Seasonal Variations and Influencing Factors of Gross Nitrification Rate in Desert Steppe Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Qiu et al. reported the seasonal variation in gross nitrification and its responsible factors. The findings in this manuscript are helpful to understand the nitrogen dynamics in desert steppe ecosystem. I support to accept it for publication after minor or moderate revision.

Comments and suggestions:

1. L31, delete “chemical” since nitrification is microbial process.
2. L37, change to “nitrous oxide (N2O)”.
3. L109, what is the difference between BAPS and previous BaPS. Do they mean the same?
4. L126-128, how to determine nitrification rate using these three parameters? Please explain.
5. L134-136, it is nice to briefly explain the PLS here.
6. L138, change “5%” to “p < 0.05”.
7. How to define spring, summer and autumn? Please explain.
8. Figure 2, it is a little bit strange to me that soil bulk density has such seasonal variations. Conceptually, it is determined by the relative percentages of organic and inorganic material in soil. So, I am wondering that soil organic carbon also varied substantially during the experiment. Is this the case?
9. L166, add “(p < 0.05)” after “significantly”.
10. Fig. 4, why NH4 and NO3 were expressed as the fraction of TN? What are their units here? It seems that GN is also significantly correlated with soil pH. Please explain.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for you suggestion. we made a careful response in the replay letter. Please see the attachment.

Xiao Qiu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well structured manuscript conducted on the very important subject of nitrogen budget in the environment. I suggest several improvements as follows:

• lines 19 and 20: edit the data in a way that a reader clearly understands what the numbers refer on. In other words, modify the style of expression. This way it seems boring and confusing. Make it more beautiful.
• line 21: what do you mean by ''different''? Compared to what?
• line 30: not ''C'', but carbon (C)
• line 35 plants
• 37 sentences should not start with numbers, abbreviations or chemical symbols...
• 57 dry
• 65-70 put it the usual way, e.g. The aim (or objectives) of the study was (were) 
• Table 1 (as well as other tables): carefully check your data and analytical quality in terms of significant figures (precision!). This is a problem with this manuscript (too much numbers!).
• Figure 6 must be improved
• 222-224 refer on respective tables/figures
• 225-235 I am confused: are you describing (interpreting) your own results or other from literature?
• 245 the same as 225-235
• 254 figure?
• 266 figure/table???
• Try to improve the tone of your manuscript - it sounds monotonous. Try to make it more engaging.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your comments. we made a  response in the reply letter. Please see the attachment.

Xiao Qiu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf