Effects of Heavy Grazing on Interspecific Relationships at Different Spatial Scales in Desert Steppe of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read your paper, very complex research. Results shown in detail. 

The proposal to continue the research in the surrounding areas and to compare those research sites.

Best regards.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper and for your thoughtful comments. We appreciate your recognition of the complexity of our research and the detailed presentation of our results.

Comment 1#

1. The proposal to continue the research in the surrounding areas and to compare those research sites.

The author’s answer:

Regarding your suggestion to continue the research in the surrounding areas and to compare those research sites, we fully concur with your assessment. In fact, we have already initiated plans to expand our study to include four different grazing intensity gradients in the surrounding areas. This will allow us to conduct a more comprehensive comparison of the effects of grazing on grassland ecosystems and to further validate our findings.

We will ensure that this research plan is clearly outlined in the conclusion section of our paper, specifically within the lines 543-547. This will provide readers with a clear understanding of our future research directions and how we plan to build upon the findings presented in this study.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in guiding our research and improving the quality of our paper. We look forward to implementing your feedback and continuing to contribute to the field of grassland ecology.

 

 

Best regards,

[Xiaoyu Du , Jun Zhang , Juhong Liu , Shijie Lv , Haijun Liu]

[College of Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China.]
[2024,11,14]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The study is devoted to the problem of the influence of grazing on the condition of grasslads and their species diversity. This is an interesting work, based on empirical material. The authors described the study area and the design of the experiment quite well. The Inner Mongolia region is indeed one of the regions with an existing problem of pasture degradation.

The research methods are described quite clearly, which ensures the reproducibility of the work. In general, the authors' conclusions seem adequate. However, the presentation of the results needs to be improved. A number of tables and figures in the article are difficult to perceive. Below I have tried to suggest ways to improve them.

Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

The notations for the chi-square test results are hard to understand. I suggest changing them. I don't have a perfect solution, but I can suggest the following option. In each cell of the lower left triangle of the matrix, you need to write the values ​​in two lines. In the top line, put a white circle (for a positive correlation) or a black circle (for a negative correlation). In the second line, we indicate statistical significance - * significant correlation, ** - highly significant correlation. If there is no association, put a dash in the cell.

Figures 3 and 4.

The symbol system in these figures is difficult to understand. I couldn't understand the logic in using the shape of the sign and the color of the sign. It would be better to use the cell color fill instead of the signs. I suggest the following colors changing according to the principle of diverging palettes. Examples of diverging palettes can be found here: https://betterfigures.org/2015/06/23/picking-a-colour-scale-for-scientific-graphics/. I would use a palette with red (AI>0.6), orange (0.2<AI<=0.6), yellow (-0.2<AI<=0.2), light blue (-0.2<AI<=-0.6) and blue (AI<-0.6).

Figure 9.

Your drawing only shows the axes of the graph. The curves are not shown. More precisely, something happened to the scaling of the objects, and the curves were reduced to the size of one letter.

After the suggested revision, the article will be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your thorough and constructive feedback has been invaluable in helping us to improve the quality and clarity of our work.

Comments 1#

Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

The notations for the chi-square test results are hard to understand. I suggest changing them. I don't have a perfect solution, but I can suggest the following option. In each cell of the lower left triangle of the matrix, you need to write the values ​​in two lines. In the top line, put a white circle (for a positive correlation) or a black circle (for a negative correlation). In the second line, we indicate statistical significance - * significant correlation, ** - highly significant correlation. If there is no association, put a dash in the cell.

The author’s answer:

In response to your comments, we have made the following changes:

1.We have converted Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 into Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. This change should enhance the visual representation of the data and make it easier for readers to interpret the results.

2.We have revised the notation in the lower left triangle of the matrix as per your suggestion. Specifically, we have incorporated black and white circles to represent positive and negative correlations, respectively. Additionally, we have indicated statistical significance using asterisks (* for significant correlation and ** for highly significant correlation). If there is no association, we have placed a tilde (~) in the cell.

3.We have implemented these changes at the specified line numbers in the manuscript: 294, 300, 313, 319, 333, and 340. The updated figures should now be more intuitive and easier to understand.

Comments 2#

Figures 3 and 4.

The symbol system in these figures is difficult to understand. I couldn't understand the logic in using the shape of the sign and the color of the sign. It would be better to use the cell color fill instead of the signs. I suggest the following colors changing according to the principle of diverging palettes. Examples of diverging palettes can be found here: https://betterfigures.org/2015/06/23/picking-a-colour-scale-for-scientific-graphics/. I would use a palette with red (AC>0.6), orange (0.2<AC<=0.6), yellow (-0.2<AC<=0.2), light blue (-0.2<AC<=-0.6) and blue (AC<-0.6).

The author’s answer:

In response to your comments, we have made the following changes:

1. We have revised the AC value figures according to your suggested color scheme, using red for AC > 0.6, orange for 0.2 < AC <= 0.6, yellow for -0.2 < AC <= 0.2, light blue for -0.6 <= AC < -0.2, and blue for AC < -0.6. These colors have been applied to the cell fill in the updated figures, which are now Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

2.The revised figures have been inserted into the manuscript at the specified line numbers: 354, 359, 371, 377, 389, and 395. We believe that these changes have significantly improved the clarity and aesthetics of the figures, making them easier to interpret and more visually appealing.

Comments 3#

Figure 9.

Your drawing only shows the axes of the graph. The curves are not shown. More precisely, something happened to the scaling of the objects, and the curves were reduced to the size of one letter.

The author’s answer:

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by the display problem in Figure 9 (now Figure 15).

1.Upon reviewing your feedback, we have identified that the issue with the missing curves in Figure 9 arose due to a formatting issue when converting the original Word document to PDF. In the original Word document, the curves are displayed in full and are clearly visible. It is Figure 15 in the new manuscript.

We apologize once again for any confusion this may have caused and appreciate your understanding and patience. We are confident that the revised figure will now accurately represent the data and enhance the clarity of our manuscript.

 

 

Best regards,

[Xiaoyu Du , Jun Zhang , Juhong Liu , Shijie Lv , Haijun Liu]

[College of Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China.]
[2024,11,14]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REV SUSTAINABILITY

This is an interesting manuscript on a specific practice of management (grazing). I like this type of paper because they are useful not only to basic researchers but also to applied wildlife managers and practitioners. Text is well written (perhaps a too much long in discussion and a bit redundant in results), methods appear good, data are representative and results reliable. I am an applied ecologist: in this regard, I think that some more sentences about the implications of your data in wildlife management actions and projects should be added. However, a good work and I suggest MINOR REVISIONS. I suggest some comments below. I hope that they could be useful to improve the first draft.

In abstract ad everywhere, the scientific names of plants (e.g., Stipa breviflori) should be written in italic font.

Row 60. When authors introduce the concept of grazing intensity they should refer also to other regime attributes (extent, duration, frequency and so on: see the seminal review in the Springer handbook on disturbance ecology: https:// link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32476-0).

Grazing has been considered a threat for specific taxa. Authors should refer to the seminal paper of Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S. H., ... & Wilkie, D. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 897-911,  to assign code and classification to this threat.

Rows 132-134 and 140-142. This sentence has been replicated: ‘This study explored the changes in plants’ importance value, overall association, interspecific association, and stability under different grazing intensities and spatial scales in the Inner Mongolia desert steppe. The purpose was to study the effects of different spatial scales and grazing intensity on interspecific relationships’.

138-139 and 144-145. ‘These studies will provide a scientific basis for effective environmental manage-ment and the health and stability of ecosystems.’ Also this sentence has been replicated. Please correct.

Row 165. Add a point at the end of sentence.

177. ‘0.25m2’ shold be written with ‘2’ in apex.

In Table 1, scientific names of the species should be written in italic font.

In section 3.4 authors used largely the Jaccard index. Ok, but I think that this section is a bit redundant and too much long. Why they not used a graphical approach (for example using cluster analyses)?

Figure 9 with only three points is necessary? I suggest to delete it.

Discussion is well written. However, I suggest to reduce it of at least 20%. All the text is a bit difficult to read.

Conclusions lack totally of management implications. Authors should think that a Journal as Sustainability may be read from a large number of managers, administrators, environmental planners and practitioners. Please add some further sentence about the interest of your results (a part the ecological implications) to define management actions and projects (e.g., restoration projects, mitigation and compensation measures, ordinary management actions focused on specific grazing regimes: see, for project tools and concepts: Journal for Nature Conservation, 41, 63-72).

Add the role of anonymous reviewers and Editors in providing comments and suggestions (in Acknowledgments).

Have a nice work.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your meticulous review of our manuscript. Your thoughtful insights and constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us to refine and improve our work.

Comments 1#

In abstract ad everywhere, the scientific names of plants (e.g., Stipa breviflori) should be written in italic font.

The author’s answer:

In response to your comment, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript, including the abstract and all occurrences of plant names throughout the text. We have corrected the formatting by ensuring that all scientific names of plants, such as Stipa breviflori, are written in italic font. This change has been made consistently throughout the document to meet the standard formatting requirements for scientific names.

Comments 2#

Row 60. When authors introduce the concept of grazing intensity they should refer also to other regime attributes (extent, duration, frequency and so on: see the seminal review in the Springer handbook on disturbance ecology: https:// link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32476-0).

The author’s answer:

1.Regarding your comment on row 60, we have taken your advice seriously and have reviewed the seminal review in the Springer handbook on disturbance ecology, as recommended. We found the seventh chapter particularly enlightening, as it comprehensively discusses various attributes of grazing, including extent, duration, and frequency, which are crucial for understanding the concept of grazing intensity.

2.We have carefully integrated the insights from the seventh chapter into our manuscript, specifically within rows 60-67. This revised section now provides a more comprehensive and nuanced discussion of grazing intensity, incorporating the additional attributes you highlighted.

3.Furthermore, we have added the Springer handbook on disturbance ecology as reference #14 in our bibliography.

Comments 3#

Grazing has been considered a threat for specific taxa. Authors should refer to the seminal paper of Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton‐Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S. H., ... & Wilkie, D. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 897-911,  to assign code and classification to this threat.

The author’s answer:

1. We have reviewed the seminal paper by Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S. H., and colleagues (2008) titled "A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions." This paper provides a comprehensive framework for classifying threats to biodiversity, which we found highly relevant to our study.
2. Following the guidance provided in the paper, we have classified grazing as a threat to specific taxa in our manuscript. We have incorporated this classification into our discussion within rows 67-71, ensuring that we adhere to the unified classifications outlined by Salafsky et al.
3. To acknowledge the contribution of the paper by Salafsky et al., we have added it as reference #15 in our bibliography.

Comments 4#

Rows 132-134 and 140-142. This sentence has been replicated: ‘This study explored the changes in plants’ importance value, overall association, interspecific association, and stability under different grazing intensities and spatial scales in the Inner Mongolia desert steppe. The purpose was to study the effects of different spatial scales and grazing intensity on interspecific relationships’.

The author’s answer:

1. Thank you for bringing to our attention the repetition of the sentence in rows 132-134 and 140-142. We deeply regret this oversight and understand its impact on the readability of our manuscript.
2. We have taken immediate steps to correct this error by removing the repeated sentence from rows 140-142. The information that was previously duplicated has been consolidated into a single, clear paragraph located in rows 143-150.

Comments 5#

138-139 and 144-145. ‘These studies will provide a scientific basis for effective environmental manage-ment and the health and stability of ecosystems.’ Also this sentence has been replicated. Please correct.

The author’s answer:

1. Thank you for pointing out the repetition of the sentence "These studies will provide a scientific basis for effective environmental management and the health and stability of ecosystems" in rows 138-139 and 144-145. I deeply regret this oversight and understand how it can detract from the clarity and professionalism of the manuscript.
2. Upon receiving your feedback, I immediately addressed the issue by removing the repeated sentence from rows 144-145. The consolidated information now resides in a single, clear paragraph located in rows 143-150. 

Comments 6#

Row 165. Add a point at the end of sentence.

The author’s answer:

Thank you for noting the missing period at the end of the sentence in row 165. I have corrected this oversight by adding the period at the appropriate place, now located in row 170 due to subsequent edits.

Comments 7#

177. ‘0.25m2’ shold be written with ‘2’ in apex.

The author’s answer:

Thank you for bringing to my attention the formatting issue with "0.25m2" in row 177. I have corrected this by properly writing the "2" as a superscript, as recommended. The corrected version now appears in row 182 due to subsequent adjustments in the text.

Comments 8#

In Table 1, scientific names of the species should be written in italic font.

The author’s answer:

Thank you for bringing to my attention the formatting issue with the scientific names of the species in Table 1. I have corrected this by ensuring that all scientific names are now written in italic font, as recommended. The corrected version of Table 1 now appears in the manuscript at row 255.

Comments 9#

In section 3.4 authors used largely the Jaccard index. Ok, but I think that this section is a bit redundant and too much long. Why they not used a graphical approach (for example using cluster analyses)?

The author’s answer:

1. Thank you for your considerate feedback on section 3.4. You correctly pointed out that the previous version of this section was somewhat redundant and overly long. In response to your suggestion, I have revised the section to incorporate graphical representations and cluster analyses.
2. Specifically, I have replaced the previous tables with six new figures (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), which use cluster analyses to visually depict the data. These figures provide a clearer and more concise representation of the results, enabling readers to quickly grasp the key findings.
3. The revised section now appears in the manuscript at rows 294, 300, 313, 319, 333, and 340. I believe that these changes have greatly improved the clarity and readability of the manuscript.

Comments 10#

Figure 9 with only three points is necessary? I suggest to delete it

The author’s answer:

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by the display problem in Figure 9 (now Figure 15).

1.Upon reviewing your feedback, we have identified that the issue with the missing curves in Figure 9 arose due to a formatting issue when converting the original Word document to PDF. In the original Word document, the curves are displayed in full and are clearly visible.

Comments 11#

Discussion is well written. However, I suggest to reduce it of at least 20%. All the text is a bit difficult to read.

The author’s answer:

1.I have reduced the length of the discussion section by approximately 20%, as requested. The revised discussion now appears in the manuscript at rows 415-510.

2.In revising the discussion, I have ensured that all key points and important conclusions are preserved. The revised section maintains the core arguments and findings while presenting them in a more concise and streamlined manner.

Comments 12#

Conclusions lack totally of management implications. Authors should think that a Journal as Sustainability may be read from a large number of managers, administrators, environmental planners and practitioners. Please add some further sentence about the interest of your results (a part the ecological implications) to define management actions and projects (e.g., restoration projects, mitigation and compensation measures, ordinary management actions focused on specific grazing regimes: see, for project tools and concepts: Journal for Nature Conservation, 41, 63-72).

The author’s answer:

1.Thank you for your insightful feedback on the conclusions section and for highlighting the importance of providing management implications.  I fully agree that the manuscript should address the practical applications of our findings for managers, administrators, environmental planners, and practitioners.

2.In response to your suggestion, I have revised the conclusions section to include constructive insights for management actions and projects.  The revised section now appears in the manuscript at rows 534-542.

3. I have referenced the Journal for Nature Conservation (Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 63-72) as a source for project tools and concepts.

Comments 13#

Add the role of anonymous reviewers and Editors in providing comments and suggestions (in Acknowledgments).

The author’s answer:

In response to your suggestion, I have added an acknowledgment section to the manuscript, which appears at rows 560-568. This section expresses our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their time, effort, and constructive feedback.

We deeply appreciate the expertise and dedication that the reviewers and editors have brought to this project. Their insights have been invaluable in refining our research and ensuring its accuracy and relevance.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and for helping us to enhance the quality of our manuscript.

 

Best regards,

[Xiaoyu Du , Jun Zhang , Juhong Liu , Shijie Lv , Haijun Liu]

[College of Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China.]
[2024,11,14]