Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks and Soil Organic Matter Persistence under Native Vegetation along a Topographic and Vegetation Gradient in the Central Amazon Region
, Marcos Bacis Ceddia 3, Ana Carolina Souza Ferreira 4 and Frederico Santos Machado 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The paper should be improved before publiccation process.
I have some concern abot the paper. You can fınd my detailed evaluation in the original paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
PDF Reviewer
Abstract:
- You should add a conclusion.
Answer: Thank you! A conclusion was added to the abstract.
- Clarify: You studied 35 or 5 soil profiles?
Thank you again. It was a writing mistake. The correct is 35 soil profiles.
Introduction:
- You should revise it as academic.
Answer: As an academic, if we do not stop deforestation, we will start emitting more carbon than retain it.
- You shoud add more references.
Thank you. You are right! I included more references to support my sentences.
- Line 87: Please insert a reference.
A reference was included to give support to the readers.
Materials and Methods:
- Do you have any information about soil type?
Yes! In total, 35 soil profiles were classified, with emphasis on the Argissolos (Ultisoils/Acrisoils) class, which presented a contribution of 60.0% (21 profiles) of all profiles. Cambissolos (Inceptisoils/Cambisols) represent 14.3% (5 profiles), while Gleissolos (Entisols/Gleysols) and Espodossolos (Sposols/Podzols) accont for 11.4% (4 profiles). One soil profile was classified as Planossolos (Albaqualfs/Planosols) class, representing only 2.9% of all soil profiles.
- Clarify: You studied 35 or 5 soil profiles?
Thank you again. It was a writing mistake. The correct is 35 soil profiles.
- Table 2: You should add the number to describe profiles.
I added a number and I think it got better.
- I delete all legends about soil classes in Figures and Tables.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work submitted for review entitled „Carbon and nitrogen stocks and soil organic matter persistence under native vegetation in the Central Amazon region” according to the authors it’s aimed to evaluate soil organic carbon stocks and soil nitrogen stocks , as well as soil organic matter fractions inputs under Amazon rainforest along a topographic and vegetation gradient..The work, after minor corrections, deserves to be published in Soil System.
I present my comments below.
Abstract - I suggest adding more research results.
Line 24 – 35 study points (5 profiles) and
Line 25 – 35 soil profiles – please explain the difference.
Introduction
Line 38 – explain COP28
Line 48 – in text: from January to August this year, please specify which year the Authors are thinking about.
Line 85 - change the way you quote – e.g. [8-10].
2. Material and Methods
Figure 1- DEM – add unit.
Line 115 - use the latest version of WRB.
Table 1 – use latest version of WRB. Please provide a more detailed systematic position of soils according to WRB. I approve of the use of national soil systematics, but for a broader meaning of the work and the possibility of citation, the publication should be supplemented with appropriate units according to WRB.
Figure 3 - There is no need to repeat the list of systematics of soil profiles, they are in Table 2.
Line 222 –‘’please change ‘level of…” na content of
Results
Figures 4 - There is no need to repeat the list of systematics of soil profiles, they are in Table 2.
Figures 6-9 - There is no need to repeat the list of systematics of soil profiles, they are in Table 2.
The Results and Discussion chapters are difficult to read. The authors use a very large number of different abbreviations and codes. I suggest considering editing these chapters to make the text more clear.
Author Response
Point by point:
Reviewer 2:
The work submitted for review entitled, Carbon and nitrogen stocks and soil organic matter persistence under native vegetation in the Central Amazon region” according to the authors it’s aimed to evaluate soil organic carbon stocks and soil nitrogen stocks, as well as soil organic matter fractions inputs under Amazon rainforest along a topographic and vegetation gradient. The work, after minor corrections, deserves to be published in Soil System.
I present my comments below.
Abstract - I suggest adding more research results.
Answer: I included more results in the Abstract.
Line 24 – 35 study points (5 profiles) and
Line 25 – 35 soil profiles – please explain the difference.
Answer: Sorry, I made a mistake! The correct is 35 profiles and not 5 profiles! I corrected in the manuscript.
Introduction
Line 38 – explain COP28
Answer: Thank you! I explained in the manuscript that COP28 means the 28th Conference of Parties held in Dubai last year (2023).
Line 48 – in text: from January to August this year, please specify which year the Authors are thinking about.
Answer: Thanks, I inserted the year.
Line 85 - change the way you quote – e.g. [8-10].
Answer: Ok. I checked all the text and changed it.
- Material and Methods
Figure 1- DEM – add unit.
Answer: Thank you. We corrected it. DEM – digital elevation model.
Line 115 - use the latest version of WRB.
Answer: We use the latest version (WRB 2022).
Table 1 – use latest version of WRB. Please provide a more detailed systematic position of soils according to WRB. I approve of the use of national soil systematics, but for a broader meaning of the work and the possibility of citation, the publication should be supplemented with appropriate units according to WRB.
Answer: We use the latest version (WRB 2022). It is in a more recent version as suggested, but at the order level.
Figure 3 - There is no need to repeat the list of systematics of soil profiles, they are in Table 2.
Answer: Ok, I removed the list from the Figures 6-9 legends.
Line 222 –‘’please change ‘level of…” na content of
Answer: I changed it.
Results
Figures 4 - There is no need to repeat the list of systematics of soil profiles, they are in Table 2.
Answer: Ok, I removed it.
Figures 6-9 - There is no need to repeat the list of systematics of soil profiles, they are in Table 2.
Answer: All right! I removed it from Figures 6-9 legend.
The Results and Discussion chapters are difficult to read. The authors use a very large number of different abbreviations and codes. I suggest considering editing these chapters to make the text more clear.
Answer: We reedited the results and discussion chapters. I hope it got better.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study has made some contribution to carbon and nitrogen stocks and soil organic matter persistence under native vegetation. However, there are many problems in the manuscript. It is very essential to revise the manuscript carefully. Detailed comments on the necessary revisions are as follows:
1. In abstract, the purpose and significance of the manuscript were unclear. The manuscript studied the soil from different terrains, but the research object in the title was the native vegetation. It is necessary to express in a unified way. More sentences were needed to describe the results.
2. In introduction, the shortcomings of existing research and the breakthrough point of the manuscript are unclear. The objective need to be more clear and specific.
3. The code in table 2 was difficult to understand. Please explain it.
4. There was an question with the numbering of the formula in line 230 and 231. The units of the soil properties needed to be supplemented in the formula.
5. The depth of each soil horizon/layer and the soil sample numbers of each soil profile were not mentioned.
6. In Figure 6, the font was too small. The depth of the ten selected soil profiles was different, the writer should explain it in the materials and methods section.
7. The updated and suitable literature are needed in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is essential to revise the manuscript with a professional English
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
This study has made some contribution to carbon and nitrogen stocks and soil organic matter persistence under native vegetation. However, there are many problems in the manuscript. It is very essential to revise the manuscript carefully. Detailed comments on the necessary revisions are as follows:
- In abstract, the purpose and significance of the manuscript were unclear. The manuscript studied the soil from different terrains, but the research object in the title was the native vegetation. It is necessary to express in a unified way. More sentences were needed to describe the results.
Answer: We explained the purpose of the manuscript and added more sentences to describe our results. Unfortunately, in the Abstract Section is allowed only 200 words.
- In introduction, the shortcomings of existing research and the breakthrough point of the manuscript are unclear. The objective need to be more clear and specific.
Answer: We also added more sentences to clarify the shortcomings of our result. We clarify the objective.
- The code in table 2 was difficult to understand. Please explain it.
Answer: The code is the abbreviation of the soil classes according to the Brazilian System of Soil Classification.
- There was a question with the numbering of the formula in line 230 and 231. The units of the soil properties needed to be supplemented in the formula.
Answer: Thank you! I explained the units of the soil properties.
- The depth of each soil horizon/layer and the soil sample numbers of each soil profile were not mentioned.
Answer: Thank you! The depth collected in each soil horizon and the numbers of each soil profile varied between soil classes. We considered studying all soil horizons for carbon and nitrogen contents and free and intra-aggregate light fractions. We considered until 100 cm depth to calculate soil carbon and nitrogen stocks. This information was highlighted into the text of the manuscript. The depth collected in each soil profile and the numbers of soil horizons varied between soil classes. It was about 8 soil samples in each soil profile collected.
- In Figure 6, the font was too small. The depth of the ten selected soil profiles was different, the writer should explain it in the materials and methods section.
Answer: Thank you again. We increase the font.
You are alright. We explain the depth of the ten selected soil profiles in Materials and Methods section.
- The updated and suitable literature are needed in the manuscript.
Answer: We include it.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has resolved many of the previous issues. The manuscript could be considered for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe author should further improve the English writing of the manuscript to make the expression fluent.
