Articles | Volume 20, issue 4
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sedimentary blue carbon dynamics based on chronosequential observations in a tropical restored mangrove forest
- Final revised paper (published on 03 Mar 2023)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 19 Jan 2022)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on bg-2021-359', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 May 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Raghab Ray, 02 Aug 2022
RC2: 'Comment on bg-2021-359', mark chatting, 13 Jul 2022
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Raghab Ray, 02 Aug 2022
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Raghab Ray, 02 Aug 2022
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (02 Aug 2022) by Jack Middelburg
AR by Raghab Ray on behalf of the Authors (03 Sep 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Sep 2022) by Jack Middelburg
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (24 Sep 2022)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Oct 2022)
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (15 Nov 2022) by Jack Middelburg
AR by Raghab Ray on behalf of the Authors (19 Dec 2022)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Jan 2023) by Jack Middelburg
AR by Raghab Ray on behalf of the Authors (19 Jan 2023)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (06 Feb 2023) by Jack Middelburg
AR by Raghab Ray on behalf of the Authors (13 Feb 2023)  Author's response Manuscript
This is an interesting and relevant study that applies a chronosequence approach to study carbon accumulation in relation to time since mangrove restoration. The study reports that, based on isotopic signatures, the contribution of mangrove plant material was higher at older sites while younger sites have a higher contribution from riverine inputs. In general the paper is nicely written and uses standard physico-chemical analysis.
My concern is that the sample size is very limited; only 5 cores were used to study the chronosequence and no replicate cores were taken. I would agree that this can show some trends and differences between the ages, but a robust statistical quantification or test of the hypothesis is challenging. The study does not report results of statistical tests or uncertainty ranges. In short, I found it difficult to understand heterogeneity and uncertainty and this is really important as it defines the limits of interpretations. In my opinion, the authors should address this basic but critical issue.
Line 78: could use an additional sentence that links problem statement with hypothesis
Line 127: This seasonal collection doesnt match with what is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 8(ie BS but not YM?) Please check
Line 227: Are this mean values for the whole core? If so, add this to the figure caption.
Line 400+: Consider adding an overview table where you summarize literature and your own data
Line 450: I like this section as it justifies the chronosequence approach. This could be presented a bit earlier in the ms?