Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses biomass allocation and allometric relationships in major plant formations of an alpine peat swamp wetland. The topic is relevant and the study is supported by substantial fieldwork and data analysis. However, the manuscript requires major revision before publication. My specific comments are provided below：

1. The Introduction contains too much general background information. This section should be shortened, with greater emphasis on the ecological characteristics of alpine peat swamp wetlands, their potential effects on biomass allocation, and the importance of studying plant formations rather than individual species;
2. The study area description is mainly descriptive and does not clearly explain its relevance to the research questions. The authors should better highlight why this area is suitable for investigating biomass allocation and allometric relationships.

3. The Methods section has the following problems: ① The sampling design is unclear. The authors should explain how the 189 quadrats were arranged, how many belonged to each plant formation, and whether data from different years were combined or tested for year effects. ② The classification of plant formations needs further explanation. The manuscript mentions DCA analysis, but the data source, classification criteria, and procedures are not described. Since F1–F6 are the basis of the study, this information should be provided. ③ The biomass sampling method is insufficiently described. The authors should clarify the sampling area, root sampling depth, and how roots were separated from undecomposed plant residues. ④ The calculation of importance values is inconsistent. The description and formula do not match and should be revised for consistency. ⑤ The statistical analyses need more detail. The authors should clarify the ANOVA design and provide a clearer description of the SMA analyses.

4. The Results section has the following problems: ① Lines 238–270: The classification of F1–F6 lacks statistical support. The authors should provide the DCA ordination results and explain the criteria used to define these plant formations. ② Lines 240–254 and 275–285: Some importance values are inconsistent. For example, the importance value of Carex muliensis in F1 is reported as both 0.60 and 0.51. The authors should carefully check the data in the text, tables, and figures. ③ Lines 297–310: The biomass allocation results lack key statistical information. The authors should report the F values, degrees of freedom, P values, and multiple comparison results from the ANOVA. ④ Lines 304–310: Some biomass allocation values are inconsistent. For example, the reported range of stem mass ratio does not match the value given for F4. These values should be checked and unified. ⑤ Lines 331–345: The interpretation of the leaf-stem allometric relationship is not appropriate. If the slope is not significantly different from 1.0, the result indicates isometric growth, and it should not be stated that one organ grows significantly faster than the other.⑥ Lines 352–367: Some 95% confidence intervals include 1.0, but the manuscript still concludes that all slopes are significantly greater than 1.0. The SMA results should be rechecked. ⑦ ines 364–389: There are errors in figure citations. The manuscript refers to Figure 7 and Figure 8, but the corresponding figure captions are Figure 5 and Figure 6. ⑧ Lines 378–381: The statement that a slope value was supplemented “based on contextual logic” is inappropriate. All reported values must come from actual statistical analyses. 
5. The Discussion section has the following problems: ① Lines 398–420: The Discussion repeats the Results too much. The authors mainly restate the finding that root mass ratio was higher than leaf mass ratio and stem mass ratio, but the ecological mechanisms are not discussed in sufficient depth. ② Lines 421–460: The explanation for differences in biomass allocation among plant formations relies too much on speculation. The authors mention altitude, ultraviolet radiation, low temperature, light competition, and culm morphology, but these environmental factors and functional traits were not directly measured in this study. Therefore, these interpretations should be stated more cautiously to avoid overinterpretation. ③ Lines 498–521: When leaf biomass and stem biomass show isometric growth, the authors still interpret the result as indicating that leaf or stem biomass increased significantly faster. This is inconsistent with the statistical meaning of isometric growth. The authors should revise this part to avoid contradiction with the results. ④ The authors do not adequately discuss the limitations and future perspectives of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewers

We are extremely grateful for the letters and suggestions from the reviewers, as well as for the opportunity and time you gave us to revise the manuscript. We have accepted and adopted the revision suggestions made by the reviewers regarding the article. These suggestions have been of great help in the revision and improvement of the manuscript, and also have significant guiding significance for our research. We have carefully read the suggestions from the reviewers regarding the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, result analysis, and discussion sections, and have carefully revised all the issues raised; these revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript. Please refer to the revised plants-4395910 (1). The modification instructions are as follows.

Comments 1: The Introduction contains too much general background information. This section should be shortened, with greater emphasis on the ecological characteristics of alpine peat swamp wetlands, their potential effects on biomass allocation, and the importance of studying plant formations rather than individual species;

Response 1: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 43-96).

Before modification:

eat bogs are developed in the cold and wet environment of the alpine region(Deng et al., 2025). In flooded environments, plant residues undergo incomplete decomposition and gradually accumulate, resulting in exceptionally high organic carbon content. This process gives rise to a distinctive wetland ecosystem that plays a crucial role in global carbon sequestration and the carbon cycle(Dyukarev et al., 2021).Biomass refers to the total amount of organic matter accumulated by an individual or community over a period of time, and is an important indicator of energy acquisition by an ecosystem(Zhang et al., 2021). The distribution of biomass among different organs is the core problem of plant ecology(Poorter et al., 2012). Among the organs of plants, leaves are important organs for plants to absorb light for photosynthesis and fix carbon. Stems mainly provide mechanical support, but also an important channel for plants to transport water and nutrients. Roots are the organs through which plants absorb water and nutrients (Brazel et al., 2019, Stepanova et al., 2024). The size (or proportion) of roots, stems, and leaves relative to biomass is called biomass allocation(Liu et al., 2025). The biomass distribution characteristics of plant roots, stems and leaves are important traits that determine the survival ability of plants under environmental changes, and represent the growth and metabolism patterns and ecological strategies of plants(Bao et al., 2024). It can reflect the investment of photosynthetic products in different organs of the plant (between different organs above ground, between above-ground organs and underground organs) to adapt to environmental conditions(Chen et al., 2025). The special ecological and hydrological processes of peat swamp wetland cause the complexity of plant community structure and the heterogeneity of habitat(Gaka et al., 2025). In order to maintain the necessary physiological activities and achieve normal growth, plants improve their environmental adaptability by balancing the biomass allocated to leaves, stems and roots to maximize the limited resources such as light, nutrition and water, and optimize their resource allocation(Pastore et al., 2022). Revealing the biomass allocation model of plants in alpine peat bogs not only can master the life history strategy of plants, but also has important significance for understanding the uncertainty of carbon sink in peat bogs.

The optimal allocation hypothesis states that plants tend to preferentially allocate resources to organs that have access to restricted resources in order to help plants acquire more restricted resources and thus maintain maximum growth rates(Golan et al., 2024). There is ontogenetic drift in plant biomass allocation pattern, and its allocation ratio changes with plant size, which limits the application of optimal allocation hypothesis, and allometric growth theory can solve this problem(Poorter et al., 2015). Allometric growth theory states that the allocation of biomass is mainly determined by the size of the plant(Yang et al., 2022). Allometric growth relationship analysis can exclude the influence of individual differences and reveal the strategic response of plants to the external environment, which is an important research method for plants to adapt to the environment(Zhu et al., 2025). Scholars have compared the advantages and disadvantages of the optimal allocation hypothesis and allometric growth theory, and the combined application of the two methods can better reveal the response of plants to environmental changes and further clarify their ecological adaptation strategies(Kunrath et al., 2020). It is of great significance to understand the biomass allocation and growth relationship among the organs of plant roots, stems and leaves for further study of the mechanism of plant adaptation to the environment, and accurately estimate the productivity of plant communities and even ecosystems.

The environmental characteristics of cold, high humidity, long-term water accumulation and poor local water mobility are the main driving forces to determine the plant community structure of peat bog ecosystem(Liu et al., 2019). The hydrological process and soil environmental conditions of wetland are the main limiting factors for plant growth, development and reproduction(Liu et al., 2021). In the long-term evolution process, plants in peat bogs formed a spatial distribution pattern and biomass distribution model suitable for habitat, which became an important internal stress in the formation of carbon pools in peat bogs(Duan et al., 2024). Environmental factors have important effects on the internal living conditions and habitat selection of vegetation in marsh wetland ecosystem. In order to resist the environmental stress of high cold, plants can improve their ability to obtain restricted resources and maintain their own growth and development by adjusting their morphological characteristics and biomass allocation patterns(Klimeova et al., 2024). This strategy is an important embodiment of the ecological adaptation strategy of plants to the environmental heterogeneity stress(Freschet et al., 2018). At present, the research on wetland plant biomass mainly focuses on the distribution model of individual dominant plant biomass under different habitat conditions, especially the response to drought stress(Wilschut et al., 2021), flooded habitat(Li et al., 2021), soil heterogeneity and the combination of species composition(Liu et al., 2021). From the perspective of community, there are few studies on biomass distribution and allometric growth relationship of major plant groups in alpine peat swamp. To accurately and quantitatively study the biomass distribution patterns and allometry relationships among roots, stems and leaves in peat bogs. To reveal the survival strategies and adaptive mechanisms of swamp plants, and provide theoretical basis for understanding the distribution model of carbon assimilation products and ecological adaptation strategies of plants in alpine peat swamps.

After modification:

Peat bogs develop in depressional areas with low drainage in the cold and wet environment of the alpine region (Deng et al., 2025). In the long-term evolution process, plants in peat bogs formed a spatial distribution pattern and biomass distribution model suitable for habitat, which became an important internal stress in the formation of carbon pools in peat bogs (Dy ukarev et al., 2021; Duan et al., 2024). To resist the environmental stress of high cold, plants can improve their ability to obtain restricted resources and maintain their own growth and development by adjusting their morphological characteristics and biomass allocation patterns (Klimeova et al., 2024). This strategy is an important embodiment of the ecological adaptation strategy of plants to the environmental heterogeneity stress (Freschet et al., 2018). Biomass refers to the total amount of organic matter accumulated by an individual or community over a period of time, and it is an important indicator of energy acquisition by an ecosystem (Zhang et al., 2021). The distribution of biomass among different organs is one of the central foci in plant ecology (Poorter et al., 2012). Leaves are important plant structures that absorb light for photosynthesis and fix carbon. Stems provide mechanical support but also an important channel for plants to transport water and nutrients. Roots are the components through which plants absorb water and nutrients (Brazel et al., 2019, Stepanova et al., 2024). The size (or proportion) of the roots, stems, and leaves relative to biomass is called biomass allocation(Liu et al., 2025). The biomass distribution characteristics of plant roots, stems and leaves are important traits that determine the survival ability of plants under environmental changes and represent the growth and metabolism patterns and ecological strategies of plants (Bao et al., 2024). It can reflect the investment of photosynthetic products in different organs of the plant (between different organs above ground, between above-ground organs and underground organs) to adapt to environmental conditions (Chen et al., 2025). Scholars have compared the advantages and disadvantages of the optimal allocation hypothesis and allometric growth theory, and the combined application of the two methods can better reveal the response of plants to environmental changes and further clarify their ecological adaptation strategies (Kunrath et al., 2020; Golan et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2025). It is of great significance to understand the biomass allocation and growth relationship among plant roots, stems and leaves for further study of the mechanism of plant adaptation to the environment and to accurately estimate the productivity of plant communities and even ecosystems.

Peat swamp wetlands have environmental characteristics of cold, high humidity, long-term water accumulation and poor local water mobility . These are the main driving factors determining the complexity of plant community structure and the heterogeneity of habitat(Liu et al., 2019; Gaka et al., 2025). To maintain the necessary physiological activities and achieve normal growth, plants improve their environmental adaptability by balancing the biomass allocated to leaves, stems and roots to maximize limited resources such as light, nutrition and water, and optimize their resource allocation (Pastore et al., 2022). The hydrological process and soil environmental conditions of a wetland are the main limiting factors for plant growth, development and reproduction (Liu et al., 2021). Environmental factors have important effects on the internal living conditions and habitat selection of vegetation in marsh wetland ecosystems. At present, the research on wetland plant biomass mainly focuses on the distribution model of individual dominant plant biomass under different habitat conditions, especially the response to drought stress (Wilschut et al., 2021), flooded habitat (Li et al., 2021), soil heterogeneity and the combination of species composition (Liu et al., 2021). From the perspective of community, there are few studies on biomass distribution and allometric growth relationship of major plant groups in alpine peat swamp. To accurately and quantitatively study the biomass distribution patterns and allometry relationships among roots, stems and leaves in peat bogs. This will reveal the survival strategies and adaptive mechanisms of swamp plants and will provide a theoretical basis for understanding the distribution model of carbon assimilation products and ecological adaptation strategies of plants in alpine peat swamps.

Comments 2: The study area description is mainly descriptive and does not clearly explain its relevance to the research questions. The authors should better highlight why this area is suitable for investigating biomass allocation and allometric relationships.

Response 2: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 124-146).

Before modification:

The first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve in the study area is located in the southwestern part of Maqu, Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu Province (101°54′12″-102°28′45″E, 33°20′01″-33°56′31″N), and the area of the reserve is 203,400 ha. The study area experiences long and frigid winters, short and mild summers, and exhibits a small annual temperature range and large daily temperature variations. The mean annual temperature of the area ranges from 1.1 to 1.5°C, with the highest recorded temperature at 23.6°C and the lowest at -29.6°C. The study area receives an average annual rainfall of 635-655 mm, while the evaporation rate averages at 1,353.4 mm per year. The annual sunshine duration in the study area averages at approximately 2,580 hours. The study area has an average frost-free period of 19 days and experiences 190 consecutive days of soil freezing. The soil types in the study area are primarily meadow soils, swamp soils, and peat soils. The dominant plant species found in the bog vegetation are herbaceous sedges such as Blysmus sinocompressus, Ranun culus hirtellus, Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis. Potentilla anserina, Carex kansuensis, Sanguisorba filiformis, Koeleria cristata, Heleocharis dulcis, and Pedicularis kansuensis and Polygonum viviparum.

After modification:

The first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve in the study area is located in the southwestern part of Maqu, Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu Province. The study area experiences long and frigid winters, short and mild summers, and exhibits a small annual temperature range and large daily temperature variations. The mean annual temperature of the area ranges from 1.1 to 1.5°C. The study area receives an average annual rainfall of 635-655 mm, while the evaporation rate averages at 1,353.4 mm per year. The annual sunshine duration in the study area averages at approximately 2,580 hours. The study area has an average frost-free period of 19 days and experiences 190 consecutive days of soil freezing. The soil types in the study area are primarily meadow soils, swamp soils, and peat soils. The dominant plant species found in the bog vegetation are herbaceous sedges such as Blysmus sinocompressus, Ranun culus hirtellus, Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis. Potentilla anserina, Carex kansuensis, Sanguisorba filiformis, Koeleria cristata, Heleocharis dulcis, Pedicularis kansuensis and Polygonum viviparum. The plant community in this study area is diverse and species-rich, with relatively good protection of natural vegetation. It is typical and representative of the high-altitude regions in China, and is an ideal area for studying the biomass allocation strategies and environmental adaptation strategies of peat swamp plant communities.

Comments 3: The sampling design is unclear. The authors should explain how the 189 quadrats were arranged, how many belonged to each plant formation, and whether data from different years were combined or tested for year effects.

Response 3: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 124-146).

Before modification:

Based on Google Maps and integrated with Gaofen-1 remote sensing imagery, the distribution of peat bogs within the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve has been identified. Several field surveys have been conducted on peat bogs in this region, and on the basis of considering accessibility, the distribution areas of peat bogs with typical development and weak disturbance are selected as the research objects. Three field plot survey experiments were carried out in the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve during July and August of 2021, as well as from July to August of 2023. A total of 189 plots measuring 1 m × 1 m were surveyed, effectively covering all combinations of wetland types and plant communities present in the study area (Fig. 1). The primary focus of the field investigation included a comprehensive assessment of key flora, plant species diversity, wetland classifications, geomorphic features, water supply sources for peat bogs, soil types, and other relevant information. Handheld GPS devices were utilized to accurately record survey point locations; detailed descriptions and photographs were also collected according to the established investigation criteria. The study area predominantly consists of winter pasture where plant growth was robust during the experimental period. This favorable condition helped mitigate grazing interference factors, ensuring that the experimental data obtained are comparable across different observations.

After modification:

Based on Google Maps and combined with the high-resolution One Satellite Remote Sensing Image data, the distribution locations of peat bogs were identified. The area with relatively intact peat bog preservation and less human activity interference in the Huanghe First Curve International Important Wetland was selected as the research object. Considering multiple on-site investigations from 2021 to 2022 in July and August, and taking into account accessibility, while taking into account all wetland types, plant types, landform types, altitude, slope and aspect of the terrain conditions in the study area, 189 survey plots were set up for the peat bog patches in the study area; from July to August 2023, the 189 survey plots were investigated and sampled for plant communities and soil physical and chemical properties (Fig. 1). During the experiment, the plant growth was good, and the plant community and wetland plant observation data were comparable.  The primary focus of the field investigation included a comprehensive assessment of key flora, plant species diversity, wetland classifications, geomorphic features, water supply sources for peat bogs, soil types, and other relevant information. Handheld GPS devices were utilized to accurately record survey point locations; detailed descriptions and photographs were also collected according to the established investigation criteria. The study area predominantly consists of winter pasture where plant growth was robust during the experimental period. This favorable condition helped mitigate grazing interference factors, ensuring that the experimental data obtained are comparable across different observations.

Comments 4: The biomass sampling method is insufficiently described. The authors should clarify the sampling area, root sampling depth, and how roots were separated from undecomposed plant residues.

Response 4: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 167-187).

Before modification:

Community Survey: Based on Flora of China and The Plant List (http://www. The plant list. org/), identify, name, and record all species present in each quadrat. Calculate and document the coverage, height, and density of plants within the quadrats.（2）Plant Sample Collection: After the completion of the community investigation, the surface debris was removed, and the above-ground plants were collected from the top down in the sample square according to 25 cm(length) × 25 cm(width) × 50 cm(height). During the initial collection, the root depth of the plant was determined by sampling to a depth of 100 cm (the root system of the wetland community was almost distributed in the 0-50 cm soil layer). Then the above-ground part of the plant is cut to the ground, and the wet weight is weighed on the spot and put into the envelope, numbered and marked with the vegetation type. The collected underground plant tissues were put into a nylon mesh bag with a aperture of 0.25mm and washed with water to clean the attached soil, and then the wet weight was weighed. Then, the entire plant root system was packed into envelopes, numbered and labeled with the type of vegetation, and the above and below ground parts of the plant were brought back to the laboratory.

After modification:

(1) Community survey: Based on the "Flora of China" and the "Plant Catalogue", confirm and name all the species present in each 1 m × 1 m sample plot, and record and organize the information; measure and record the height, coverage, and density of all plants in the sample plot. Then the above-ground part of the 30 cm(length) × 30 cm(width) plants was cut to the ground, and the wet weight was determined on the spot and put into a labelled, site-specific envelope that was numbered and marked with the vegetation type.

(2) Litter collection: After the community survey and the collection of above-ground samples are completed, collect the amount of litter in the survey sample plot (30 m × 30 m), remove the surface adhering soil, sand, and other impurities, and put it into envelopes and bring it back to the laboratory.

(3) Underground biomass collection: Use the trench method to dig underground biomass samples within the sample plot at a depth of 30 cm(length) × 30 cm(width)  × 50 cm(height). During the initial collection, the root depth of the plant was determined by sampling to a depth of 100 cm (the root system of the wetland community was almost distributed in the 0-50 cm soil layer). The collected underground plant tissues were placed in a nylon mesh bag with a aperture of 0.25mm and washed with water to clean the attached soil, and then the wet weight was weighed. Following this, the entire plant root system was packed into envelopes, numbered and labeled with the type of vegetation, and the above and below ground parts of the plant were brought back to the laboratory.

Comments 5: The calculation of importance values is inconsistent. The description and formula do not match and should be revised for consistency.

Response 5: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 199-203).

Before modification:

Importance value is a comprehensive quantitative measure of the importance of a species in its community. Significance values for each species are calculated using the average of relative height, relative coverage and relative density (IV). As a comprehensive quantitative index to evaluate the relative importance of each species in a community, Important value (IV) is calculated as follows:

After modification:

Importance value is a comprehensive quantitative measure of the importance of a species in its community. Significance values for each species are calculated using the average of relative height, relative coverage,  relative density and Relative biomass. As a comprehensive quantitative index to evaluate the relative importance of each species in a community, Important value (IV) is calculated as follows:

Comments 6: The classification of plant formations needs further explanation. The manuscript mentions DCA analysis, but the data source, classification criteria, and procedures are not described. Since F1–F6 are the basis of the study, this information should be provided.  Lines 238–270: The classification of F1–F6 lacks statistical support. The authors should provide the DCA ordination results and explain the criteria used to define these plant formations.

Response 6: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 199-203).

The 189 herbaceous plots were classified using the Trend Correspondence Analysis (DCA) method; The distribution of plant communities in the DCA sorting diagram is more concentrated; There are obvious boundaries between different vegetation communities, which can reveal the basic distribution pattern of plant communities in the Yellow River Head Curve Peat Swamp Wetland and their relationship with the environment. The DCA analysis of the peat swamp plant community at the headwaters of the Yellow River shows that the eigenvalue of axis 1 is 0.76, and the eigenvalue of axis 2 is 0.43. Based on the characteristic information of the first two sorting axes, it can be concluded that axis 1 can reflect the composition changes of the plant community under the environmental gradient (Table 1).

Table 1 DCA ranking characteristics statistics of 189 quadrats in alpine peat bogs

	Sorting axis
	DCA1	DCA2	DCA3	DCA4
Eigenvalue	0.76	0.43	0.25	0.11
DCA value	20.77	32.43	39.34	42.4
Axial length	5.49	3.07	2.94	1.94

Combining the environmental gradient and plant quadrats, based on the DCA analysis, the peat swamp plants were classified into 6 plant communities (Figure 1). The dominant species and associated species of each community were determined based on the species composition and importance values in the survey quadrats.

 

Figure 2 DCA sequence map of 189 plant quadrat in alpine peat bogs

Note:F1,Carex muliensis community; F2,Blysmus sinocompressus community; F3,Carex atrofusca community; F4,Kobresia tibetica community; F5,Carex pseuduncinoides community; F6,Carex kansuensis community;

Comments 7: Lines 240–254 and 275–285: Some importance values are inconsistent. For example, the importance value of Carex muliensis in F1 is reported as both 0.60 and 0.51. The authors should carefully check the data in the text, tables, and figures.

Response 7: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 254-271).

Before modification:

The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community (Table 1).The F1 community is mainly dominated by Carex muliensis community as its dominant species, with an importance value of 0.60. The F1 community has Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis and Heleocharis dulcisother hydrophytic plants as its associated species. The F1 community is mainly distributed in the alluvial depressions at the foot of the mountains and the inter-mountain depressions. The plant community is distributed in the form of patches, ridge networks, and arc-shaped grass mounds. There is seasonal or perennial water accumulation between the grass hills, with the water depth being approximately 10-15 cm (Table 1). The F2 community is dominated by the plant species Blysmus sinocompressus, with an importance value of 0.62. The associated species include Kobresia tibetica, Carex pseuduncinoides, Ranunculus natans, and Carex muliensis. The F2 community is mainly distributed in floodplains, alluvial depressions, and the edges of marshy wetlands. The surface of the area experiences seasonal or intermittent water accumulation, with the water depth buried at approximately 0-10 cm. The F3 community is dominated by the Carex atrofusca, with an importance value of 0.55.

After modification:

The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2.The F1 community is characterized by Carex muliensis community as its dominant species, with an importance value of 0.51. The F1 community includes Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis and Heleocharis dulcis, along with other hydrophytic plants as its associated species. The F1 community is principally distributed in the alluvial depressions at the foot of the mountains and the intermountain depressions. The plant community is distributed in the form of patches, ridge networks, and arc-shaped grass mounds. There is seasonal or perennial water accumulation between the grass hills, with the water depth being approximately 10-15 cm (Table 2). The F2 community is dominated by the plant species Blysmus sinocompressus. The associated species include Kobresia tibetica, Carex pseuduncinoides, Ranunculus natans, and Carex muliensis, with an importance value of 0.63. The F2 community is primary distributed in floodplains, alluvial depressions, and the edges of marshy wetlands. The surface of the area experiences seasonal or intermittent water accumulation, with the water depth buried at approximately 0-10 cm. The F3 community is dominated by the Carex atrofusca, with an importance value of 0.58. The F3 community also has associated species such as Blysmus sinocompressus, Scirpus pumilus, and Potentilla anserina. The F3 community is distributed in floodplains and gently sloping hillslopes in the piedmont area, forming a herbaceous marsh with intermittent water accumulation and a water depth ranging from 0 to 5 cm.  

Comments 8: Lines 304–310: Some biomass allocation values are inconsistent. For example, the reported range of stem mass ratio does not match the value given for F4. These values should be checked and unified.

Response 8: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 318-320).

Before modification:

Among the peat bog plants, the root mass ratio was the highest. In particular, the Carex kansuensis formation (F6) and Carex muliensis formation (F1) had the largest root mass ratios, with values of 82.78% and 81.67%, respectively, while the Kobresia kansuensis formation (F5) had the smallest root mass ratio (78.96%).

After modification:

Among the peat bog plants, the root mass ratio was the highest. In particular, the Carex kansuensis formation (F6) and Carex muliensis formation (F1) had the largest root mass ratios, with values of 82.38% and 81.47%, respectively, while the Kobresia kansuensis formation (F5) had the smallest root mass ratio (78.96%).

Comments 9:Lines 331–345: The interpretation of the leaf-stem allometric relationship is not appropriate. If the slope is not significantly different from 1.0, the result indicates isometric growth, and it should not be stated that one organ grows significantly faster than the other.

Response 9: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 354-360).

Before modification:

For the Carex atrofusca formation (F3), Kobresia tibetica formation (F4), and Kobresia kansuensis formation (F5), the SMA slopes were 1.11, 1.08, and 1.04, respectively, with no significant differences from 1.0 (P > 0.05). Their 95% confidence intervals were (0.94, 1.30), (0.94, 1.24), and (0.86, 1.25), respectively. This suggests an isometric growth relationship between leaf biomass and stem biomass in F3, F4, and F5 as well, but with the growth rate of stem biomass being significantly higher than that of leaf biomass. Overall, the leaf biomass and stem biomass of the main plant formations in alpine peat bogs exhibited isometric growth, reflecting an ecological strategy of balanced growth.

After modification:

For the Carex atrofusca formation (F3), Kobresia tibetica formation (F4), and Kobresia kansuensis formation (F5), the SMA slopes were 1.11, 1.08, and 1.04, respectively, with no significant differences from 1.0 (P > 0.05). Their 95% confidence intervals were (0.94, 1.30), (0.94, 1.24), and (0.86, 1.25), respectively. This suggests an isometric growth relationship between leaf biomass and stem biomass in F3, F4, and F5 as well. Overall, the leaf biomass and stem biomass of the main plant formations in alpine peat bogs exhibited isometric growth, reflecting an ecological strategy of balanced growth.

Comments 10: Lines 352–367: Some 95% confidence intervals include 1.0, but the manuscript still concludes that all slopes are significantly greater than 1.0. The SMA results should be rechecked.

Response 10: In the analysis of the heteromorphic growth relationship between stems and roots of the main plant communities in the alpine peat bogs as described in 3.3.3; the figure was mistakenly placed as a graph showing the allometric growth of plant litter and root biomass, which caused inconvenience for your reading. We are deeply sorry for this. After careful verification, we have made corrections..

Comments 11: Lines 364–389: There are errors in figure citations. The manuscript refers to Figure 7 and Figure 8, but the corresponding figure captions are Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Response 11: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. e are deeply sorry for this. After careful verification, we have made corrections..

Comments 12：Lines 297–310: The biomass allocation results lack key statistical information. The authors should report the F values, degrees of freedom, P values, and multiple comparison results from the ANOVA.

Response 12: Thank you very much for the question raised by the reviewer. It was our mistake and we did not express it clearly. e are deeply sorry for this. After careful review and revision, we have added the F values, degrees of freedom, P values and multiple comparison results to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) section.

		Sum of Squares	df	Average squared value	F	Significance
Leaf biomass	Among groups	114184.367	5	22836.873	10.032	0.001
	Within the group	416574.129	184	2276.361
	Statistics	530758.496	189
Stem biomass	Among groups	48678.575	5	9735.715	16.913	0.002
	Within the group	10533.698	184	57.561
	Statistics	59212.273	189
Root biomass	Among groups	1170721.918	5	234144.384	4.472	0.000
	Within the group	9581522.294	184	52358.045
	Statistics	10752244.21	189
Leaf mass ratio	Among groups	134.025	5	26.805	13.907	0.001
	Within the group	352.73	184	1.927
	Statistics	486.755	189
Stem mass ratio	Among groups	128.807	5	25.761	35.553	0.035
	Within the group	132.6	184	0.725
	Statistics	261.408	189
Root mass ratio	Among groups	314.789	5	62.958	23.172	0.011
	Within the group	497.208	184	2.717
	Statistics	811.997	189

 

Add references

Liu G Z, Zhao K, Zhang S.-Q, Liang, et al . Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationship of Salix gordejevii Branches in Sandy Habitats Heterogeneity in Northern China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5483.DOI: 10.3390/su16135483

Yang Z, Zhang C, Cao Q, Yu, et al . Regulatory Effects of Mowing on Biomass Allocation and Compensation Growth Mechanisms in Elymus Species. Agriculture 2025, 15, 820. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15080820

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to investigate species composition, biomass allocation in the main flora, and growth relationships in an alpine peat swamp wetland. While numerous studies of this type have been conducted, each site on the planet has its own unique characteristics, and the flora may exhibit diverse responses. The manuscript is generally well-developed, with the exception of a glaring error in the separation between the Methods and Materials section, where it is unclear where the section ends and the Results section begins. The authors are advised to correct this issue.

Other concerns

Line 22: authors must write six instead of 6. Cardinal numbers from 1 to 10 are generally written in words and not as numbers.

Lines 130 - 138: With this objective: We attempt to elucidate, is it correct to use question marks at the end of each item. These are not research questions.

Line 148: Potential evaporation? What is evaporation measured by?

Figure 1: What does each image represent? A figure caption should be as descriptive as possible. The reader shouldn't have to search for the meaning of each element included in the figure. Identifying the plots is not easy. It is recommended to enlarge the figure containing the plots and reduce the others, since this last one is the most important.

Line 181: (2) ???

Lines 186 - 189: Check the verb tenses.

Line 224: Logarithms, What logarithm?

Line 273: importance. Correct by changing "important" to "importance" where appropriate

Figure 2: Importance instead of important

Figure 3: 

What is RMR, SMR and LMR. Generally, the values ​​in parentheses are separated by a space from the axis name, for example you wrote: Percentage(%), it should be Percentage (%) and so on for all other axes.

Please take note of the comment in Figure 1.

Figure 4: 

Which is leaf biomass, and which is stem biomass? 

Same comment than that on Figure 1.

Are the slope coefficients different?

Figure 6: 

Which is leaf biomass, and which is root biomass? 

Same comment than that on Figure 1.

Are the slope coefficients different?

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers

We are extremely grateful for the letters and suggestions from the reviewers, as well as for the opportunity and time you gave us to revise the manuscript. We have accepted and adopted the revision suggestions made by the reviewers regarding the article. These suggestions have been of great help in the revision and improvement of the manuscript, and also have significant guiding significance for our research. We have carefully read the suggestions from the reviewers and discussion sections, and have carefully revised all the issues raised; these revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript. Please refer to the revised plants-4395910 (1). The modification instructions are as follows.

 

Comments 1: This study aims to investigate species composition, biomass allocation in the main flora, and growth relationships in an alpine peat swamp wetland. While numerous studies of this type have been conducted, each site on the planet has its own unique characteristics, and the flora may exhibit diverse responses. The manuscript is generally well-developed, with the exception of a glaring error in the separation between the Methods and Materials section, where it is unclear where the section ends and the Results section begins. The authors are advised to correct this issue.

Response 1: We are extremely grateful for the letters and suggestions from the reviewers. We have accepted and adopted the revision suggestions put forward by the reviewers. These suggestions have been of great help in the revision and improvement of the manuscript, and also have significant guiding significance for our research. We have carefully considered and agreed with the reviewers' points regarding the issues in the methods and materials section. These revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript.。

Before modification:

2.2 Experimental Setup

Based on Google Maps and integrated with Gaofen-1 remote sensing imagery, the distribution of peat bogs within the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve has been identified. Several field surveys have been conducted on peat bogs in this region, and on the basis of considering accessibility, the distribution areas of peat bogs with typical development and weak disturbance are selected as the research objects. Three field plot survey experiments were carried out in the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve during July and August of 2021, as well as from July to August of 2023. A total of 189 plots measuring 1 m × 1 m were surveyed, effectively covering all combinations of wetland types and plant communities present in the study area (Fig. 1). The primary focus of the field investigation included a comprehensive assessment of key flora, plant species diversity, wetland classifications, geomorphic features, water supply sources for peat bogs, soil types, and other relevant information. Handheld GPS devices were utilized to accurately record survey point locations; detailed descriptions and photographs were also collected according to the established investigation criteria. The study area predominantly consists of winter pasture where plant growth was robust during the experimental period. This favorable condition helped mitigate grazing interference factors, ensuring that the experimental data obtained are comparable across different observations.

2.3 Survey Sampling

Community Survey: Based on Flora of China and The Plant List (http://www. The plant list. org/), identify, name, and record all species present in each quadrat. Calculate and document the coverage, height, and density of plants within the quadrats.（2）Plant Sample Collection: After the completion of the community investigation, the surface debris was removed, and the above-ground plants were collected from the top down in the sample square according to 25 cm(length) × 25 cm(width) × 50 cm(height). During the initial collection, the root depth of the plant was determined by sampling to a depth of 100 cm (the root system of the wetland community was almost distributed in the 0-50 cm soil layer). Then the above-ground part of the plant is cut to the ground, and the wet weight is weighed on the spot and put into the envelope, numbered and marked with the vegetation type. The collected underground plant tissues were put into a nylon mesh bag with a aperture of 0.25mm and washed with water to clean the attached soil, and then the wet weight was weighed. Then, the entire plant root system was packed into envelopes, numbered and labeled with the type of vegetation, and the above and below ground parts of the plant were brought back to the laboratory.

After modification:

2.2. Experimental Setup

Based on Google Maps and combined with the high-resolution One Satellite Remote Sensing Image data, the distribution locations of peat bogs were identified. The area with relatively intact peat bog preservation and less human activity interference in the Huanghe First Curve International Important Wetland was selected as the research object. Considering multiple on-site investigations from 2021 to 2022 in July and August, and taking into account accessibility, while taking into account all wetland types, plant types, landform types, altitude, slope and aspect of the terrain conditions in the study area, 189 survey plots were set up for the peat bog patches in the study area; from July to August 2023, the 189 survey plots were investigated and sampled for plant communities and soil physical and chemical properties (Fig. 1). During the experiment, the plant growth was good, and the plant community and wetland plant observation data were comparable.  The primary focus of the field investigation included a comprehensive assessment of key flora, plant species diversity, wetland classifications, geomorphic features, water supply sources for peat bogs, soil types, and other relevant information. Handheld GPS devices were utilized to accurately record survey point locations; detailed descriptions and photographs were also collected according to the established investigation criteria. The study area predominantly consists of winter pasture where plant growth was robust during the experimental period. This favorable condition helped mitigate grazing interference factors, ensuring that the experimental data obtained are comparable across different observations.

2.3. Survey Sampling

(1) Community survey: Based on the "Flora of China" and the "Plant Catalogue", confirm and name all the species present in each 1 m × 1 m sample plot, and record and organize the information; measure and record the height, coverage, and density of all plants in the sample plot. Then the above-ground part of the 30 cm(length) × 30 cm(width) plants was cut to the ground, and the wet weight was determined on the spot and put into a labelled, site-specific envelope that was numbered and marked with the vegetation type.

(2) Litter collection: After the community survey and the collection of above-ground samples are completed, collect the amount of litter in the survey sample plot (30 m × 30 m), remove the surface adhering soil, sand, and other impurities, and put it into envelopes and bring it back to the laboratory.

(3) Underground biomass collection: Use the trench method to dig underground biomass samples within the sample plot at a depth of 30 cm(length) × 30 cm(width)  × 50 cm(height). During the initial collection, the root depth of the plant was determined by sampling to a depth of 100 cm (the root system of the wetland community was almost distributed in the 0-50 cm soil layer). The collected underground plant tissues were placed in a nylon mesh bag with a aperture of 0.25mm and washed with water to clean the attached soil, and then the wet weight was weighed. Following this, the entire plant root system was packed into envelopes, numbered and labeled with the type of vegetation, and the above and below ground parts of the plant were brought back to the laboratory.

Comments 2: Line 22 authors must write six instead of 6. Cardinal numbers from 1 to 10 are generally written in words and not as numbers.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 22-23). 

Before modification: The results showed that:(1) The peat swamp plants were classified into 6 formations dominated by Carex muliensis, Blysmus sinocompressus, Carex atrofusca, Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia kansuensis, and Carex kansuensis, respectively. Environmental filtering was identified as the primary factor influencing the distribution of formations in this region.

After modification:The results showed that:(1) The peat swamp plants can be classified into six formations dominated by Carex muliensis, Blysmus sinocompressus, Carex atrofusca, Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia kansuensis, and Carex kansuensis, respectively. Environmental filtering was identified as the primary factor influencing the distribution of formations in this region.

Comments 3: Lines 130 - 138 With this objective: We attempt to elucidate, is it correct to use question marks at the end of each item. These are not research questions.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 114-118). 

Before modification: We attempt to elucidate: (1) The species composition of the main flora in alpine peat swamp wetlands? (2) What are the biomass allocation strategies of the main plant groups in alpine peat bogs? (3) Allometric growth relationship of root, stem and leaf organs of major plant groups in alpine peat swamp wetland?

After modification: In this study we attempt to elucidate: (1) What is the species composition of the main flora in alpine peat swamp wetlands? (2) What are the biomass allocation strategies of the main plant groups in alpine peat bogs? (3) What characterizes and determines the allometric growth relationship of root, stem and leaf organs of major plant groups in alpine peat swamp wetland?

Comments 4: Potential evaporation? What is evaporation measured by?

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions, The average temperature, annual rainfall, annual evaporation and annual sunshine duration data of the study area are all sourced from the National Meteorological Data Center (http://data.cma.cn/site/index.html)

Comments 5: Figure 1: What does each image represent? A figure caption should be as descriptive as possible. The reader shouldn't have to search for the meaning of each element included in the figure. Identifying the plots is not easy. It is recommended to enlarge the figure containing the plots and reduce the others, since this last one is the most important.

Response 5: We are extremely grateful for the questions raised by the reviewers regarding the chart preparation. We have accepted your suggestions and made careful revisions. Moreover, we have further annotated the chart to provide detailed explanations of the content depicted therein.

After modification: 

 

Figure 1. Setting of experimental plots in the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve of Maqu County.

Note: Figure A shows the location of Maqu in Gansu Province, Figure B shows the position of the Huanghe Shouqu Nature Reserve in Maqu, and Figure C shows the 189 sampling points set up along the Huanghe Shouqu.

Comments 6: Lines 186 - 189: Check the verb tenses.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. 2.3. The content of the "Survey Sampling" section has been carefully reviewed and revised.

Comments 7: Line 273: importance. Correct by changing "important" to "importance" where appropriate

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding these grammatical errors and unclear expressions. We have carefully checked and revised.

Before modification: Based on the calculation of plant important values (IV), the species composition of the main plant formations in the peat bog wetlands is as follows (Figure 2):

After modification: The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2.

Comments 8: Figure 2: Importance instead of important

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding these grammatical errors and unclear expressions. We have carefully checked and revised.

Before modification: Figure 2 Important values of species in main plant formations of peat bog wetlands

After modification: Figure 3. Importance values of species in main plant formations of peat bog wetlands.

Comments 9: Figure 3: What is RMR, SMR and LMR. Generally, the values in parentheses are separated by a space from the axis name, for example you wrote: Percentage(%), it should be Percentage (%) and so on for all other axes.

Response 9: We are extremely grateful for the questions raised by the reviewers regarding the chart preparation. We have accepted your suggestions and made careful revisions. Moreover, we have further annotated the chart to provide detailed explanations of the content depicted therein.

Before modification:

 

Figure 3. Biomass allocation of main plant formations in alpine peat bog wetlands

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation.

After modification: 

 

Figure 4. Biomass allocation of main plant formations in alpine peat bog wetlands.

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. RMR, Root mass ratio; LMR, Leaf mass ratio; SMR, Stem mass ratio.

Comments 10: Figure 4 Which is leaf biomass, and which is stem biomass? Figure 6: Which is leaf biomass, and which is root biomass? Same comment than that on Figure 1.

Response 10: We are extremely grateful for the questions raised by the reviewers regarding the chart preparation. We have accepted your suggestions and made careful revisions. Moreover, we have further annotated the chart to provide detailed explanations of the content depicted therein.

After modification:

Figure 5. Allometric growth relationship between leaf and stem biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. LogB_L, Leaf biomass; LogB_S, Stem biomass;

Figure 6. Allometric Growth Relationship Between Leaf and Root Biomass of Main Plant Formations in Alpine Peat Bogs.

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation.  LogB_L, Leaf biomass; LogB_R, Root biomass;

Figure 7. Allometric growth relationship between stem and root biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.

Note: F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. LogB_S, Stem biomass; LogB_R, Root biomass;

Add references

Liu G Z, Zhao K, Zhang S.-Q, Liang, et al . Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationship of Salix gordejevii Branches in Sandy Habitats Heterogeneity in Northern China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5483.DOI: 10.3390/su16135483

Yang Z, Zhang C, Cao Q, Yu, et al . Regulatory Effects of Mowing on Biomass Allocation and Compensation Growth Mechanisms in Elymus Species. Agriculture 2025, 15, 820. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15080820

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationships of Major 

Plant Formations in alpine peat swamp wetlands

 

This paper needs to be revised and then re-submitted, as there are many wording issues, as well as a substantive quantity of spacing, punctuation and other errors that need correcting.  The paper does present and analyze original data and with revision of the manuscript, it can be accepted and can be published.  The authors are urged to make the changes recommended and re-submit the manuscript for review.  The findings and their analysis are good, and the paper has excellent tables and figures presenting the data.  Comments, suggested re-wording, and needed punctuation changes are indicated (highlighted in red) in the manuscript document below. 

Were there vascular plant voucher collections made at any of the sties or to document any of the formations?  If so, the Herbaria in which they are curated should be listed.  It would useful to list a few herbaria that do have collections of the vascular plants from the study sties.

 There are a number of sentences that need to be revised, an example of which follows (and others are indicated in red highlight) - a few examples of which are listed below.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Lines 179 – 181 (The beginning of Section 2.3 Survey Sampling):                                                                                                                                                         Community Survey: Based on Flora of China and The Plant List ?????(http://www. The plant list. org/),???? identify, name, and record all species present in each quadrat.????? Calculate and document the coverage, height, and density of plants within the quadrats.

There should be a space between a cited reference and the last word of the sentence proceeding the citation:  diversity (Ma et al., 2011 - rather than diversity(Ma et al., 2011).  

In the References section, all citations should end with a period after the doi link and the citations need to be carefully gone over to assure that spacing is correct and consistent throughout.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers

We are extremely grateful for the letters and suggestions from the reviewers, as well as for the opportunity and time you gave us to revise the manuscript. We have accepted and adopted the revision suggestions made by the reviewers regarding the article. These suggestions have been of great help in the revision and improvement of the manuscript, and also have significant guiding significance for our research. We have carefully read the suggestions from the reviewers regarding the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, result analysis, and discussion sections, and have carefully revised all the issues raised; these revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript. The modification instructions are as follows. The modification instructions are as follows.

Comments 1: The abstract section contains abstract grammatical errors and ambiguous expressions.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 14-17,20-23). 

Before modification:

Revealing the biomass allocation and allometric growth relationships among the dominant plant formations in alpine peat swamp wetlands can not only help grasp the life-history strategies of swamp plants, but also play a crucial role in understanding the uncertainty of plant carbon sinks in peat swamp wetlands.

After modification:

Revealing the biomass allocation and allometric growth relationships among the dominant plant formations in alpine peat swamp wetlands can not only help elucidate the life-history strategies of swamp plants but also can play a crucial role in understanding the uncertainty of plant carbon sinks in peat swamp wetlands.

Before modification:

The results showed that:(1) The peat swamp plants were classified into 6 formations dominated by Carex muliensis, Blysmus sinocompressus, Carex atrofusca, Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia kansuensis, and Carex kansuensis, respectively. Environmental filtering was identified as the primary factor influencing the distribution of formations in this region.

After modification:

The results showed that:(1) The peat swamp plants can be classified into six formations dominated by Carex muliensis, Blysmus sinocompressus, Carex atrofusca, Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia kansuensis, and Carex kansuensis, respectively. Environmental filtering was identified as the primary factor influencing the distribution of formations in this region.

Comments 2: The key words: section contains abstract grammatical errors and ambiguous expressions.

(1)Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 40-41). 

Before modification:

 biomass allocation, allometric growth relationship, peat swamp wetland, plant formation

After modification:

biomass allocation patterns; allometric growth relationships; peat swamp wetlands;

Comments 3: The introduction section contains abstract grammatical errors and ambiguous expressions.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 44-45). 

Before modification: Peat bogs are developed in the cold and wet environment of the alpine region(Deng et al., 2025). 

After modification: Peat bogs develop in depressional areas with low drainage in the cold and wet environment of the alpine region (Deng et al., 2025). 

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 56-60). 

Before modification: The distribution of biomass among different organs is the core problem of plant ecology(Poorter et al., 2012). Among the organs of plants, leaves are important organs for plants to absorb light for photosynthesis and fix carbon. Stems mainly provide mechanical support, but also an important channel for plants to transport water and nutrients. Roots are the organs through which plants absorb water and nutrients (Brazel et al., 2019, Stepanova et al., 2024).

After modification: The distribution of biomass among different organs is one of the central foci in plant ecology (Poorter et al., 2012). Leaves are important plant structures that absorb light for photosynthesis and fix carbon. Stems provide mechanical support but also an important channel for plants to transport water and nutrients. Roots are the components through which plants absorb water and nutrients (Brazel et al., 2019, Stepanova et al., 2024).

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 62-65). 

Before modification:The biomass distribution characteristics of plant roots, stems and leaves are important traits that determine the survival ability of plants under environmental changes, and represent the growth and metabolism patterns and ecological strategies of plants(Bao et al., 2024).

After modification: The biomass distribution characteristics of plant roots, stems and leaves are important traits that determine the survival ability of plants under environmental changes and represent the growth and metabolism patterns and ecological strategies of plants (Bao et al., 2024).  

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 72-75). 

Before modification: It is of great significance to understand the biomass allocation and growth relationship among the organs of plant roots, stems and leaves for further study of the mechanism of plant adaptation to the environment, and accurately estimate the productivity of plant communities and even ecosystems.

After modification: It is of great significance to understand the biomass allocation and growth relationship among plant roots, stems and leaves for further study of the mechanism of plant adaptation to the environment and to accurately estimate the productivity of plant communities and even ecosystems.

 Before modification: In order to resist the environmental stress of high cold, plants can improve their ability to obtain restricted resources and maintain their own growth and development by adjusting their morphological characteristics and biomass allocation patterns(Klimeova et al., 2024).

After modification:To resist the environmental stress of high cold, plants can improve their ability to obtain restricted resources and maintain their own growth and development by adjusting their morphological characteristics and biomass allocation patterns (Klimeova et al., 2024).

Response 7:Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 72-75). 

Before modification:We attempt to elucidate: (1) The species composition of the main flora in alpine peat swamp wetlands? (2) What are the biomass allocation strategies of the main plant groups in alpine peat bogs? (3) Allometric growth relationship of root, stem and leaf organs of major plant groups in alpine peat swamp wetland? It aims to reveal the main resource allocation models and survival strategies of peat marsh wetland from the perspective of community science, and deepen the understanding of plant biomass allocation strategies and resource niches in peat marsh wetland. It provides a theoretical basis for the study of the adaptation mechanism of plant and environment synergistic change in peat bog wetland.

After modification:  In this study we attempt to elucidate: (1) What is the species composition of the main flora in alpine peat swamp wetlands? (2) What are the biomass allocation strategies of the main plant groups in alpine peat bogs? (3) What characterizes and determines the allometric growth relationship of root, stem and leaf organs of major plant groups in alpine peat swamp wetland? It aims to reveal the main resource allocation models and survival strategies of peat marsh wetland from the perspective of community science, and it deepens the understanding of plant biomass allocation strategies and resource niches in peat marsh wetland. It provides a theoretical basis for the study of the adaptation mechanism of plant and environment synergistic change in peat bog wetland.

 

Comments 8: The methods section contains abstract grammatical errors and ambiguous expressions.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 168-174). 

 Before modification:Community Survey: Based on Flora of China and The Plant List (http://www. The plant list. org/), identify, name, and record all species present in each quadrat. Calculate and document the coverage, height, and density of plants within the quadrats.（2.3. Survey Sampling

After modification: (1) Community survey: Based on the "Flora of China" and the "Plant Catalogue", confirm and name all the species present in each 1 m × 1 m sample plot, and record and organize the information; measure and record the height, coverage, and density of all plants in the sample plot. Then the above-ground part of the 30 cm(length) × 30 cm(width) plants was cut to the ground, and the wet weight was determined on the spot and put into a labelled, site-specific envelope that was numbered and marked with the vegetation type.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 179-187). 

 Before modification: Then the above-ground part of the plant is cut to the ground, and the wet weight is weighed on the spot and put into the envelope, numbered and marked with the vegetation type. The collected underground plant tissues were put into a nylon mesh bag with a aperture of 0.25mm and washed with water to clean the attached soil, and then the wet weight was weighed. Then, the entire plant root system was packed into envelopes, numbered and labeled with the type of vegetation, and the above and below ground parts of the plant were brought back to the laboratory.

After modification:Underground biomass collection: Use the trench method to dig underground biomass samples within the sample plot at a depth of 30 cm(length) × 30 cm(width)  × 50 cm(height). During the initial collection, the root depth of the plant was determined by sampling to a depth of 100 cm (the root system of the wetland community was almost distributed in the 0-50 cm soil layer). The collected underground plant tissues were placed in a nylon mesh bag with a aperture of 0.25mm and washed with water to clean the attached soil, and then the wet weight was weighed. Following this, the entire plant root system was packed into envelopes, numbered and labeled with the type of vegetation, and the above and below ground parts of the plant were brought back to the laboratory.

Response 10:Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 192-197). 

Before modification: 

In the Laboratory of Ecology and Hydrology of Northwest Normal University, the above-ground part (divided into stems and leaves) and the underground part (roots) of the plant community collected in the field were respectively put into numbered envelopes. The green was first defoliated at 105℃ for 30 min, then baked in an oven at 85℃ for 24 h to constant weight, weighed with an electronic balance (0.0001g), and the stem biomass, leaf biomass and root biomass of the plant community were recorded. The biomass allocation parameters of individual roots, stems and leaves of plants were based on the proportion of the mass of individual roots, stems and leaves to the total mass of the plant (Poorter et al, 2012).

After modification:

In the Laboratory of Ecology and Hydrology of Northwest Normal University, the above-ground plant elements (divided into stems and leaves) and the underground portions (roots) of the plant community collected in the field were respectively put into numbered envelopes. First, the sample will be heated at 105℃ for 30 minutes, then it will be dried in an oven at 85℃ for 24 hours until a constant weight is achieved. The weight will be measured using an electronic balance (with an accuracy of 0.0001g), and the biomass of the plant community's stems, leaves, and roots will be recorded. The biomass allocation parameters of individual roots, stems and leaves of plants were based on the proportion of the mass of individual roots, stems and leaves to the total mass of the plant (Poorter et al, 2012).

Comments 11: The result analysis section contains abstract grammatical errors and ambiguous expressions.

Response 11: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 192-197). 

Before modification: The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community (Table 1).The F1 community is mainly dominated by Carex muliensis community as its dominant species, with an importance value of 0.60. The F1 community has Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis and Heleocharis dulcisother hydrophytic plants as its associated species. 

After modification:The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2.The F1 community is characterized by Carex muliensis community as its dominant species. The F1 community includes Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis and Heleocharis dulcis, along with other hydrophytic plants as its associated species.

Response 12: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 256-260). 

Before modification: 

The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community (Table 1).The F1 community is mainly dominated by Carex muliensis community as its dominant species, with an importance value of 0.60. The F1 community has Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis and Heleocharis dulcisother hydrophytic plants as its associated species. 

After modification:

The species composition and importance values of the alpine peat swamp plant community are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2.The F1 community is characterized by Carex muliensis community as its dominant species. The F1 community includes Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis and Heleocharis dulcis, along with other hydrophytic plants as its associated species.

Response 13: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 287-288). 

Before modification: 

Table 1 Species composition and habitat environment of major plant groups in peat bogs

After modification:

Table 2. Species composition and habitat environment of major plant groups in the study area peat bogs.

Response 14: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 332-334). 

Before modification: 

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation.

After modification:

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation.

6.In the References section, all citations should end with a period after the doi link and the citations need to be carefully gone over to assure that spacing is correct and consistent throughout.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. After careful verification, when citing references, we leave a space after the sentence ending in the quotation marks.In the reference section, all citations are followed by a period after the DOI link to ensure correct and consistent spacing throughout the entire text.

Add references

Liu G Z, Zhao K, Zhang S.-Q, Liang, et al . Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationship of Salix gordejevii Branches in Sandy Habitats Heterogeneity in Northern China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5483.DOI: 10.3390/su16135483

Yang Z, Zhang C, Cao Q, Yu, et al . Regulatory Effects of Mowing on Biomass Allocation and Compensation Growth Mechanisms in Elymus Species. Agriculture 2025, 15, 820. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15080820

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of paper have been improved.

Author Response

Comments 1:The language needs further improvement.

Response 1:Thank you! We have fully adopted your suggestions. After careful review, we revised and polished the language of the manuscript through MDPI (please refer to the annotated revised version). Please refer to the revised english-edited-1119201. The modification instructions are as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationships among Major Plant Formations in the Alpine Peat Swamp Wetlands of the Yellow River on the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China

 The authors have been extremely responsive to review comments, and their revisions are excellent. The paper still needs minor wording and punctuation changes, but once those are completed it can be accepted for publication. I have indicated my suggested changes below, and the paper needs to be carefully examined for other potential punctuation changes needed.  In the references section, there should be a space after commas prior to the next word or number, for example.  At any rate, once the changes have been incorporated, the paper will be acceptable for publication.  I strongly encourage and urge the authors to implement the minor changes requested and re-submit the paper for publication.

 

Specific comments, wording and punctuation recommendations, beginning with a suggested more descriptive title:

Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationships among Major Plant Formations in the Alpine Peat Swamp Wetlands of the Yellow River

on the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China

Lines 21 – 22. …of the dominant plant formation in the alpine peat swamp wetlands of the Yellow River on the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China.

Line 41.  wetlands  

Line 48. (Dyukarev et al., 2021;

Line 62. allocation ( Liu et al., 2025). The

Line 79.  of habitat (Liu et al., 2019;

Line 134. The annual sunshine duration in the study area average is approximately 2,580 hours.

Lines 140-141.  with relatively protected and intact natural vegetation.

Line 145. Figure 1. The locations of the experimental plots

Lines 145 – 149.  Figure 1. The location and setting of experimental plots in the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve of Maqu County. Figure A shows the location of Maqu in Gansu Province, Figure B indicates the position of the Huanghe Shouqu Nature Reserve in Maqu, and Figure C shows the 189 sampling points established along the Huanghe Shouqu section of the Yellow River.

Lines 197 – 199.  The weight was measured using an electronic balance (with an accuracy of 0.0001g), and the biomass of the plant community's stems, leaves, and roots were recorded.

Line 250. Table 1. DCA ranking characteristics statistics of 189 quadrats in alpine peat bogs.

Lines 256 – 259.  Figure 2.  DCA sequence map of 189 plant quadrat in alpine peat bogs in which F1 = Carex muliensis community; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus community; F3 = Carex atrofusca community; F4 = Kobresia tibetica community; F5 =  Carex pseuduncinoides community; and F6 = Carex kansuensis community.

Line 261. Table 2 and Figure 2. The

Line 271. The F2 community is primarily distributed

Line 292. In Table 2, under F1, the var. setosa should be italicized and I have never seen et al. used the way it is in this table in all all 6 of the F1 – 6 series..  I would suggest changing et al. to: …and associated species – throughout the Table (Table 2).  Also, there should be space the comma after a species and the next genus name – for example, under F4 …filiformis, (space) Halerpestes.   In the Table 2 column identifieers, I suggest changing “accompanying species” to “associated species”

Table 2. – in F1 – Eleocharis valleculosa var. setosa, and Centella asiatica, and associated species
Flora Depth to Groundwater Table (cm)  Altitude      Edificator      Associated Species

F1        Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis,
Equisetum fluviatile, Blysmus
sinocompressus, Eleocharis
valleculosa var. setosa, Centella
asiatica, and associated species

F2        Blysmus sinocompressusKobresia tibetica,

 Carex muliensis, Halerpestes tricuspis, Centella
asiatica, Carex atrofusca, Juncus
przewalskii, and associated species

F3        Carex atrofusca
Blysmus sinocompressus, Kobresia
kansuensis, Potentilla anserina,
Kobresia tibetica, and associated species

F4       Kobresia tibetica
Blysmus sinocompressus, Sanguisorba
filiformis,Halerpestes
tricuspis,Potentilla anserina and associated species

F5        Kobresia kansuensis
Kobresia tibetica, Polygonum
viviparum, Scirpus pumilus, Poa
pratensis, Potentilla anserina, and associated species

F6       Carex kansuensis
Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis、
Pedicularis kansuensis, and associated species

Lines 335 – 338.  Figure 4. Biomass allocation of main plant formations in alpine peat bog wetlands. F1= Carex muliensis formation; F2 =Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; and F5 = Kobresia kansuensis form.  RMR = Root mass ratio; LMR = Leaf mass ratio; and SMR = Stem mass ratio.

Lines 368 – 372. Figure 5. Allometric growth relationship between leaf and stem biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs. F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation.  LogBL = Leaf biomass; and LogBS = Stem biomass.

Lines 390 – 394.  Figure 6. Allometric Growth Relationship Between Leaf and Root Biomass of the Main Plant Formations in Alpine Peat Bogs. F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation.  LogB = Leaf biomass; LogBR =  Root biomass.

Lines 414 – 418. Figure 7. Allometric growth relationship between stem and root biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.  F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation.  LogBS = Stem biomass; LogBR = Root biomass.

Line 493. findings of Cheng et al. (2014),

Line 595. Diarmuid S. Photosynthetic activity

Line 597. Non-Foliar Photosynthesis in Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Plants:

Line 600. Lonicera japonica

Lines 667 – 670. 38. Liu G Z, Zhao K, Zhang S.-Q, Liang, et al. Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationship of Salix gordejevii Branches in Sandy Habitats Heterogeneity in Northern China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5483.DOI: 10.3390/su16135483.668
39. Yang Z, Zhang C, Cao Q, Yu, et al. Regulatory Effects of Mowing on Biomass Allocation and Compensation Growth Mechanisms in Elymus Species. Agriculture 2025, 15, 820. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15080820.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers

Thank you very much to the reviewers for the suggestions and revisions they made regarding the article. We have accepted and adopted the revision suggestions made by the reviewers regarding the article. These suggestions have been of great help in the revision and improvement of the manuscript, and also have significant guiding significance for our research. We have carefully read the suggestions from the reviewers and discussion sections, and have carefully revised all the issues raised; these revisions have been marked in blue in the manuscript. Please refer to the revised english-edited-1119201. The modification instructions are as follows.

Comments 1: Specific comments, wording and punctuation recommendations, beginning with a suggested more descriptive title:Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationships among Major Plant Formations in the Alpine Peat Swamp Wetlands of the Yellow Riveron the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the title. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 2-4). 

Before modification: Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationships of Major Plant Formations in alpine peat swamp wetlands

After modification:Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationships among Major Plant Formations in the Alpine Peat Swamp Wetlands of the Yellow Riveron the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China

Comments 2: Lines 21 – 22. …of the dominant plant formation in the alpine peat swamp wetlands of the Yellow River on the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 22-23). 

Before modification: Based on community surveys, this study employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and standardized major axis estimation (SMA) to analyze the species composition, biomass allocation of different organs, and allometric growth relationships of the dominant plant formations in peat swamp wetlands.

After modification:Based on community surveys, this study employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) and standardized major axis estimation (SMA) to analyze the species composition, biomass allocation of different organs, and allometric growth relationships of the dominant plant formation in the alpine peat swamp wetlands of the Yellow River on the Gannon Plateau, Gansu Province, China.

Comments 3:the paper needs to be carefully examined for other potential punctuation changes needed.

Response 3: hank you very much for your suggestions regarding the spacing issue in this article. After careful reading and revision, we have made changes to the content as follows (please refer to the annotated revised draft, lines41, lines48, lines62, lines79). 

Comments 4:Line 134. The annual sunshine duration in the study area average is approximately 2,580 hours.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the title. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 135-136). 

Before modification: The annual sunshine duration in the study area averages at approximately 2,580 hours.

After modification:The annual sunshine duration in the study area average is approximately 2,580 hours.

Comments 5:Lines 140-141. with relatively protected and intact natural vegetation. 

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 142-143). 

Before modification: The plant community in this study area is diverse and species-rich, with relatively good protection of natural vegetation.

After modification:The plant community in this study area is diverse and species-rich, with relatively protected and intact natural vegetation. 

Comments 6:Lines 145 – 149. Figure A shows the location of Maqu in Gansu Province, Figure B indicates the position of the Huanghe Shouqu Nature Reserve in Maqu, and Figure C shows the 189 sampling points established along the Huanghe Shouqu section of the Yellow River.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 147-151). 

Before modification: Figure 1. The location and setting of experimental plots in the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve of Maqu County. Note: Figure A shows the location of Maqu in Gansu Province, Figure B shows the position of the Huanghe Shouqu Nature Reserve in Maqu, and Figure C shows the 189 sampling points set up along the Huanghe Shouqu.

After modification: Figure 1. The location and setting of experimental plots in the first meander of Yellow River National Nature Reserve of Maqu County. Figure A shows the location of Maqu in Gansu Province, Figure B indicates the position of the Huanghe Shouqu Nature Reserve in Maqu, and Figure C shows the 189 sampling points established along the Huanghe Shouqu section of the Yellow River.

Comments 7:Lines 197 – 199. The weight was measured using an electronic balance (with an accuracy of 0.0001g), and the biomass of the plant community's stems, leaves, and roots were recorded.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 199-201). 

Before modification:The weight will be measured using an electronic balance (with an accuracy of 0.0001g), and the biomass of the plant community's stems, leaves, and roots will be recorded.

After modification: The weight was measured using an electronic balance (with an accuracy of 0.0001g), and the biomass of the plant community's stems, leaves, and roots were recorded.

Comments 8:Line 250. Table 1. DCA ranking characteristics statistics of 189 quadrats in alpine peat bogs.

Response 8: thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 252). 

Before modification:Table 1 DCA ranking characteristics statistics of 189 quadrats in alpine peat bogs

After modification: Table 1. DCA ranking characteristics statistics of 189 quadrats in alpine peat bogs.

Comments 9: Lines 256 – 259. Figure 2. DCA sequence map of 189 plant quadrat in alpine peat bogs in which F1 = Carex muliensis community; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus community; F3 = Carex atrofusca community; F4 = Kobresia tibetica community; F5 = Carex pseuduncinoides community; and F6 = Carex kansuensis community.

Response 9: thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 259-264). 

Before modification:

Figure 2 DCA sequence map of 189 plant quadrat in alpine peat bogs

Note:F1,Carex muliensis community; F2,Blysmus sinocompressus community; F3,Carex atrofusca community; F4,Kobresia tibetica community; F5,Carex pseuduncinoides community; F6,Carex kansuensis community;

After modification: 

Figure 2. DCA sequence map of 189 plant quadrat in alpine peat bogs in which F1 = Carex muliensis community; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus community; F3 = Carex atrofusca community; F4 = Kobresia tibetica community; F5 = Carex pseuduncinoides community; and F6 = Carex kansuensis community.

Comments 10: In Table 2, under F1, the var. setosa should be italicized and I have never seen et al. used the way it is in this table in all all 6 of the F1 – 6 series.. I would suggest changing et al. to: and associated species – throughout the Table (Table 2). Also, there should be space the comma after a species and the next genus name – for example, under F4 …filiformis, (space) Halerpestes. In the Table 2 column identifieers, I suggest changing “accompanying species” to “associated species” Table 2. – in F1 – Eleocharis valleculosa var. setosa, and Centella asiatica, and associated species Flora Depth to Groundwater Table (cm) Altitude Edificator Associated Species

Response 10: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 297-298. 

Before modification:

Flora	Depth to groundwater table(cm)	Altitude	edificator	accompanying species
F1	10-15	3450-3750	Carex muliensis	Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis, Equisetum fluviatile, Blysmus sinocompressus and Eleocharis valleculosa var. setosa, and Centella asiatica, et al.
F2	0-10	3400-3600	Blysmus sinocompressus	Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis, Halerpestes tricuspis, Centella asiatica, Carex atrofusca, and Juncus przewalskii, et al.
F3	0-5	3550-3700	Carex atrofusca	Blysmus sinocompressus, Kobresia kansuensis, Potentilla anserina, Kobresia tibetica, et al.
F4	-10-5	3550-3750	Kobresia tibetica	Blysmus sinocompressus, Sanguisorba filiformis,Halerpestes tricuspis,Potentilla anserina
F5	-10-0	3400-3500	Kobresia kansuensis	Kobresia tibetica, Polygonum viviparum,Scirpus pumilus,Poa pratensis ,Potentilla anserina, et al.
F6	-15-0	3650-3800	Carex kansuensis	Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis、Pedicularis kansuensis, et al.

After modification: 

Flora	Depth to groundwater table(cm)	Altitude	edificator	accompanying species
F1	10-15	3450-3750	Carex muliensis	Kobresia tibetica, Kobresia humilis, Equisetum fluviatile, Blysmus sinocompressus, Eleocharis valleculosa var. setosa, Centella asiatica, and associated species.
F2	0-10	3400-3600	Blysmus sinocompressus	Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis, Halerpestes tricuspis, Centella asiatica, Carex atrofusca, and Juncus przewalskii, and associated species.
F3	0-5	3550-3700	Carex atrofusca	Blysmus sinocompressus, Kobresia kansuensis, Potentilla anserina, Kobresia tibetica, and associated species.
F4	-10-5	3550-3750	Kobresia tibetica	Blysmus sinocompressus, Sanguisorba filiformis,Halerpestes tricuspis,Potentilla anserina, and associated species
F5	-10-0	3400-3500	Kobresia kansuensis	Kobresia tibetica, Polygonum viviparum,Scirpus pumilus,Poa pratensis ,Potentilla anserina, and associated species.
F6	-15-0	3650-3800	Carex kansuensis	Kobresia tibetica, Carex muliensis、Pedicularis kansuensis, and associated species.

Comments 11: Lines 335 – 338. Figure 4. Biomass allocation of main plant formations in alpine peat bog wetlands. F1= Carex muliensis formation; F2 =Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; and F5 = Kobresia kansuensis form. RMR = Root mass ratio; LMR = Leaf mass ratio; and SMR = Stem mass ratio.

Response 11: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 339-342). 

Before modification:Figure 4. Biomass allocation of main plant formations in alpine peat bog wetlands.

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. RMR, Root mass ratio; LMR, Leaf mass ratio; SMR, Stem mass ratio.

After modification: Figure 4. Biomass allocation of main plant formations in alpine peat bog wetlands.

Note: F1= Carex muliensis formation; F2 =Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; and F5 = Kobresia kansuensis form. RMR = Root mass ratio; LMR = Leaf mass ratio; and SMR = Stem mass ratio.

Comments 12: Lines 368 – 372. Figure 5. Allometric growth relationship between leaf and stem biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs. F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation. LogBL = Leaf biomass; and LogBS = Stem biomass.

Response 12: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 371-376). 

Before modification

Figure 5. Allometric growth relationship between leaf and stem biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.

Note:F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. LogB_L, Leaf biomass; LogB_S, Stem biomass;

After modification:Figure 5. Allometric growth relationship between leaf and stem biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.

Note:F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation. LogBL = Leaf biomass; and LogBS = Stem biomass.

Comments 13:Lines 390 – 394. Figure 6. Allometric Growth Relationship Between Leaf and Root Biomass of the Main Plant Formations in Alpine Peat Bogs. F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation. LogB = Leaf biomass; LogBR = Root biomass.

Response 13: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 394-398). 

Before modification:Figure 6. Allometric Growth Relationship Between Leaf and Root Biomass of Main Plant Formations in Alpine Peat Bogs.

Note: F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. LogB_L, Leaf biomass; LogB_R, Root biomass;

After modification:

Figure 6. Allometric Growth Relationship Between Leaf and Root Biomass of Main Plant Formations in Alpine Peat Bogs.

Note:F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation. LogB = Leaf biomass; LogBR = Root biomass.

Comments 13:Lines 414 – 418. Figure 7. Allometric growth relationship between stem and root biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs. F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation. LogBS = Stem biomass; LogBR = Root biomass.

Response 13: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in this part. After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 418-423). 

Before modification:Figure 7. Allometric growth relationship between stem and root biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.

Note: F1, Carex muliensis formation; F2, Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3, Carex atrofusca formation; F4, Kobresia tibetica formation; F5, Kobresia kansuensis formation; F6, Carex kansuensis formation. LogB_S, Stem biomass; LogB_R, Root biomass;

After modification:

Figure 7. Allometric growth relationship between stem and root biomass of main plant formations in alpine peat bogs.

Note:F1 = Carex muliensis formation; F2 = Blysmus sinocompressus formation; F3 = Carex atrofusca formation; F4 = Kobresia tibetica formation; F5 = Kobresia kansuensis formation; and F6 = Carex kansuensis formation. LogBS = Stem biomass; LogBR = Root biomass.

Comments 13:In the references section, there should be a space after commas prior to the next word or number, for example.

Response 13: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the grammatical errors and ambiguous language in the references.  After careful discussion and modification, we have revised the contents as follows (please see the revised manuscript with track changes, lines 671– 674). 

After modification:

Lines. 38. Liu G Z, Zhao K, Zhang S.-Q, Liang, et al. Biomass Allocation and Allometric Relationship of Salix gordejevii Branches in Sandy Habitats Heterogeneity in Northern China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5483.DOI: 10.3390/su16135483.668

39. Yang Z, Zhang C, Cao Q, Yu, et al. Regulatory Effects of Mowing on Biomass Allocation and Compensation Growth Mechanisms in Elymus Species. Agriculture 2025, 15, 820. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15080820.

Comments 13:The language needs further improvement.

Response 13: Thank you! We have fully adopted your suggestions. After careful review, we revised and polished the language of the manuscript through MDPI (please refer to the annotated revised version).

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx