Using Ecological Stoichimetric Characteristies to Inform Grassland Management in the Karst Desertification Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

The manuscript provides insightful analysis on the ecological stoichiometry of grasslands under different utilization methods. It is well-structured, clearly written, and the research appears to be carried out rigorously. The title and keywords are accurately chosen and encompass the main themes and focus of the research, providing an effective summary. The abstract is detailed, highlighting the key findings and context of the research. It could, however, be improved by including more clear statements about the implications and significance of the research. The introduction is thorough, setting up the context for the study and explaining the significance of the research question. The research problem is clearly articulated, and the purpose of the study is well explained. The methodology is detailed and appears sound. The research design aligns with the study's objectives, and the sample selection and data analysis methods are suitable for this type of research. The findings are presented in a clear and organized manner, and the data analysis appears to be comprehensive. The discussion ties the results back to the broader research problem and is sufficiently detailed, providing an explanation of how the results answer the research question. The conclusions are based on the findings, and they address the research question. However, they could be improved by providing more clear recommendations for future research, policy implications, or practical applications. The use of references is appropriate and enhances the credibility of the paper. They provide a connection to the wider body of research and knowledge in this field. The manuscript contributes to the understanding of how different grassland utilization methods affect the ecological stoichiometry of the plant-soil-microorganism system in karst desertification areas. The manuscript might be improved by refining the abstract and conclusions, but overall, it provides valuable insights for environmental scientists dealing with ecological restoration and sustainable use of artificial grasslands.

Detailed comments

1. Title

Overall, the title is quite fitting for the study as it accurately captures the main topics, methods, and context of the research. However, it is quite lengthy and somewhat complex, which may limit its accessibility to a broader readership.

A more concise title could potentially increase its appeal, but in terms of accuracy and descriptiveness, the existing title already does an excellent job.

2. Abstract

The abstract does a fairly good job of summarizing the key objectives, methods, results, and implications of the study. It provides a clear overview of what the study is about (the effects of different grassland use patterns on the ecological stoichiometry of C, N, and P of grassland plant-soil-microorganism) and presents the main results in a concise and organized manner.

However, there are a few areas where the abstract could be improved:

1. While the abstract mentions the relevance of the study to the control of karst rocky desertification in China, it could provide a bit more context about why this issue is important and how it fits into broader ecological or conservation concerns.

2. The abstract could benefit from more user-friendly language. While scientific abstracts need to be precise, they should also aim to be as clear and accessible as possible. The current abstract includes a lot of details that is overwhelming. For example, sentences such as "C content and C:N of grassland plant differed significantly under the three treatments (p<0.05), showing EG>GG>MG" could be simplified and explained more clearly.

3. The abstract lists a lot of specific results, but it could do a better job of highlighting the main findings or take-home messages. It could also provide more interpretation of the results - what do they mean? Why are they important?

4. The abstract concludes by stating that the results provide "scientific guidance for ecological environment restoration and grassland sustainable utilization in the karst desertification area," but it could be more specific about what this guidance is. What are the practical applications or recommendations based on the findings? How should grassland management practices be adjusted based on these results?

3. Keywords

The keywords capture the primary content and context of the research effectively. However, it could be beneficial to include specific terms related to the elements studied, such as "carbon," "nitrogen," and "phosphorus," as these are key components of the study. It would also be helpful to include "soil microbial biomass" or similar terms, given the study's focus on the role of soil microorganisms in ecological stoichiometry.

4. Introduction

The introduction is thorough and presents a complex topic in a comprehensive manner. The authors quite effectively convey the importance of understanding the dynamic balance of C, N, and P nutrients in the “plant-soil-microbe” system and its significance to ecosystem restoration. The background is well-explained, with ample references to previous research, which aids in understanding the scope and context of the study. The introduction also does a good job of introducing the problem, clearly stating the hypothesis, and outlining the main goals of the research. The authors demonstrate a strong understanding of the subject matter, and they communicate it well, setting a good basis for the reader to grasp the rest of the manuscript. The justification for the study, especially the specific context of karst landform and desertification, is well developed. The research hypothesis is stated clearly, as are the expected contributions of the research. The introduction is comprehensive and covers many important aspects of ecological stoichiometry, including soil, plants, microorganisms, and human utilization methods.

Recommendations for Improvement:

1. The text might benefit from more clarity in certain areas. For instance, the phrase "obvious temporal and spatial characteristics of plant, soil and microorganisms" (Line 44) may be more understandable with additional context or simplification.

2. There are a few minor grammatical issues and awkward phrases throughout the text that could be revised for readability. For example, the phrase "differences utilization methods" could be rephrased to "different utilization methods." (Line 70).

3. The paragraph discussing the uniqueness of the Karst landform and the related challenges is quite dense (Line 71). It might be more digestible if it was broken into two paragraphs or simplified for better readability.

4. The authors could better define some concepts, such as "binary structure," (Line 72) "Grain for Green," (Line 76) and "karst desertification," (Line 77).

5. The transition between the broader context of ecological stoichiometry and the specifics of the Karst region could be smoother.

5. Materials and methods

This section provides a clear, detailed and well-structured overview of the research methods used in the study. It outlines the specifics of the research area, sample plot settings, sample collection, sample determination, and data processing methods. Additionally, the experimental design, including the use of replication and control groups, is robust and likely to yield reliable results.

The geographical location, environmental conditions, and vegetation of the study area are described with sufficient detail. The description of the artificial grassland establishment, including seed type and ratio, provides transparency about the experimental setup. The process of sample collection is well enough detailed, from how the plots were chosen to how the plants and soil samples were processed. This transparency enhances the reliability and replicability of the study. The explanation of how the samples were determined, including the equipment and procedures used, provides further insight into the robustness of the study. The statistical analysis is well-described, with specific software packages and tests identified, furthering the reproducibility of the study.

Recommendations for Improvement:

1. The phrase "Groundwater resources are difficult to use and exploit" (Line 112) could be elaborated upon for clarity. Are these resources difficult to use due to geographical conditions, legal restrictions, or some other reason?

2. The description of the sample plot setting might benefit from some rephrasing for clarity, e.g., "we set up three grassland use types in August 2019" (Line 126) might be better as "we established three different types of grassland usage in August 2019".

3. When describing the sample collection process, it might be beneficial to explain why particular methods, such as the "S" shape sampling method, were chosen (Line 142).

4. Providing more context for specific techniques, such as the CHCl3 fumigation extraction method, could be helpful for readers who aren't familiar with these methods (Line 161).

6. Results

The Results section presents data comprehensively and clearly. The results are detailed and well-presented, explaining the contents and stoichiometric ratios of C, N, and P in grassland plants, soil, and microorganisms under three different utilization methods. Including tables to show C, N, P contents and stoichiometric ratios under different utilization methods adds value to the results. The authors have properly carried out statistical analyses and correctly interpreted the results. They effectively use the 'p' value to determine statistical significance, which is the correct way to present such data. The correlation analysis provides further insights into the relationship between the variables (C, N, P contents, and stoichiometric ratios) in plant-soil-microorganisms. It is a comprehensive analysis and adds depth to the study.

Areas for Improvement:

1. While the authors have indicated the statistical significance of their results, they might improve the results section by providing more interpretation of what these significant differences mean in a real-world or ecological context.

2. There's a noticeable repetition in the presentation of some results, especially in the correlation analysis part. This could be improved with a more concise presentation or a visual like a correlation matrix.

3. While tables and figures are included, the authors might also consider including graphs or charts to represent some of their results.

4. The language is quite complex, and sentences are often long and packed with data. Breaking these down into shorter, simpler sentences could improve readability.

7. Discussion

The discussion section is extensive and well-researched, covering the stoichiometric characteristics of plant-soil-microorganism in artificial grassland under different utilization methods. The authors have meticulously examined the interactions of C, N, and P content in plants, soil, and microorganisms, offering a comprehensive analysis of each. The discussion effectively relates the findings of the study to prior research, bridging the gap between the new and existing knowledge. This validates the authors' research approach and interpretations. The authors consider multiple factors that could influence the nutrient limitation in plants, such as ecosystem types, regions, and different evolution stages. This gives a more nuanced view of the subject matter. A significant finding is that while plant C and N are closely linked to soil C and N levels, plant P has a negative correlation with soil P. This suggests that the availability of soil P doesn't necessarily enhance plant P uptake. Instead, P seems to be more closely related to the MBP, implying a crucial role of microorganisms in the P cycle. The authors do well in highlighting the implications of their findings for ecological restoration and grassland utilization strategies.

Areas for Improvement:

1. The discussion is very long and sometimes redundant. Some points are repeated, such as the importance of C, N, and P in plant growth, which could be briefly stated at the outset and not reiterated. The authors should aim for conciseness without losing essential information.

2. While citing previous studies is vital for validating findings, some parts of the discussion seem to overly depend on previous research. The authors could focus more on their unique contributions and findings in the context of the existing literature.

3. Transitions between different points, such as from plant content to soil nutrient content and microorganisms, could be smoother. This will help maintain the flow and coherency of the discussion.

4. In a few instances, the authors have pointed out differences between their findings and previous research without delving into possible reasons for these discrepancies. For instance, the study found that the P content in plants was higher than in previous studies, suggesting a high absorption and utilization rate of soil P by the local forage. The authors could elaborate on these contrasts to further enrich the discussion.

5. Including some statistical evidence, such as p-values or confidence intervals from the result section, could strengthen the arguments and give more credence to the findings.

6. It would be beneficial to provide more concrete recommendations for future research, particularly in areas where the findings differ from previous studies.

7. More detailed discussion about how the results fit into the wider context of global climate change, agriculture, biodiversity conservation, or ecosystem services might help readers better understand the larger implications of this work.

8. Conclusions

The conclusions provide a comprehensive summary of the findings and their implications. They restate the results, provide interpretation in terms of their original research question, and highlight the implications of these results for future research and practice. However, some aspects could potentially be improved:

1. While the authors do discuss the implications of their findings in terms of different grassland management practices, they could further elaborate on how these findings could influence broader ecological concepts or conservation strategies.

2. The conclusions could benefit from clearly highlighting what is new or significant about the findings. What gaps in the current knowledge do these results fill? How do they advance our understanding of grassland ecology and management? Addressing these points directly can make the importance and impact of the study more apparent.

3. The conclusions mention that "we should further deepen the research of transformation relationship among plant, soil and microbial in the future," but do not specify what exactly this further research should entail. It could be beneficial to provide more explicit suggestions for future research directions. For example, they could propose specific hypotheses to test, methods to use, or variables to measure in future studies.

4. A good conclusion often acknowledges the limitations of the study. This could include methodological limitations, uncertainties in the data, or areas where their model or hypothesis does not fully explain the observed results. By openly discussing these limitations, the authors can provide a more balanced view of their work and guide future studies to address these gaps.

9. References

1. It is advisable for the authors to expand their references beyond Chinese authors. By incorporating more international sources, the manuscript will benefit from a broader range of perspectives, strengthen its credibility, and foster a more inclusive and impactful discussion.

The quality of English language in the manuscript is generally good, with a clear presentation of ideas.

The technical terminology is used appropriately, and the data are described in a systematic manner that facilitates comprehension. However, there are several instances of awkward phrasing or structure that could be improved for better readability.

The consistency in tense is important for maintaining clarity and cohesion. The manuscript switches between past and present tense in several places, which can create confusion. In scientific writing, it is often recommended to use past tense when referring to the specific experiments conducted and findings of the study, and present tense when discussing generally accepted facts or the study's implications.

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Ecological Stoichiometric Characteristics of Artificial Grassland Plant-Soil-Microorganism under Different Utilization Methods in the Karst Desertification Area” (ID: 2484368). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red or blue highlight. The responses to the editor and reviewer’s comments are presented following. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best wishes,

Authors

Reviewers’ 1

Detailed comments

1. Title

Overall, the title is quite fitting for the study as it accurately captures the main topics, methods, and context of the research. However, it is quite lengthy and somewhat complex, which may limit its accessibility to a broader readership.

A more concise title could potentially increase its appeal, but in terms of accuracy and descriptiveness, the existing title already does an excellent job.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised the title in the manuscript. The revised title is “Using Ecological Stoichimetric Characteristies to Inform Grassland Management in the Karst Desertification area”.

2. Abstract

The abstract does a fairly good job of summarizing the key objectives, methods, results, and implications of the study. It provides a clear overview of what the study is about (the effects of different grassland use patterns on the ecological stoichiometry of C, N, and P of grassland plant-soil-microorganism) and presents the main results in a concise and organized manner.

However, there are a few areas where the abstract could be improved:

1. While the abstract mentions the relevance of the study to the control of karst rocky desertification in China, it could provide a bit more context about why this issue is important and how it fits into broader ecological or conservation concerns.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion, we have added some context in the revised manuscript as the following: In order to control karst rocky desertification, China has established a large number of artificial grasslands for the development of herbivorous animal husbandry, which has played an important role in ecological restoration and economic development.

2. The abstract could benefit from more user-friendly language. While scientific abstracts need to be precise, they should also aim to be as clear and accessible as possible. The current abstract includes a lot of details that is overwhelming. For example, sentences such as "C content and C:N of grassland plant differed significantly under the three treatments (p<0.05), showing EG>GG>MG" could be simplified and explained more clearly.

Response:We agree with the comment and re-wrote this sentences in the revised manuscript as the following: the C content was EG>GG>MG. The N content was GG>EG>MG, while the P content was MG>GG>EG. C:N, C:P and N:P were showed as EG>GG>MG.

3. The abstract lists a lot of specific results, but it could do a better job of highlighting the main findings or take-home messages. It could also provide more interpretation of the results - what do they mean? Why are they important?

Response:We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem, we have added the finding in the abstract in the revised manuscript as the following: (1) the C content was EG>GG>MG. The N content was GG>EG>MG, while the P content was MG>GG>EG. C:N, C:P and N:P were showed as EG>GG>MG. The plant N:P was more than 20, indicating P deficiency and limitation, especially in EG. (2) The content of C and P in soil was EG>GG>MG. The N content was GG>EG>MG. The soil C:N showed EG>MG>GG, while C:P and N:P were showed as MG>GG>EG. The soil N:P were all less than 14, indicating that all of them had obvious N limitation. (3) Soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was GG>MG>EG. Soil microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) was GG>EG>MG. Soil microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP) showed EG>GG>MG. MBC:MBN was MG>EG>GG. MBC:MBP was MG>GG>EG. MBN:MBP was GG>MG>EG. The MBN:MBP in GG and MG was greater than 9.6, which was P-limited, while the MBN:MBP in EG is less than 8.9, which is N-limited.

4. The abstract concludes by stating that the results provide "scientific guidance for ecological environment restoration and grassland sustainable utilization in the karst desertification area," but it could be more specific about what this guidance is. What are the practical applications or recommendations based on the findings? How should grassland management practices be adjusted based on these results?

Response:We agree with the comment and re-wrote this sentences in the revised manuscript as the following: The results showed that the chemical properties and stoichiometric characteristics of plant-soil-microorganism were significantly changed by different grassland use methods, which provided scientific guidance for e the management of C, N and P elements and the further optimization of soil microbial environment for artificial grassland in karst rocky desertification area.

3. Keywords

The keywords capture the primary content and context of the research effectively. However, it could be beneficial to include specific terms related to the elements studied, such as "carbon," "nitrogen," and "phosphorus," as these are key components of the study. It would also be helpful to include "soil microbial biomass" or similar terms, given the study's focus on the role of soil microorganisms in ecological stoichiometry.

Response:Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised this section and added the “carbon” “nitrogen”, “phosphorus” and “soil microbial biomass” in the revised manuscript.

4. Introduction

The introduction is thorough and presents a complex topic in a comprehensive manner. The authors quite effectively convey the importance of understanding the dynamic balance of C, N, and P nutrients in the “plant-soil-microbe” system and its significance to ecosystem restoration. The background is well-explained, with ample references to previous research, which aids in understanding the scope and context of the study. The introduction also does a good job of introducing the problem, clearly stating the hypothesis, and outlining the main goals of the research. The authors demonstrate a strong understanding of the subject matter, and they communicate it well, setting a good basis for the reader to grasp the rest of the manuscript. The justification for the study, especially the specific context of karst landform and desertification, is well developed. The research hypothesis is stated clearly, as are the expected contributions of the research. The introduction is comprehensive and covers many important aspects of ecological stoichiometry, including soil, plants, microorganisms, and human utilization methods.

