Soil Element Stoichiometry Drives Bacterial Community Composition Following Thinning in A Larix Plantation in the Subalpine Regions of Northern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have used advanced technique like pCR and DNA sequencing
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
(Manuscript No. Forests-672623)
Dear editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for the time you have spent handling our manuscript entitled “Soil element stoichiometry drives bacterial community composition following thinning in a Larix plantation of subalpine regions in Northern China”. The comments were overall very positive and constructive, and we appreciate the opportunity to address the large number of excellent suggestions and calls for clarification in a revised version of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to the reviewers (text in red below), with explanations of the changes we made and their locations in the text.
We feel that the manuscript has now been substantially improved, and hope that this version will be suitable for publication in Forests.
Reviewer #1
General comments
Point 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Response: Thank you for your critical comments, and we totally agree with your suggestions. We have check and change English language and style.
Point 2: Authors have used advanced technique like pCR and DNA sequencing.
Response: Thank you for your comments, and we totally agree with your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
General remarks
The study dealing with the effect of thinning on nutrients and microbial community is interesting and surely will be a valuable contribution to the area of forest management. The use of English language generally is well, only at some places some corrections are necessary. Generally, the text mostly is easy to follow, however, I had some problems with the Discussion section. Here, at places, I did not quite catch the message (see Special Remarks). A somewhat curious item was the title of your study as here a word is missing!
Specific remarks
For my specific remarks, please see the attached pdf document with my comments!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
(Manuscript No. Forests-672623)
Dear Reviewer #2,
Thank you very much for the time you have spent handling our manuscript entitled “Soil element stoichiometry drives bacterial community composition following thinning in a Larix plantation of subalpine regions in Northern China”. The comments were overall very positive and constructive, and we appreciate the opportunity to address the large number of excellent suggestions and calls for clarification in a revised version of the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to the reviewers (text in red below), with explanations of the changes we made and their locations in the text.
We feel that the manuscript has now been substantially improved, and hope that this version will be suitable for publication in Forests.
General comments
Point 1: The study dealing with the effect of thinning on nutrients and microbial community is interesting and surely will be a valuable contribution to the area of forest management. The use of English language generally is well, only at some places some corrections are necessary. Generally, the text mostly is easy to follow, however, I had some problems with the Discussion section. Here, at places, I did not quite catch the message (see Special Remarks). A somewhat curious item was the title of your study as here a word is missing!
Response: Thank you for your critical comments, and we totally agree with your suggestions. We have add "regions" in the title, and moderate change English language at all places following your suggestions.
Specific comments
Line 9. Please add “bacterial” here.
Response: We want to show the aboveground plant community composition and soil resource availability would be altered following thinning. So we add “plant” might be better in this place, please see line 10.
Line 23. I would think it must read "could probably be attributed to...""
Response: We have rewritten this sentence, please see line 24-25.
Line 36. Do you mean "There is currently no knowledge regarding..."? Please check!
Response: We rehave written this sentence, please see line 38-39.
Line 39. Do you mean "coupled"? Please check!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence, please see line 41.
Line 106-112. Table 1. I would think the unit should be "m.a.s.l". Further, if you give the elevation, you perhaps should add the geographic coordinate. Is this vol.-%? Please give the full unit!
Response: We have delete the “Mean elevation” in table 1. As Ren et al. (2016) reported, the unit of soil water content is “%”. So we use “%” here. please see line 108-115.
Ren, C.; Zhao, F.; Kang, D.; Yang, G.; Han, X.; Tong, X.; et al. Linkages of C:N:P stoichiometry and bacterial community in soil following afforestation of former farmland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016. 376, 59-66.
Line 123. Please add the company here. Please specify the pretreatment briefly or give a reference.
Response: We have add company here and give a reference, please see line 126.
Line 135-148. Please give the origin of this software!
Response: We have rewritten the line 133-135 and line 139-140, please see line 137-138 and line 142-143. Moreover, we add the reference for statistical test as suggestions (line 145). In addition, we add the origin of CANOCO 4.5 software, please see line 151-152.
Line 154. I would suggest not to give the range of values, but to state if a parameter in- or decreased with increasing thinning.
Response: We have delete the range of pH and SAP values, and rewritten the sentence as suggestion, please see line 160-161.
Line 158. I would suggest to reverse the order here, i.e., describe what did change in reference to the CK to emphasize the effect of thinning!
Response: We have rewritten the sentence as suggestion, please see line 160-161.
Line 162-167. I am sorry, but how have these ranges been derived? Please explain!
Response: The ranges in line 162-163 and line 166 might not necessary, so we have delete these ranges. The ranges in line 166 were the mean value ± standard error of soil microbial biomass C:N in thinning treatments minus the mean value ± standard error of C:N in control. The ranges in line 167-168 were the mean value ± standard error of C:P in LIT, MIT, and HIT treatments minus the mean value ± standard error of C:N in control. The ranges in line 167 were the mean value ± standard error of N:P in LIT, MIT, and HIT treatments minus the mean value ± standard error of C:N in control, please see line 163–172.
Line 167. Figure 1. Probably it would be helpful if you would add the full terms as well (like you did fit the Tables)! This would allow to understand the figure without reading all the text.
Response: We have add the full terms as suggestion, please see line 175–176.
Line 174. Figure 1. Probably it would be helpful if you would add the full terms as well (like you did fit the Tables)! This would allow to understand the figure without reading all the text.
Response: We have add the full terms as suggestion, please see line 175–176.
Line 227. Please give R2 and P here as well as you did for the other correlations
Response: We have add the R2 and P as suggestion, please see line 230–232.
Line 231-232. Was this correlation significant? Please add information!
Response: After check, we have rewritten this sentence and add information as suggestion.
Line 254. Do you mean "... of the alteration of forests following human disturbance"? Please check!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 258–259.
Line 263 Just as a comment - would a decrease in pH be a positive effect?
Response: After check, the pH value here is not necessary, and we rewritten this sentence, please see line 266–267.
Line 269 I am sorry, but what do you mean by "better forest composition"? Please clarify!
Response: We used Lower forest density replace better forest composition and rewritten this sentence, please see line 273–274.
Line 277-278 I am sorry, but what do you precisely mean by "soil chemical elements"? Please explain and specify!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 282-283.
Line 284-286. I am sorry, but I do not understand this sentence, I would think there is missing something. Please check and reformulate!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 289-292.
Line 304. See other comment, what precisely do you mean by "soil chemical element"? Please clarify!
Response: The soil chemical element include C, N, and P. So we have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 308-309.
Line 307. I am sorry, but what precisely do you mean by "was different"? That the results of your study differ distinctly from those of other studies? Please consider and clarify!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 311-312.
Line 314. Do you mean "soil organic matter"? Please clarify!
Response: We have check this sentence and rewritten it as suggestion, please see line 319.
Line 314. Do you mean "soil organic matter"? Please clarify!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 319.
Line 326. I am sorry, but what precisely do you mean by "elemental stoichometry ratios"? Please clarify!
Response: The elemental stoichiometry ratios include C:N, C:P, N:P. So we have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 330.
Line 326. You here only list elements, but no ratios! Please check!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 330-332.
Line 329. I am sorry, but which ratios do you mean? Please clarify!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 333.
Line 336. Do you mean "regulation function"? Please clarify!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 341-343.
Line 336. Do you mean "regulation function"? Please clarify!
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 341-343.
Line 339-342. Was this correlation significant? Please add this information.
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 346-348.
Line 342-344. I am sorry, but what do you mean by "rational reason"? Do you mean, e.g., "suggestion is that..."
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 348-350.
Line 342-344. I am sorry, but what do you mean by "rational reason"? Do you mean, e.g., "suggestion is that..."
Response: We have rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 348-350.
Line 346. I am sorry, but what do you mean by "other bacterial phylum" in this context? Please clarify!
Response: We have clarify "other bacterial phylum" and rewritten this sentence as suggestion, please see line 350-352.
Line 358. I am sorry, but what precisely do you mean by "available" in this context? Please clarify!
Response: We have clarify "available nutrients" and rewritten this sentence in conclusions, please see line 364.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
