All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Wu and co-authors,
I just want to inform you that the changes made to your manuscript have substantially improved your work and it is now acceptable to be published in PeerJ.
Congratulations!
Salva
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Dr. Wu and co-authors,
I just received reviews of your manuscript. Although both reviewers consider the study very interesting and providing new findings on the topic, some issues need to be considered before the acceptance.
While reviewer#1 highlights the need to put the importance of your results in the context of global peatlands and methane emissions, reviewer#2 identified numerous errors or inconsistencies that must be corrected. Please, consider all comments and suggestions provide by both reviewers during the revision of your manuscript. Comments from the reviewer#2 have been included in a PDF file.
A comprehensive revision of the English of the manuscript is necessary before submitting the new version.
Don't forget to include a letter response along with the revised version of the manuscript. In this letter you must respond point by point to each question.
Best regards,
Salva
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in an appropriate rebuttal letter, and please ensure that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the rebuttal letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript (where appropriate). Direction on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
This manuscript is well organized and present CH4 fluxes values from alpine peatlands in extreme drought conditions, however, considering that the main contribution to knowledge is how alpine peatlands respond under that conditions, it is not clear the importance of alpine peatlands or extreme drought events in the global context. The authors would put in context how representative alpine peatlands in worldwide are, and what is the incidence of extreme drought in peatlands. This would serve to make more interesting this manuscript.
I urge the authors to have a native English speaker edit the manuscript.
I would recommend the authors link 'Results' and 'Discussion' into one unique section to make manuscript more fluent.
I recommend improve the references, i.e. in line 50, I think that references 9-10 could be betters.
The authors no provide raw data from flux calculation.
Why the authors use transparent and dark chamber?
How do the authors ensure that the flux calculation is correct with only 2 minutes of measurement?
The authors take in to account the increasing of volume of the chamber due to length of pipe to calculate CH4 flux? The omission of that volume could underestimate the flux values up to a 20%, considering an inner pipe diameter of 2cm.
This manuscript offers nothing more than flux values. I feel the authors should find a way to present their findings in a more interesting manner so that they add more than simply fluxes and their relationship with some environmental parameters. As I mentioned previously, the authors could put in context how representative alpine peatlands are to other peatlands.
Some lines where the manuscript could be improved are 169, 172, 184, 185, 285.
I would recommend the authors link 'Results' and 'Discussion' into one unique section to make manuscript more fluent.
The Figure 5a does no show the R2 value.
The use of words “box” and “chamber” (lines115-116) is very confusing. The authors could be clearer in that section.
The influence of SWC appears twice, in line 172 and 181.
The correlation of SWC with CH4 flux could be synthetized, due to in both conditions and all depth analyzed had the same correlation.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.