Mixed Plantations Induce More Soil Macroaggregate Formation and Facilitate Soil Nitrogen Accumulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title needs to provide the clarity of the study. Suggestions are on the manuscript.

The authors should avoid using the first and second person and better to use the third person.

A good study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The title needs to provide the clarity of the study. Suggestions are on the manuscript. The authors should avoid using the first and second person and better to use the third person. A good study.

Respected Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank you for your time, expertise and valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript (Manuscript ID: 2262050). We have carefully addressed all the suggestions and have responded to each of them. We have incorporated all concerns and highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript. We hope that you will find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Forests.

 

1. L-1-3: The title needs to provide the clarity of the study.

Response: We sincerely appreciate you for suggesting that we revise the title. We have revised it. (Lines 1-3)

 

2. L-19-20Replace “()” with “[]”.

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Lines 19-21)

 

3. L-26 “RDA” not clear, what does it mean?

Response: Thank you for your question. “RDA” means Redundancy analysis. We have replaced “RDA” with “Redundancy analysis”in Line 26.

 

4. L-28 Delete“to”.

Response: Thank you. We have rewritten the sentence. (Line 28-30)

Correction: “Overall, this study contributed significantly to the promotion of the sustainable use of soil resources and reference information for scientific management and sustainable development of Chinese fir forests.”

 

5. L-46 Add “,”between “residues” and “and”.

Response: We have done it. (Line 47)

 

6. L-55 after “acts” add “as”.

Response: Thank you. We have addressed your suggestion. (Line 56)

 

7. L-68 after “and” add “its”.

Response: We have revised it. (Line 69)

 

8. L-71 Replace “the” with “a”.

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Line 72)

 

9. L-86 Delete“measured and”.

Response: We have deleted it. (Line 87)

 

10. L-88 Add “also”between “was” and “observed”.

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Line 89)

 

11. L-95 Addreference.

Response: Thank you. We have added the related reference “[1]”. (Line 97)

Wang, S. Q., Huang, Y. Z., Ye, S. M. Distribution of organic carbon and nutrients in soil aggregates under different stand types of Cunninghamia lanceolata in southern Guangxi of China. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 67, (4), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2021.1932585.

 

12. L-103 Delete“Our”.

Response: We have deleted it. (Line 105)

 

13. L-115 Replace “Our” with “The”.

Response: Thank you. We have revised it. (Line 117)

 

14. L-121 The authors should avoid using the first and second person and better to use the third person.Replace “We conducted this research in...” with “This research was conducted in...”.

Response: We have addressed your suggestion on rewriting this sentence. (Line 123-125)

Correction: “This research was conducted in the Qingshan Experimental Field (22°08'-22°44' N, 106°33'-107°12' E; Fig. 1), which was established in 1992 and became the major region of planting Chinese fir in Longzhou County. ”

 

15. L-132 Replace “We” with “The study was”.

Response: We have addressed your suggestions on correcting “We” to “The study was”. (Line 135) 

 

16. L-138-140 Add “()”.

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Lines 142-144)

 

17. L-170 Replace “Weused sieves of various sizes (2, 1, and 0.25 mm) to” with “sieves of various sizes (2, 1, and 0.25 mm) were used to”. 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The sentence was rewritten. (Lines 176-177)

Correction: “In this study, sieves of various sizes (2, 1, and 0.25 mm) were used to separate the soil specimen (250 g) successively via the method of wet sieving [31]. ”

 

18. L-173 Delete“respectively”

Response: We have deleted “respectively”. (Line 179)

 

19. L-194 Replace “10” with “Ten”

Response: We have revised it. (Line 203)

 

20. L-207 Delete“to”

Response: We have deleted “to”. (Line 216)

 

21. L-236 Replace “aggregate” with “aggregates”

Response: We have corrected “aggregate” to “aggregates”. (Line 246)

 

22. L-237 Add “(Table 3)” 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have added “(Table 3)” in Line 247.

 

23. What dose the “Aa”in Table 3 mean? This is confusing.

Response: Thank you for your question. For example, “Aa” in Table 3 mean “>2 mm aggregates proportion was significantly higher than other sized aggregates proportions in CF+MM” and “The CF+MM was significantly higher than CF+ML and CF with >2 mm aggregates proportions” respectively. We have put explanations in the notes of Table 3 (Line 258-261) and carefully checked the entire manuscript.

Correction: “Different capital letters stand for significant differences (P < 0.05) among different aggregate sizes in the same forest types. Different lowercase letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05) among different stand types with the same fraction.” 

 

24. L-247-249 This is confusing for the reader. There should be one table for stand types and also for aggregate sizes.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Accordingly, we have modified the table notes  We found the same description of literatures in Forests and believe that the reader can understand it through the corresponding table notes (For example, Chen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023)

Correction: Table notes: “Different capital letters stand for significant differences (P < 0.05) among different aggregate sizes in the same forest types. Different lowercase letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05) among different stand types with the same fraction.” (Line 258-261)

1. Chen, S.Y., Jiang, C. Q., Bai, Y. F., Wang, H., Jiang, C. W., Huang, K., Guo, L. N., Zeng, S. P., Wang, S. R. Effects of forest gap on soil microbial communities in an evergreen broad-leaved secondary f Forests 2022, 13, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122015.
2. Wang, S.S., Wang, Z. Q., Fan, B., Mao, X. H., Luo, H., Jiang, F. Y., Liang, C. F., Chen, J. H., Qin, H., Xu, Q. F., Shao, S. Litter inputs control the pattern of soil aggregate-associated organic carbon and enzyme activities in three typical subtropical f Forests 2022, 13, 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081210.
3. Zhang, H., Gong, L., Ding, Z., Wu, X. Fine-root soil stoichiometry of Picea schrenkiana Fisch. et Mey. and its correlation with soil environmental factors under different nitrogen input levels in the Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang. Forests 2023, 14, 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020426.

 

25. L-275 “ 4A-J”Why is bold?

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We apologize for our carelessness. The figure number have been unified with nonbold in the revised manuscript. (Line 290)

 

26. L-350 “environmental factors”is not clear.

Response: We apologize for the unclear description. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “environmental factors” to “soil aggregate parameters” in Table 5 (Line 369) and carefully checked the entire manuscript.

 

27. What is “Explanatory variable”in Table 5

Response: Thank you for your question. Based on your comments, we have corrected the “Explanatory variable” to “Soil aggregate parameters” in Table 5.

 

28. L-354 Add “,”between “regulating soil fertility” and “and”

Response: We have addressed your suggestion. (Line 373)

 

29. L-354 Replace “We” with “It was”

Response: We have addressed your suggestions on correcting the “We” to “It was”. (Line 375)

 

30. L-421 after “acts” add “as” 

Response: We have revised it. (Line 456)

 

31. L-425 Delete “we found that”

Response: Thank you. We have deleted it. (Line 461)

 

32. L-427 Delete “we found”

Response: We have deleted it. (Line 462)

 

33. L-433 Replace “our” with “present”

Response: We have replaced “our” with “present”. (Line 468)

 

34. L-500 Replace “We found” with “As observed”

Response: We have addressed your suggestions on correcting the “We found” to “As observed”.  (Line 537)

 

35. L-518 Delete“we also found that”

Response: Thank you. We have deleted it. (Line 555)

 

36. L-543 after “particularly” add “in”

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Line 580)

 

37. L-548 Replace “our” with “the”

Response: Thank you. We have revised it. (Line 586)

 

Thank you very much for your attention and time. We sincerely hope that our detailed responses and revisions will satisfy the expert. We once again thank you for reviewing our manuscript and look forward to your response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Yaqin He, Shaoming Ye

Corresponding author: Shaoming Ye at College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Daxue East Road 100, Nanning, 530004, Guangxi province, China, [email protected].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Title is not clear. Probable title might be “Mixed plantations-induced more soil macroaggregate formation and facilitates soil nitrogen accumulation”

L-63-64 Replace “As shown above” with “As discussed/described above”

L-123 The experimental situation….. situation might be replaced by site or location.

L-176 Mention the methods for BD and Pt estimation.

L-178 Replace the word found with estimated.

L-179 Replace the word detected with determined.

L-188 provide a space between GMD and were.

L-222, L-268, L-273, L- 323 Sentence “The same applies below” not clear, what does it mean?

L-241 Replace “than among CF” with “than that of the CF”.

L-290 Replace “decreased with deepening soil layer” with “decreased with increasing soil depth”

L-303 (Fig. 5 B)- Check the figure number.

L-322-323 >2, 1-2, 0.25-1, and <0.25 represent proportions of the micro-, small-, medium-, and macro aggregates, respectively - Check it carefully. It should be opposite.

 

L-336 Author used the abbreviated forms ANS, AANS, ASNS, AMNS for available nitrogen, amino acid nitrogen, amino sugar nitrogen and cidolyzable ammonia nitrogen. But in most cases authors use AN, AAN, ASN and AMN as the abbreviated forms. Abbreviations should be consistence throughout the manuscript. Similar things should be followed in L-339 and L-345-346.

L-425 Author’s statement is “we found that the soil N content was higher in micro-aggregates” but in L-427-429 the statement is “we found the macro-aggregate proportion exhibited the highest level within different sized aggregates, thereby leading to the distribution and contribution of N storage were the highest in macro-aggregates under the three stand types.” These 2 opposite statements needs to clarify and corrected.

L-468 and 469 ph should be replaced with pH

L-489 The results of RDA (Fig. 5)- check the figure number for RDA.

L-539 Replace on with the

L-550-551, L-28 Is there any data/indication regarding fixation and cycling processes? If the authors have such data, I request them to include in the manuscript.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer 2,

We sincerely thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript (Manuscript ID: 2262050). We consider all these suggestions to be valuable for improving the quality of the manuscript and have responded to each of them. Our point-by-point responses to all the comments and suggestions are itemized below. Moreover, for a better understanding, the changes are highlighted in the manuscript. We hope that you will find the revised version acceptable for publication in Forests.

 

1. Title is not clear. Probable title might be “Mixed plantations-induced more soil macroaggregate formation and facilitates soil nitrogen accumulation”

Response: Thank you for suggesting that we revise the title. We have addressed your suggestion. (Lines 1-3)

Correction: “Mixed plantations-induced more soil macroaggregate formation and facilitates soil nitrogen accumulation”

 

2. L-63-64 Replace “As shown above” with “As discussed/described above”

Response: We have addressed your suggestions on using “As discussed” in Line 64.

 

3. L-123 The experimental situation….. situation might be replaced by site or location.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have corrected the “experimental situation” to “experimental site”. (Line 125) 

 

4. L-176 Mention the methods for BD and Pt estimation.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have provided the methods for BD and Pt estimation (Lines 182-184) and add the related literature.

Additions: “Soil BD and Pt were obtained through the cutting ring (V=100 cm-3, Ø=50.46 mm, and depth=50 mm). Soil samples were dried in an oven at 105°C to the constant weight for detecting BD and Pt [1,32]. ”(Lines 182-184)

 

“[1] Wang, S. Q., Huang, Y. Z., Ye, S. M. Distribution of organic carbon and nutrients in soil aggregates under different stand types of Cunninghamia lanceolata in southern Guangxi of China. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 67, (4), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2021.1932585.

[32]Lu, R.K. Analytical Methods of Soil Agrochemistry; China Agricultural Science and Technology Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1999; pp. 18-99.”

 

5. L-178 Replace the word “found” with “estimated”.

Response: Accordingly, we have corrected “found” to “estimated”. (Line 186) 

 

6. L-179 Replace the word “detected” with “determined”.

Response: Accordingly, we have corrected “detected” to “determined”. (Line 187)

 

7. L-188 provide a space between GMD and were.

Response: We have provided a space between GMD and were. (Line 197)

 

8. L-222, L-268, L-273, L-323 Sentence “The same applies below” not clear, what does it mean?

Response: We apologize for the unclear description. “The same applies below” means “The meaning I want to express is that this notation carries the same meaning unless otherwise stated”. Accordingly, we have deleted this informal expression and added relevant instructions. (Line 231, 281, 288, 343)

 

9. L-241 Replace “than among CF” with “than that of the CF”.

Response: Thank you. We have addressed your suggestion. (Line 251)

 

10. L-290 Replace “decreased with deepening soil layer” with “decreased with increasing soil depth”

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Line 272)

 

11. L-303 (Fig. 5B)- Check the figure number.

Response: We sincerely thank you for your careful review. We apologize for our carelessness. We have corrected “(Fig. 5B)” to “(Fig. 6B)” and carefully checked the entire manuscript. (Line 323)

 

12. L-322-323 >2, 1-2, 0.25-1, and <0.25 represent proportions of the micro-, small-, medium-, and macro aggregates, respectively - Check it carefully. It should be opposite.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The sentence was rewritten. (Lines 342-343).

Correction: “<0.25, 0.25-1, 1-2, and >2 represent proportions of the micro-, small-, medium-, and macro-aggregates, respectively”

 

13. L-336 Author used the abbreviated forms ANS, AANS, ASNS, AMNS for available nitrogen, amino acid nitrogen, amino sugar nitrogen and cidolyzable ammonia nitrogen. But in most cases authors use AN, AAN, ASN and AMN as the abbreviated forms. Abbreviations should be consistence throughout the manuscript. Similar things should be followed in L-339 and L-345-346.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We apologize for the unclear description. AN, AAN, ASN and AMN represent the content of available nitrogen, amino acid nitrogen, amino sugar nitrogen and cidolyzable ammonia nitrogen. However, ANS, AANS, ASNS, AMNS represent the stock of available nitrogen, amino acid nitrogen, amino sugar nitrogen and cidolyzable ammonia nitrogen. We have added abbreviations related to the explanation in the revised manuscript. (Lines 222-230, 336-340, 364-368)  

 

14. L-425 Author’s statement is “we found that the soil N content was higherin micro-aggregates” but in L-427-429 the statement is “we found the macro-aggregate proportion exhibited the highest level within different sized aggregates, thereby leading to the distribution and contribution of N storage were the highest in macro-aggregates under the three stand types.” These 2 opposite statements needs to clarify and corrected.

Response: Thank you for your reminder. We apologize for our unclear description. In general, the soil N storage was closely related to its content with aggregate size (Egan et al., 2018). In this study, the macro-aggregates had the lowest contents of soil N but made the largest contributions to the soil N storage. The turnover time of the N content in the macro-aggregates was shorter than that in the micro-aggregates, thus promoting the higher soil N storage in macro-aggregates (Lu et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2023). In addition, it is considered that the litter residues are easily combined with macro-aggregates (Six et al., 2004). According to this research, aggregate-associated soil N stock would be influenced by aggregate size, not the aggregate-associated N content. Thus, macro-aggregates were the greatest contributors to the N stock, as evidenced by the highest composition of macro-aggregates compared with the other fractions (Table. 3). Accordingly, we have rewritten the statements (Lines 461-462) and cited the appropriate references to support these revised description in discussion.

Correction: “ In general, the soil N storage was closely related to its content with aggregate size [39].”

Addition “[39] Egan, G., Crawley, M. J., Fornara, D. A. Effects of long-term grassland management on the carbon and nitrogen pools of different soil aggregate fractions. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 614, 810-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.16.”

 

15. L-468 and 469 ph should be replaced with pH

Response: We have addressed your suggestions on correcting “ph” to “pH” (Line 504 and 506) and carefully checked the entire manuscript.

 

16. L-489 The results of RDA (Fig. 5)- check the figure number for RDA.

Response: We sincerely thank you for your careful review. We have checked the figure number for RDA and corrected “(Fig. 5B)” to “(Fig. 6B)”. (Line 526)

 

17. L-539 Replace on with the

Response: We have modified it. (Line 576)

 

18. L-550-551, L-28 Is there any data/indication regarding fixation and cycling processes? If the authors have such data, I request them to include in the manuscript.

Response: No, there isn’t. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected these descriptions. (Lines 28-30, Lines 585-588) Thank you for your constructive comments that provides a good direction for improving the quality of our future research.

Correction: Overall, this study contributed significantly to the promotion of the sustainable use of soil resources and reference information for scientific management and sustainable development of Chinese fir forests. (Lines 28-30)

“Overall, this study advanced the understanding of the soil aggregate-associated N variation in different stand types of CFPs and provided supplementary information for protecting soil quality and health and sustainable development of plantations. ”(Lines 585-588)

 

Thank you very much for your attention and time. We sincerely hope that our detailed responses and revisions will satisfy the expert. We once again thank you for reviewing our manuscript and look forward to your response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Yaqin He, Shaoming Ye

Corresponding author: Shaoming Ye at College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Daxue East Road 100, Nanning, 530004, Guangxi province, China, [email protected].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents some results obtained during extensive field and laboratory investigations aimed to assess soil nitrogen accumulation influenced by mixed Chinese fir plantation. The analysed problem is globally important and could attract wide audience. The manuscript has typical structure and comprises appropriate graphic materials. The findings are based on conducted research. In my opinion, the quality of manuscript is above average. However, some parts should be improved. Materials and methods part requires some important amendments and corrections. Conclusions should be presented in more specific and systematic manner, focusing on the main findings.  

Below there are my detailed comments and remarks:

Line 55-56: The sentence is not clear: what does “divers morphology”, “loss of susceptibility” mean? The statements used are too general.   

L. 110: after “40 cm” add “soil depth” or “soil layer” 

L. 122: constructed or established?

L. 123: experimental situation or experimental site? 

L. 127: Please provide more data about the soils studied. “Latosol” is a too general soil unit.

Please add soil classification according to national and necessarily international soil classification systems:

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th Edition. Washington, DC, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria.

 

Please explain the morphological and functional reasons (differences) of two sampling depths (0-20 cm and 20-40 cm). 

 

In the “Experimental Site” part some appropriate references should be cited. 

 

Table 2: Some basic data relating to studied soil material would be a valuable addition, e.g. soil granulometric composition (soil texture) and C:N quotient.   

 

L.127: Limestone as a parent rock does not correspond to soil reaction (pH values) presented in table 2.

 

L. 129-132: not clear, please correct style.

 

L. 133/134: “evolution” or rather “succession”

 

L. 156: what was the thickness of the litter layer?

 

L. 161: after “removed” add “manually”

 

L. 167: is “ianitrogen” correct?

L. 176: in which solution pH was determined? Water or KCl? 

L. 178: instead of “found” use “determined”

Generally, in the part “Soil property analyses” be more detailed and specific.

 

L. 209: Pearson’s correlation or Pearson as is in L. 324. Please unify this throughout the manuscript.

 

L. 229: “decreasing with increasing” – Correct style.

 

L. 241: correct “levers” into “levels”

 

L. 245: add “soil” before “aggregates”

 

L. 259: correct style: “was increased with reducing soil depth”. Do you mean in the soil layer of 0-20 cm?

 

L. 292: add: within aggregate size 

 

L. 316: “environmental factors” is too general. Perhaps “soil properties” would be better 

 

L. 324 and L. 350: “environmental factors” or “soil aggregate parameters” 

 

357-362: In “Discussion” section please comment soil texture and the pivotal role of clay fraction. 

 

L. 376: “higher litter quality” please be more precise 

 

Author Response

The paper presents some results obtained during extensive field and laboratory investigations aimed to assess soil nitrogen accumulation influenced by mixed Chinese fir plantation. The analysed problem is globally important and could attract wide audience. The manuscript has typical structure and comprises appropriate graphic materials. The findings are based on conducted research. In my opinion, the quality of manuscript is above average. However, some parts should be improved. Materials and methods part requires some important amendments and corrections. Conclusions should be presented in more specific and systematic manner, focusing on the main findings. Below there are my detailed comments and remarks: 

Respected Reviewer 3,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript (Manuscript ID: 2262050). We found that all comments were very constructive and will strengthen our manuscript. Therefore, we have addressed all the suggestions carefully and tried our best to modify the manuscript accordingly. Detailed corrections are listed below point by point. Moreover, for a better understanding, the changes are highlighted in the manuscript. We hope that you will find the revised version acceptable for publication in Forests.

 

1. Line 55-56: The sentence is not clear: what does “divers morphology”, “loss of susceptibility” mean? The statements used are too general.   

Response:Thank you for pointing out this problem. We apologize for the unclear description. We have revised the sentence (Lines 56-57) and cited appropriate reference. 

Correction: “Soil N acts as a major nutrient source for plant growth due to its availability and high mobility [7].” (Lines 56-57)

Addition: 

“ [7] Li, Z. L., Zeng, Z. Q., Tian, D. S., Wang, J. S., Wang, B. X., Chen, H. Y.H., Quan, Q., Chen, W. N., Yang, J. L., Meng, C., Wang, Y., Niu, S. L. Global variations and controlling factors of soil nitrogen turnover rate. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 207, 103250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103250.”

 

2. 110: after “40 cm” add “soil depth” or “soil layer”

Response: We have added “soil depth” after “40 cm” in Line 112.

 

3. L. 122: constructed or established?

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have corrected the “constructed” to “established”. (Line 124)

 

4. L. 123: experimental situation or experimental site? 

Response: Thank you for your correction. We have corrected the “experimental situation” to “experimental site”. (Line 125)

 

5. L. 127: Please provide more data about the soils studied. “Latosol” is a too general soil unit.

Please add soil classification according to national and necessarily international soil classification systems:Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th Edition. Washington, DC, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria. 

Response: Thank you for your reminder. Your kind suggestion is followed. We have provided more data about the soils studied (Lines 129-132) and cited appropriate reference.

Correction: “Sedimentary rock is the main native rock. The primary type of soil is laterite and red soil according to the Chinese soil classification, which is classified as a ferralsol based on the IUSS Working Group [29], with a loamy clay texture. Soil depth is generally over 80 cm [30]. ” (Lines 129-132)”

Addition: “[29] Wrb, I.W.G. World reference base for soil resources 2014: International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resour. Rep. 2014, 106, 12-21.

[30] Ming, A. G., Yang, Y. J., Liu, S. R., Nong, Y., Li, H., Tao, Y., Sun, D. J., Lei, L. Q., Zeng, J., An, N. The impact of near natural forest management on the carbon stock and sequestration potential of Pinus massoniana (Lamb.) and Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook. Plantations. Forests 2019, 10, 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080626.” 

 

6. Please explain the morphological and functional reasons (differences) of two sampling depths (0-20 cm and 20-40 cm).  

Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestions. Accordingly, we have explained the morphological and functional differences of 0-20 cm and 20-40 cm soil depth in discussion. (Lines 444-448)  

Addition: “To be specific, the macro-aggregates proportion, MWD, and GMD values were higher in 0-20 cm soil depth than in 20-40 cm soil depth (Table 3), suggesting that the soil aggregate stability in 0-20 cm was higher than that in 20-40 cm, thus accumulating the most organic materials from root exudates and litterfall in the upper soil layer.” 

 

7. In the “Experimental Site” part some appropriate references should be cited. 

Response: We thank you for your valuable suggestions. In addition, relevant references in the “Experimental Site” part (Lines 123-140) have been added to the revised manuscript. 

Additions: 

“[1] Wang, S. Q., Huang, Y. Z., Ye, S. M. Distribution of organic carbon and nutrients in soil aggregates under different stand types of Cunninghamia lanceolata in southern Guangxi of China. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 67, (4), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2021.1932585.

• Ming, A., Liu, S. R., Nong, Y., Cai, D. X., Jia, H. Y., Huang, D. W., Wang, Q. N., Nong, Z. Comparison of carbon storage in juvenile monoculture and mixed plantation stands of three common broadleaved tree species in subtropical China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2015, 35, 180-188. https://doi.org/10.5846/STXB201408181638.
• Wrb, I. G. World reference base for soil resources 2014: International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resour. Rep. 2014, 106, 12-21.
• Ming, G., Yang, Y. J., Liu, S. R., Nong, Y., Li, H., Tao, Y., Sun, D. J., Lei, L. Q., Zeng, J., An, N. The impact of near natural forest management on the carbon stock and sequestration potential of Pinus massoniana (Lamb.) and Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook. Plantations. Forests 2019, 10, 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080626.”

8. Table 2: Some basic data relating to studied soil material would be a valuable addition, e.g. soil granulometric composition (soil texture) and C:N quotient.   

Response: We have addressed your suggestion on adding some basic data relating to studied soil material (soil texture and C:N quotient) in Table 2.

 

9. 127: Limestone as a parent rock does not correspond to soil reaction (pH values) presented in table 2.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem. We are very sorry for the incorrect statement. We have modified it. (Lines 129-131).

Correction: Correction: “Sedimentary rock is the main native rock. The primary type of soil is laterite and red soil according to the Chinese soil classification, which is classified as a ferralsol based on the IUSS Working Group [29], with a loamy clay texture.” (Lines 129-131)

Addition: “[29] Wrb, I.W.G. World reference base for soil resources 2014: International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resour. Rep. 2014, 106, 12-21.” 

 

10. 129-132: not clear, please correct style.

Response: We apologize for the poor language of our manuscript. Accordingly, we have rewritten the sentence. (Lines 134-135) In addition, we invited American Journal Experts to help polish our manuscript and correct grammar and spelling again after the revision, and we hope that the revised statement will be clearer and more accurate.

Correction: “Chinese fir mixed with Michelia macclurei and Chinese fir mixed with Mytilaria laosensis are the primary experimental forests in this study region [1].”

 

11. 133/134: “evolution” or rather “succession”

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “evolution” to “succession” (Line 137)

 

12. 156: what was the thickness of the litter layer?

Response: Thank you for your question. The thickness of the litter layer was 5 to 10 cm. Accordingly, we have added the statement in the revised manuscript. (Line 160)

 

13. 161: after “removed” add “manually” 

Response: Your kind suggestion is followed. (Line 167)

 

14. 167: is “ianitrogen” correct?

Response: The word “ianitrogen” is wrong. We have corrected the “cidolyzable ammon ianitrogen” to “cidolyzable ammonia nitrogen” and carefully checked the entire manuscript. (Line 173)

 

15. 176: in which solution pH was determined? Water or KCl? 

Response: Thank you for your question. Soil pH was determined in distilled water. Accordingly, we have added this instruction.

Addition: “Soil pH was measured using a glassy electrode in a 1:2.5 soil/distilled water suspension [31]. ”(Lines 184-185)

 

16. 178: instead of “found” use “determined”

Response: Thank you. We have revised it. (Lines 186)

 

17. Generally, in the part “Soil property analyses” be more detailed and

Response: Based on your suggestions, we have reworked the part “Soil property analyses” and added relevant literatures. (Lines 181-193)

 

18. 209: Pearson’s correlation or Pearson as is in L. 324. Please unify this throughout the manuscript.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have used the “Pearson's correlation” and unified this throughout the revised manuscript. (Line 218)

 

19. 229: “decreasing with increasing” – Correct style. 

Response: We have corrected it. (Lines 237-239) 

Correction: “Soil OC, AP, TN, AN, TAN, AAN, AMN, HUN, NO₃^--N and NH₄⁺-N in the three stands decreasing with increasing soil depth, whereas soil BD presented the opposite trend.”

 

20. 241: correct “levers” into “levels”

Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have corrected “levers” into “levels” . (Line 251) 

 

21. 245: add “soil” before “aggregates”

Response: We have added “soil” before “aggregates”. (Line 256)

 

22. 259: correct style: “was increased with reducing soil depth”. Do you mean in the soil layer of 0-20 cm?

Response: Yes, we mean in the soil layer of 0-20 cm. Accordingly, we have rewritten the sentence. (Line 271-272)

Correction: “On the aggregate scales, the N content in the three stands was decreased with increasing soil depth.”

 

23. 292: add: within aggregate size 

Response: We have added “within aggregate size”. (Lines 307-308)

Correction: “Figure 4. Soil total nitrogen and its fractions stocks within aggregate size in Chinese fir plantations with different stand types.”

 

24. 316: “environmental factors” is too general. Perhaps “soil properties” would be better 

Response: Thank you for your correction. We have addressed your suggestions on using “soil properties” (Line 335-336)

Correction: “Figure 6. Redundancy analysis of soil nitrogen content and soil properties in Chinese fir plantations with different stand types. ”

 

25. 324 and L. 350: “environmental factors” or “soil aggregate parameters” 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have addressed your suggestions on correcting the “environmental factors” to “soil aggregate parameters”. (Line 344 and 369)

 

26. 357-362: In “Discussion” section please comment soil texture and the pivotal role of clay fraction. 

Response: Based on your suggestions, we have commented soil texture and the pivotal role of clay fraction in “Discussion” section (Lines 380-386) and cited the appropriate references in the entire manuscript. 

Additions: “The loamy clay soil has larger specific surface area, stronger cation exchange capacity, and higher total porosity and organic matters content but less macroporosity than that of the sandy soil, which has a pronounced effect on the supply, conservation, and transformation of soil nutrients [40-41]. On the other hand, clay fraction plays an important role in the formation of soil aggregates, which can provide protection through physical entrapment for most organic materials to retard the decomposition process of soil organic matter [42-43].”(Lines 380-386)

 

“[40] Giardina, C. P., Ryan, M. G. Evidence that decomposition rates of organic carbon in mineral soil do not vary with temperature. Nature 2000, 404, 858–861. https://doi.org/10.1038/35009076.

[41] Ding, S. J., Zhang, X. F.,Yang, W. L., Xin, X. L., Zhu, A. N., Huang, S. M.. Soil nutrients and aggregate composition of four soils with contrasting textures in a long-term experiment. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2021, 54, 1746-1755. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229321110041.

[42] Wang, S. S., Wang, Z. Q., Fan, B., Mao, X. H., Luo, H., Jiang, F. Y., Liang, C. F., Chen, J. H., Qin, H., Xu, Q. F., Shao, S. Litter inputs control the pattern of soil aggregate-associated organic carbon and enzyme activities in three typical subtropical forests. Forests 2022, 13, 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081210.

[43] Hong, H. L., Chen, S. L., Fang, Q., Algeo, T. J., Zhao, L. L. Adsorption of organic matter on clay minerals in the Dajiuhu peat soil chronosequence, South China. Appl. Clay Sci. 2019, 178, 105125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2019.105125.” 

 

27. 376: “higher litter quality” please be more precise 

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Accordingly, we have rewritten the sentence. (Lines 404-406)

Correction: “This can be explained by the significantly higher litter quality and OC content in CF+MM (litter quality: 504 g cm^-2; OC: 33.34 g kg^-1) and CF+ML (455 g cm^-2 ; 24.80 g kg^-1) than in CF (324 g cm^-2 ; 20.96 g kg^-1). ”

 

Thank you very much for your attention and time. We sincerely hope that our detailed responses and revisions will satisfy the expert. We once again thank you for reviewing our manuscript and look forward to your response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Yaqin He, Shaoming Ye

Corresponding author: Shaoming Ye at College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Daxue East Road 100, Nanning, 530004, Guangxi province, China, [email protected].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx