Mixed Forest of Larix principis-rupprechtii and Betula platyphylla Modulating Soil Fauna Diversity and Improving Faunal Effect on Litter Decomposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
Line 40: What do you mean by “small gaps”?
Line 50-51 “The density and group 49 number of saprophytic soil fauna are more prominent in the forests with high canopy 50 density, moist soil and rich litters”: Add reference.
Line 96: I suggest adding 2 or 3 sentences summarizing your hypotheses.
Results
Line 195: “The composition of the soil fauna in the LF varied significantly by month”. Which groups? or all?. Maybe you add asterisks to those groups in Table 2. Mention the statistical test you have used.
Line 204: How did you define “endemic”?
Line 216: Have you detect any influence of forest type (LF vs. MF) on the functional groups of soil fauna? If yes, I suggest indicating to these functional groups in Figure 3
Author Response
We uploaded a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments in a word.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment
In the revised article, submitted to Forests MDPI by Huayong Zhang and Co-authors presented the results of an interesting analysis of the relationship between soil fauna in two forest types in China. Generally, I find the manuscript valuable as the study concerns 1) two forest types [coniferous and mixed] and collected soil samples from 4 depth intervals, 2) many animal groups and environmental [soil] factors. In my opinion, this article may be interesting for soil scientists, and ecologists and may give the background to extend ecological studies. However, the manuscript needs to be improved and some issues need to be better explained before publication.
- Abstract should be rewritten. Currently, it does not provide methods and main results.
- The study is about the fauna, decomposition, soil, and forest composition. I do not understand why the authors explain the indices in this part. The main advantage of this work is a wide range of soil fauna groups and I suggest focusing on this part. Further, why it was so important to analyze many ecological indices to support your assumption. Third, The aims of the study are deeply hidden and The hypotheses were not provided. Please write them clearly.
- Please provide a number of samples and explain ‘impurities’. I do not know if the abundances were presented per sample or per m2. Please write how were animal groups divided into common and dominant groups.
- Please be precise and provide abundance/density because ‘2,958 soil fauna’ is not sufficient. Figures need improving and values in table 1 should be checked
- Minor (mainly editorial) comments are also presented in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have uploaded a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments in a word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
