Effects of Population Density on Revegetation of Artemisia sphaerocephala and Soil Traits in a Desert Ecosystem
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Your work is quite valuable and well written but it still needs some corrections in order to fit with authors' guidelines and to enhance its scientific soundness.
Here are my recommendations:
1) Line 18: the poor establishment of A. sphaerocephala
2) Line 22, 31, 32, 35, 113, 119, 230, 513: plants per m2
3) Line 41 an in the whole text of the manuscript: The references' number in square brackets should not be as a superscript. Please, check the Instructions for authors.
4) Lines 45-65: Please, check the font size and type. It seems to be different from the previous and the next one
5) Lines 78-89, 92, 102-103, 107-142, 144-146, 165-166, 181-189, 323-328, 345-351, 399-403, 416-417, 444-446, 475-478: same as above mentioned
6) Line 100: Correct the degree sign
7) Line 143: How do you measure the soil pH? Please, give the model of pH-meter.
8) Line 149: Please, cite some reference about the soil organic matter measurements
9) Line 153: Please, give a reference for USDA classification system
10) Lines 181-182: For the analysis of soil-related attributes (soil water content,
11) Line 664: The year of publication should be bolded
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Effects of population density on revegetation of Artemisia sphaerocephala and soil traits in a desert ecosystem” presents the results of a field experiment that how a series of plant densities affect physical and chemical properties and the changes in plant community characteristics along the plant densities. The topic can be useful to maintain the sustainability of natural desert ecosystems. However, it presents several flaws that compromise the findings of the study: language and grammar are odd, and the logic of this study is confused, so this article needs in-depth revision.
My main concerns are related to:
(1) According to the authors, the source of the density gradient of the plants is not clearly accounted for in this paper. Is the variation in plant density that occurs after fly-seeding a result of differences in soil factors or does the presence of plants alter soil factors? This logical relationship is not clear and it will not be possible to make a comparison of the causes of the differences.
(2) There are many awful expressions and grammatical errors in the text, it is recommended that the authors should make careful revisions with the help of language experts.
(3) In the paper, the authors use ‘trait’ to describe vegetation community characteristics. This expression is inappropriate and it is suggested to change it to characteristic
Specifically points:
L15, ‘where it’ should be changed to ‘that’
L26, content is an uncountable noun
L29, 57%
L61, what does ‘its’ stand for?
L93, 105°31´E, 39°07´N
L96-97, this sentence is confusing, clarify it.
L98, This region
L111, how to understand ‘displayed a significant diversity’?
L116, slope
L118-122, The density treatments in the text, which are actually not treatments, are gradients, suggesting to use ‘density gradient’.
L125, range of canopy should be changed to Crown width.
L132-134, How long is the drying time?
L138-139, L170-171, the sampling section shows an interval of 20 cm, but soil properties in 0-10cm appear in PCA analysis, please unify them.
L151-163, add References
L167, we included?
L168, ‘attributes’ should be changed by properties or characteristics throughout this MS.
L179, What do yield and biomass stand for, respectively, and what is the difference?
Adds some data in the Results section instead of just text descriptions.
L213, the number and weight
Figure 1, The unit of biomass is g/m2. If it is a single plant, it should be g/plant, and the same for other variables. Please clarify whether the biomass here is per unit area or per single plant.
Figures 2 and 3, error bars should be added to Figures 2 and 3 for multiple comparisons.
L255-257, Comparisons between dates are meaningless, if you want to express the variations among months.
L272, how to understand ‘precipitation added the increased soil water’?
L284, content
L310-312, awful expression
In some points, the discussion is purely speculative, and please revise them.
L410, belowground biomass
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Previous questions raised have been revised by the authors, and the quality of the paper has been significantly improved.
1. 'Traits' in the title should be corrected.
