Can Litter (Dead Herbage) Management Affect the Production and Composition of a Desert Steppe Community?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is devoted to an interesting topic and deserves attention. There are a number of recommendations to the authors of the article: 1. In the description of the territory, it would be better to show a map of the studied territory. In the description of the territory it would be good to describe in more detail the landscape of stationary areas. The results of the experiment will vary greatly depending on the relief, type of vegetation and soil. 2. It is not entirely clear how the litter horizon was preserved in the experiment, its structure and density. These parameters should have a strong influence on the results of the experiment. If the litter was removed with a rake without preserving its structure, then the results of the experiment may be called into question. 3. The text contains phrases from the Template. They must be removed

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

As a Reviewer, I have the following suggestions and comments, namely:

- abbreviations used for the first time in the text should be explained in parentheses next to the abbreviation.

- at the end of the chapter: introduction: research questions and/or research hypotheses should be posed. they should also be included in the summary.

- editorial corrections should be made in the text, such as spacing when expressing units, eg 140 g • m-2. In addition, some letters and numbers lie on top of each other.

- the "discussion" chapter is too short, it should be expanded and arranged in the order of confirmation or denial of research hypotheses, and/or discussion of answers to the research questions.- the chapter "proposals should be restructured and expanded.

- list of references - items older than 2000 should be listed, also in the text, i.e.: 7, 9, 10, 12, 15. Moreover, both in the reference list and in the text there are too few references. This should be corrected by at least 20 recent references that can be used in the :discussion' chapter and in the :introduction: chapter, which is also too short.

- At work, I miss a graphical presentation of research results. This would greatly diversify the description of the results and their readability.

After taking into account the above comments, the manuscript can be published.

Kind regards

Minor editing and spelling of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Understanding the relationship between soil and vegetation is important for the sustainable management of plant communities. It has been studied for many years, so far, however, there is not enough information for reliable forecasts. At the same time, the litter is an important part of the soil-plant system. From this point of view, this paper is relevant.

 I think that the research results are important for Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. The conducted research has a scientific novelty, but it needs to be clearly formulated, since the reader may be misled.

 In the introduction, the relevance of the study is substantiated and the state of the problem is described. However, the aim of the study needs to be formulated more clearly. I would advise the authors to analyse the current state of the problem in more detail. There are only 2 references to 2022 studies in the reference list. This does not give the reader an understanding of the current state of the research problem.

 The idea of the study is quite interesting. The methodology approaches are described in detail. The authors used methods adequate to the tasks set. I want to advise the authors to add a detailed research scheme to the paper. This will help readers to get into the research idea more quickly.

The results are presented clearly and clearly. The paper contains 15 informative tables. However, it seems to me that it is advisable to improve the visualization of the results.

Conclusions follow from the results and are reasonable.  The paper will be of interest to a wide range of readers whose scientific interests are related to Desert Steppe ecology. It is desirable to add the practical and theoretical significance of the research results. The authors' plans for further research are also important.

 Despite the fact that English is not my native language, I read the paper with interest and had no difficulties in understanding. The paper fully corresponds to the subject and level of Agriculture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Now, your manuscript can be publish.

Greetings

Author Response

Dear Authors,

Now, your manuscript can be publish.

Greetings

Response： Thank  you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the paper considerably. However, the presentation of the results is still inadequate. The tables are informative. However, the information is difficult to perceive. I recommend that the authors work on improving the visualisation. As an option, I can suggest, for example, to highlight statistically significant differences in the tables or some other most important values. The understanding of the results will also be improved if the authors include figures in the main body of the paper to visualise the results. I can suggest presenting the main findings as a visual scheme in addition to tables. Description the state of the problem is also desirable to improve.

Author Response

Response: Thanks a lot for the suggestion. Table3 and Table 5 had been converted to figures, and in the other tables the statistically significant differences were highlighted in the manuscript. The description of the problem had also been improved.