sdtaylor/bastin2019_reply

bastin2019_reply's Issues

comment submission todo

• add funding statement to manuscript
• remove 1 ref to get to 15
• official IPCC 2018 ref
• neg relationships -> weak/neg relationships

Annals of forest science reviewer suggestions

Editor

The two referees who examined the manuscript found it relevant and worth publishing. See their comments below and in the attached document. I concur with their opinion. Since the submission, there have been several comments posted on the Science site, and it might be interesting and relevant to cite them and use them to compare your position with theirs. I am sorry to suggest this additional work, but the Bastin paper raised quite some comments in our community.

• cite other Science comments

Reviewer 1

This comment is dealing with the Bastin et al. 219 article published in the journal Science. The authors examined the calculation proposed and proposed to better account for the initial conditions of each pixel which is of course relevant in this context. This led them to re-evaluate the potential carbon storage of afforestation and reduced the original value of 205 GtC to a more likely 71-75 GtC.
I did not find minor or major errors in this comment and think it s a very important contribution to this matter. I recommend to accept this comment .

No suggestions, publish as is.