Recommendations for Improvement:

1. The text might benefit from more clarity in certain areas. For instance, the phrase "obvious temporal and spatial characteristics of plant, soil and microorganisms" (Line 44) may be more understandable with additional context or simplification.

Response: We agree with the comment and rewroted this sentences in the revised manuscript as following : Due to differences in soil parent material, microbial activities, plant types, litter return and human utilization methods, that results the obvious different characteristics of plant, soil and microorganisms, which increase the complexity of their relationship with environment.

2. There are a few minor grammatical issues and awkward phrases throughout the text that could be revised for readability. For example, the phrase "differences utilization methods" could be rephrased to "different utilization methods." (Line 70).

Response:Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised the phrase “differences utilization methods” to “different utilization methods”.

3. The paragraph discussing the uniqueness of the Karst landform and the related challenges is quite dense (Line 71). It might be more digestible if it was broken into two paragraphs or simplified for better readability.

Response:We are grateful for the suggestion and simplified this section in the revised manuscript.

4. The authors could better define some concepts, such as "binary structure," (Line 72) "Grain for Green," (Line 76) and "karst desertification," (Line 77).

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewrote this section in the revised manuscript as following: However, due to its special geological structure, under the interference of natural and human activities, soil erosion is serious, and it is easy to cause a landscape similar to desertification, namely karst desertification[16]. Previous studies in the karst region of southern China have shown that “Grain for Green” project (refers to the control mode of stopping cultivation of sloping farmland, changing it into artificial grassland establishment, restoring vegetation and controlling soil erosion in order to prevent and control soil erosion) is important measures to rapidly repair the damages ecological environment in the karst desertification area [17], and that is of great significance to promote ecological reconstruction and economic development.

5. The transition between the broader context of ecological stoichiometry and the specifics of the Karst region could be smoother.

Response：We are grateful for the suggestion and rewrote this section in the revised manuscript as the following: The implementation of a large number of rocky desertification control engineering will inevitably lead to differences in soil nutrient consumption and return, and make the changes of C, N, P nutrient cycle in the “plant-soil-microorganism”system, while ecological stoichiometry can reveal its internal relationship, thus guiding practice. The most important utilization methods of artificial grasslands are grazing and mowing, and different utilization methods may change the long-tern evolution of soil-plant-microbial nutrient relationships in grassland [18], thus exerting far-reaching impacts on ecosystem functions [19]. 

5. Materials and methods

This section provides a clear, detailed and well-structured overview of the research methods used in the study. It outlines the specifics of the research area, sample plot settings, sample collection, sample determination, and data processing methods. Additionally, the experimental design, including the use of replication and control groups, is robust and likely to yield reliable results.

The geographical location, environmental conditions, and vegetation of the study area are described with sufficient detail. The description of the artificial grassland establishment, including seed type and ratio, provides transparency about the experimental setup. The process of sample collection is well enough detailed, from how the plots were chosen to how the plants and soil samples were processed. This transparency enhances the reliability and replicability of the study. The explanation of how the samples were determined, including the equipment and procedures used, provides further insight into the robustness of the study. The statistical analysis is well-described, with specific software packages and tests identified, furthering the reproducibility of the study.

Recommendations for Improvement:

1. The phrase "Groundwater resources are difficult to use and exploit" (Line 112) could be elaborated upon for clarity. Are these resources difficult to use due to geographical conditions, legal restrictions, or some other reason?

Response：We are grateful for the suggestion and rewrote this section in the revised manuscript as the following: Due to the influence of karst geological structure, the storage of groundwater is extremely complex, so it is difficult to utilize and exploit groundwater resources. The main production and living water is spring and surface water, with sufficient water in summer but serious water shortage in the dry season.

2. The description of the sample plot setting might benefit from some rephrasing for clarity, e.g., "we set up three grassland use types in August 2019" (Line 126) might be better as "we established three different types of grassland usage in August 2019".

Response：We agree with your comment and revised it to “we established three different types of grassland usage in August 2019”in the revised manuscript.

3. When describing the sample collection process, it might be beneficial to explain why particular methods, such as the "S" shape sampling method, were chosen (Line 142).

Response：Thank you for your comments, we have re-wrote it in the revised manuscript as the following: In order to reduce the spatial heterogeneity of soil, S-shaped sampling method was used in each plot after, and 15 sampling points were uniformly set.

4. Providing more context for specific techniques, such as the CHCl3 fumigation extraction method, could be helpful for readers who aren't familiar with these methods (Line 161).

Response：Thank you for underlining this deficiency and we have provided more context for specific techniques in the revised manuscript as the following: Soil microbial biomass carbon ( MBC) was measured by CHCl₃ fumigation-K₂SO ₄ method, soil microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) was measured by CHCl₃ fumigation-K₂SO₄ extraction-nitrogen automatic analyzer method, soil microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP) was measured by CHCl₃ fumigation-NaHCO₃ extraction-Pi determination-Pi correction method.

6. Results

The Results section presents data comprehensively and clearly. The results are detailed and well-presented, explaining the contents and stoichiometric ratios of C, N, and P in grassland plants, soil, and microorganisms under three different utilization methods. Including tables to show C, N, P contents and stoichiometric ratios under different utilization methods adds value to the results. The authors have properly carried out statistical analyses and correctly interpreted the results. They effectively use the 'p' value to determine statistical significance, which is the correct way to present such data. The correlation analysis provides further insights into the relationship between the variables (C, N, P contents, and stoichiometric ratios) in plant-soil-microorganisms. It is a comprehensive analysis and adds depth to the study.

Areas for Improvement:

1. While the authors have indicated the statistical significance of their results, they might improve the results section by providing more interpretation of what these significant differences mean in a real-world or ecological context.

Response: Thank you for your comments, we have re-wrote it in the revised manuscript (Line 195-197).

2. There's a noticeable repetition in the presentation of some results, especially in the correlation analysis part. This could be improved with a more concise presentation or a visual like a correlation matrix.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, we have tried our best to present concisely in the correlation analysis part in the revised manuscript (Line 251-279).

3. While tables and figures are included, the authors might also consider including graphs or charts to represent some of their results.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. In future studies, we will try to use as many graphs or charts as possible to present the results. 

4. The language is quite complex, and sentences are often long and packed with data. Breaking these down into shorter, simpler sentences could improve readability.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, we have broken long sentences down into shorter and deleted some date in the revised manuscript (Line 251-279).

7. Discussion

The discussion section is extensive and well-researched, covering the stoichiometric characteristics of plant-soil-microorganism in artificial grassland under different utilization methods. The authors have meticulously examined the interactions of C, N, and P content in plants, soil, and microorganisms, offering a comprehensive analysis of each. The discussion effectively relates the findings of the study to prior research, bridging the gap between the new and existing knowledge. This validates the authors' research approach and interpretations. The authors consider multiple factors that could influence the nutrient limitation in plants, such as ecosystem types, regions, and different evolution stages. This gives a more nuanced view of the subject matter. A significant finding is that while plant C and N are closely linked to soil C and N levels, plant P has a negative correlation with soil P. This suggests that the availability of soil P doesn't necessarily enhance plant P uptake. Instead, P seems to be more closely related to the MBP, implying a crucial role of microorganisms in the P cycle. The authors do well in highlighting the implications of their findings for ecological restoration and grassland utilization strategies.

Areas for Improvement:

1. The discussion is very long and sometimes redundant. Some points are repeated, such as the importance of C, N, and P in plant growth, which could be briefly stated at the outset and not reiterated. The authors should aim for conciseness without losing essential information.

Response: Thank you for your precious comments and advice. We have deleted some repeated sentences in this section in the revised manuscript( Line 285). 

2. While citing previous studies is vital for validating findings, some parts of the discussion seem to overly depend on previous research. The authors could focus more on their unique contributions and findings in the context of the existing literature.

Response: Thank you for your precious advice. This comment is valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. However, it should be pointed out that we cite previous studies mainly as evidence to demonstrate our research, in order to achieve a certain contribution to this study and discovery, so we did not focus more on their unique contributions and findings in the context of the existing literature, but we will definitely pay more attention to this aspect in future research.

3. Transitions between different points, such as from plant content to soil nutrient content and microorganisms, could be smoother. This will help maintain the flow and coherency of the discussion.

Response: We agree with your comment. However, in order to keep the effective connection with the results, the discussion part is discussed separately from the plant, soil and microorganism, and the transitions between different points is put into the correlation analysis in the discussion part.

4. In a few instances, the authors have pointed out differences between their findings and previous research without delving into possible reasons for these discrepancies. For instance, the study found that the P content in plants was higher than in previous studies, suggesting a high absorption and utilization rate of soil P by the local forage. The authors could elaborate on these contrasts to further enrich the discussion.

Response: Thank you for your comment, we have delved into possible reasons for the differencescbetween their findings and previous research in the revised manuscript as following: The average content of soil P in the three treatments in this study was 0.88g/kg, which is not significantly different from that in the previous studies [5,14,71], but the P content of plants (0.70g /kg) is higher than that in previous studies [14], indicating that the absorption and utilization rate of soil P by forage in the study area is not too low, which may be related to forage species and planting years.

5. Including some statistical evidence, such as p-values or confidence intervals from the result section, could strengthen the arguments and give more credence to the findings.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, we have added p-values in the revised manuscript

6. It would be beneficial to provide more concrete recommendations for future research, particularly in areas where the findings differ from previous studies.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have provided some concrete recommendations for future research in the revised manuscript (Line 399-401).

7. More detailed discussion about how the results fit into the wider context of global climate change, agriculture, biodiversity conservation, or ecosystem services might help readers better understand the larger implications of this work.

Response: We agree with the comment. We have added this content in the revised manuscript as following: Therefore, we should further deepen the research of transformation relationship among plant, soil and microbial in the future, enhance the ecosystem service function, and provide theoretical support for the artificial grassland in karst fragile ecological areas to cope with the pressure brought by global climate change.

8. Conclusions

The conclusions provide a comprehensive summary of the findings and their implications. They restate the results, provide interpretation in terms of their original research question, and highlight the implications of these results for future research and practice. However, some aspects could potentially be improved:

1. While the authors do discuss the implications of their findings in terms of different grassland management practices, they could further elaborate on how these findings could influence broader ecological concepts or conservation strategies.
2. The conclusions could benefit from clearly highlighting what is new or significant about the findings. What gaps in the current knowledge do these results fill? How do they advance our understanding of grassland ecology and management? Addressing these points directly can make the importance and impact of the study more apparent.
3. The conclusions mention that "we should further deepen the research of transformation relationship among plant, soil and microbial in the future," but do not specify what exactly this further research should entail. It could be beneficial to provide more explicit suggestions for future research directions. For example, they could propose specific hypotheses to test, methods to use, or variables to measure in future studies.
4. A good conclusion often acknowledges the limitations of the study. This could include methodological limitations, uncertainties in the data, or areas where their model or hypothesis does not fully explain the observed results. By openly discussing these limitations, the authors can provide a more balanced view of their work and guide future studies to address these gaps.

Response: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have added a paragraph to improve our manuscript in the conclusion part in the revised manuscript as following: In summary, this study described the element cycle and nutrient limitation from the perspective of plant-soil-microorganism system, which can provide some basis for fertilization management of artificial grassland in karst rocky desertification area, such as necessary fertilization management or other measures to supplement elements according to the limitation of N and P, so as to solve the element limitation problem.  However, due to the relationship between the experimental time, this study is still not systematic and perfect, the later period should be long-term observation to form a systematic research results, to provide the necessary theoretical support for the scientific management of grassland in ecological restoration area.

9. References
10. It is advisable for the authors to expand their references beyond Chinese authors. By incorporating more international sources, the manuscript will benefit from a broader range of perspectives, strengthen its credibility, and foster a more inclusive and impactful discussion.

Response：Thank you for underlining this deficiency and we increased the citations in international sources in the revised manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language in the manuscript is generally good, with a clear presentation of ideas.

The technical terminology is used appropriately, and the data are described in a systematic manner that facilitates comprehension. However, there are several instances of awkward phrasing or structure that could be improved for better readability.

The consistency in tense is important for maintaining clarity and cohesion. The manuscript switches between past and present tense in several places, which can create confusion. In scientific writing, it is often recommended to use past tense when referring to the specific experiments conducted and findings of the study, and present tense when discussing generally accepted facts or the study's implications.

Minor editing of English language is required.

Response：We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. We have revised the tense to  keep tense consistent in the revised manuscript.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the paper addresses an important topic regarding the sustainable use of grasslands, depending on the mode and intensity of their use. Preservation of biodiversity and soil conservation are important aspects to follow when evaluating the practices of using grasslands.

However, I believe that improvements to the paper are necessary for a better understanding at the international level.

- the abstract is well structured, but I think that excessive use of the abbreviations of the tested variants is not necessary, nor is the presentation necessary (p<0.0.5).

- the research hypothesis is well presented.

- the research area is not well described, as well as the physical geographical area, soil type (recognized internationally), soil characteristics and climatic conditions.

- I think the experimental variants need to be better explained.

- the methods used in the research do not have specific references, are they all original?

- in the tables I recommend the inclusion of experimental variants without abbreviations.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Ecological Stoichiometric Characteristics of Artificial Grassland Plant-Soil-Microorganism under Different Utilization Methods in the Karst Desertification Area” (ID: 2484368). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red or blue highlight. The responses to the editor and reviewer’s comments are presented following. We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best wishes,

Authors

Reviewer’s 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the paper addresses an important topic regarding the sustainable use of grasslands, depending on the mode and intensity of their use. Preservation of biodiversity and soil conservation are important aspects to follow when evaluating the practices of using grasslands.

However, I believe that improvements to the paper are necessary for a better understanding at the international level.

- the abstract is well structured, but I think that excessive use of the abbreviations of the tested variants is not necessary, nor is the presentation necessary (p<0.0.5).

Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, we have deleted the p-values in the revised manuscript.

- the research hypothesis is well presented.

- the research area is not well described, as well as the physical geographical area, soil type (recognized internationally), soil characteristics and climatic conditions.

Response: We agree with the comment and rewrote this part in the revised manuscript as following: Karst is widely distributed in the study area, and the karst desertification area in the study area is 55.931 km², accounting for 64.93% of the total area of the demonstration area, and the soil is mainly yellow loam, which is mainly planted by traditional agriculture such as corn and potato for a long time, and soil erosion is serious, so the soil thickness is generally about 20-50cm. The study area has a subtropical monsoon climate zone, with average annual rainfall of about 1000 mm, average annual temperature of about 12 ℃, frost-free period of 245 days, and average annual sunshine hours of 1360 h.

- I think the experimental variants need to be better explained.

Response: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem, we have rewrote this part in the revised manuscript as following: In April 2012, the research team established artificial grassland by mixed seeding in the study area, namely Lolium perenne + Dactylis glomerata + Trifolium repens, with the seed quantity of 2:2:1. The grassland has been mainly used for free grazing after the establishment, and the carrying capacity was 600m2/ sheep unit. In order to reveal the difference of ecological stoichiometry characteristics of grassland plant-soil-microorganism under different use patterns, we established three different types of grassland usage in August 2019, namely grazing grassland (GG), mowing grassland (MG) and enclosed grassland (EG), among which EG was the control group.  Three replicates were set for each plot, and the distance between the plot boundaries was more than 50cm. The each plots of enclosed grassland were about 100m², it shall not be used for any purpose.

The each plots of grazing grassland were about 3000 m². The average grazing quantity of each plot in grazing grassland was 5 (basically consistent with the local grazing situation), and the grazing livestock were Guizhou semi-fine wool sheep about 1 year old. Grazing time was 300 days per year, except in extreme weather.

The each plots of mowing grassland were about 3000 m². When the grass height reached about 40cm, the mowing was carried out, and it was cut 4 times a year, and the stubble height was about 5 cm.

- the methods used in the research do not have specific references, are they all original?

Response: Thank you for your comments, we have added the references in this part in the revised manuscript.

- in the tables I recommend the inclusion of experimental variants without abbreviations.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions, we have revised it by using full name of experimental variants in the tables in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx