Ecological Stoichiometric Changes and the Synergistic Restoration of Vegetation Concrete Restoration Systems under Different Precipitation Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript revision water-1866935

The authors conducted research entitled Ecological stoichiometric changes and the synergistic restoration of vegetation concrete restoration systems under different precipitation conditions. The authors intend to analyze in depth the characteristics of the change and the relationship between carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry in the vegetation concrete plant-soil system under different precipitation patterns. They pose three research questions:

1. The response characteristics of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry distribution pattern to precipitation model

2. The changes in the characteristics of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry under different precipitation models

3. The synergistic effect and limiting factors of the plant-soil system

The paper is suitable for the Journal Water in the Soil and Water section.

Abstract

The abstract is unclear and incomplete. There is no reference to the study site, study period, and objectives of the work; the results are ambiguous, do not present values, %, statistics in comparison with the elements pointed out, nor their quantitative relationship with the change in precipitation. E.g., The self-regulating nutrient utilization strategies of different growth forms of plants under different precipitation conditions differed (How do they differ?) and the C, N, and P contents (What are the contents?) in different plant organs and growth stages showed significant differences (What are those significant differences?). The same applies to the authors' conclusions included in the abstract. The elements C, N, P, and other acronyms should be defined earlier.

Overall, the manuscript is difficult to follow. The reasons are listed below:

1- Several acronyms are not defined in text (e.g., rti, C, P, N, TN, TC, TP); those included in Figures (e.g., Bb, b, Ca...); those that appear to be relationships between elements (e.g., C/N, C/P, N/P).

2- There are several figures included in Figs. 1, 3, and 5. Mention which figures the authors are referring to, (a), (b), etc., in the text. In addition, Fig. 5 is not mentioned in the text.

3- None of the Tables (1-4) are mentioned in the text.

4- The results include associations with seasons, underground-aboveground C, N, and P content, and comparisons between roots, stems, and leaves. This should be explained in the methodology-design section of the experiment. Otherwise, it is interpreted that the comparisons are only related to simulated precipitation.

5- In section 2.3. The authors refer to several methods and techniques without mentioning the bibliographic sources. The same occurs with equations 1 and 2 unless the authors have developed the equations.

6- Some figures do not have units on the axes (e.g., Fig. 3, x-axis; Fig. 5, y-axis). What do these relationships indicate?

7- Figures have low quality, and this should be improved.

8- In the figures, there are immersed acronyms. Some cases overlap, are above the error bars, or behind the histogram bars (e.g., Fig. 1). In others, the acronyms are blurred, and the background color is not conducive to interpretation (e.g., Fig. 3, red boxes). In others, too much information (acronyms) to understand the figure (e.g., Fig. 4).

Because of the above, a proper revision of the manuscript is not possible at this time. I recommend the authors carefully review the entire manuscript to fix these problems and then resubmit it to begin a new revision process.

MINOR REVISIONS

It is essential to include a figure showing the location of the study site. It would be helpful to include a photograph of the area where the experiment was conducted, the experimental design, the irrigation device, and the type and distribution of vegetation in each plot.

Line 147: What do the authors mean by plant and soil factors? Could they please define them in the text?

Line 151: Please check Eq. 1. It seems to be incomplete, or what does "where" represent here?

Lines 153-162: There are expressions with different formats and font sizes.

In general, section 2.4. is difficult to follow. Please consider rewriting and avoiding equations included in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to comments.

For your convenience, in responding to the comments we have first repeated the comments denoted by the text in italics and then made our response in normal type.

The authors conducted research entitled Ecological stoichiometric changes and the synergistic restoration of vegetation concrete restoration systems under different precipitation conditions. The authors intend to analyze in depth the characteristics of the change and the relationship between carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry in the vegetation concrete plant-soil system under different precipitation patterns. They pose three research questions:

1. The response characteristics of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry distribution pattern to precipitation model
2. The changes in the characteristics of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry under different precipitation models
3. The synergistic effect and limiting factors of the plant-soil system

The paper is suitable for the Journal Water in the Soil and Water section.

Response: Thanks for your useful comments on our manuscript, they are very important to improve the quality our manuscript.

 Abstract

The abstract is unclear and incomplete. There is no reference to the study site, study period, and objectives of the work; the results are ambiguous, do not present values, %, statistics in comparison with the elements pointed out, nor their quantitative relationship with the change in precipitation. E.g., The self-regulating nutrient utilization strategies of different growth forms of plants under different precipitation conditions differed (How do they differ?) and the C, N, and P contents (What are the contents?) in different plant organs and growth stages showed significant differences (What are those significant differences?). The same applies to the authors' conclusions included in the abstract. The elements C, N, P, and other acronyms should be defined earlier.

 Response: Thank you for your advice. The summary has been rewritten according to your suggestion.

 Overall, the manuscript is difficult to follow. The reasons are listed below:

 Response: Thanks for your useful comments, we have studied your comments carefully and have made correction for making our manuscript is easy to follow.

1- Several acronyms are not defined in text (e.g., rti, C, P, N, TN, TC, TP); those included in Figures (e.g., Bb, b, Ca...); those that appear to be relationships between elements (e.g., C/N, C/P, N/P).

 Response: Yes, you are right, we have marked all abbreviations in the text such as (e.g., C, P, N, TN, TC, TP..., BB, Ca..., C / N, C / P, N / P...) and in figures according to your suggestions so that readers can better understand.

 2- There are several figures included in Figs. 1, 3, and 5. Mention which figures the authors are referring to, (a), (b), etc., in the text. In addition, Fig. 5 is not mentioned in the text.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The detail figure was mentioned in the test in the revision.

 3- None of the Tables (1-4) are mentioned in the text.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. It has been mentioned in manuscript 3.3 Collaborative Correlation Analysis and Simulation of Plant–Soil Systems under Different Precipitation Patterns.

 4- The results include associations with seasons, underground-aboveground C, N, and P content, and comparisons between roots, stems, and leaves. This should be explained in the methodology-design section of the experiment. Otherwise, it is interpreted that the comparisons are only related to simulated precipitation.

 Response: Yes, you are right, the relationship between C, N and P of soil and plant organs (root, stem and leaf) and the relationship between seasons and rainfall have been explained in the methodology-design section of the experiment of the manuscript.

5- In section 2.3. The authors refer to several methods and techniques without mentioning the bibliographic sources. The same occurs with equations 1 and 2 unless the authors have developed the equations.

 Response: The references of methods, means and formulas have been indicated in the manuscript.

6- Some figures do not have units on the axes (e.g., Fig. 3, x-axis; Fig. 5, y-axis). What do these relationships indicate?

 Response: The ecological stoichiometric ratio (mainly carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus) represents the ratio of two elements, which is dimensionless, so some graphs have no units on the axis, it can also effectively reflect the interaction between organisms and their environment in the ecosystem, and is an important tool to study the interaction between organisms in the ecosystem.

 7- Figures have low quality, and this should be improved.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The quality of figures has been improved in the manuscript.

 8- In the figures, there are immersed acronyms. Some cases overlap, are above the error bars, or behind the histogram bars (e.g., Fig. 1). In others, the acronyms are blurred, and the background color is not conducive to interpretation (e.g., Fig. 3, red boxes). In others, too much information (acronyms) to understand the figure (e.g., Fig. 4).

 Response: The quality of figures has been improved in the manuscript according to your suggestion. For example, the overlap of letters on the error bar and the background color of the bars have been modified, and the acronyms have also been clearly marked in the corresponding positions in the manuscript for better understanding by readers.

Because of the above, a proper revision of the manuscript is not possible at this time. I recommend the authors carefully review the entire manuscript to fix these problems and then resubmit it to begin a new revision process.

 Response: Thank you, the whole manuscript has been revised according to your suggestions.

 MINOR REVISIONS

 It is essential to include a figure showing the location of the study site. It would be helpful to include a photograph of the area where the experiment was conducted, the experimental design, the irrigation device, and the type and distribution of vegetation in each plot.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The research is conducted at the China Three Gorges University in Yichang, Hubei province, we added the longitude and latitude to clarify the location. Also, photograph of slope system that slope, vegetation, and the irrigation device have been added according to your suggestion.

 Line 147: What do the authors mean by plant and soil factors? Could they please define them in the text?

 Response: Plant factors are factors such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus contents and stoichiometric ratios of plants, and soil factors are factors such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus content and stoichiometric ratio of soil, which were indicated in the manuscript.

 Line 151: Please check Eq. 1. It seems to be incomplete, or what does "where" represent here?

 Response: Yes, you are right, "where" in Eq. 1 have been removed and the meaning of the abbreviations have been well clarified.

 Lines 153-162: There are expressions with different formats and font sizes.

Response: The formats and font sizes have been modified to uniform format.

 In general, section 2.4. is difficult to follow. Please consider rewriting and avoiding equations included in the text.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The section 2.4 is a classic and common calculation process with good applicability, and some modifications have been made to the content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The water-1866935 ”Ecological stoichiometric changes and the synergistic restoration of vegetation concrete restoration systems under different precipitation conditions” presented the changes in the ecological stoichiometry and the co-restoration effect of plant–soil systems under different precipitation patterns. The topic is important and with novelty. The paper is well organized; and figures and tables are carefully prepared. The manuscript is of interest and appropriate for the Water journal readership. However, I found there are a few questions in the manuscript after reading thoroughly. I think the following issues need to be addressed to improve transparency and communication of the results

1     Delete "can" in line 36 of the article.

2     Some relevant references should be added in line 45-54.

3     It is necessary to describe the climate and rainfall of the research location in 2.1 of the article.

4     The method for measuring clay, powder and sand in line 103-105 should be stated.

5     I suggest to add a photo of slope system in figure 1 for better understanding.

6     There is only one grass (Cynodon) and shrub (Indigofera Amblyantha Craib) in the article, and it is suggested to use the proper names to replace the grass and shrub in the test for better understanding

7     In view of the new data in this article, statement in line 389-390 is not suitable, so please modify it.

8     The references in the article is a bit old, please updated the references.

Author Response

Response to comments.

For your convenience, in responding to the comments we have first repeated the comments denoted by the text in italics and then made our response in normal type.

The water-1866935 ”Ecological stoichiometric changes and the synergistic restoration of vegetation concrete restoration systems under different precipitation conditions” presented the changes in the ecological stoichiometry and the co-restoration effect of plant–soil systems under different precipitation patterns. The topic is important and with novelty. The paper is well organized; and figures and tables are carefully prepared. The manuscript is of interest and appropriate for the Water journal readership. However, I found there are a few questions in the manuscript after reading thoroughly. I think the following issues need to be addressed to improve transparency and communication of the results.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions and comments, they are very important for our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your suggestions and comments in our revision.

1. Delete "can" in line 36 of the article.

Response: Yes, you are right, "can" in line 36 of the manuscript has been removed.

2. Some relevant references should be added in line 45-54.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Relevant references have been added in line 45-54.

3. It is necessary to describe the climate and rainfall of the research location in 2.1 of the article.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The climate and rainfall of the research location have been added in the article.

4. The method for measuring clay, powder and sand in line 103-105 should be stated.

Response: The method for measuring clay, powder and sand in line 103-105 has been have been supplemented.

5. I suggest to add a photo of slope system in figure 1 for better understanding.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. photograph of slope system that slope, vegetation, and the irrigation device have been added according to your suggestion.

6. There is only one grass (Cynodon) and shrub (Indigofera Amblyantha Craib) in the article, and it is suggested to use the proper names to replace the grass and shrub in the test for better understanding

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The grass and shrub in the test have been use the proper names to replace.

7. In view of the new data in this article, statement in line 389-390 is not suitable, so please modify it.

Response: Yes, you are right, statement in line 389-390 of the manuscript has been removed.

 The references in the article is a bit old, please updated the references.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. References have been updated and improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx