Distribution Characteristics of Active Soil Substances along Elevation Gradients in the Southern of Taihang Mountain, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. "soil active substances" is a recurring keyword, and a better phrase would be active soil substances.
2. In formulas like these, NH4+, NO3- and 4+ and 3- have to be superscripts, not subscripts.
3. Describe the method for pH determination.
4. Too many abbreviations have been introduced that are used continuously. I think this does not make reading more accessible, it makes it more complex, and I perceive it as compulsive repetition.
For example, the abbs like these - AN, AP, AK- are unnecessary and not widespread. The recommendation is better to say available forms of NPK. If they are written with formulas, it is clear that they speak about mineral forms of the elements – nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
I return to the abbreviations, which are many, because if a better way of expression is thought of, the different chemical, agrochemical, physical and microbiological statistical indicators will be mentioned.
5. Recommendation - Table 3 could be more precise if you put lines between parameters and bold the depth 0-30 cm in each.
6. The recommendation is to review the text for punctuation, words and word order from an English speaker for proofing and improvement.
Author Response
- "soil active substances" is a recurring keyword, and a better phrase would be active soil substances.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the phrase throughout the manuscript.
- In formulas like these, NH4+, NO3-and 4+ and 3- have to be superscripts, not subscripts.
Response 2: Thank you for your kindly reminder. By reading relevant papers and recent papers published in Forests, such as Liu et al. (2022): https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040520, we found that most of the papers used the formats of NH4+-N and NO3--N, so we finally adopted these kinds of formulas.
- Describe the method for pH determination.
Response 3: Thank you for the kind reminder. We have added the method for pH determination in the revised version .
- Too many abbreviations have been introduced that are used continuously. I think this does not make reading more accessible, it makes it more complex, and I perceive it as compulsive repetition.
For example, the abbs like these - AN, AP, AK- are unnecessary and not widespread. The recommendation is better to say available forms of NPK. If they are written with formulas, it is clear that they speak about mineral forms of the elements – nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
I return to the abbreviations, which are many, because if a better way of expression is thought of, the different chemical, agrochemical, physical and microbiological statistical indicators will be mentioned.
Response 4: Thank you for your advices, we have corrected these unnecessary abbreviations, changing AN, AP, AK to available N, available P, available K, and spelling out the SP, SBD and SWC.
- Recommendation - Table 3 could be more precise if you put lines between parameters and bold the depth 0-30 cm in each.
Response 5: Thanks for your kindly reminder, we have optimized Table 3.
- The recommendation is to review the text for punctuation, words and word order from an English speaker for proofing and improvement.
Response 6: Thank you for this kindly comment, and the manuscript has been fully checked by an English speaker.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments on Feng et al. Distribution characteristics of soil active substances along elevation gradients in the southern of Taihang Mountain, China.
General Comments
The manuscript is interesting, particularly in bridging forest science into the soil science domain in the mountainous area. The authors showed the vital role of a topographic factor in influencing vegetation diversity and soil bio-physicochemical properties. The manuscript brought more light to our understanding concerning organically-derived nutrient turnover in mountain soils.
Overall, the research was adequately conducted. Also, the manuscript was well-written, with some minor issues regarding clarity.
Consider change throughout the manuscript: “soil active matter” to “active soil substances.”
Abstract
Line 13: add several words to change the vague sentence: ”In order to enrich the turnover mechanism of soil carbon and nitrogen in mountain ecosystem,….” to ”In order to enrich our understanding concerning the turnover mechanism of …..” move the novel contribution to the last sentence (Line 27). Add research gap (Lines 86-96) merged with purpose.
Lines 13-14 add a more explicit purpose: “…. vegetation and soil according to 5 elevations…” to “vegetation diversity and soil bio-physicochemical properties according to five elevation classes….”
Line 17: add interaction findings: “…. Elevation gradients, soil layers, and their interaction had significant …..”
Line 20: change “zigzag” to “fluctuating”. Change accordingly throughout the manuscript.
Line 27: add the novel contribution of the study. Move and adjust the novel contribution sentence (Line 13) to the last sentence.
Introduction
Generally, the authors had adequately addressed their state of the art, problems, gaps and aims of their study, as well as sufficient theoretical background and previous findings. However, they must add hypotheses concerning the study, particularly for the influence of topographic factors on vegetation diversity and soil bio-physicochemical properties with respect to the current knowledge/theories and published reports. I suggest the authors inserting their hypotheses in line 96 before the study purpose.
Materials and Methods
Lines 104-116: Please add a situation map with sampling points, and elevation gradient overlies hillshade/relief layer.
Line 128: same sentence for plot size 20 x 20 m (line 120); please remove one. Also change “….. in each 3 plot” to “…. in each plot, five 2 x 2 m ….. ”
Lines 135-136: What is “plum blossom”? Please write the definition and its relation to soil sampling. Is it similar to the toposequence-based transect sampling technique? Hydrosequence or grid-based sampling? How can the method capture the micro-variability of soil and vegetation in the studied landscapes?
Lines 135-138: how many profiles have you excavated? Please add sentences concerning the total profiles excavated in the study.
Results
The authors repeatedly chose “significant” or “significantly” throughout their manuscript. I advise changing it to other resembling words like “remarkably”, “remarkable”, “notably”, “notable”, “chiefly”, “mainly”, “prominent”, “considerable”, “substantial”, or others.
Also, change the words “affected” or “effect” to “govern”, “influence”, “control”, or other
Line 234: change to get clearer meaning: “showed variation characteristic of decreasing and then increasing with elevation rising” to “exhibited fluctuating trend along with the elevation rise.”
Line 276: change “redundant” to “redundancy.”
Discussion
Line 317: change “significantly difference” to “significantly different” or “significant difference”
Lines 334-338: in my understanding, soil organic matter is primarily derived from dead roots, linked to vegetation diversity, and affected by topographical change. Revise the sentence “the surface litter layer was thick, litter amount was large” to “higher vegetation diversity resulted in the remarkable turnover rate of soil organic matter. Soil microorganisms are benefited from this since high quantities of dead root and leaf litter, as well as higher SWC and available nutrients, primarily provide an ideal environment for their growth and development.” I recommend authors investigate Chen et al. (2018), Prommer et al. (2019), Tan et al. (2020), El Moujahid et al. (2017), Lange et al. (2015), and Liu et al. (2019) works.
Add a separate paragraph (line 368) discussing the caveats/limitations and further research of the study in the light of soils C and N turnovers in mountainous landscapes. Also, add similarly condensed sentences accordingly to the conclusion.
Conclusion
Lines 372-373: change “tended to increase first, then decrease, and then increase” to “fluctuating pattern” or “fluctuating trend.”
References
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700298114
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3349
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7707
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170494
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01229
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14777
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
General Comments
The manuscript is interesting, particularly in bridging forest science into the soil science domain in the mountainous area. The authors showed the vital role of a topographic factor in influencing vegetation diversity and soil bio-physicochemical properties. The manuscript brought more light to our understanding concerning organically-derived nutrient turnover in mountain soils.
Overall, the research was adequately conducted. Also, the manuscript was well-written, with some minor issues regarding clarity.
Thank you very much for your recognition of our work and valuable comments. We have revised the whole paper according to your suggestions and comments.
Consider change throughout the manuscript: “soil active matter” to “active soil substances.”
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the phrase throughout the manuscript.
Abstract
Line 13: add several words to change the vague sentence: ”In order to enrich the turnover mechanism of soil carbon and nitrogen in mountain ecosystem,….” to ”In order to enrich our understanding concerning the turnover mechanism of …..” move the novel contribution to the last sentence (Line 27). Add research gap (Lines 86-96) merged with purpose.
Response 2: Thank you for your meticulous revision. We have adjusted the order of the sentences and made corrections and additions.
Lines 13-14 add a more explicit purpose: “…. vegetation and soil according to 5 elevations…” to “vegetation diversity and soil bio-physicochemical properties according to five elevation classes….”
Response 3: Thank you for your kindly reminder. The description has been modified.
Line 17: add interaction findings: “…. Elevation gradients, soil layers, and their interaction had significant …..”
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have modified the sentence according to your advice.
Line 20: change “zigzag” to “fluctuating”. Change accordingly throughout the manuscript.
Response 5: Thank you for your kindly reminder. We have change “zigzag” to “fluctuating” throughout the manuscript.
Line 27: add the novel contribution of the study. Move and adjust the novel contribution sentence (Line 13) to the last sentence.
Response 6: Thank you for this kindly comment. We have added the novel contribution of the study (line 27).
Introduction
Generally, the authors had adequately addressed their state of the art, problems, gaps and aims of their study, as well as sufficient theoretical background and previous findings. However, they must add hypotheses concerning the study, particularly for the influence of topographic factors on vegetation diversity and soil bio-physicochemical properties with respect to the current knowledge/theories and published reports. I suggest the authors inserting their hypotheses in line 96 before the study purpose.
Response 7: Thank you for your kindly reminder. We have added our hypotheses of the study (line 96).
Materials and Methods
Lines 104-116: Please add a situation map with sampling points, and elevation gradient overlies hillshade/relief layer.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a new Figure 1 to depict the sampling points.
Line 128: same sentence for plot size 20 x 20 m (line 120); please remove one. Also change “….. in each 3 plot” to “…. in each plot, five 2 x 2 m ….. ”
Response 9: Thank you for the reminder. We have modified the sentence and removed the duplicates.
Lines 135-136: What is “plum blossom”? Please write the definition and its relation to soil sampling. Is it similar to the toposequence-based transect sampling technique? Hydrosequence or grid-based sampling? How can the method capture the micro-variability of soil and vegetation in the studied landscapes?
Response 10: I'm sorry to confuse you. In fact, the plum sampling method is the same as the grid-based sampling method. It's just that we used to describe it with a plum sampling method. Therefore, we directly changed to the grid-based sampling method in the revision.
Lines 135-138: how many profiles have you excavated? Please add sentences concerning the total profiles excavated in the study.
Response 11: We excavated a total of 75 soil profiles and added this number on line 141.
Results
The authors repeatedly chose “significant” or “significantly” throughout their manuscript. I advise changing it to other resembling words like “remarkably”, “remarkable”, “notably”, “notable”, “chiefly”, “mainly”, “prominent”, “considerable”, “substantial”, or others.
Also, change the words “affected” or “effect” to “govern”, “influence”, “control”, or other
Response 12: Thank you for your clear and helpful advice. We have revised the description throughout the manuscript.
Line 234: change to get clearer meaning: “showed variation characteristic of decreasing and then increasing with elevation rising” to “exhibited fluctuating trend along with the elevation rise.”
Response 13: Thank you for your kindly reminder. We have modified the sentence according to your advice.
Line 276: change “redundant” to “redundancy.”
Response 14: Thank you for you remind. We corrected the error.
Discussion
Line 317: change “significantly difference” to “significantly different” or “significant difference”
Response 15: Thank you for your kindly reminder. The error has been corrected.
Lines 334-338: in my understanding, soil organic matter is primarily derived from dead roots, linked to vegetation diversity, and affected by topographical change. Revise the sentence “the surface litter layer was thick, litter amount was large” to “higher vegetation diversity resulted in the remarkable turnover rate of soil organic matter. Soil microorganisms are benefited from this since high quantities of dead root and leaf litter, as well as higher SWC and available nutrients, primarily provide an ideal environment for their growth and development.” I recommend authors investigate Chen et al. (2018), Prommer et al. (2019), Tan et al. (2020), El Moujahid et al. (2017), Lange et al. (2015), and Liu et al. (2019) works.
Response 16: Thank you for your constructive comments and suggestions. We have corrected the description and cited Prommer et al. (2019)’s paper as the 45th reference.
Add a separate paragraph (line 368) discussing the caveats/limitations and further research of the study in the light of soils C and N turnovers in mountainous landscapes. Also, add similarly condensed sentences accordingly to the conclusion.
Response 17: Thank you for the reminder. We have added a paragraph about the limitations of the study and further research (line 376-380). And added similarly condensed sentences in the conclusion part (line 389-392).
Conclusion
Lines 372-373: change “tended to increase first, then decrease, and then increase” to “fluctuating pattern” or “fluctuating trend.”
Response 18: Thank you for your comment. The description has been modified.
References
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700298114
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3349
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7707
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170494
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01229
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14777
Response 19: Thank you for recommending these interesting papers, and thanks a lot for taking your time and effort to review our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
