Non-Additive Effects of Inundation Duration and Soil Depth on Seed Banks in a Shoreline Meadow of Poyang Lake in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
The paper studies seed bank composition (germinable seeds) within sediments of a natural lake that has a high amplitude of seasonal water level change. Sampling of soil seed banks was conducted along the topographic gradient, comprising five vegetation zones. Seedbanks were studied in the upper 15 cm, distinguishing three layers of 5 cm sediment each. The study was looking on seedbank composition as a function (i) of sediment layer, (ii) of vegetation zone (used as a proxy of water level) and (iii) of interaction between both. The study took into account the community descriptors species richness, Shannon-diversity and seedbank density. Taxonomic or functional aspects were only addressed in a very general way (families, annual, perennial and biennial plants as means over the whole dataset).
The employed method is overall adapted and the data set sound. Hypothesis and data analysis are however mostly descriptive, and processes that might create the observed patterns are little reviewed, analyzed or discussed.
Therefore I believe the dataset is underexploited since the study and its results are very little put into ecological context, and it would be possible to dig much deeper into processes and thus to make the study interesting for a much larger audience. Some information on the functioning of the system s also missing (e.g. disturbance regime of sediments, hydrological functioning). They would enable the reader to compare the study system to his/her own systems and therefore make the study more relevant. Some questions that could be addressed might be for example: what are the patterns of longevity in the different seedbanks? what about taxonomic and/or functional similarity with dominant aboveground vegetation?
Concerning the factor water level: the term refers to the amount of water above the sediment. I don’t really see how this factor could have a direct impact on seed bank composition. I think it is rather the duration of inundation that is ecologically significant as acknowledged by the authors in the discussion. I therefore suggest changing the title and to review the factor flood duration more thoroughly.
Specific comments:
Abstract
l 15: add “conditions” after “moist”
ll20-21: obvious differences in compositions
Introduction
ll 41_43 : maybe not so much water level (which suggests permanently aquatic environments, but also/rather flooding frequency/duration
l 46 : researchers have considered (hypothesis) or result of studies ? Which processes would you suggest that link seedbank density/richness to water level?
ll 51-52 : the role of deeply buried seeds is only important if they have a chance to germinate/come to the surface -> otherwise not clear to me how they can determinate vegetation-> develop/reformulate
ll 61-63: not sure to understand the reasoning
l64-65: not sure that the effect of burial on germination is that unknown. A literature research on google scholar using “seed burial” and “germination” as keywords generates more than 5000 references! You should cite at least some of them as well as factors that might prevent seeds from germinating when buried or stimulate germination when not buried anymore.
l 72 : add “is”, after “lake”
l 74 : I don’t understand “bare vegetation belt”: do you mean sparse vegetation?. the description here seems to be a mix of “bare land” and “sparse grassland vegetation” in table 1. Please homogenize.
l 80 : the link above-ground taxonomic composition vs. seedbank taxonomic composition would be interesting, but is not addressed here
l 86: How do you explain that vegetation of the high water zone has higher productivity and diversity? perhaps the following sentence is meant to justify? in this case replace “moreover“ by “this is because…“
l 88 : MakeS not make
l 89: What difference do you see in species abundance and species richness? do you mean seed bank density and seedbank species richness ? or diversity ?
l 92 : Duration of inundated seedbanks ? do you mean duration of inundation? Hypothesis 3 is not clear, please reformulate. Maybe cut it in different sentences.
Tab1: I suggest replacing “bare land” by “bare soil”
Materials and methods
l 109 delevopS
Fig. 2 is a little bit complex to understand. Maybe plot the duration of submergence for each vegetation type rather than water level per month.
The figure suggests that the river lays much deeper than the lake shore. Could you say more about the hydrological functioning of your site: where is the water coming from: alluvial groundwater and/or surficial overflow from the river during flood periods? to what extent are sediments disturbed during flooding periods ?
Results:
l 186: I don’t understand what do you mean by “the majority of seedlings germinated from several species were…” maybe “the majority of seedlings belonged to six species” ?
l 188 to 192: this paragraph is very confusing: how many seedlings were biennials: 0.54% or 12.24%? how many perennials: 46.9% or 58.25% ?
l 196 : Move the first sentence to the “methods” section
l 200: Limosella aquaticA
ll225-226: here and elsewhere: “seed burial depth” or “sediment depth” rather than “sediment burial depth”
l 241 : I would simply use “sediment depth” since “burial” suggest a process that disturbs sediment layers and brings seeds from the soil surface suddenly to deeper layers. As I understand, this is not necessarily the case in your system.
l247 ff: I rather see a tendency for higher values in zone 5, sometimes in zone 1, not a continuously increasing trend
Fig. 4 : Present the table separately from the figure.
Discussion:
l 292-93 : “In hydrologic stability wetlands, seed bank species richness is minor, when compared to instability wetlands » : (i) replace hydrologic stability wetlands by « hydrologically stable wetlands ». (ii) why is this ? develop the process
l 295 : « However…. » repetition of what was already said
l 300ff : Yes, I agree. Other processes may contribute : e.g. at higher elevation, terrestrial plants may have time to complete a live cycle with production of seeds (local seed rain) while this is not possible to the same extent at lower elevations
l 306 : “same”? do you mean “some”?
l 309-319: maybe place this paragraph in the introduction to highlight that there are open questions concerning vertical distribution of seeds in wetlands. Maybe its even possible to derive some hypothesis on the processes that create the different patterns found by theses authors….
l 314 : in contrast to what?
L314-315: in which study only 20/50% of seeds were in superficial sediments? is a reference missing here?
l 325 : environmental factors may be biological ones. Do you mean external and internal factors?
l 329: a verb is missing here
l 336-337: I can’t see where your study integrates disturbance frequency. Or do you consider inundation = disturbance? This would be in contradiction with your finding that there is a difference in seed density in zones with different inundation frequency/duration
Comments on the Quality of English Language
At some points (indicated in "specific comments") I had difficulties to follow. Please have the English checked before a new submisssion.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
The paper studies seed bank composition (germinable seeds) within sediments of a natural lake that has a high amplitude of seasonal water level change. Sampling of soil seed banks was conducted along the topographic gradient, comprising five vegetation zones. Seedbanks were studied in the upper 15 cm, distinguishing three layers of 5 cm sediment each. The study was looking on seedbank composition as a function (i) of sediment layer, (ii) of vegetation zone (used as a proxy of water level) and (iii) of interaction between both. The study took into account the community descriptors species richness, Shannon-diversity and seedbank density. Taxonomic or functional aspects were only addressed in a very general way (families, annual, perennial and biennial plants as means over the whole dataset).
The employed method is overall adapted and the data set sound. Hypothesis and data analysis are however mostly descriptive, and processes that might create the observed patterns are little reviewed, analyzed or discussed.
Therefore I believe the dataset is underexploited since the study and its results are very little put into ecological context, and it would be possible to dig much deeper into processes and thus to make the study interesting for a much larger audience. Some information on the functioning of the systems also missing (e.g. disturbance regime of sediments, hydrological functioning). They would enable the reader to compare the study system to his/her own systems and therefore make the study more relevant. Some questions that could be addressed might be for example: what are the patterns of longevity in the different seedbanks? what about taxonomic and/or functional similarity with dominant aboveground vegetation?
Concerning the factor water level: the term refers to the amount of water above the sediment. I don’t really see how this factor could have a direct impact on seed bank composition. I think it is rather the duration of inundation that is ecologically significant as acknowledged by the authors in the discussion. I therefore suggest changing the title and to review the factor flood duration more thoroughly.
[Response] We sincerely thank the reviewer for thorough reading of this manuscript and for the positive and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript following the reviewer’s comments. In this revised manuscript, we have focused more on the discussion in inundation duration and sediment depth effects on soil seed bank density and species diversity, especially on deep soil where contain the long longevity seeds, and comparison of taxonomic difference between seed banks and standing vegetation in discussion too. For the detailed point-to-point response, please see below.
Specific comments:
Abstract
l 15: add “conditions” after “moist”
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
ll20-21: obvious differences in compositions
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
Introduction
ll 41-43: maybe not so much water level (which suggests permanently aquatic environments), but also/rather flooding frequency/duration
[Response] Thanks for the valuable suggestions. We have replaced some “water level” with “flooding duration” or “inundation duration” in the manuscript as the context.
l 46 : researchers have considered (hypothesis) or result of studies ? Which processes would you suggest that link seedbank density/richness to water level?
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. We reviewed the literature and considered inundation which preform flooding frequency/ depth/ duration affects seed bank density and richness. We have revised this sentence to “However, some researchers have resulted that the inundation duration both affects seed bank species richness and density for those species have different response of flooding frequency.”
ll 51-52 : the role of deeply buried seeds is only important if they have a chance to germinate/come to the surface -> otherwise not clear to me how they can determinate vegetation-> develop/reformulate
[Response] We are sorry for the lack of the clarity. As the literature, sediment burial seed banks are important for the resilience of vegetation, and important for the persistence wetland soil seed banks. We have revised this sentence to “Deeply buried seeds, which act as a persistent seed bank, have important roles in determining the resilience of vegetation and aiding in the restoration of wetlands”.
ll 61-63: not sure to understand the reasoning
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. We have revised the sentence to “Whether the seedbank can be seedlings after germination is not only determined by their characteristics, but also by their location in the soil. The decline that resulted from the distribution of the seed set in the sedimentation or disturbance of the substrate indicates that the longevity of the seed of species in deeper layers is higher, when compared to species with more seed in the surface layer”
l64-65: not sure that the effect of burial on germination is that unknown. A literature research on google scholar using “seed burial” and “germination” as keywords generates more than 5000 references! You should cite at least some of them as well as factors that might prevent seeds from germinating when buried or stimulate germination when not buried anymore.
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We have revised this segment, and cited two closely relevant literature as below.
Jahantab, E.; Yazdanshenas, H.; Saray, A. A.; Matinkhah, S.; Khazaei, M. Sediment burial depth, seedling emergence, and height as affected by animal trampling in marl soils. Plant Ecol. 2022, 223, 493–506.
Ren, A.; Hu, D.-Y.; Qi, P.-X.; Zhang, S.-C.; Gao, H.-M.; Mickan, B.S.; Xiong, Y.-C.; Yuan, L.-Y. Buffering effects of the soil seed bank on annual plant community composition after wetland drying. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 34, 1601-1611.
l 72 : add “is”, after “lake”
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
l 74 : I don’t understand “bare vegetation belt”: do you mean sparse vegetation?. the description here seems to be a mix of “bare land” and “sparse grassland vegetation” in table 1. Please homogenize.
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We have unified this term in the entire manuscript.
l 80 : the link above-ground taxonomic composition vs. seedbank taxonomic composition would be interesting, but is not addressed here
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestions. In this manuscript, the aim was exploring the effects of inundation duration and sediment depth on soil seed banks, but not the species composition similarity between aboveground vegetation and seed bank. We also realized that the link between aboveground vegetation and seedbank would be interesting, we are preparing another manuscript to discuss this issue.
l 86: How do you explain that vegetation of the high water zone has higher productivity and diversity? perhaps the following sentence is meant to justify? in this case replace “moreover” by “this is because…“
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestions. We have replace the “moreover” to “this is because” to let the sentence meaningfully.
l 88 : MakeS not make
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
l 89: What difference do you see in species abundance and species richness? do you mean seed bank density and seedbank species richness? or diversity?
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. In this manuscript, we use species abundance reference to seed bank density, and species richness to diversity.
l 92 : Duration of inundated seedbanks ? do you mean duration of inundation? Hypothesis 3 is not clear, please reformulate. Maybe cut it in different sentences.
Tab1: I suggest replacing “bare land” by “bare soil”
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. We have revised the sentence to “(3) There is an additive effect between the inundation duration and soil depth. Because the flooding duration were shorter as the elevation becomes higher, the harder the seed bank preserved in soil. This difficulty in seedbank persistence become severe along by burial depth.”
Materials and methods
l 109 delevopS
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
Fig. 2 is a little bit complex to understand. Maybe plot the duration of submergence for each vegetation type rather than water level per month.
The figure suggests that the river lays much deeper than the lake shore. Could you say more about the hydrological functioning of your site: where is the water coming from: alluvial groundwater and/or surficial overflow from the river during flood periods? to what extent are sediments disturbed during flooding periods?
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. When we want to show the water-level fluctuation characteristic and landform feature of the five gradient zones in the same times, we created a double horizontal graph. In the graph, the solid line indicated the landform and distance to the shore, the dashed line indicated the water level fluctuates intra-annual. Hence, we can estimate inundation duration of each point on the profile.
Results:
l 186: I don’t understand what do you mean by “the majority of seedlings germinated from several species were…” maybe “the majority of seedlings belonged to six species” ?
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestion, we have revised it to “The most of the seedlings germinated from six species…”.
l 188 to 192: this paragraph is very confusing: how many seedlings were biennials: 0.54% or 12.24%? how many perennials: 46.9% or 58.25% ?
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. We have deleted the confused sentence, and revised to “Among all the germinated species, 40.82% were annuals, 12.24% were biennials and 46.94% were perennial herbs.”
l 196: Move the first sentence to the “methods” section
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
l 200: Limosella aquaticA
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
ll225-226: here and elsewhere: “seed burial depth” or “sediment depth” rather than “sediment burial depth”
[Response] We have revised it as “sediment depth” here.
l 241: I would simply use “sediment depth” since “burial” suggest a process that disturbs sediment layers and brings seeds from the soil surface suddenly to deeper layers. As I understand, this is not necessarily the case in your system.
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestion, we have revised it as “sediment depth” here.
l247 ff: I rather see a tendency for higher values in zone 5, sometimes in zone 1, not a continuously increasing trend
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
Fig.4: Present the table separately from the figure.
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
Discussion:
l 292-93: “In hydrologic stability wetlands, seed bank species richness is minor, when compared to instability wetlands » : (i) replace hydrologic stability wetlands by « hydrologically stable wetlands ». (ii) why is this ? develop the process
[Response] We have revised it as suggested. As the literature, we considered that the fluctuating water-level act as instable flooding disturbance to affect the composition and structure of seed bank in wetlands. We have revised it in the manuscript.
l 295: « However…. » repetition of what was already said
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
l 300ff: Yes, I agree. Other processes may contribute: e.g. at higher elevation, terrestrial plants may have time to complete a live cycle with production of seeds (local seed rain) while this is not possible to the same extent at lower elevations
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestion, we have revised it with additional reason for the seed bank diversity along elevation as follow: “In addition, the plant growth on the high elevation may have time to complete entire lifecycle with production of seeds, but there is not possible to the same extent at lower elevation. Some species have shorter seed longevity, which would not be preserved in deep soil.”
l 306: “same”? do you mean “some”?
[Response] Yes, we have revised it as suggested.
l 309-319: maybe place this paragraph in the introduction to highlight that there are open questions concerning vertical distribution of seeds in wetlands. Maybe its even possible to derive some hypothesis on the processes that create the different patterns found by theses authors….
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestion, we have revised this paragraph as follow: “In the present result, seed density and species richness decreased as the sediment depth increased, supporting the prediction in introduction. As previously discussed, several factors influence the vertical development of seed banks in these wetland systems. However, these seeds were deeply buried in swamps and prairie marshes, with only 20-50% occurring in the top 5 cm [1,20]. Whereas O`Donnell et al. (2014) found that seed abundance and species richness were highly variable with depth, and the greatest seed abundance was preserved at the depth of 20-30 cm in the bar and bench of ripar-ian wetlands [38]. Furthermore, Espinar et al. (2005) assumed a bimodal seed abun-dance and species richness in depth distribution [39]. Seed bank size, composition and depth distribution are determined by external environmental and internal biological factors. For external environmental factors, the vertical distribution of seeds in shore-lines may be determined through hydrological-related factors. The inundation of shorelines may result in sediment deposition, reworking and erosion. Sediment motion result in the delivery of seed banks via hydrochory, such as deposition brought seeds, reworking disturbs seeds, and erosion remove seeds. Meanwhile, seeds may also be lost due to seed germination, predation and mortality. In addition, the plant growth on the high elevation may have time to complete entire lifecycle with production of seeds, but there is not possible to the same extent at lower elevation. Some species have shorter seed longevity, which would not be preserved in deep soil. Hence, the seed banks density and diversity in deep soil were lower than the top soil.”
l 314: in contrast to what?
[Response] We apologize for the lack of the clarity. We have revised as above.
L314-315: in which study only 20/50% of seeds were in superficial sediments? is a reference missing here?
[Response] Yes, thank you for your advice. We have revised as above.
l 325: environmental factors may be biological ones. Do you mean external and internal factors?
[Response] Here, we mean external environmental factors. We have distinguished the external and internal factors in the part of discussion.
l 329: a verb is missing here
[Response] We have revised it.
l 336-337: I can’t see where your study integrates disturbance frequency. Or do you consider inundation = disturbance? This would be in contradiction with your finding that there is a difference in seed density in zones with different inundation frequency/duration
[Response] We considered the inundation duration and sediment burial as natural disturbance. We have revised as above.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
At some points (indicated in "specific comments") I had difficulties to follow. Please have the English checked before a new submisssion.
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have carefully checked the English before the new submission.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion this manuscript is interesting and relatively well written. I have read it with interest. It concerns an important part of the shoreline meadow ecosystem, which is the soil seed bank. This paper contains interesting results of soil seed banks in the topsoil (0-15 cm) of shoreline meadow. Soil samples were collected from three burial depths (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm and 10-15 cm) in five water level gradient zones along the Poyang Lake elevation in Eastern China. The method of seedling-emergence in greenhouse under moist and submerged conditions was used to allow all active seeds to germinate. There was a clear difference in the species composition of the seed bank at different water levels and burial depths. The highest water level and top layer soil had the highest diversity index. Seed density, species richness and diversity decreased with water level gradient zone and burial depth. However, there was no interaction between water levels and burial depth.
I only suggest making a few additions and slight changes to the titles of tables and figures.
1) The keywords should include “soil seed banks”, not “seed banks”, because the paper only covers soil seed banks.
2) Line 43 it should be Previous, not Previews
3) Line 136 is "grassland 4" - it seems like it should be "gradient 4"
4) Line 160 – should be 2.3 Data Analysis, not 2.2
5) In subsection 3.2. there is no discussion of the seed bank of species dominant in standing vegetation of individual zones (2-5) listed in Table 1, i.e. What share in the soil seed banks did the seeds of species dominant in standing vegetation of individual zones (2-5) have? What is the similarity of soil seed banks to standing vegetation in individual zones? It is worth discussing this similarity, or lack thereof, in the discussion chapter. Why are there many seeds of one species in the soil bank and few of another species, even though it dominates the vegetation standing?
6) Table 2. Comparison by two-way ANOVA to understand the effects of water levels and buried soil on seed bank density (m-2).
What is marked in gray is unnecessary. I suggest a title: Two-way ANOVA for seed bank density
7) Figure 4. Seed bank density in the five water-level gradients of each soil layer (A-D). The top-left figure is the seed bank density in the 0-5 cm soil layer. The top-right figure is the seed bank density in the 5- 10 cm soil layer, the bottom-left figure is the seed bank density in the 10-15 cm soil layer, and the bottom-right figure is the seed bank density in the 0-15 cm soil layer. The data are presented as mean ± standard error.
What is marked in gray is unnecessary, just add (A-D) in brackets and the rest can be seen in the figure.
8) Section 3.3 does not discuss the distribution of seeds of dominant species in individual soil layers. Only the total number of seeds is discussed, without specifying the species. It is worth paying attention to the seed distribution of several dominant species in each of the soil layers (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-15 cm).
9) I also suggest in subsection 3.3 to present the share of seeds of selected plant group (Poaceae, Annual dicotyledonous, Perennial dicotyledonous) in the soil layers (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-15 cm). This issue is also worth discussing in the discussion section
10) Table 3. Comparison by two-way ANOVA to understand the effects of water level and burial depth on species richness and the Shannon index
What is marked in gray is unnecessary. I propose: Two-way ANOVA for species richness and the Shannon index
11) Figure 6. Seed bank Shannon index in the five water level gradients of each soil layer (A-D). The top-left figure is the diversity index in the 0-5 cm soil layer, the top-right figure is the diversity index in the 5-10 cm soil layer, the bottom-left figure is the diversity index in the 10-15 cm soil layer, and the bottom-right figure is the diversity index in the 0-15 cm soil layer. The data are presented as mean ± standard error.
What is marked in gray is unnecessary, just add it in brackets (A-D), and the rest can be seen in the figure.
12) Figure 7. Species-area curves of seed banks in different burial depths (△ for 0-5 cm; ▼ for 5-10 cm; □ for 10-15cm; ● for 0-15cm). The data are presented as mean ± standard error
What is marked in gray is unnecessary and can be seen in the legend in the figure. I propose: Species-area curves of seed banks depending on burial depth.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
In my opinion this manuscript is interesting and relatively well written. I have read it with interest. It concerns an important part of the shoreline meadow ecosystem, which is the soil seed bank. This paper contains interesting results of soil seed banks in the topsoil (0-15 cm) of shoreline meadow. Soil samples were collected from three burial depths (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm and 10-15 cm) in five water level gradient zones along the Poyang Lake elevation in Eastern China. The method of seedling-emergence in greenhouse under moist and submerged conditions was used to allow all active seeds to germinate. There was a clear difference in the species composition of the seed bank at different water levels and burial depths. The highest water level and top layer soil had the highest diversity index. Seed density, species richness and diversity decreased with water level gradient zone and burial depth. However, there was no interaction between water levels and burial depth.
[Response] We are very grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments on our manuscript! Following the reviewer’s comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript. Thank you! Detailed modifications please see our responses to the following comments.
I only suggest making a few additions and slight changes to the titles of tables and figures.
1) The keywords should include “soil seed banks”, not “seed banks”, because the paper only covers soil seed banks.
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
2) Line 43 it should be Previous, not Previews
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
3) Line 136 is "grassland 4" - it seems like it should be "gradient 4"
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
4) Line 160 – should be 2.3 Data Analysis, not 2.2
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
5) In subsection 3.2. there is no discussion of the seed bank of species dominant in standing vegetation of individual zones (2-5) listed in Table 1, i.e. What share in the soil seed banks did the seeds of species dominant in standing vegetation of individual zones (2-5) have? What is the similarity of soil seed banks to standing vegetation in individual zones? It is worth discussing this similarity, or lack thereof, in the discussion chapter. Why are there many seeds of one species in the soil bank and few of another species, even though it dominates the vegetation standing?
[Response] Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have revised and preformed a comparison on species composition of aboveground vegetation and soil seed banks. Meanwhile, we also discussed it in the discussion section.
6) Table 2. Comparison by two-way ANOVA to understand the effects of water levels and buried soil on seed bank density (m-2).
What is marked in gray is unnecessary. I suggest a title: Two-way ANOVA for seed bank density
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
7) Figure 4. Seed bank density in the five water-level gradients of each soil layer (A-D). The top-left figure is the seed bank density in the 0-5 cm soil layer. The top-right figure is the seed bank density in the 5- 10 cm soil layer, the bottom-left figure is the seed bank density in the 10-15 cm soil layer, and the bottom-right figure is the seed bank density in the 0-15 cm soil layer. The data are presented as mean ± standard error.
What is marked in gray is unnecessary, just add (A-D) in brackets and the rest can be seen in the figure.
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
8) Section 3.3 does not discuss the distribution of seeds of dominant species in individual soil layers. Only the total number of seeds is discussed, without specifying the species. It is worth paying attention to the seed distribution of several dominant species in each of the soil layers (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-15 cm).
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
9) I also suggest in subsection 3.3 to present the share of seeds of selected plant group (Poaceae, Annual dicotyledonous, Perennial dicotyledonous) in the soil layers (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-15 cm). This issue is also worth discussing in the discussion section
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
10) Table 3. Comparison by two-way ANOVA to understand the effects of water level and burial depth on species richness and the Shannon index
What is marked in gray is unnecessary. I propose: Two-way ANOVA for species richness and the Shannon index
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
11) Figure 6. Seed bank Shannon index in the five water level gradients of each soil layer (A-D). The top-left figure is the diversity index in the 0-5 cm soil layer, the top-right figure is the diversity index in the 5-10 cm soil layer, the bottom-left figure is the diversity index in the 10-15 cm soil layer, and the bottom-right figure is the diversity index in the 0-15 cm soil layer. The data are presented as mean ± standard error.
What is marked in gray is unnecessary, just add it in brackets (A-D), and the rest can be seen in the figure.
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
12) Figure 7. Species-area curves of seed banks in different burial depths (△ for 0-5 cm; ▼ for 5-10 cm; □ for 10-15cm; ● for 0-15cm). The data are presented as mean ± standard error
What is marked in gray is unnecessary and can be seen in the legend in the figure. I propose: Species-area curves of seed banks depending on burial depth.
[Response] We have revised it as suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
