Soil Microbial Community and Enzymatic Activity of Grasslands under Different Use Practices: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.Modify the abstract. The purpose in the abstract is not the ecological purpose. Is the last part of the abstract an outlook? Please General summary to be revised.

2. The title is about different management methods of grassland, but the text is about the use of grassland. Please consider whether there is any difference between the two.

3.Although the article is detailed but too cumbersome, the main purpose is to study soil enzyme activities and microorganisms under different grassland utilization methods. Therefore, it is closely related to the theme and needs to be simplified.

4.The main reasons for the changes of soil microbial diversity and enzyme activities could be properly excavated in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the article is well designed. FOLLOWING POINTS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

1. The title must be changed to Soil Microbial Community and Enzymatic Activity of Grasslands under Different Management Practices: A review
2.  The author should add the knowledge gap in the study and justify how this review is different from other published reviews.
3. The author should add one table about the changes in soil microbial enzymatic activities in response to the management practices with suitable references.
4.  Follow the pattern and style of the journal.
5. The conclusion must be short and client-oriented.
6.  The author should add one paragraph about the policy recommendation.
7. The language of the article must be critically checked. Add some latest published reports in the same line and remove the old references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Now manuscript improved a lot. It can be accepted after minor revision. The following points need to be addressed.

Language error was detected at some places in the manuscript. Hence, it is advisable for the authors kindly check it critically.

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

I was interested in reviewing because of the abstract and reference to soil enzymes. 

I have made several suggestions for the paper-some because the sentence construction is not clear

Most however are because often there is a statement but that statement goes no further    just a stated fact -- was expecting to see more mechanistic description.  Paper could be strengthened in this aspect-- see review for sticky notes  

I also do not understand the huge thrust towards actinomycetes  as separate from bacteria  -- they are all prokaryotes    and i believe that soil even your pasture soil has valuable contributions from fermicutes etc     as judged from many published microbial community papers  even to genus level

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is needed of clearer logic and more concise expression;
2. Part 3-4 of the article should pay more attention to summarizing the previous research rather than simply stacking it.
3. No Part 5 (references 59-61) at all.
4. More references are better for this article.