Impact of Shrimp Ponds on Mangrove Blue Carbon Stocks in Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The English language of the revised version is still not satisfactory. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are very grateful for the valuable comments made by your on our manuscript. We have taken into consideration all comments provided and changed the text accordingly, which has resulted in a considerable improvement of the manuscript. 

Thank you very much for yout help. We look forward to work together on the next occasion.

Reviewer 2 Report

I do  not have any comment and suggestion

Author Response

We are very grateful for the valuable comments made by your on our manuscript. We have taken into consideration all comments provided and changed the text accordingly, which has resulted in a considerable improvement of the manuscript. 

Thank you very much for yout help. We look forward to work together on the next occasion.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Main issues to be improved by the authors
1. The introduction must be structured and reduce its length. In its current format it presents irrelevant and repeated paragraphs (e.g. first sentence of paragraph. The final part must refer to what the authors have done.

2. material and methods: the explanation regarding the determination of soil C is very poor. the calcination temperature and how the sample was prepared (ground, sieved ...).

3. The conclusions must be rewritten. In its current format it seems more part of the dissolution than conclusion. 3. The conclusions must be rewritten. In its current format it seems more part of the dissolution than conclusion.

4.4. There are errors in the references (in line 98), certain expressions do not seem correct (eg air components).

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper documents an attempt to estimate blue carbon stocks in mangroves and to use these data to extrapolate how much C is lost in constructing shrimp ponds. The methods appear sound as is the level of replication but the paper suffers greatly from either a lack of understanding of C accumulation in mangroves or very poor English usage; I can sympathize with the latter issue.

  For instance, the first sentence of the Abstract is incorrect. Mangroves are highly productive due to highly efficient photosynthetic machinery and their ability to be highly efficient at conserving scarce nutrients, NOT due to their potential as carbon sinks. Further, in lines 24-25, the differences in the two forests in C storage is due to the higher basal area in the mature forest. That is, the greater amount of tree area within a hectare, as well as probably forest age. It has nothing directly to due with differences in salinity, tides, or consumption by fauna. These sentences suggest a clear lack of understanding of forest ecology and carbon dynamics.

  Also, I have never heard of the use of the term "medium" to describe a forest. "Medium" what? Medium height, age, size classes? Mature in this instance is also a relative term.

The Discussion similarly reiterates incorrect views/statements such as line 323-325. Rhizophora dominates in these forests because the species is a better competitor than the other species and probably out-completed initial colonizing species such as Avicennia.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for this research work, and please consider some suggestions here. Specific suggestions mentioned in the manuscript.

1. Title: plz rewrite
2. Abstract: need revision mainly language
3. Introduction: it is better to reflect the importance of this research in max. 3 paragraphs. A major revision is important.
4. Materials and methods: too many paragraphs that are not scientifically sound. 
5. Results: the connection between paragraphs is missing, again too many paragraphs. Figure 6 is missing.
6. Discussion: I find this section is very week. The results and discussions are disconnected completely. 
7. Conclusion: this conclusion actually did not conclude the research findings.
8. References: check plz carefully.
9. Extra: plz make a graphical abstract.

Thanks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf