Variability in Soil Macronutrient Stocks across a Chronosequence of Masson Pine Plantations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript describes a chronosequence of soil C, N, P, and K in Masson pine stands. This manuscript has many errors that need to be corrected. From the methods, it appears that this study used pseudoreplication to determine differences between different aged stands, but I can’t tell for sure. Please describe the research methods better. Also, relating nutrient stocks to stoichiometric values that contain that nutrient is completely useless. Of course they are related! Relating nutrient stocks to other soil variables and stand age would be much more useful. Please remove any equations and discussion that relate nutrient stocks to stoichiometric values. I believe that this manuscript should be reconsidered after major revisions.
Lines 8-9: This is a bold statement. You should probably clarify this statement more.
Lines 66-69: Soil age and stand age are two very different things! Soil age could be in millions of years and stand age is less than 50 years.
Line 107: Please show a map of the stands used in this study.
Line 109: Can you give us more information on the soil?
Line 112: Describe what you mean by similar site conditions.
Line 138: Describe and cite the methods used for analyses.
Line 174: There is no significant difference in C stocks so you cannot report that it decreased.
Figure 1. I don’t think the allocation proportions should be shown in this figure because there is no upper limit (100%) of nutrients that can be held by the soil.
Table 2: I have a hard time using variable that interrelated for prediction. Why would you use C:P to predict C when you need to calculate C for C:P ratios? Same for calculating N and K. These equations should be removed from the manuscript. Maybe you could use age with other soil variables such as pH, soil aggregate stability variables, and organic matter to calculate nutrient stocks.
Figure 3. These graphs need to show grouping by stand age to fit into the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well-written. The methods were thoroughly done, and the analysis is robust. I only have a few comments:
Lines 34-35: Who’s study are you referring to this?
Line 76: Please write the scientific name the way how nomenclatures should be written in a scientific journal (italics, with complete authorship).
Line 106: Please use a superscript in ‘2’ for ‘Km2’
Table 2, Column 11: Isn’t it ‘diameter at breast height?
Figure 2: In the caption, it states, ‘See Figure 1 for notes’. What do these notes mean? Figure caption must be stand-alone. Perhaps it would be proper not to make your reader guess and be directed to anywhere in the manuscript when writing a Figure caption.
Table 2: Perhaps put a borderline for each chronosequence as it is hard for the readers to determine which equation belongs to which age of the plantation
Discussion ender: At least a one-liner as a take-home message or ultimate highlight you would like to retain to the reader’s minds after reading your paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the review changes that were made to this manuscript. I think this manuscript has potential, but the storyline gets muddled when you start predicting nutrient stocks from stoichiometric ratios. Your story is the effect of stand age on nutrient stocks and stoichiometry. Equations for individual stand ages will not be useful to the readers of this manuscript. There are still many English errors throughout the manuscript that must be fixed. I believe that this manuscript should be reconsidered after major revisions specifically removal of nutrient equations or modification of these equations to use all stand ages.
Lines 17-18: What does “in each soil layer” mean? Do you mean increasing with depth?
Figure 1. What do the colors mean? Can you color code the map by stand age? You will need to zoom in closer to show the stands used in this study. You will also need to make the legends bigger.
Table 2. I still do not believe that these equations are useful at all. The only usefulness of equations in this manuscript would be the effect of stand age on nutrient stocks and stoichiometry. As you show in the RDA graphs, the nutrient stocks are mostly highly correlated with their stoichiometric ratios because they are derived from the nutrient stocks.
Figure 4. Please add points for the individual stands in the RDA graphs to show the different stand ages.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors’ quick revisions to reviewer comments. I still believe that the equations need to be combined across all age groups. Individual equations for separate stands are not useful.
Line 9: “macronutrients”
Figure 1: I am still not sure what the colors mean in Dushan county. Is it elevation?
Table 2: I appreciate your removal of the stoichiometric ratios from the nutrient stock equations. I still don’t think equations for single-aged stands are useful. Please combine these stands into one equation and use age as an independent variable.
Figure 4. Can you add ellipses to outline the different age groups?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
