Review Reports
by
- Hongye Su 1,2,
- Li Ma 1 and
- Huakun Zhou 1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Peter Hric Reviewer 2: Eloy Conde Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A well-written contribution without additional comments.
Author Response
Comment 1: A well-written contribution without additional comments.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your confirmation of our research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “land-2248874" It should be reconsidered for publication after correction of minor errors. In this study, the effects of major land use types on species diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality in alpine meadows were determined. The summary section should be improved. The introductory section fulfills its purpose except for some missing acronyms and a better statement of the research hypothesis. The methodology section fulfills its purpose except for some comments and sections where the procedure used is not clear, as well as some statistical tests that are not presented. In the results and discussion section there are only some minor problems and comments for some tables and figures. Comments and suggestions should be set out below:
- L20. The context for the research is not established.
- L24-25. It is described that analyses were performed, but it is not stated what type of analyses, for how many sites, and under what conditions.
- L27, 32, 37, 41. placing the significance level in the summary is superfluous.
- L33. The meaning of the acronym CK is not established.
- L114-119. The research hypothesis is not established.
- L121. Is it correct or requested by the journal to place the results first and then the methodology?
- L552-565. It is necessary to establish a diagram with the experimental design.
- L599, 602, 603. The acronyms OTU, RDP and UNITE were not established.
- L614-618. The units of the indicators analysed must be established.
- L622-624. The acronyms for the soil indicators analysed were established and should be used.
- L634. It is not clear how the function value was selected.
- L635-641. It is not stated which normality tests were performed on the data, nor which post hoc test was performed.
- L126. The acronym of the CK treatment is not established in the methodology.
- L129-135. It is not clear to me how the cover of microorganisms predicts microbial diversity, could you answer?
- Table 1 and Table 2. In the statistical analysis section, there is no mention of which post hoc test was performed.
- Table 3. It is necessary to homogenize the number of decimals to be used in the table.
- Figure 1. The lettering in Figure 1 cannot be read clearly, the figure should be improved.
- L193-195. Use established acronyms.
- L191-209. The idea that the authors wanted to put forward is understood, however, the use of percentages and the wording makes it somewhat confusing.
- Figures 2 and 3. It is not stated which post hoc test was performed.
- L228. It was my understanding that the Shannon-wiener index was related to the bacterial community.
- L228-238. The information is repeated in this section, or is very confusing, rewrite.
- L228-243. It is unnecessary to redact information that is already in a figure. Figures are supposed to be understandable by themselves.
- L244-275. Same comment as above.
- Figures 5B, 6A and 6E do not show the trend line. A regression model uses one variable, x, as the predictor variable, and the other variable, y, as the response variable. Then find an equation with the following form that best describes the relationship between the two variables, why not place the equation in the figure.
- L330. What other studies?
- L334-340. The argument for the various indexes set out is the same, I believe it is possible to reduce the text to a single paragraph.
- L344, 403-405. Use the acronym. Review throughout the text
- L350-352. It is necessary to mention the index related to bacteria and the index related to fungi.
- L352. In what percentage was higher.
- L366-373. this section contains redundant information.
- L385. Categories.
- L388 -389. It is poorly worded.
- L394. remove the words on the soil.
- L405. It is not clear during which period the evaluation was conducted.
- L412. I think he meant organic matter.
- L446. One point missing.
- It is necessary to join the results and discussion sections, in order to make the results of the study clearer.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #2
- L20. The context for the research is not established.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the context of the research.
- L24-25. It is described that analyses were performed, but it is not stated what type of analyses, for how many sites, and under what conditions.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have re-described this sentence.
- L27, 32, 37, 41. placing the significance level in the summary is superfluous.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have removed the significance level.
- L33. The meaning of the acronym CK is not established.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the meaning of the acronym CK.
- L114-119. The research hypothesis is not established.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the research hypothesis.
- L121. Is it correct or requested by the journal to place the results first and then the methodology?
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have checked the requirements of the journal and adjusted the structure as materials and methods first and then the results.
- L552-565. It is necessary to establish a diagram with the experimental design.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We are sorry for the lack of clarity in the description of our experimental design, and based on your comments and those of reviewer 3, we have rewritten the experimental design to make it seem more understandable.
- L599, 602, 603. The acronyms OTU, RDP and UNITE were not established.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the meaning of the acronyms OTU. RDP and UNITE appear only once in the paper, we have revised them to full names.
- L614-618. The units of the indicators analysed must be established.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added units of soil indicators.
- L622-624. The acronyms for the soil indicators analysed were established and should be used.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have used the acronyms of soil indicators.
- L634. It is not clear how the function value was selected.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. Actually, the function values represent the ecosystem functions (e.g. OC, TN, TP, AN, AP, AMN, NN, SWC, CP, pH, C: N, BP). We have modified the calculation for clarity of expression.
- L635-641. It is not stated which normality tests were performed on the data, nor which post hoc test was performed.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the normality tests. However, the independent sample t-test is not required for post hoc test.
- L126. The acronym of the CK treatment is not established in the methodology.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. Based on your comments and those of reviewer 3, we have changed the acronyms of NR and CK in the paper to full names except for the diagrams.
- L129-135. It is not clear to me how the cover of microorganisms predicts microbial diversity, could you answer?
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We are sorry for our mistakes and have made changes. The cover can not predict microbial diversity which assesses whether sequencing results represent the true picture of the microorganisms in samples. Therefore, the higher value of Coverage, the higher probability of sequences being measured in samples, indicating that the obtained diversity indices are more reliable.
- Table 1 and Table 2. In the statistical analysis section, there is no mention of which post hoc test was performed.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. As responses above, the independent sample t-test is not required for post hoc test.
- Table 3. It is necessary to homogenize the number of decimals to be used in the table.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have homogenized the number of decimals in table 3.
- Figure 1. The lettering in Figure 1 cannot be read clearly, the figure should be improved.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have improved the clarity of the figure 1.
- L193-195. Use established acronyms.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have used the acronyms of soil indices.
- L191-209. The idea that the authors wanted to put forward is understood, however, the use of percentages and the wording makes it somewhat confusing.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have modified the description of percentages like “××increase by..” and “××decrease by..” .
- Figures 2 and 3. It is not stated which post hoc test was performed.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. As responses above, the independent sample t-test is not required for post hoc test.
- L228. It was my understanding that the Shannon-wiener index was related to the bacterial community.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. That's true. In section 2.1, we analyzed the relationship between plant diversity and microbial diversity and confirmed that the Shannon-Wiener index of plant was related to the bacterial community in control check.
- L228-238. The information is repeated in this section, or is very confusing, rewrite.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. This information described the correlation between plant diversity and ecosystem functions, so it might be similar to the description of microbial diversity. We have rewritten the results and simplified them by describing the important ones.
- L228-243. It is unnecessary to redact information that is already in a figure. Figures are supposed to be understandable by themselves.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have rewritten the results and simplified them by describing the important ones.
- L244-275. Same comment as above.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have rewritten the results and simplified them by describing the important ones.
- Figures 5B, 6A and 6E do not show the trend line. A regression model uses one variable, x, as the predictor variable, and the other variable, y, as the response variable. Then find an equation with the following form that best describes the relationship between the two variables, why not place the equation in the figure.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. Because the contents of Figure 5B, 6A and 6E do not show significantly correlated relationships, no trend lines have been added. Based on your suggestions, we have added the equation in figure 5 and 6.
- L330. What other studies?
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added references.
- L334-340. The argument for the various indexes set out is the same, I believe it is possible to reduce the text to a single paragraph.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have simplified the argument.
- L344, 403-405. Use the acronym. Review throughout the text
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have checked the acronym of soil indices in the text.
- L350-352. It is necessary to mention the index related to bacteria and the index related to fungi.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have mentioned the index related to bacteria and fungi.
- L352. In what percentage was higher.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. The percentage of fungal diversity indices mentioned in the text were all increased, so we described them as fungal diversity indices.
- L366-373. this section contains redundant information.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have rewritten this section.
- L385. Categories.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have revised it.
- L388 -389. It is poorly worded.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have deleted it.
- L394. remove the words on the soil.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have removed the duplicate words.
- L405. It is not clear during which period the evaluation was conducted.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We mentioned the period of evaluation in the Materials and Methods. The reseeding and fertilization measures in late April 2021 and sampling in August 2021. Therefore, we described it as a short period of time.
- L412. I think he meant organic matter.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We are sorry for the mistake. We have revised organic carbon to organic matter.
- L446. One point missing.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the point.
- It is necessary to join the results and discussion sections, in order to make the results of the study clearer.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have revised them.
Thanks very much for your comments.
All the changes are marked in blue in the revised manuscript for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This research study investigates an important topic about the effect of land-use types on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in alpine grasslands.
The language of the manuscript is reasonably good, however, a thorough and careful recheck is required to remove the weaknesses /mistakes in the language.
Abstract: The first sentence has been presented poorly. This should be re-written. The description of background as well as the research plan in the abstract is poor.
Abbreviations (e.g., CK etc.) were neither elaborated at their first use not explained what these meant. This is a serious negligence and shows that the authors even did not bother rechecking their manuscript.
Please revisit description of objectives, these seems incomplete.
Titles of the tables are incomplete.
The treatments have been written as abbreviations (for example, CK, NF etc.) throughout the text, which makes the text dull. The treatments even if written in full does not add much to the text, hence, full versions of the treatments should be used instead of abbreviations.
L 340 chen et al. [22], instead write as "Chen....".
The manuscript has a long discussion section, comprising of four pages, and this has repetitions and over-explanations. Authors can work to improve synthesis of the discussion.
4.3.2. microbial diversity L 583. Use a capital 'M' for writing 'Microbial'.
4.2. Experimental design L 551-565. Whole of the manuscript is based on this part, however, this was articulated poorly. The treatments and establishment of the experiment has been confusing and insufficient. Was the study repeated over the time? If not, why?
Details about soil chemical analysis are missing.
Author Response
Reviewer #3
The language of the manuscript is reasonably good, however, a thorough and careful recheck is required to remove the weaknesses /mistakes in the language.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have checked again the revised manuscript to improve its language and the writing style.
Abstract: The first sentence has been presented poorly. This should be re-written. The description of background as well as the research plan in the abstract is poor.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have rewritten the abstract and added the context of the research and research analyses.
Abbreviations (e.g., CK etc.) were neither elaborated at their first use not explained what these meant. This is a serious negligence and shows that the authors even did not bother rechecking their manuscript.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We are sorry for this mistake and have revised it.
Please revisit description of objectives, these seems incomplete.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the hypothesis of objectives.
Titles of the tables are incomplete.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have modified the titles of the tables.
The treatments have been written as abbreviations (for example, CK, NF etc.) throughout the text, which makes the text dull. The treatments even if written in full does not add much to the text, hence, full versions of the treatments should be used instead of abbreviations.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have changed the acronyms of NR and CK in the paper to full names except for the diagrams.
L 340 chen et al. [22], instead write as "Chen....".
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have revised it.
The manuscript has a long discussion section, comprising of four pages, and this has repetitions and over-explanations. Authors can work to improve synthesis of the discussion.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have removed the redundant information and improve synthesis of the discussion.
4.3.2. microbial diversity L 583. Use a capital 'M' for writing 'Microbial'.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have revised it.
4.2. Experimental design L 551-565. Whole of the manuscript is based on this part, however, this was articulated poorly. The treatments and establishment of the experiment has been confusing and insufficient. Was the study repeated over the time? If not, why?
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have rewritten the experimental design. Our study collected data from the current year in order to study changes in biodiversity and ecosystem functions in the study area. This study is currently not repeated because we observed that plant growth remained good in the second year, suggesting that the effects of no-tillage reseeding and fertilization last for some time, but the exact duration needs to be followed up in depth by us.
Details about soil chemical analysis are missing.
Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have added the analysis of soil physical and chemical properties.
All the changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the submission as per the comments in the previous review report. A few issues still required to be resolved in the submission are given in the following.
Abstract: L 20-21. "To ascertain the effects of main land-use types on species diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality in alpine grasslands, we investigated the changes in these factors by subjecting specified areas"; The subsequent sentence should explain that what main land-use types have been studied, but this is missing there.
L90-92. Please recheck grammar of the sentence.
L119. "No-tillage reseeding methods are as follow"; Use the past tense.
L117-127. This newly added text has several mistakes. Probably, this was not even recheck after writing.
The sequence of methodology should be following in the Results and Discussion.
CK indicates control check. L264. A meaningless phrase; the text requires a thorough recheck to improve all of this type of meaningless text.
L 275. "Meanwhile, ecosystem multifunctionality showed a no significant"; Write 'non-significant' instead of no significant. Probaby I check from a colleague proficient in technical terminolgies will be appropriate.
L 294. "OC, AN, and NN" instead of using these abbreviations, use full forms.
Author Response
Reviewer
Abstract: L 20-21. "To ascertain the effects of main land-use types on species diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality in alpine grasslands, we investigated the changes in these factors by subjecting specified areas"; The subsequent sentence should explain that what main land-use types have been studied, but this is missing there.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have added the words which explain the main land-use types.
L90-92. Please recheck grammar of the sentence.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have checked the grammar and revised the sentences.
L119. "No-tillage reseeding methods are as follow"; Use the past tense.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised it.
L117-127. This newly added text has several mistakes. Probably, this was not even recheck after writing.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised the mistakes, such as tense and species names.
The sequence of methodology should be following in the Results and Discussion.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have adjusted the sequence of methods.
CK indicates control check. L264. A meaningless phrase; the text requires a thorough recheck to improve all of this type of meaningless text.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised it.
L 275. "Meanwhile, ecosystem multifunctionality showed a no significant"; Write 'non-significant' instead of no significant. Probaby I check from a colleague proficient in technical terminolgies will be appropriate.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised it.
L 294. "OC, AN, and NN" instead of using these abbreviations, use full forms.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx