Response of C:N:P Stoichiometry to Phosphorus Addition and Homeostasis of Plant Tissues in a Subtropical Slash Pine Plantation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Manuscript ID: forests-2486516

Type: Article

Title: Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation

Authors: Jia Ting , Yi Min , Chen Fu Sheng , Lai Meng , Jin Cang Fu , Nie Zi Xuan , Zhou Lin Jin , Xie Jin Wen , Lu Zhang *

 

Dear Assistant Editor of Forests

 

The manuscript entitled "Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation" has studied the plant tissues (including needle, branch and root), litter and soil samples to explore C, N, P contents, stoichiometry and stoichiometric homeostasis under P addition in a subtropical slash pine plantations.

The study design is robust and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal. The manuscript is generally clearly designed, written and illustrated. The discussion of the manuscript also well written.

I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in forests.

 

 

Best regards

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Assistant Editor of Forests

The manuscript entitled "Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation" has studied the plant tissues (including needle, branch and root), litter and soil samples to explore C, N, P contents, stoichiometry and stoichiometric homeostasis under P addition in a subtropical slash pine plantations.

The study design is robust and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal. The manuscript is generally clearly designed, written and illustrated. The discussion of the manuscript also well written.

I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in forests.

Best regards

Response: Thank you for your positive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

The ms forests-2486516 with the title of Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation has been improved but still the authors should improve it:

Title: authors should make it shorted

L67-68 for plantation cultivation? What do you mean here? Please revise

L71 why you write the full words and abbreviations again? (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)?? You have defined them already before.

L85-90 please add suitable citations

L135-145 Authors give information about P fertilizer, but they did not give any piece of information about other fertilizers such as N and K? What about other agricultural practices for your experiment?

L174 Never ever start your sentence with a number such as 0.1 g of! This is wrong, start the sentence with a text.

L196 wrong information (SPSS Inc .. Please correct the name of the company, it is not SPSS Inc anymore. It is sold to a new company, check and correct.

Was your experiment simple experiment or split plot design? Because according to Table 1, it seems that you have two factors as treatments and tissues! Can you make it clear for the readers? One or two factors you have in your study? If two, then what was the experimental design?

Table 3, it is clear that you have one factor which is the treatment, why you presented the data in Table 1 as you did?

Good luck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The authors should improve their ms in terms of English Language

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The ms forests-2486516 with the title of Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation has been improved but still the authors should improve it:

Title: authors should make it shorted

Response: We revised the title to: “Response of C:N:P stoichiometric to phosphorus addition and homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation”.

L67-68 for plantation cultivation? What do you mean here? Please revise

Response: We removed the word “cultivation”, and revised the “plantation” to “plantations”.(Line 68)

L71 why you write the full words and abbreviations again? (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)?? You have defined them already before.

Response: We revised the text to “C, N, and P”. (Line 71)

L85-90 please add suitable citations

Response: We added the citation [15].

L135-145 Authors give information about P fertilizer, but they did not give any piece of information about other fertilizers such as N and K? What about other agricultural practices for your experiment?

Response: We did not add any other fertilizers such as N and K. We removed miscellaneous shrubs before each application of P fertilizer to ensure that the fertilizer was fully absorbed by the slash pine, the subject of our study. We added this sentence “After removal of miscellaneous shrubs” to the text. (Lines139-140)

 

L174 Never ever start your sentence with a number such as 0.1 g of! This is wrong, start the sentence with a text.

Response: We are very sorry for our mistakes. We revised this sentence. (Line 173)

L196 wrong information (SPSS Inc .. Please correct the name of the company, it is not SPSS Inc anymore. It is sold to a new company, check and correct.

Response: We are very sorry for our mistakes. We removed this wrong information in the text.

Was your experiment simple experiment or split plot design? Because according to Table 1, it seems that you have two factors as treatments and tissues! Can you make it clear for the readers? One or two factors you have in your study? If two, then what was the experimental design?

