The Combination of Plant Diversity and Soil Microbial Diversity Directly and Actively Drives the Multifunctionality of Grassland Ecosystems in the Middle Part of the Northern Slopes of the Tian Shan under Grazing Disturbance
, Qingqing Zhang 2,*, Yafei Wang 3, Hong Li 1, Yongqiang Yang 1 and Tursunnay Reyimu 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Following I provide the reflections on your manuscript:
line 50-57: when mentioning many scholars please support it with the references; line 79: relatively few studies (same comment regarding referencing); line 98: there are many studies (same comment regarding referencing)
line 79-80: double sentence, confusing
The introduction includes some general notions regarding the main terms and concepts engaged within the manuscript; it would be better motivated, with a clear research design and insight into manuscript content (including research gaps - objectives - questions triad). Also, introductory content should describe and contextualize the study in line with the clear referencing previous and present theoretical background - Authors should consider insights from the domain of landscape ecology, especially the soft paradigm of landscape ecology.
The practice of previous studies referenced in Experimental design needs to be elaborated.
Conclusions provide very general reflection and need to be supported by a more critical point of view with the notion regarding the limitation of the study (reflect on overall research design and particular research steps/methods).
Author Response
Point 1: line 50-57: when mentioning many scholars please support it with the references; line 79: relatively few studies (same comment regarding referencing); line 98: there are many studies (same comment regarding referencing)
Response 1: Based on the reviewers' comments, we added literature to line64-69, line90 and line110 to support it and flagged it.
Point 2: line 79-80: double sentence, confusing
Response 2: Delete at line91 as suggested by the reviewer.
Point 3: The introduction includes some general notions regarding the main terms and concepts engaged within the manuscript; it would be better motivated, with a clear research design and insight into manuscript content (including research gaps - objectives - questions triad). Also, introductory content should describe and contextualize the study in line with the clear referencing previous and present theoretical background - Authors should consider insights from the domain of landscape ecology, especially the soft paradigm of landscape ecology.
Response 3: The introduction has been revised and marked as suggested by the reviewer.
Point 4: The practice of previous studies referenced in Experimental design needs to be elaborated.
Response 4: In accordance with the reviewer's comments, the practice of the previous study has been added at the experimental design.
Point 5: Conclusions provide very general reflection and need to be supported by a more critical point of view with the notion regarding the limitation of the study (reflect on overall research design and particular research steps/methods).
Response 5: The concluding section of this paper has been reworked in accordance with the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- The title is unclear; rewrite it clearly for more clarity.
- The abbreviations in the Abstract and all across the draft need to be elaborated the first time they appear. Please avoid uncommon abbreviations in the title.
- The abstract language is very poor. Re-write the abstract with concise information delivery of tangible results (L31-37).
- Keywords should be different than title letters (L38-39).
- The introduction section is very general. Please summarize the rationale, study gap and merits of proposed study with relevant latest references. Hypothesis should be clearly defined (L98-120).
- What was the criteria for the selection of the grazing sites (L133). No clarity about the soil sampling grids from different grazing sites (1 or 2 supplementary tables listing all parameters must be added). This will allow the readers to understand the type of soil sampling/analysis and its significance to such studies.
- Please use only SI units in the results. Cite only the latest-relevant references only.
- Elaborated the Fig. 3 in details.
- The discussion needs induction of logical reasoning’s with latest references >2020, which is quite lacking in the draft….Improve it.
- Conclusion: please be specific and add future prospects at the end. Currently it looks like repetition of results.
Author Response
Point 1: The title is unclear; rewrite it clearly for more clarity.
Response 1: The title of this paper has been revised according to the reviewers' comments. See line2-5 for specific places of revision.
Point 2: The abbreviations in the Abstract and all across the draft need to be elaborated the first time they appear. Please avoid uncommon abbreviations in the title.
Response 2: Considering the reviewers' comments, abbreviations throughout the article have been detailed at the first appearance. And the abbreviation in the title has been avoided. See line22-37, L369, L380 for specific places of revision.
Point 3: The abstract language is very poor. Re-write the abstract with concise information delivery of tangible results (L31-37).
Response 3: The abstract section has been rewritten in light of the reviewers' comments(L38-42).
Point 4: Keywords should be different than title letters (L38-39).
Response 4: Refer to the reviewer's comments and rewrite the keywords(L49-51).
Point 5: The introduction section is very general. Please summarize the rationale, study gap and merits of proposed study with relevant latest references. Hypothesis should be clearly defined (L98-120).
Response 5: In light of the reviewers' comments, we have rewritten the introduction section and provided updated references (L110-131).
Point 6: What was the criteria for the selection of the grazing sites (L133). No clarity about the soil sampling grids from different grazing sites (1 or 2 supplementary tables listing all parameters must be added). This will allow the readers to understand the type of soil sampling/analysis and its significance to such studies.
Response 6: In response to reviewer comments, we have provided criteria for selecting grazing sites (L166-167) and added a supplemental table for soil sampling analysis.
Point 7: Please use only SI units in the results. Cite only the latest-relevant references only.
Response 7: In light of the reviewers' comments, we have used only SI units in the results section.
Point 8: Elaborated the Fig. 3 in details.
Response 8: In accordance with the reviewer's comments, we describe Fig. 3 in detail (L397-407）.
Point 9: The discussion needs induction of logical reasoning’s with latest references >2020, which is quite lacking in the draft…. Improve it.
Response 9: In accordance with the reviewers' comments, we have cited the latest references in the discussion section.
Point 10: Conclusion: please be specific and add future prospects at the end. Currently it looks like repetition of results.
Response 10: Based on the reviewers' comments, we have rewritten the results section and added future prospects (L618-629).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of the manuscript number sustainability-2260474, entitled: “Relationship between multifunctionality and biodiversity in grassland ecosystems under grazing disturbance”
In my opinion, the objective of the reviewed work was very ambitious but not fully realised. The analysis of the disturbance of grazing on the biodiversity of flora, vegetation and soil microfauna is difficult to achieve in such a short time.
I have serious doubts about the experiment that was carried out. The Authors did not specify the size of the pasture, the stocking rate or the duration of grazing. Soil pH was analysed as an important abiotic factor for soil organisms, but other factors were not taken into account, e.g. average annual temperatures, length of the growing season, amount of rainfall during the above periods. These are important factors for vegetation, which is the basis for grazing.
I do not understand what the terms mean: „ light grazing (LG) and heavy grazing (HG)” and why the vegetation (dominant plant species) in the area was used to classify grazing?
Factors that significantly affect the effect of grazing are: the stocking rate and type of animals, the size of the pasture. The Authors of the paper should include this information in the characteristics of the study area.
The aforementioned factors affect trampling and soil degradation, which can cause changes in the soil microfauna.
The history of the study area, or time, is also important. How long and if there was any grazing in the study area. It is not clear whether the described experiment and its results were conducted once.
My main concern is the presentation of the research results. The Authors do not even provide averaged results from individual pastures: plant biomass, biodiversity coefficients and soil physical and chemical parameters. The whole presentation of the research results is based on comparisons of functional coefficients (EMF) and individual function index. The Authors themselves point out the disadvantages of the method used. Statistically significant differences in EMF values appear in Figure 2a, but the methods do not mention the significance tests used by the Authors.
Minor comments:
Index values should be rounded to two decimal places.
The text contains many linguistic inaccuracies and should be corrected in this regard.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The Authors did not specify the size of the pasture, the stocking rate or the duration of grazing.
Response 1: Based on the reviewers' comments, we added grazing time and pasture area in the experimental design section (L171-175).
Point 2: Soil pH was analysed as an important abiotic factor for soil organisms, but other factors were not taken into account, e.g., average annual temperatures, length of the growing season, amount of rainfall during the above periods. These are important factors for vegetation, which is the basis for grazing.
Response 2: Based on the reviewers' comments, we explain our study. Soil pH was chosen as an abiotic factor in this paper mainly because soil NPK nutrients were used to evaluate ecosystem multifunctionality. And soil pH can affect soil NPK nutrients to some extent, so its relationship with ecosystem multifunctionality was explored. In addition, the average annual temperature, the length of the growing season, and the amount of rainfall during the above-mentioned period can indeed be used as abiotic factors, but the data involved in this paper are only for a one-year period. Exploring the relationship between these factors and ecosystem multifunctionality requires data at long time scales, which are discussed in another paper by the authors and are not addressed in this paper.
Point 3: light grazing (LG) and heavy grazing (HG)” and why the vegetation (dominant plant species) in the area was used to classify grazing?
Response 3: Based on the reviewers' comments, we explain our study. In this paper, regarding the classification of grazing intensity in the study area, on the one hand, we classified according to the composition of the grassland plant community and the type of dominant plant species. On the other hand, the grazing sample sites were classified according to their distance from herders' settlements, a part we have added in the experimental design section. In this paper we selected six grazing plots of six herders under the guidance of experts and the grazing pattern of herders in this study area was settled free grazing. The sample plot 500m away from the herders' residence is a heavily grazed sample plot, and the herders prefer to graze at their residence, which leads to more frequent damage to the grassland by domestic animals. The sample plot at 2000m from the herders' residence is a light grazing (HG) sample plot. This sample site is relatively far from the herders' residence, and the livestock are restricted by the herders and do not appear in this sample site frequently. These two aspects were combined with each other to classify the grazing intensity of this study area.
Point 4: The Authors do not even provide averaged results from individual pastures: plant biomass, biodiversity coefficients and soil physical and chemical parameters.
Response 4: Based on the reviewers' comments, we provided the average results for individual pastures, which included biodiversity coefficients and soil chemistry parameters (L350-368).
Point 5: Statistically significant differences in EMF values appear in Figure 2a, but the methods do not mention the significance tests used by the Authors.
Response 5: Based on the reviewers' comments, we added the significance test used in the article to the statistical analysis section(L338-341).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for considering all provided comments and your reflection. You mainly addressed it within the revised version, but I strongly believe that the more critical perspective including potential study limitations should be included in the conclusions. This minor revision will be of great importance for the overall impression of your manuscript and valuable benefit to future readers.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript, they have been very helpful and enlightening in revising and improving our paper. Based on your comments we have made changes in the conclusion section（L557-571）.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for referring to my review and making corrections to the manuscript. It seems to me that this has added to its value. I would like to ask you to check the text and change the font next to the Latin species names to italics according to the generally accepted pattern.
Yours sincerely.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers，
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript, which have been helpful and enlightening in revising and improving our paper. Based on your comments, we have changed the Latin species names in the manuscript to italics.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
