Comment on “Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest”

Table 1

Summary of issues in Moroni et al. [1] addressed in this letter.

Issue	Clarification and adjustment provided
Insufficient context to display C flux science	Description of the state-of-the-science, including types of C stocks and fluxes needed to address the knowledge gaps in commercial forestry, applicable to [global] climate change science.
Earlier work contested and disputed	Logic and explanation to show context, validity and significance of earlier work.
Redefinition of CCC	Validity of the existing definition of CCC, its relevance to appropriately addressing the knowledge gap, and why their redefinition is inappropriate.
Methods and Results sections	Explanation of data standards and methods necessary for scientific reproducibility in this field, to promote more useful reporting and more usability of data.
Discussion and Conclusions sections	Ecological context allowing interpretation the C dynamics. Explanation of how their results do not support some of their discussion and conclusions.
Additional realisations	CCC and C deficit calculated [from their data] to meet the stated aim and for climate relevance. Quantified validation of contested earlier work.