Extracellular Soil Enzyme Activities in High-Elevation Mixed Red Spruce Forests in Central Appalachia, U.S.A.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 83 : “historic “ may confuse many readers, . Perhaps the readers need to replace it with “Significant” , (;) (..in general the world historic should be replaced .
Line 102-103”:… were selected each of three of the most abundant tree species at all sites, A. rubrum, B. alleghaniensis, and P. rubens. To obtain a representative bulk soil sample from each tree, …..’ The line is not clear. How did they go from a tree species to a single tree? ..This is very important and it is related with the fig1
Lines 103-109: The authors make a bulk soil sample from soil collected from two opposite points. The data obtained with such way are of a good value, as long as the “two opposite point” do not differ. For example, the data me have significant variation if the “tow opposite points” are with significant different heights, as it may be in a slope. The authors need to clear out this better.
Fig1 The data should be presented in a better way perhaps different graph. Also, the legend should be self-explanatory, describing what are the data, in the graph (average of how many samples etc).
Fig 2 The legend should be improved.
Fig 3 the graph does not present clear the importance of the data presented here.The authors need to represent the data in different type of graph.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Please see the attached document for our point-by-point responses.
Cheers,
Philip
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors used four sites in Central Appalachia, along a modelled gradient of high N deposition, to assess activity of microbial extracellular soil enzymes (ESE). They conducted three soil samplings campaigns during 2016 vegetation season at forest sites characterized by presence of three different tree species.
Their main goals were to test for the differences in ESE activity in soil underneath canopies as a result of: i) difference in tree species, ii) consequence of legacy effects due to high N deposition in the past and iii) time of sampling during the growing season.
Manuscript deals with important topic of soil nutrient cycling and processes and brings valuable information on the drivers and underlying cause for the differences in ESE.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, with clear goals, well designed and conducted sampling and concise, focused and content rich results and discussion.
I would invite the Authors to consider few minor modifications that might further improve the manuscript.
L141 How could somebody calculate BIV? Consider providing the formula or a reference.
L148-L150 Written percent change in the C, N and P might not be the best metric. I would suggest giving the rate of change (slope) as well as its error, while percentage might be kept for informative purposes.
L161 Consider adding tick-marks to the y-axis in Figure 1.
L189 Consider adding tick-marks to the y-axis in Figure 3, as well drawing the x-axis.
L192 Some entries in table 2 are not sufficiently described and reader would benefit from additional information (perhaps as a footnote to the table). Namely: What is “Fraction [B-O]”?; “H” – Coming to the Supplement table 1 I realize that it is the Shannon index after all. I would suggest you to add a pointer reference to the Supplement here.
L324 Considering that your Supplement is just a small table, I would suggest that instead of the “Supplement” (which should be a separate file by the MDPI Forests guidance) you consider renaming it to “Appendix” (which can be a part of the manuscript) and keep it as part of the Manuscript. It would be much more practical for the reader.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Please see the attached document for our point-by-point responses.
Cheers,
Philip
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
