Seasonal Dynamics of Soil Enzymatic Activity under Different Land-Use Types in Rocky Mountainous Region of North China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. L15, should 22% be 22.00%?
2. L22, if it is not space problem, show AN, AP and AK in detail in this abstract.
3. Fig. 1a, the y-axis unit can be changed to mg, not ug, since the range is 3000ug.
4. L323, delete the [J] from the line.
Author Response
1) L15, should 22% be 22.00%?
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have uniformly used round percent in the revised version.
2) L22, if it is not space problem, show AN, AP and AK in detail in this abstract.
Response 2: Thank you for your kindly reminder. We have spell out these abbreviations.
3) Fig. 1a, the y-axis unit can be changed to mg, not ug, since the range is 3000 ug.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The y-axis unit have been revised.
4) L323, delete the [J] from the line.
Response 4: Thank you for your reminder. The [J] has been deleted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors Kong et al. deals with an interesting topic about the seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land uses. The manuscript is well written, full of results and takes into account several pivotal aspects (i.e. seasonal variation and plant cover) in forest soil Ecology.
However, there are some lacks as reported below and some relevant references need to be added.
1. Introduction. Lines 45-47: please add the following relevant reference doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106369 about the effects of different land uses (endemic and exotic plants as Robinia pseudoacacia L. included) on soil microbial activity.
2. Materials and Methods. Line 90: please use uppercase for “Alfisol” with reference and the relative soil FAO classification with the reference “IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources, 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. FAO, Rome, p. 192. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106.” Line 91: please use uppercase for “Acacia plantation”. Lines 92-93: The plant species do not report the name of the author who classified for the first time, e.g. Robinia pseudoacacia L., please specify. Line 101: please delete the first “sodium”. Line 104: please add the papers you consulted for measuring soil protease and catalase. Lines 108-109: did you measure DON directly or indirectly as difference? It is unclear, please specify. Line 116: which ones? Please specify. Line 117: the same. Line 121: did you perform Pearson correlation because the data are parametric? Please specify.
3. Results. Figures 1 and 2: please replace “ug” with “µg”. Table 1: are you sure that p-values for LUT and S are all 0.000? Please check.
4. Author Contributions: format as reported in the template.
Author Response
The authors Kong et al. deals with an interesting topic about the seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land uses. The manuscript is well written, full of results and takes into account several pivotal aspects (i.e. seasonal variation and plant cover) in forest soil Ecology.
However, there are some lacks as reported below and some relevant references need to be added.
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.
1) Introduction. Lines 45-47: please add the following relevant reference doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106369 about the effects of different land uses (endemic and exotic plants as Robinia pseudoacacia L. included) on soil microbial activity.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have added the paper.
2) Materials and Methods. Line 90: please use uppercase for “Alfisol” with reference and the relative soil FAO classification with the reference “IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources, 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. FAO, Rome, p. 192. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106.”
Response 2: Thank you for your friendly reminder. We have revised it.
3) Line 91: please use uppercase for “Acacia plantation”.
Response 3: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have modified it.
4) Lines 92-93: The plant species do not report the name of the author who classified for the first time, e.g. Robinia pseudoacacia L., please specify.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We have specified the name in detail.
5) Line 101: please delete the first “sodium”.
Response 5: Thanks a lot for you remind. We have corrected the error.
6) Line 104: please add the papers you consulted for measuring soil protease and catalase.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The papers have been added.
7) Lines 108-109: did you measure DON directly or indirectly as difference? It is unclear, please specify.
Response 7: Thanks for you remind. We have specified it in the method section.
8) Line 116: which ones? Please specify.
Response 8: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have corrected it.
9) Line 117: the same.
Response 9: Thanks. The basic physical and chemical properties of soil were measured together by our research group, and these indicators are the same.
10) Line 121: did you perform Pearson correlation because the data are parametric? Please specify.
Response 10: Thank you for your kind reminder. The relationship between soil enzymatic activity and other soil properties was performed by Pearson correlation analysis.
11) Results. Figures 1 and 2: please replace “ug” with “µg”. Table 1: are you sure that p-values for LUT and S are all 0.000? Please check.
Response 11: Thank you for your comments. We have checked and modified them.
12) Author Contributions: format as reported in the template.
Response 12: Thank you for you remind. We have revised the formats.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The review of the manuscript titled "Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China"
The study evaluates soil enzymatic activity in various land use types. It is potentially important for achieving the sustainable development of the region.
The Materials and Methods section lacks a description of the experimental design. Without this important information, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of the research.
I suggest using round percent without two digitals after the dot.
In fig. 1 and 2, I suggest presenting the significant differences between variants.
The discussion can be improved by adding more discussion and attracting additional sources of literature to compare the obtained results with the research conducted in other regions.
The manuscript needs language editing.
Selfcitations are accounted for 10% of all source literature.
Author Response
The review of the manuscript titled "Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China"
The study evaluates soil enzymatic activity in various land use types. It is potentially important for achieving the sustainable development of the region.
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.
1) The Materials and Methods section lacks a description of the experimental design. Without this important information, it is impossible to evaluate the quality of the research.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have already added the experimental design in the Materials and Methods section.
2) I suggest using round percent without two digitals after the dot.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We have uniformly used round percent in the revised version.
3) In fig. 1 and 2, I suggest presenting the significant differences between variants.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. At first, we presented the significant differences between variants, but it made the figure cluttered, so we removed them again.
4) The discussion can be improved by adding more discussion and attracting additional sources of literature to compare the obtained results with the research conducted in other regions.
Response 4: Thanks for your comment. We have improved the discussion part.
5) The manuscript needs language editing.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript has been proofread and improved.
6) Selfcitations are accounted for 10% of all source literature.
Response 6: Thank you for your kindly reminder. We have revised the whole manuscript and reduced self-citations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I rate the work “Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China” authors: Yuhua Kong , Anran Qu , Erpeng Feng , Rui Chen , Xitian Yang , Yong Lai rather average. The manuscript requires many important corrections. I have included my comments in the pdf file as the reviewer’s comments.
The most important is to correct the Title and Material and methods section!
Line 2: Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China
Was there one enzyme activity investigated, or more than one enzyme activity? If more than one, seems to me, better is to write enzyme activities or enzymatic activity, not enzyme activity.
Suggested title: Seasonal dynamics of soil enzymatic activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China
Authors have to decide which term they want to use.
Next, you have to use that term throughout the article consequently.
Line 9 and many others: Why do authors use a tilde (~) instead of a hyphen (-) when specifying a range?
Line 15: Please use these abbreviations throughout the manuscript:
β-glucosidase (BG), urease (URE), protease (PROT), catalase (CAT)
Line 22: What is powder volume fraction? According to the International Society of Soil Sciences, there are three main fractions in the soils: clay <2µm, silt 2-20 µm, and sand 20-2000 µm.
Line 26: What is meant by the concept of soil substrate content? What is a soil substrate? How do the authors define soil substrate? Does the term soil substrate refer to soil organic matter?
or
do you mean substrates for the life existence of microorganisms?
Line 94: Please specify, how much time has elapsed since the farmers abandoned these areas and cultivation finished.
Line 95: Please write how many years forest management has been going on in this area, how old are the trees (forests)?
Line 97: Please add research design: study area, outline, shape, map, selected research quarters, grid of research points, number of repetitions, etc. soil sampling m x m, repetitions, soil layers, samples weight (volume), etc.
Line 100-104: Please indicate in what units the enzymatic activity is expressed for each enzyme separately, referring to test methods and references.
Line 107, 110, 113: Please indicate the type and model of the apparatus used in the research (in parentheses, please provide the Producer Name, Producer City, and Producer Country)
Line 119: Did authors use MNOVA or MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance)?
Line 145: Figure 1a Incomplete Y axis description Soil BG activity (µg of what g-1 of what h-1)
Figure 1b Incomplete Y axis description Soil URE activity (mg of what g-1 of what h-1)
Line 147: Effects of different land-use types on the soil β-glucosidase (a) and urease (b) activities.
change to: Effects of different land-use types on the soil BG (a) and URE (b) activities.
Line 151 and others: µg of what g-1 of what h-1
Line 165: Figure 2a Incomplete Y axis description Soil PROT activity (µg of what g-1 of what h-1)
Figure 1b Incomplete Y axis description Soil CAT activity (ml of what g-1 of what h-1)
Figure 167: Effects of different land-use types on the soil protease (a) and catalase (b) activities
change to: Effects of different land-use types on the soil PROT (a) and CAT (b) activities
Line 169: Table 1. Change UREA to URE
Line 187: Figure 3. Change β-BG and UREA to BG and URE
Line 190: Table 2 Change Indexes to real indexes: BG, URE, PROT, CAT
Line 208: Please specify how much time has elapsed since the farmers abandoned these areas and cultivation finished? Do you really think there is still so much straw in this soil? Please check table 2 of Gong et al. 2022.
SOC (g kg-1)
layer 0-10: for
FL 555.26; AL 244.59; PO 1056.13; RP 354.07
layer 10-20: respectively 470; 280; 870; 219
layer 20-30: 452; 220; 422; 205
Line 217: Did the authors consider the allelopathic impact on the microbiota occurring in the case of different tree species?
Line 280: Please add references regarding the determination of enzyme activity PROT (Ladd J.N. 1972) and CAT there is no source of methods
Please note other minor corrections in the attached pdf file
The review was done partially. After introducing corrections and additions to the methodological part, please send the article for final review
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear authors,
I rate the work “Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China” authors: Yuhua Kong , Anran Qu , Erpeng Feng , Rui Chen , Xitian Yang , Yong Lai rather average. The manuscript requires many important corrections. I have included my comments in the pdf file as the reviewer’s comments.
The most important is to correct the Title and Material and methods section!
Thank you very much for your recognition of our work and valuable comments. We have carefully revised the whole paper according to your suggestions and comments.
1) Line 2: Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China
Was there one enzyme activity investigated, or more than one enzyme activity? If more than one, seems to me, better is to write enzyme activities or enzymatic activity, not enzyme activity.
Suggested title: Seasonal dynamics of soil enzymatic activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China
Authors have to decide which term they want to use.
Next, you have to use that term throughout the article consequently.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have made modifications throughout the article.
2) Line 9 and many others: Why do authors use a tilde (~) instead of a hyphen (-) when specifying a range?
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We have corrected it throughout the article.
3) Line 15: Please use these abbreviations throughout the manuscript:
β-glucosidase (BG), urease (URE), protease (PROT), catalase (CAT)
Response 3: Thanks a lot for your advice. We have used these abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
4) Line 22: What is powder volume fraction? According to the International Society of Soil Sciences, there are three main fractions in the soils: clay <2µm, silt 2-20 µm, and sand 20-2000 µm.
Response 4: I'm sorry to confuse you. We have corrected the error.
5) Line 26: What is meant by the concept of soil substrate content? What is a soil substrate? How do the authors define soil substrate? Does the term soil substrate refer to soil organic matter?
or do you mean substrates for the life existence of microorganisms?
Response 5: Sorry to confuse you. In the paper, soil substrate means substrates for the life existence of microorganisms. To prevent confusing readers, we removed the word.
6) Line 94: Please specify, how much time has elapsed since the farmers abandoned these areas and cultivation finished.
Response 6: Thank you for your advice. We have already added the time.
7) Line 95: Please write how many years forest management has been going on in this area, how old are the trees (forests)?
Response 7: Thank you for your kindly reminder. The tree age were 35 year’s old, and the information have been showed in the new Table 1.
8) Line 97: Please add research design: study area, outline, shape, map, selected research quarters, grid of research points, number of repetitions, etc. soil sampling m x m, repetitions, soil layers, samples weight (volume), etc.
Response 8: Thanks for your comments. We have already added the research design.
9) Line 100-104: Please indicate in what units the enzymatic activity is expressed for each enzyme separately, referring to test methods and references.
Response 9: Thank you for the comment. We have added the related information.
10) Line 107, 110, 113: Please indicate the type and model of the apparatus used in the research (in parentheses, please provide the Producer Name, Producer City, and Producer Country)
Response 10: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have specified these apparatuses in detail.
11) Line 119: Did authors use MNOVA or MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance)?
Response 11: I'm sorry. We used MANOVA.
12) Line 145: Figure 1a Incomplete Y axis description Soil BG activity (µg of what g-1 of what h-1)
Figure 1b Incomplete Y axis description Soil URE activity (mg of what g-1 of what h-1)
Response 12: Thank you for your kind reminding. the units of soil BG and URE are mg ρ-nitrophenol g−1 dry soil 1 h−1 and mg NH4 +-N g−1 dry soil 1h−1, respectively. For simplicity, we adopted mg ρ-nitrophenol g−1 h−1 and mg NH4 +-N g−1 h−1 in the Figure 1 and Results section.
13) Line 147: Effects of different land-use types on the soil β-glucosidase (a) and urease (b) activities.
change to: Effects of different land-use types on the soil BG (a) and URE (b) activities.
Response 13: Thank you very much for your advice. We have modified the sentence as your suggestion.
14) Line 151 and others: µg of what g-1 of what h-1
Response 14: Thanks a lot for your kind reminder. We have revised it.
15) Line 165: Figure 2a Incomplete Y axis description Soil PROT activity (µg of what g-1 of what h-1)
Figure 1b Incomplete Y axis description Soil CAT activity (ml of what g-1 of what h-1)
Response 15: Thank you for your kind reminder. the units of soil PROT and CAT activity are μg glycine g−1 dry soil 1 h−1 and ml (0.1 mol/L KMnO4) g−1 dry soil 1h−1, respectively. For brevity, we adopted μg glycine g−1 h−1 and ml (0.1 mol/L KMnO4) g−1 h−1, in the Figure 2 and Results section.
16) Figure 167: Effects of different land-use types on the soil protease (a) and catalase (b) activities
change to: Effects of different land-use types on the soil PROT (a) and CAT (b) activities
Response 16: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have modified the sentence according to your suggestion.
17) Line 169: Table 1. Change UREA to URE
Response 17: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have modified them.
18) Line 187: Figure 3. Change β-BG and UREA to BG and URE
Response 18: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have revised them.
19) Line 190: Table 2 Change Indexes to real indexes: BG, URE, PROT, CAT
Response 19: Thank you for your kind reminder. We have consistently used abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
20) Line 208: Please specify how much time has elapsed since the farmers abandoned these areas and cultivation finished? Do you really think there is still so much straw in this soil? Please check table 2 of Gong et al. 2022.
SOC (g kg-1)
layer 0-10: for
FL 555.26; AL 244.59; PO 1056.13; RP 354.07
layer 10-20: respectively 470; 280; 870; 219
layer 20-30: 452; 220; 422; 205
Response 20: Thank you for your comments. We have made supplements and checks.
21) Line 217: Did the authors consider the allelopathic impact on the microbiota occurring in the case of different tree species?
Response 21: Thank you for your interesting suggestion. In this paper, we mainly compared the effects of different land-use types on enzyme activities, we will focus on the allelopathic effects of different tree species on microbiota in our future studies.
22) Line 280: Please add references regarding the determination of enzyme activity PROT (Ladd J.N. 1972) and CAT there is no source of methods
Response 22: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have already added the references.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a second review of the manuscript titled " Seasonal dynamics of soil enzymatic activity under different 2 land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China".
The introduction has been expanded but still requires some work. I suggest making the last paragraph clearer and more logical. Please, add the research hypothesis to the last section.
The Materials and Methods section was filled in with the missing information.
The current method of data presentation in the Results section impedes understanding and comparison of the various variants with one another. In figs. 1 and 2, the differences between the variants are hard to evaluate. Please provide only significant differences between variants using different letters. I suggest adding data for each soil horizon to the single graph and showing the differences.
One of the drawbacks I consider is that the authors replied to the reviewers using common phrases and did not give precise answers. That is rather disappointing.
English proofreading is still needed.
Some specific comments:
L33. Are you considering one enzyme?
L36-37. The same applies here. Check out all the text.
L59. Did you mean air temperature?
L108. Replace 24 hours with one day.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your efforts and time on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate for all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us improve the revised version of our manuscript. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed in the attached file.
Best regards.
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I rate the work “Seasonal dynamics of soil enzyme activity under different land-use types in rocky mountainous of North China” authors: Yuhua Kong , Anran Qu , Erpeng Feng , Rui Chen , Xitian Yang , Yong Lai rather average. The manuscript still requires minor corrections. I have included my comments in the pdf file as the reviewer’s comments.
See lines:
26, change ty-pe to: type
92-93: Platycladus orientalis (L.) Franco
Robinia pseudoacacia L.
Quercus variabilis Blume
102: Please don't use slash, change Stand age/a to: Stand age (years), Elevation/m to: Elevation (m) above sea level? Mean tree height/m to: Mean tree height (m) , There is no explanation in the text of what the DBH abbreviation means! You need to use this explanation: diameter at breast height (DBH) change Mean DBH/cm to: Mean DBH (cm)
Please use the font size, and table borders, according to the instructions for MDPI authors
107-112:
mg of ρ-nitrophenol 1g-1 of dry soil 1h-1
or
mg of ρ-nitrophenol 1g-1 of dry soil after 1h of incubation.
mg NH4+-N g-1 dry soil 24h-1).
or
mg NH4+-N g-1 dry soil after 24h of incubation).
cm3 of 0.1 mol KMnO4 dm-3 solution titrated 1g-1 of dry soil 1h-1.
or
cm3 of 0.1 mol KMnO4 dm-3 solution titrated 1g-1 of dry soil after 1h of incubation.
116: mol dm-3
250: What is apoplastic deposition? Can the authors use a different wording? Deposition of highly polymerized plant material, especially leaves, and its decomposition
Most of my suggestions contained in the first review were taken into account by the authors and after introducing current corrections and additions, I recommend this manuscript for printing in Forests without the need for another review
Yours sincerely
Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your efforts and time on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate for all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us improve the revised version of our manuscript. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed in the attached file.
Best regards.
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
