Medium-Term Effect of Livestock Grazing Intensities on the Vegetation Dynamics in Alpine Meadow Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this work of limited value. The main objection is that the stocking rates were very high indeed, even the lowest treatment, viz 5 yaks /ha say equivalent to 40 sheep (DSE) /ha is way above the highest grazing pressure in Maqu county according to litrature I found. For example  Sustainable Chinese grasslands  ACIAR 2020 ISSN 1447-090x Maqqu county p35-37 & p203-210. That work suggests the ratio of undesirable species do not change much under grazing pressure. ? (P 203 para 3)  Also see table 10.4 for a discussion of Grazing in Maqu.

Another issue is that grazing by seson is very important, no grazing in the winter is practically possible, and this would have its own impact on species compostion. 

That is the authors had to produce a very artificial situation to show any effect of grazing on species composition. It would seem very difficult for Yaks to live at these grazing pressures!

The title suggests the authors intendfed to produce 'a practical guide to control toxic weeds' However no such guidelines could be found, only the implication that reducing grazing pressure will improve species compostion.

Other observation

L 67-68. Something wrong with the grammer, spelling species, perhaps add plant in L 68

L 69 "one the one hand" but it was not until L 90 that I could find "on the other hand"  but they do not relate

L 98, of vegetation (of) not on

L 140  2.2 Experiment.  I think some discussion as to why you have chosen such a high stockiung rate is needed.

L 144 suggest change 'by' to 'for'  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok just a few edits as above

Author Response

Comments 1: The main objection is that the stocking rates were very high indeed, even the lowest treatment, viz 5 yaks /ha say equivalent to 40 sheep (DSE) /ha is way above the highest grazing pressure in Maqu county according to literature I found.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. We have modified the contents of paper.

  First, as the corresponding author, I am ashamed to admit that, because in the process of paper writing, paper revision, paper upload, I did not conscientiously perform my duties of supervision and management, and we have made obvious mistake of writing Tibetan sheep as yaks, which made the paper appear extremely unreasonable grazing capacity, and reduced the credibility of the research results. I'm so sorry.

  The grazing intensity in our research originate from literature reading and field investigation. The number of Tibetan sheep and yaks in Maqu county is 2,758,400 - 2,990,900 sheep unit from 2015 to 2019. The areas of pasture is 83,8681 hm², including 54,5771 hm² warm season (from June to October) pasture and 292,910 hm² cold season pasture (November to December, January to May) in Maqu (Maqu statistical yearbook, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020，https://www.gsdfszw.org.cn/gsxnj/gnzzzzz_310/mqnj/；Li et al., 2023) (See table for details). By calculation, the livestock capacity is 5.00 - 5.48 in warm season and 9.32 - 10.21 in cold season. Our field experiment was conducted at the alpine meadow which accounts for 65.05% of the total pasture of Maqu county and was also main pasture in warm season (Liu ea al., 2016; Li et al., 2023). For grazing intensity treatment designing, light grazing of 5 sheep/hm² was adopted. In fact, we occasionally found overload of 15 sheep/hm² in warm season pasture during our field investigation, therefore, we made moderate grazing of 10 sheep/hm² and heavy grazing of 15 sheep/hm².

Year	Yak	Tibetan sheep	Horse	Sheep unit	livestock carring capacity of cold season	livestock carring capacity of warm season
2019	47.82	36.74		10363.26	9.42	5.05
2018	50.12	44.02		10404.24	10.06	5.40
2017	45.88	43.44		10391.52	9.32	5.00
2016	50.57	45.75		10405.07	10.19	5.47
2015	49.68	50.69		10428.82	10.21	5.48

 We have modified the grazing intensity. See in page 1, abstract, line 14 - 16; page 4, second paragraph, line 147 - 148.

Comments 2: Another issue is that grazing by season is very important, no grazing in the winter is practically possible, and this would have its own impact on species composition.

Response 2: We agree with this comment. We have added “ the grazing time is warm season”. See in page 4, line 146.  

Comments 3: That is the authors had to produce a very artificial situation to show any effect of grazing on species composition. It would seem very difficult for Yaks to live at these grazing pressures!

Response 3: We agree with this comment. We have modified the grazer as Tibetan sheep. The effect of the grazing intensity on plant species composition see the research results of paper.

Comments 4: The title suggests the authors intended to produce 'a practical guide to control toxic weeds' However no such guidelines could be found, only the implication that reducing grazing pressure will improve species composition.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. We have deleted 'a practical guide to control toxic weeds', so, the paper title named “Medium-terms effect of livestock grazing intensities on the vegetation dynamics in alpine meadow ecosystems”. See page 1, title name.

Comments 5: L 67-68. Something wrong with the grammar, spelling species, perhaps add plant in L 68.

Response 5: We agree with this comment and add 'plant' before species. See in page 2, 3rd paragraph, line 66 - 67.

Comments 6: L 69 "one the one hand" but it was not until L 90 that I could find "on the other hand", but they do not relate.

Response 6: We agree with this comment. The phrase "on the one hand, on the other hand" is used to compare two different facts or two opposite ways of thinking about a situation. It is often paired with "on the other hand" to indicate two sides of an issue. In page 2, 3rd paragraph, The meaning of expression of all sentences was same ways, so, we have deleted "one the one hand" .

Comments 7: L 98, of vegetation (of) not on.

Response 7: We agree with this comment. We have modified it. See in page 2, 2nd paragraph, line 97.

Comments 8: L 140  2.2 Experiment.  I think some discussion as to why you have chosen such a high stockiung rate is needed.

Response 8: We agree with this comment. See response 1 for a specific explanation.

Comments 9: L 144 suggest change 'by' to 'for'  .

Response 9: We agree with this comment. We have modified it. See in page 4, 2nd paragraph, line 151.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You tried to present the discussed issues comprehensively. However, several important pieces of information are missing. The comments were written in the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

English needs some minor corrections.

Author Response

Comments 1: Weather conditions should be described in more detailed and for a given research period.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. We have added weather condition in study area. See in page 3, the last paragraph, line 132-136.

Comments 2: Plant Latin name writing format.

Response 2: We do not agree with this comment. The plant family is orthotic, and the plant genus and species is italic.

Comments 3: there is no information whether the weight of an individual animal was similar? For how long in months and how many hours per day was the grazing carried out?

Response 3: We agree with this comment. We have modified it in paper. We used Tibetan sheep as grazer and were grazing during the warm season. See in page 4, 2nd paragraph, line 145 - 146.

Comments 4: Does this mean that the study was only conducted once after a 5-year period? Was the study conducted every year and results averaged at the end? This requires a detailed description. .

Response 4: The experimental plots were fenced for 5 years (since August 2019), and the study was only conducted once after a 5-year period (in August 2024). The results obtained by statistical values for duplicate tests. See page 4, 2nd paragraph, line 152-153.

Comments 5: How many plots were there?

Response 5: We agree with this comment. We have added the content about the number of plots. See in page 4, 2nd paragraph, line 149 - 150, page 4, 3rd paragraph, line 155 - 156.

Comments 6: Were soil samples taken from the same locations as the plant samples?

Response 6: We agree with this comment. We have clarified in the paper. See in page 4, 4th paragraph, line 172.

Comments 7: Figure 1 named cross correlation factor between toxic weed biomass and soil characteristics after 5years livestock grazing in Alpine meadow, which regardless of grazing intensity.

Response 7: We agree with this comment. We have modified the relationship is influenced by the intensity of heavy grazing. See in page 7, 1st paragraph, line 260 and line 268.

Comments 8: The results in Table 3 are poorly described.

Response 8: We agree with this comment. We have added more information about Table 3. See page 7-8, line 276 -279.

Comments 9:  Figure 4 is not very legible.

Response 9: We agree with this comment. We have redesigned figure 4 with higher resolution and added more information in the paper. See page 10, 2nd paragraph, line 336 - 339.

Comments 10: The figure 5:a is hard to read, the letters are too small, it’s hard to read the numbers.

Response 10: We agree with this comment. We have redesigned figure 5, the font in Figure 5 is at maximum and, given the number of factors, it is better to place the figure in a large size in the manuscript.

Comments 11: including both toxic and edible grass species, suggest change 'toxic' to 'unpalatable'.

Response 11: We agree with this comment. We have modified it. See in page 4, 3rd paragraph, line 165.

Comments 12: There was no information in the methodology on how this parameter was assessed.

Response 12: We agree with this comment. We have added assessing method. See in page 4, 3rd paragraph, line 163 - 164.

Comments 13: Please write below the table what the letters a, b, c means.

Response 13: We agree with this comment. We have added the a, b, c statistical meaning. See in page 6, table 1 below, line 248 - 249.

Comments 14: There is no such idea, it may be poisonous plant. Herbs can not be toxic.

Response 14: We agree with this comment. We have modified it. See in page 9, 3rd paragraph, line 317.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

nil

Author Response

No comments and responses.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
The manuscript has been supplemented and clarified with reference to the comments in the review. The text is now more understandable. It seems that some minor corrections are still needed with regard to the English language.

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has been supplemented and clarified with reference to the comments in the review. The text is now more understandable. It seems that some minor corrections are still needed with regard to the English language.

Best regards,

Author Response

Comment：The manuscript has been supplemented and clarified with reference to the comments in the review. The text is now more understandable. It seems that some minor corrections are still needed with regard to the English language.

Response: We agree with this comment. We have corrected all the errors in the English language (see the revised manuscript marked green).