the template of the journal “Land” (https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).

The comments are not responded in the new manuscript. Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the reviewers.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors accepted and executed most of the suggestions made in the first review, and therefore the paper is greatly improved. There are a few other minor adjustments to be made in order to proceed with publication. 

In line 14 there is an error in word sizing.

In the part that they cleverly included of the abstract (lines 32-37) the English should be revised and improved. 

On line 50 the bibliographical reference should not be in bold. 

In line 81 it should be explained "vis-à-vis" or use a more scientific and less colloquial term given the level of the journal. 

The author or source should be included for all figure captions.

On line 127 you should explain how you agreed with the land owners by referring to participatory techniques or specific understanding documents.

In general one should evaluate throughout the paper the use of round paresentheses accurately.

In line 253 the use of the & should be reviewed according to editorial standards.

From line 530 to line 539 would seem to be a more suitable explanation for the introductory part.

In the conclusion more stress should be put on the potential and criticality of the experimental method conducted.

Following these brief changes the paper will definitely be publishable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx