The Addition of an Invasive Plant Alters the Home-Field Advantage of Native Leaf Litter Decomposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled, "The addition of an invasive plant alters the home-field advantage of native leaf litter decomposition". The study addresses an important ecological issue—how invasive species affect native leaf litter decomposition processes and, consequently, carbon cycling in riparian ecosystems. This is a valuable contribution to our understanding of invasive species' impacts, particularly with respect to Alternanthera philoxeroides and native species like Neosinocalamus affinis and Ficus virens.
While the manuscript is generally well-organized and presents interesting findings, there are a few aspects that could be refined to improve the clarity, coherence, and overall impact of the paper. Below, I provide some general comments and suggestions for improvement:
Overall, the manuscript is well-written, but certain sections—particularly in the introduction and discussion—could be streamlined to improve flow and readability. Simplifying some complex sentences and ensuring smooth transitions between ideas will help maintain reader engagement.
The introduction provides an appropriate background on the concept of home-field advantage (HFA) and its relevance to litter decomposition. However, the explanation of HFA could be expanded for readers who may not be as familiar with this concept. Additionally, while the study cites relevant literature, there is room to more thoroughly integrate and discuss previous findings in the context of the research hypothesis.
The methodology is sound, but there are some inconsistencies in the description of the experimental setup, particularly regarding the distance between sites and the number of plots used. Clarifying these details will help ensure the experimental design is fully understood by the readers. I would also suggest providing more detail on the methods used to analyze soil fauna and litter, which are crucial for interpreting the results.
The results are comprehensive, but some figures could be improved for clarity by using more descriptive legends and optimizing the presentation of the data for readability.
The discussion successfully links the results to the hypotheses, but it could be expanded to better connect the findings to broader ecological concepts, such as the role of invasive species in carbon and nutrient cycling. The discussion of soil fauna groups and their role in decomposition is valuable but could be more deeply explored in relation to existing research. Additionally, care should be taken not to overgeneralize the results beyond the specific species and ecosystem studied. The global implications for carbon neutrality, while interesting, could be framed more cautiously.
In summary, this study has the potential to make a strong contribution to the field of invasion biology and ecosystem ecology, particularly with regard to understanding how invasive species affect decomposition processes. By addressing the above suggestions, the manuscript will be clearer and more impactful for the readership.
Specific comments:
L 43: The phrase is not aligned with the preceding text. Please provide an explanation of the link between invasive species and HFA.
L48-51: Some previous studies that are referenced are not thoroughly discussed in the context of their contribution to the research. This includes Callaway et al. (2000) and Weidenhamer and Callaway (2010).
L51-53. It appears that a single study on a single species is being used to make generalisations. Please exercise caution with regard to this matter.
L103 & 126: In L103 it is written the existence of 18 randomized plots. In L126 you write 2 sites 4 tratments 6 dsampling times and 3 replications. Try to be consistent and Please clarify!
L 104 & 116: In line 104 you said there is a distance of 10 m between to adjacent plots, in line 116 50 m at least between replicates. Please clarify!
L141: Please explain the method for fauna extraction.
L289: I would advise that a brief summary of the main results and their implications be included at the beginning of the discussion section.
L 324-329: This paragraph is too brief. I propose that the paragraph be extended to provide greater insight into the environmental aspects of litter decomposition and the impact of invasive plants on this process.
L 364: I recommend including the following reference to enhance the discussion on soil fauna and litter decomposition: Homet, P., Gómez-Aparicio, L., Matías, L., & Godoy, O. (2021). Soil fauna modulates the effect of experimental drought on litter decomposition in forests invaded by an exotic pathogen. Journal of Ecology, 109, 2963–2980. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13711
L403-415: I believe that the entire paragraph on pages L403 to L415 could be deleted.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Overall, the manuscript is well-written, but certain sections—particularly in the introduction and discussion—could be streamlined to improve flow and readability. Simplifying some complex sentences and ensuring smooth transitions between ideas will help maintain reader engagement.
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled, "The addition of an invasive plant alters the home-field advantage of native leaf litter decomposition". The study addresses an important ecological issue—how invasive species affect native leaf litter decomposition processes and, consequently, carbon cycling in riparian ecosystems. This is a valuable contribution to our understanding of invasive species' impacts, particularly with respect to Alternanthera philoxeroides and native species like Neosinocalamus affinis and Ficus virens. While the manuscript is generally well-organized and presents interesting findings, there are a few aspects that could be refined to improve the clarity, coherence, and overall impact of the paper. Below, I provide some general comments and suggestions for improvement.
-Response: Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.
Overall, the manuscript is well-written, but certain sections—particularly in the introduction and discussion—could be streamlined to improve flow and readability. Simplifying some complex sentences and ensuring smooth transitions between ideas will help maintain reader engagement.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have added the missing information and refined the sentence.
The introduction provides an appropriate background on the concept of home-field advantage (HFA) and its relevance to litter decomposition. However, the explanation of HFA could be expanded for readers who may not be as familiar with this concept. Additionally, while the study cites relevant literature, there is room to more thoroughly integrate and discuss previous findings in the context of the research hypothesis.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have added the missing information as follows:” …this phenomenon is called the home-field advantage (HFA) effect [1,6,7]. In fact, the HFA effect was first used in sports competitions, and ecologists has conducted extensive research after introducing this concept [2,4]”. “A large number of studies have shown the role of microbes in the HFA effect [7-9]. Specifically, the environmental conditions of the home field screen out microbial groups that can efficiently decompose litter [9]. These microbes have a certain preference for the types of litter in the home field, and in turn, these litters can provide sufficient nutritional sources for the microbes [8], thus forming a benign interaction [9]”.
The methodology is sound, but there are some inconsistencies in the description of the experimental setup, particularly regarding the distance between sites and the number of plots used. Clarifying these details will help ensure the experimental design is fully understood by the readers. I would also suggest providing more detail on the methods used to analyze soil fauna and litter, which are crucial for interpreting the results. The results are comprehensive, but some figures could be improved for clarity by using more descriptive legends and optimizing the presentation of the data for readability.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have refined the sentenses as follows:” To test the HFA effect of riparian plant decomposition, two sites dominated by N. affinis and F. virens were selected for litter transplant experiment. The distance between two sites is at least 300 m; the area of each site is about 100 m2. In each site, 18 randomized plots of 1 m × 1 m were established with 10 m between two adjacent plots for litterbag incubation. There were four treatments (pure N. affinis, pure F. virens, N. affinis with A. philoxeroides, F. virens without A. philoxeroides) in each plot (18 plots × 2 sites × 4 treatments)”. “…The remaining leaf litter mass was expressed as the percentage of the initial mass”.”… After homogenizing and weighing the wet litter in each litterbag, after removing excess water, a 0.5–3 g (depending on available material) subsample was used to estimate wet mass—dry mass conversion factor to determine dry mass of the entire sample”. “…Abundance of associated soil fauna groups was quantified as number of invertebrates/leaf dry mass (g)”.
The discussion successfully links the results to the hypotheses, but it could be expanded to better connect the findings to broader ecological concepts, such as the role of invasive species in carbon and nutrient cycling. The discussion of soil fauna groups and their role in decomposition is valuable but could be more deeply explored in relation to existing research. Additionally, care should be taken not to overgeneralize the results beyond the specific species and ecosystem studied. The global implications for carbon neutrality, while interesting, could be framed more cautiously.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have added the missing information as follows:” … One possible explanation is that leachates produced by adding A. philoxeroides may have increased low-quality litter turnover at the home and guest sites. The addition of A. philoxeroides in N. affinis litter can stimulate the activity of soil fauna groups and microbial communities [13] and composition and allow nutrient transfer to the low-quality litter [40], which therefore loses mass more rapidly and decomposes faster [13], thus, the HFA effect was reduced”. Besides, we have deleted or refined some sentences to make them more rigorous.
In summary, this study has the potential to make a strong contribution to the field of invasion biology and ecosystem ecology, particularly with regard to understanding how invasive species affect decomposition processes. By addressing the above suggestions, the manuscript will be clearer and more impactful for the readership.
-Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications to the existing problems one by one according to your valuable suggestions.
Specific comments:
L 43: The phrase is not aligned with the preceding text. Please provide an explanation of the link between invasive species and HFA.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have changed the sentence as follows:” However, there is still limited research on the impact of invasive plant additions on the HFA effect during plant decomposition processes”.
L48-51: Some previous studies that are referenced are not thoroughly discussed in the context of their contribution to the research. This includes Callaway et al. (2000) and Weidenhamer and Callaway (2010).
-Response: Thanks. Sorry for our careless. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced it with appropriate referenced.
L51-53. It appears that a single study on a single species is being used to make generalisations. Please exercise caution with regard to this matter.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have added literature on other invasive plants that can produce leachate to support our argument.
L103 & 126: In L103 it is written the existence of 18 randomized plots. In L126 you write 2 sites 4 tratments 6 dsampling times and 3 replications. Try to be consistent and Please clarify!
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have already clarified.
L 104 & 116: In line 104 you said there is a distance of 10 m between to adjacent plots, in line 116 50 m at least between replicates. Please clarify!
-Response: Thanks. Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have already clarified as follows:” To test the HFA effect of riparian plant decomposition, two sites dominated by N. affinis and F. virens were selected for litter transplant experiment. The distance between two sites is at least 300 m; the area of each site is about 100 m2. In each site, 18 randomized plots of 1 m × 1 m in a circular pattern were established with 10 m between two adjacent plots for litterbag incubation. There were four treatments (pure N. affinis, pure F. virens, N. affinis with A. philoxeroides, F. virens without A. philoxeroides) in each plot (18 plots × 2 sites × 4 treatments)”.
L141: Please explain the method for fauna extraction.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have added relevant information to make it clearer as follows:” After homogenizing and weighing the wet litter in each litterbag, after removing excess water, a 0.5–3 g (depending on available material) subsample was used to estimate wet mass—dry mass conversion factor to determine dry mass of the entire sample” .” Abundance of associated soil fauna groups was quantified as number of invertebrates/leaf dry mass (g)”.
L289: I would advise that a brief summary of the main results and their implications be included at the beginning of the discussion section.
-Response: Thanks. Done as suggested.
L 324-329: This paragraph is too brief. I propose that the paragraph be extended to provide greater insight into the environmental aspects of litter decomposition and the impact of invasive plants on this process.
-Response: Thanks. Done as suggested.
L 364: I recommend including the following reference to enhance the discussion on soil fauna and litter decomposition: Homet, P., Gómez-Aparicio, L., Matías, L., & Godoy, O. (2021). Soil fauna modulates the effect of experimental drought on litter decomposition in forests invaded by an exotic pathogen. Journal of Ecology, 109, 2963–2980. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13711
-Response: Thanks. The appropriate citation has been made in the discussion section and the discussion on soil fauna and litter decomposition has been appropriately expanded.
L403-415: I believe that the entire paragraph on pages L403 to L415 could be deleted.
-Response: Thanks. These references were cited in different paragraphs of the text, and deleting them may make the argument unsupported. If necessary, we will follow your advice in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presented for consideration is very interesting and important in the context of studying litter decomposition and carbon stocks and sustainability in terrestrial ecosystems.
Some additions have been suggested to improve the perception of the article.
Materials and methods does not contain a map of the sampling sites location. The map must be added to this section.
115 - there is no information about the types of soils of the sampling sites and the characteristics of the sampled soil horizons.
118 - Soil pH is an important factor in microbial activity and litter decomposition. But pH role in litter decomposition is not discussed further in the text. The relationship between litter decomposition efficiency and pH value should be added to the discussion.
379 - the influence of earthworms on the decomposition of litter on study sites needs to be explained in more detail, because earthworms play a very important role in this process
396 - here it is necessary to clarify which soil characteristics affect the decomposition of litter in the study sites
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Overall, the manuscript is well-written, but certain sections—particularly in the introduction and discussion—could be streamlined to improve flow and readability. Simplifying some complex sentences and ensuring smooth transitions between ideas will help maintain reader engagement.
-Response: Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have thoroughly revised and condensed the entire text.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work presented for consideration is very interesting and important in the context of studying litter decomposition and carbon stocks and sustainability in terrestrial ecosystems. Some additions have been suggested to improve the perception of the article.
-Response: Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.
Materials and methods does not contain a map of the sampling sites location. The map must be added to this section.
-Response: Thank you. Due to time constraints, we are unable to provide a sampling map in the Materials and Methods section at this time. If necessary, we will follow your advice in the future.
115 - there is no information about the types of soils of the sampling sites and the characteristics of the sampled soil horizons.
-Response: Thanks. In the revised manuscript, we have added the necessary information as follows:” The surface soil in this area is mainly brown soil, and the deep soil is mainly limestone soil”.
118 - Soil pH is an important factor in microbial activity and litter decomposition. But pH role in litter decomposition is not discussed further in the text. The relationship between litter decomposition efficiency and pH value should be added to the discussion.
-Response: Thanks. Because there was no significant difference in pH between the two sites, there was no discussion in the discussion section. If necessary, we will follow your advice in the future.
379 - the influence of earthworms on the decomposition of litter on study sites needs to be explained in more detail, because earthworms play a very important role in this process
-Response: Thanks. Done as suggested.
396 - here it is necessary to clarify which soil characteristics affect the decomposition of litter in the study sites
-Response: Thanks. Done as suggested. See section 4.1 for details.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors!
You have prepared an interesting, well-written manuscript concerning a 1-year experiment on assessing the rate of decomposition of litter under the influence of mixing and location. I am sure that it is suitable for publication in "Forests". I think that you will quickly take into account the next comments during the minor revision of the manuscript. All your indicators (Eq. 1, 2, 3) have the dimension of %. Please indicate it in the formulas and in the Figures 2, 3. Please indicate the dimension of the decomposition rate in Table 4 (apparently day-1). It is also very desirable to provide information on the soil (or soils) of your sites (WRB-name, FAO/USDA texture). And finally, one more important remark. In Table 1, the temperature of different sites varies quite significantly (more than 3 Celsius degrees). However, later (lines 234, 325) you write: "There was no significant difference in soil temperature between the two sites....". This contradicts the data in Table 1. Note that the dependence of the biodegradation rate on temperature is exponential (for example, the Q10 function (https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11101889)). If you substitute your experimental data into this function at Q=2 and Tm=30, you will get a temperature contribution of 0.414 for the N. affinis site, and 0.331 for the F. virens site. That is, the differences are more than 25% (100*(0.414-0.331)/0.331). I would not ignore these differences and recommend that you correct the phrase in lines 324-325. For example, "the potential increase in rate biodegradation of up to 25% for the N. affinis site with temperature, according to the Q10 model, appears to be mitigated by the lower soil moisture of this site...". I am sure that you will be able to make these minor edits yourself without further approval from yours sincerely Reviewer.
September 1, 2024
Best wishes, yours Reviewer.
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors!
You have prepared an interesting, well-written manuscript concerning a 1-year experiment on assessing the rate of decomposition of litter under the influence of mixing and location. I am sure that it is suitable for publication in "Forests". I think that you will quickly take into account the next comments during the minor revision of the manuscript.
-Response: Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.
All your indicators (Eq. 1, 2, 3) have the dimension of %. Please indicate it in the formulas and in the Figures 2, 3. Please indicate the dimension of the decomposition rate in Table 4 (apparently day-1). It is also very desirable to provide information on the soil (or soils) of your sites (WRB-name, FAO/USDA texture).
-Response: Thanks. Done as suggested. See for Eq. 1, 2, 3，Figures 2, 3 and Table 4 for details. Besides, we have added the necessary information as follows:” The surface soil in this area is mainly brown soil, and the deep soil is mainly limestone soil”in the revised manuscript.
And finally, one more important remark. In Table 1, the temperature of different sites varies quite significantly (more than 3 Celsius degrees). However, later (lines 234, 325) you write: "There was no significant difference in soil temperature between the two sites....". This contradicts the data in Table 1. Note that the dependence of the biodegradation rate on temperature is exponential (for example, the Q10 function (https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11101889)). If you substitute your experimental data into this function at Q=2 and Tm=30, you will get a temperature contribution of 0.414 for the N. affinis site, and 0.331 for the F. virens site. That is, the differences are more than 25% (100*(0.414-0.331)/0.331). I would not ignore these differences and recommend that you correct the phrase in lines 324-325. For example, "the potential increase in rate biodegradation of up to 25% for the N. affinis site with temperature, according to the Q10 model, appears to be mitigated by the lower soil moisture of this site...". I am sure that you will be able to make these minor edits yourself without further approval from yours sincerely Reviewer.
-Response: Thank you very much. Done as suggested.