Response: We are very sorry for the unclear description. Our experiment adopted a completely randomized block design with four treatments and four replicates. In fact, we only have one factor that is the treatment. The tissues mentioned in Table 1 refer to the data that we take samples of different tissues and compare them multiple times. We deleted Table 1 because the significance of the different treatments and tissues is shown in Figure 2.

Table 3, it is clear that you have one factor which is the treatment, why you presented the data in Table 1 as you did?

Response: We are very sorry for the unclear description. We deleted Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

1. Why was the fertilization in December 2017, and the sampling was done in July 2020?

2. Is it reasonable to apply 100 kg of phosphate fertilizer? Will it cause waste of P fertilizer? Through the research of the article, how many P fertalization of slash pipe is recommended?

3. Why did the application of phosphorus fertilizer only increase the content of needle and litter, but not the root and branch? But did nitrogen content have a different response?

4. Conclusions need to be understandable and need to be revised.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Why was the fertilization in December 2017, and the sampling was done in July 2020?

Response: We established four 20 m x 20 m plots in the dormant period of slash pine in December 2017 to carry out a P fertilization experiment. Then the P fertilizer was added to each plot twice a year (50 percent in June and 50 percent in December). After two years, to observe the effect of P fertilization, we samples the slash pine during its growth period in June 2020. In order to minimize the impact of human activities on tree growth, the sample plots were set up during the dormancy period. Sampling in growth period is to better understand the effect of P fertilization.

2. Is it reasonable to apply 100 kg of phosphate fertilizer? Will it cause waste of P fertilizer? Through the research of the article, how many P fertalization of slash pipe is recommended?

Response: At present, we believe that it is reasonable to apply 100 kg of phosphate fertilizer and not cause waste of P fertilizer. Our previous studies showed that 100 kg of phosphate fertilizer promoted both wood yield and resin yield of slash pine (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116782). In this study, P3 treatment (100 kg of phosphate fertilizer) had the most significant effect on soil nutrient improvement.

3. Why did the application of phosphorus fertilizer only increase the content of needle and litter, but not the root and branch? But did nitrogen content have a different response?

Response: Actually, P addition improved the C content of needle, the N and P contents of each tissue (except the P content of roots). The possible reason is that the needle is a photosynthetic organ, which is more conducive to the accumulation of photosynthetic product C when the nutrient environment changes. The N content of each tissue generally showed an upward trend with the increase of P addition concentration.

4. Conclusions need to be understandable and need to be revised.

Response: We revised the conclusions to be understandable.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

The ms has been improved 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Accept in present form

Accept

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the paper " Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation  ". The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge is moderate, the paper is configured as a simple basic research The paper is written with a moderate English level.The aims of the paper are germane with Forests topic. There are important flaws and I suggest the corrections in the comments for the author

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I suggest an english revision by a native speaker

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the paper "Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation". The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge is moderate, the paper is configured as a simple basic research. The paper is written with a moderate English level. The aims of the paper are germane with Forests topic. There are important flaws and I suggest the corrections in the comments for the author.

I suggest an English revision by a native speaker. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for very important and detailed comments. We invited a native English speaker to polish the language of the manuscript. In addition, we revised the following five questions one by one.

 

1. Line 30  Please pay attention, normally the words present in the title don't compare in the keywords

Response: Thanks for pointing this out, which is of great significance for improving the writing ability of our research papers. We modify the keywords to “ phosphorus addition; plant tissues; stoichiometry; homeostasis; Pinus elliottii Engelm”. (Line 31)

2. Line 59Please, pay attention the official format of Forests is citation by numbers

Response: We are very sorry for our mistakes. We cited references by number in the official format of Forests.

3. Line 172I think it’s not a scientific language

Response: We removed this sentence and revised the text to “ Plant materials were dried at 115 °C for a half-hour and then at 60 °C until a consistent weight was achieved. ” (Lines 168-169)

4. Line 177  please, put the citation

Response: We added the citation. (Lines 176, 178 and 180)

 

5. Line 295  Which

Response: We are very sorry for mistakes. We replaced “ Which ” with “ which ” in the text (Line 285)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors evaluated the C:N:P stoichiometry in the plant-litter-soil system under P addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues for fertilization management of slash pine plantation. The study objective is novel and findings reported in this manuscript will advance the existing knowledge on P fertilizer management in slash pine. However, I have some observations indicated below which are to be addressed by the authors.

 

1.           At Step 3 of Graphical Abstract, The C:N ratio has been duplicated. The last ratio of C:N should be replaced with N:P.

2.           The authors used P fertilizers as treatments. but they claimed that it will provide a basis for fertilization management in pine. I think the addition of P can give a solution in P fertilization for pine. If so, ‘P’ should be added in line 121, 138 and elsewhere before ‘fertilization’.

3.            The authors showed that P fertilization increased the C and N content of soil. I am not sure how it happened. An explanation is necessary about the relationship among C. N and P in soils.

4.           In Conclusions, the authors mainly showed the results of the study. So, I suggest to rewrite the conclusions to make it scientifically sound.

5.           In line 295, the first letter (W) of ‘Which’ should be small (w).

I The English is fine and needs 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors evaluated the C:N:P stoichiometry in the plant-litter-soil system under P addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues for fertilization management of slash pine plantation. The study objective is novel and findings reported in this manuscript will advance the existing knowledge on P fertilizer management in slash pine. However, I have some observations indicated below which are to be addressed by the authors.

Response: Thank you for your positive comments and these observations is valuable to understand the significance of the manuscript.

 

1. At Step 3 of Graphical Abstract, The C:N ratio has been duplicated. The last ratio of C:N should be replaced with N:P.

Response: We are very sorry for mistakes. We replaced “ C:N ” with “ N:P ” at Step 3 of Graphical Abstract.

2. The authors used P fertilizers as treatments. but they claimed that it will provide a basis for fertilization management in pine. I think the addition of P can give a solution in P fertilization for pine. If so, ‘P’ should be added in line 121, 138 and elsewhere before ‘fertilization’.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. We added “ P ” in the text. (Lines 117, 136 and 140)

3. The authors showed that P fertilization increased the C and N content of soil. I am not sure how it happened. An explanation is necessary about the relationship among C. N and P in soils.

Response: In fact, P addition led to a rise in soil C, N and P concentrations (Table 2). Particularly under P3 treatment, soil C and P content were markedly higher than the blank control. There were two potential explanations. On the one hand, P addition accelerated the growth and spread of free-living bacteria and increased the activity of microorganisms. Active microorganisms accelerated the rate of decomposition of organic carbon, which promoted the accumulation of soil carbon and increased the availability of N and P in the soil [1]. On the other hand, P addition increased phosphatase activity, which in turn promoted the decomposition of litter, resulting in the continuous release of C, N, and P elements from the primary substrate of litter into the soil [2], thereby increasing the C, N, and P content in the soil.

The relationship between soil C, N, and P is the most essential indicator for maintaining soil nutrient balance and assessing soil quality [3]. The C:N ratio of soil may provide insight into its potential for N mineralization, whereas the C:P ratio can be used to gauge the capability of soil microbes for either external P uptake or internal P release from organic matter [4, 5]. Our previous results demonstrated that soil N:P ratios continued to rise with stand age [6]. Therefore, the relationship between C, N, and P content in soil is not only influenced by nutrient addition but is also related to the stage of stand development.

• Mirriam, A.; Mugwe, J.; Raza, M.A.; Seleiman, M.F.; Maitra, S.; Gitari, H.H. Aggrandizing soybean yield, phosphorus use efficiency and economic returns under phosphatic fertilizer application and inoculation with Bradyrhizobium. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.2022, 22, 5086–5098.
• Du, P.C.; Pan, Y.Z.; Hou, S.L.; Wang, Z.H.; Wang, H.Y. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on litter decomposition in Hulunber steppe. Acta Pratac. Sin.2023, 32, 44–
• Fan, H.B.; Wu, J.P.; Liu, W.F.; Yuan, Y.H.; Hu, L.; Cai, Q.K. Linkages of plant and soil C: N: P stoichiometry and their relationships to forest growth in subtropical plantations. Plant Soil2015, 392, 127–138.
• Zhang, Z.K.; Wu, Y.H.; Huang, L.Q.; Liu, X.Z. C, N and P stoichiometry of soil and plant in different forest successional stages in island. Acta Bot. Bor-Occid. Sin.2019, 39, 925–
• Dise, N.B.; Matzner, E.; Forsius, M. Evaluation of organic horizon C:N ratio as an indicator of nitrate leaching in conifer forests across Europe. Pollut. 1998, 102, 453–456.
• Jia, T.; Chen, M.Y.; Zhang, L.; Yi, M.; Guo S.M.; Cheng, Z.S.; Li, X.; Zhong, Q.W. Ecological stoichiometry and homeostasis index of needles, branches, roots and soil in Pinus elliottiiplantations of different ages. Acta Agric. Nucl. Sin. 2023, 37, 397–404.

4. In Conclusions, the authors mainly showed the results of the study. So, I suggest to rewrite the conclusions to make it scientifically sound.

Response: Thank you for your reminder and guidance. To make the conclusions more legible and scientifically sound, we rewrote them, added conclusions corresponding to the hypotheses in this paper, and presented an outlook for future research.(Lines 398-416)

5. In line 295, the first letter (W) of ‘Which’ should be small (w).

Response: We are very sorry for mistakes. We replaced “ Which ” with “ which ” in the text. (Line 285)

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Manuscript ID: forests-2366719

Type: Article

Title: Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation

Authors: Jia Ting , Yi Min , Chen Fu Sheng , Lai Meng , Jin Cang Fu , Nie Zi Xuan , Zhou Lin Jin , Xie Jin Wen , Zhang Lu *

 

Dear Assistant Editor of Forests

 

The manuscript entitled "Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation" has studied the plant tissues (including needle, branch and root), litter and soil samples to explore C, N, P contents, stoichiometry and stoichiometric homeostasis under P addition in a subtropical slash pine plantations. Statistical analyses have done. Results showed the P addition (especially P3 treatment) increased the C, N and P contents of needle and the N content of litter. P2 and P3 treatments reduced the C:N ratio of root while increased the P content of litter and the N:P ratio of root. Also, P addition increased the accumulation of C and P elements in soil, but had no significant effect on its stoichiometry. The subject of the research work is original and has been able to provide a lot of new information in the field of C:N:P stoichiometry in the plant-litter-soil system under P addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues for fertilization management.

The authors were able to answer the research questions due to the review of suitable sources, the study method of the region and the sufficient number of samples, and there is no need for additional items in the method and also other controls. The authors were able to match the research conclusions well with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question raised. References were well presented and good previous researches were listed, however, some related references proposed that should be mentioned in the manuscript. Tables and figures are well organized and logically consistent with the content of the text.

The study design is robust and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal. The manuscript is generally clearly designed, written and illustrated. The discussion of the manuscript also well written.

 

Best regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The manuscript entitled "Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation" has studied the plant tissues (including needle, branch and root), litter and soil samples to explore C, N, P contents, stoichiometry and stoichiometric homeostasis under P addition in a subtropical slash pine plantations. Statistical analyses have done. Results showed the P addition (especially P3 treatment) increased the C, N and P contents of needle and the N content of litter. P2 and P3 treatments reduced the C:N ratio of root while increased the P content of litter and the N:P ratio of root. Also, P addition increased the accumulation of C and P elements in soil, but had no significant effect on its stoichiometry. The subject of the research work is original and has been able to provide a lot of new information in the field of C:N:P stoichiometry in the plant-litter-soil system under P addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues for fertilization management.

The authors were able to answer the research questions due to the review of suitable sources, the study method of the region and the sufficient number of samples, and there is no need for additional items in the method and also other controls. The authors were able to match the research conclusions well with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question raised. References were well presented and good previous researches were listed, however, some related references proposed that should be mentioned in the manuscript. Tables and figures are well organized and logically consistent with the content of the text.

The study design is robust and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal. The manuscript is generally clearly designed, written and illustrated. The discussion of the manuscript also well written.

Response: Thank you for your positive comments and insightful question. We are pleased to revise our manuscript according to the comments of you. Our detailed responses to each of the comments were given below and all the changes in the manuscript were marked in red.

1. Line 9  The results are presented in a very general way. It is better to provide more detailed results.

Response: We added the detailed results in the abstract. (Lines 18-21 and 24-25)

2. Line 10-11 Are the soils of the forest areas of the region poor in terms of the phosphorus element that phosphorus has been added to?

Response: The P content of soil in the current experimental site is slightly higher than the national average (0.65 g kg^-1), indicating that P addition has alleviated the P limitation.

3. Line 128-130  Weather statistics for what time period? Distance from the synoptic station to the study area?

Response: Now we modified the weather data to the average of nearly 5 years (Lines 127-129). The distance from the weather station to the study area is within 5 km.

4. Line 274-277  A and B refer to?

Response: A means PCA was used to identify the relationship of C, N and P contents in the plant-litter-soil system; B means PCA was used to identify the relationship of C, N and P stoichiometry in the plant-litter-soil system. We have annotated A and B in the top left corner of the two small graphs in Fig. 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

After the initial review of the manuscript and finding out the percentage of plagiarism, it became clear that the percentage of similarity is very high (45%, attached file) and must be reduced to the limit allowed by MDPI journals, which must be within the range of 15%. This is in addition to the presence of many parts and results published before by the same first author (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116782).

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 4

After the initial review of the manuscript and finding out the percentage of plagiarism, it became clear that the percentage of similarity is very high (45%, attached file) and must be reduced to the limit allowed by MDPI journals, which must be within the range of 15%. This is in addition to the presence of many parts and results published before by the same first author (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116782).

Response: We are very sorry that our manuscript was found to have a high percentage of similarity. We revised it and made reasonable citations. However, it is rather unfortunate that the article has been published in a preprint version (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202304.0257/v1), resulting in a higher duplication rate. In addition, this manuscript has the same experimental site and experimental design as our previously published article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116782), which also has a partial repetition rate. We make formal references to it. We hope that experts will consider the above two points and remove the content published in the preprint version when testing the repetition rate. Please, thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The ms forests-2366719 with the title of Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation investigate a good topic and well organized, however the authors have to improve it before further process.

Format the references within the text and in the list of the references according to the author guidelines of the journal

L9-11 please reduce the background text to one sentence

Keywords: please use stronger Keywords

L32-43 No need for Abbreviations because you have already defined those in first mention

L57-69 cite this relevant ref:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-022-00985-8

L116-122 please first add the aims of this study then present the hypotheses of the current work, both in an independent paragraph

L140-141 why the authors decided to work on these level of P? Why not less or more than those?

Please describe in details the different methods that were used and cite the original references

L222 you can NOT say (p < 0.05) but you should say p ≤ 0.05. Please revise this issue in whole ms.

Figures, please revise them to make them better quality

Discussion is well written, but I suggest authors to add some recent citations.

L401-403 remove first sentence in the conclusion. Authors should start directly with their results and what they found, Thus, please revise conclusion section and add the future idea.

Good luck

 

Can be accepted after revising my comments

Author Response

Reviewer 5

 

The ms forests-2366719 with the title of Response of C:N:P in the plant-litter-soil system to phosphorus addition and stoichiometric homeostasis of plant tissues in a subtropical slash pine plantation investigate a good topic and well organized, however the authors have to improve it before further process.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We are pleased to improve our manuscript according to the comments of you. Our detailed responses to each of the comments were given below and all the changes in the manuscript were marked in red.

1. Format the references within the text and in the list of the references according to the author guidelines of the journal

Response: We are very sorry for our mistakes. We formatted the references and cited them by number according to the author guidelines of the journal.

2. L9-11 please reduce the background text to one sentence

Response: We removed two sentences from the original text and modified them to “ Phosphorus (P) fertilizer is commonly used in subtropical plantations to augment nutrients including carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and P elements to maintain plants engaged in metabolism.” （Lines 9-11）

3. Keywords: please use stronger Keywords

Response: We modify the keywords to “ phosphorus addition; plant tissues; stoichiometry; homeostasis; Pinus elliottii Engelm”.（Line 31）

4. L32-43 No need for Abbreviations because you have already defined those in first mention

Response: We removed the part of abbreviation in the text.

5. L57-69 cite this relevant ref:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-022-00985-8

Response:We read this reference and cited it in the text. (Lines 62-63)

[4] Mirriam, A.; Mugwe, J.; Raza, M.A.; Seleiman, M.F.; Maitra, S.; Gitari, H.H. Aggrandizing soybean yield, phosphorus use efficiency and economic returns under phosphatic fertilizer application and inoculation with Bradyrhizobium. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 5086–5098.

6. L116-122 please first add the aims of this study then present the hypotheses of the current work, both in an independent paragraph

Response: We added the aims of this study and moved the hypotheses of the current work to an independent paragraph. (Lines 109-122)

7. L140-141 why the authors decided to work on these level of P? Why not less or more than those?

Response: Previous studies on Chinese fir plantations in the same study area suggested that P2 level additions were the most suitable for the area [1]. Considering the individual variability of plant species, we set the P addition levels by half and doubled respectively.

[1]Chen, F.S.; Niklas, K.J.; Liu, Y.; Fang, X.M.; Wan, S.Z.; Wang, H.M. Nitrogen and phosphorus additions alter nutrient dynamics but not resorption efficiencies of Chinese fir leaves and twigs differing in age. Tree Physiol. 2015, 35, 1106–1117.

8. Please describe in details the different methods that were used and cite the original referencesResponse: We described some details and cited the original references. (Lines 176, 178 and 180)
9. L222 you can NOT say (p < 0.05) but you should say p ≤ 0.05. Please revise this issue in whole ms.

Response: We modify “ p < 0.05 ” to “ p ≤ 0.05 ” in whole text.

10. Figures, please revise them to make them better quality

Response: We redrew the figures to make them clearer and provide the original figures.

11. Discussion is well written, but I suggest authors to add some recent citations.

Response: Thank you very much for your recognition. We added the following recent citations to the text:

[4] Mirriam, A.; Mugwe, J.; Raza, M.A.; Seleiman, M.F.; Maitra, S.; Gitari, H.H. Aggrandizing soybean yield, phosphorus use efficiency and economic returns under phosphatic fertilizer application and inoculation with Bradyrhizobium. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 5086–5098.

[41] Du, P.C.; Pan, Y.Z.; Hou, S.L.; Wang, Z.H.; Wang, H.Y. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on litter decomposition in Hulunber steppe. Acta Pratac. Sin. 2023, 32, 44–53.

[21] Jia, T.; Fang, X.M.; Yuan, Y.; Fu, Y.X.; Yi, M.; Yuan, S.G.; Guo, S.M.; Lai, M.; Xie, J.W.; Zhang, L. Phosphorus addition alter the pine resin flow rate by regulating tree growth and non-structural carbohydrates in a subtropical slash pine plantation. Ind. Crop Prod. 2023, 199, 116782.

12. L401-403 remove first sentence in the conclusion. Authors should start directly with their results and what they found, Thus, please revise conclusion section and add the future idea.

Response: We removed the first sentence from the conclusion and rewrote the conclusion. We directly indicated the findings and conclusions of the study and add future ideas.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx