The Impact of Management Practices on the Stability of Meadow Communities on a Mountain Slope

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study focus to detect modification of the species structure of slopes meadows phytocenoses of mountain-forest belt by fertilizer and mixture applying of Poaceae or Trifolium repens L. various methods of meadow usage for grazing and hay production. It achieved some interesting results and relevant with local livelihood strategy. However, I do concern some items or weak spots for further shoring up.

 Title, Seems not quite appropriate. What is “Slopes Mountain Meadows”?

Keywords are not proper enough choices.

Since author proposed “Adaptive Management” in title, there should be some concerns why this scheme needed.

Line 17-Line 18 you may delete these detail information.

Line 28-Line 30 Wordy and prolix, need revision.

Line 61-Line 63 add references.

Line71 Shift “This is a real threat to the extinction of native populations” before Line 69 “Maintaing unproductive properties… Besides, I did not see any necessary using “therefore” here.

Line72- Line 76 please raise your exact scientific questions or hypothesis.

Line 89 “…in July - 18 °C”???

Line 103 Any clue to apply these mineral fertilizers? Or add enough previous study or background information?

Materials and Methods part should add more photos in field for international readers.

Line 111, I did not get quite clear about Table1. Experimental designs. If it is as authors proposed, why no Post Hoc Tests? Moreover, how can different adaptive management types are applied in haymaking use or multipurpose use, from long-term traditional knowledge?

Figure 1. can be merged in one set diagram

Try to turn some content in table into figures, which may catch author’s attention much better.

Discussion part, if authors think globally, there can be more parallel contrast from other countries.

What is take-home-message in Conclusions?

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for comments and recommendations. According to you note we clarified and added information. English unclear sentences were corrected.  

Kind regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

94 row, one-factor experimental design and in row 97 two factors?

Discussion, you should make better use of it and carry out a more extensive discussion, there is a lot of material in the results to take advantage of.

Conclusions, to review , look like results.

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for comments and recommendations. According to you recomendations we clarified and added information.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled „The Stability of Slopes Mountain Meadows Phytocenoses Compounds Depending on Adaptive Management“ investigates the influence of land use practice (mowing, grazing) , fertilization (mineral and/or organic in different combinations)  and re-seeding (Poaceae, Fabaceae) on species composition and phytodiversity. The experiments were carried out over a three-year-period. As biodiversity is in constant decline by human activities including agriculture), a better understanding of how to preserve species richness and to conduct a viable agriculture at the same time is important. So, from this point of view the submission is welcome and it has the ability to give hints on the best combination of land use practice, fertilization and re-seeding for securing biodiversity. However, I see a couple of points which should be addressed by the authors in a major revision prior to reconsider a potential acceptance of the ms

A major concern are linguistic shortcomings. I am not a native speaker and I generally do not feel qualified to fully judge English language and style, but I find many mistakes concerning grammar and wording, sometimes in a way that I am not fully aware what the authors want to say. I definitely recommend to get the manuscript checked by a native English speaker or by a professional Editing Service prior to a resubmission. Below I will list some of the more serious language issues, that came to my attention (there are many more!).

Comments with regard to content:

L14: species structure; do you mean species composition (also L79)

L18: saturation; this term is used repeatedly but it does not become fully clear to me what is meant, is it species richness?

L27: “…decreased by 60%, one million species are threatened with extinction.” This statement needs a reference (IPBES???)

L40/41: adverse weather conditions: do you mean changing climate?

L49/50: reference needed

L78: 2.1. Experimental Site and Conditions: please provide a map for both the local situation and the location within Ukraine. In addition, a representative photograph or two of the mountain meadow ecosystems studied would be nice

L89: … in July -18°C: delete -, it must read 18°C

L90: 1000-2000mm: please provide a long-term mean of a nearby weather station representative of the climatic situation of the study area.

L93-L96: I do not really understand, what is expressed here. Please rephrase for a better understanding.

L99: hay production haymaking: doubled, please remove one

Figure 1 and Table 3 should be arranged to fit one page. Alternatively, Table 3 could be moved to Supplementary Material. In addition, concerning Figure 1 it should be discussed, that changes within the three-year-period are marginal (timeframe probably too short for substantial modifications???), but differences between different types of land use practice and different manipulation schemes are large.

L211: “Herbaceous plants in meadows are most species-rich communities.”: unclear

L214: “The grassland ecosystem plays a vital role in the global carbon cycle by mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts”: This statement only holds true if carbon is buried in the soil, if plants are dying and decaying at the surface they do not play a vital role for carbon storage, as CO2 returns to the atmosphere.

L220-L222: “Principally, the application of long-term nitrogen fertilizers improves the growth and development of Poaceae grass, however the number of perennials Fabaceae and swards mixtures were decreased in meadows’ phytocenoses.”: So, fertilization is good for fodder production but bad for biodiversity conservation. What is the more important aspect to the authors? In the Discussion section I would also like to learn what is the best combination of which type of fertilization, land use practice and re-seeding for biodiversity conservation as well as viable agriculture, according to the outcome of the experiments conducted by the authors. Please discuss this topic more in depth because this is the main topic of the paper, ad far as I see.

L265: Davctylis instead of Daktulis; carefully check all species names for typos, the right use of italics and the right use of upper case and lower case letters.

In the list of references appears an author Bogovin and an author Bohovin, is this a typo or indeed two different persons with a similar name

 

 

Some language issues:

L11: detective; biggest

L39: meal

L58/59: bad wording

L117: Herbaceous instead of Herbage

L118: floristic instead of botanical (also L127)

L142/143: “… but with lower dramatic.”: bad wording

P10 second line: abundance instead of abundant

P10, L5: fertilizer

P10, sect. 3.3: measures of meadow protection measures: wording

L203: largest instead of biggest

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

Thank you for comments and recommendations. According to you note we clarified and added information. English unclear sentences were corrected.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed most of my concern. Please carefully check the language for a better publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time.
The English writing was checked.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised version of the manuscript formerly entitled „The Stability of Slopes Mountain Meadows Phytocenoses Compounds Depending on Adaptive Management“ and now changed to “Management Practices on the stability of Meadow Communities on a Mountain Slope”, some of my concerns raised in the first round of review were reasonably addressed, while others are not, most likely because the authors do not have the required information. Anyway, I think the manuscript sufficiently improved to warrant publication after a final round of minor corrections.

·         I recommend to change the title to “Influence of Management Practices on the stability of Meadow Communities on a Mountain Slope”

·         L20: Fertilization improves the botanical composition and at the same time reduces the species number? I do not understand this statement. Please check and clarify.

·         L63: IPBES: citation Style, change to [1]

·         L86-89: bad wording, please modify

·         L94: long-term indicators: better use long-term mean temperature

·         Figure 2: Please arrange the figure to fit one page

·         L219: meadows instead of meadws

·         L285: write T. repens in italics. Please also check all species names to be written in italics

·         I still believe, that a more in-depth discussion about  the best combination of type of fertilization, land use practice and re-seeding for both securing biodiversity conservation and allowing for viable agriculture, according to the outcome of the experiments conducted by the authors, would make the manuscript even more interesting.

I ask the authors to address these minor (and probably also the last, more substantial but optional) recommendation prior to acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time.

The recommendation we keep in mind and tried to make changes according your notes. English writing was checked.

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf