Soil Quality Evaluation and Analysis of Driving Factors of Pinus tabuliformis in Loess Hilly Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting study on soil quality evaluation across different ages of forest restoration by Pinus tabuliformis. However, the introduction would benefit from a more detailed discussion of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). While the methodology is well-structured, the section titled “Results” should be renamed to “Results and Discussion.” Additionally, an exploratory analysis of all soil parameters is needed to better understand the behavior of each treatment and variable.

Below are specific comments for further improvement:

• Line 21: Provide more details about the ‘soil quality index’ used in the abstract’s methodology section.
• Lines 45-47: Rewrite and improve this section for clarity and coherence.
• Lines 49-53: The section starts with “studies” but only mentions two. Include more studies to support the statement.
• Line 49: Be more specific about the region when discussing “vegetation restoration in the region.”
• Lines 54-57: Remove this repetitive section: “Therefore, plant growth can alter the physical structure, chemical properties, and composition of biological communities in the soil. Changes in soil physical structure, composition, chemical properties, and biological communities can, in turn, affect plant growth [8,9].”
• Line 68: Correct the citation to “Fayez R [22].”
• Line 96: Do not abbreviate “SEM” on its first use. Additionally, expand on and develop a section related to Structural Equation Modeling in the introduction.
• Line 108: Replace “The average” with “the average.”
• Line 110: Specify the other tree species present in the region alongside P. tabuliformis.
• Line 112: Figure 1 presents an elevation map, but it doesn’t show the species distribution. Consider adding this information.
• Line 124: Address the “Error! Reference source not found.” issue, which recurs in several sections of the document.
• Line 125: Provide more details about the sampling methods for both disturbed and undisturbed soil samples.
• Line 134: Address the “Error! Reference source not found.” issue.
• Line 152: Address the “Error! Reference source not found.” issue.
• Page 6: Correct the layout of the page.
• Line 163: Table 1 is incomplete; more information is needed regarding the methods used, such as for Bulk Density. For example, use the standard method according to Blake and Hartge (1986):
• Blake, G.R., & Hartge, K.H. (1986). Bulk Density. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1—Physical and Mineralogical Methods (pp. 363-375). American Society of Agronomy. Ensure all methods are presented with correct references.
• Line 165: Justify the selection of the method used for the Soil Quality Index.
• Line 202: Provide more details about the ANOVA analysis performed.
• Line 206: Give more details about the R package used and provide its reference.
• Line 207: Correct “Results” to “Results and Discussion.”
• Line 207: Before conducting a multivariable analysis, the authors should compare soil parameters across different treatments to better understand each variable’s behavior. The results presented in the figure are unclear; consider improving clarity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Regarding the English, moderate revisions are needed.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions, please refer to the attachment, if there are other questions, please suggest!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review concerned an original scientific article, the aim of which was a comprehensive assessment of SQ in the study area by taking into account indicators of soil fauna and herbaceous plants.

The abstract is written correctly, the introduction comprehensively introduces the topic.

Subsection 2.2. Layout of sample plots. In this subsection and in several others, the information "Error! Reference source not found.." appears. Should there be a reference to the supplement or a citation here? Please explain.

Table 1 is completely illegible and in this version does not qualify for the recipients of this article. This should be corrected, consider dividing this table according to, for example, individual groups of properties that were presented in it. The next comment concerns the content of the table, in which the authors provide the basic properties of the study areas. If the authors themselves conducted and obtained the results that are in the table, then a reference to the literature and a description in the material and methods chapter must be provided for each property / or it should be moved to the results chapter. However, if the authors present research results conducted by someone else in this table, it is absolutely necessary to add a source, i.e. a citation. Even if individual results come from different works, citations must be provided, otherwise it is plagiarism.

From line 142 to line 153, please organize the text, which is partly an explanation of the table and partly a continuation of the description to line 139. In subsection 2.5, the table with number 1 appears again (there was already a table with number 1) and the measured soil indicators in it again without references to methods, i.e. sources/citations or standards. This should be supplemented without fail, it is impossible not to provide the research method used to mark individual parameters.

The results chapter. In my opinion, it should be thoroughly improved. This chapter consists of a total of 5 pages, of which 3.5 are figures and a table. The description of the results alone is about 1.5 pages. It is absolutely unacceptable to present the results of research in this form, which was conducted over many years and concerned many indicators. You can't ask the reader to read and interpret tables or figures on their own. This can be an addition, but the most important thing is the content and interpretation of the research results obtained. I think that the description of the results should be expanded. In my opinion, the discussion chapter is well written and so is the summary. However, the work must be thoroughly edited, organized, formatted (this applies to the entire work, including the literature) and only then can it be approved for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions, please refer to the attachment, if there are other questions, please suggest!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study was to comprehensively assess the soil quality SQ in the study area by including indices of soil fauna and herbaceous plants. To do this, the authors used structural equation modeling SEM to identify key factors influencing the soil quality index SQI of pine forests. The results of the study allow us to more fully understand the state of soil quality after the implementation of forest-ecological projects in the study area. The authors have done a lot of work, but there are a number of questions and comments about it.

1. At the beginning of the abstract, it is necessary to indicate why this study was carried out, its relevance.

2. Section 2.1. The meaning of the phrase "dry and rainy summers" is unclear. These are opposite terms.

3. Section 2.3. Why was soil sampling carried out to a depth of 15 cm. What was the reason for this?

4. Table 1 is unsuccessful. It is very overloaded for perception. Perhaps it should be shown vertically. In addition, units of measurement are missing.

5. The list of references has an excessive number of articles from one country. It is recommended to reasonably revise the list of references.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions, please refer to the attachment, if there are other questions, please suggest!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the comments of my first revision were addressed, but the following still need to be addressed by the authors:

• Comment 1: This comment has not been addressed by the authors. The methodology used in the abstract must be consistent with the results presented. The results of the soil quality index are mentioned without explaining the methodology used to calculate this index.
• Comment 6: The reference is still incorrect.
• Comment 8: This comment has not been corrected.
• Comment 10: The map is an elevation map, but we do not see any yellow or red colors as mentioned in the title. This comment has not been addressed.
• Comment 11: This comment has not been addressed, and the error appears in line 141.
• Comment 12: What are the dimensions of the ring used to sample bulk density at a 5 cm depth? This comment has not been addressed.
• Comment 13: In Table 3, the table needs to be self-explanatory, and the abbreviations should be defined.
• Comment 16: Line 202: Provide more details about the ANOVA analysis performed.
• Response 16: The authors stated, 'I am very sorry, one-way analysis of variance was not used in this study.'
• What statistical analysis is being presented in Figure 3?
• Comment 19: Figure 2 does not present a statistical comparison (ANOVA) as mentioned in the text. For that I suggested adding the comparison.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of language is fine, and minor editing is needed.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions, please refer to the attachment, if there are other questions, please suggest!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response to the corrections. I recommend it for printing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors significantly revised the manuscript, corrected all the reviewer’s comments or gave a substantiated answer to why the study was conducted in such a design. I think that the article has improved significantly and can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript!