Short-Term Effects of Three Tree Species on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Communities During Land-Use Change from Farmland to Forests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been technically well-prepared, Its overall structure and presentation is clear. The methodology is robust, and the findings are relevant and well-articulated. However, a few minor textual errors should be corrected for clarity and accuracy:

1. Line 134: The text should read "-80°C" instead of "+80°C."
2. Line 299: The word "xhibited" should be corrected to "exhibited."
3. Line 377: There is a redundant letter "T" in the text that should be removed.

In addition to these minor issues, the manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of data regarding the soil conditions before afforestation (as of 2019). Such data could serve as an additional control sample, providing valuable context for comparison beyond the abandoned land variant, which may have also undergone changes since 2019. If these data are available, I strongly recommend including them, at least in the supplementary material, to strengthen the study's conclusions.

Overall, the manuscript is of high quality, and with the suggested revisions, I recommend it for publication.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is of great interest to specialists. There are actually
no comments to the manuscript, preferably in section 2.3. add the name
of the soil according to the WRB classification. Since the experiment
used sites with different types of vegetation (A, B, Sb C) and a mixed
soil sample was taken from each type of site, how many soil samples were
analyzed? Were there differences in the thickness of the fertile layer
for each of the sites? Were there any external differences between the
soil samples from the sites? Is there any practical value from your
research? I hope these recommendations will help improve your manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Short-term effect of tree species on soil microbial communities for land-use changes from farmland to forests” is an interesting and relevant study that allows to assess the impact of afforestation of soils both on their physico-chemical properties as well as microbial component.

The article can be published in the journal after some revision.

Here are the specific comments:

1. The title of the article is not very good, it does not reflect the completeness of the work. Another title could be suggested, for example, “Short-term effects of three tree species on soil physicochemical properties and soil microbial communities during land use change from agricultural land to forests”

2. Abstract. a) Written in a rather rambling manner, it is difficult to put all the facts together. It should be more clearly stated: “in the area where the planting of Pleioblastus amarus had such and such a change, and on the other one - such and such a change”. А then focus on general patterns.

b) Line 23- there is no explanation of “SOC”

3. Keywords. Add keywords.

4. Introduction. a) Line 79. “However, the findings have been inconclusive”.

Incorrect expression. Should be changed.

b) Line 93. “We posited that different tree species would markedly alter soil properties” Incorrect expression. That hypothesis existed before your research. It should be rephrased.

c) Line 102. Only two items are listed in the research objective, but the third item, which is the focus of a third of the research, is missing, namely: “the effect of the species of tree planted on soil and microbial community characteristics”

5. Results. a) Table 2. Very much data in one table, so it is shallow and difficult to read. Should split the table into two: 1) physicochemical properties and 2) enzymatic activity.

b) I would also recommend that the accuracy of the numerical values be expressed as one decimal place. This would improve perception, besides such precision of all measurements is suspicious.

c) For table 2 and further for all figures: additional explanation: “AL: abandoned land; PA: Pleioblastus amarus; PD: Populus deltoides; ZB: Zanthoxylum bungeanum” is unnecessary.

6. Conclusion.

a) I would recommend a more rigorous conclusion, where the conclusions are clearly stated under points 1.; 2.; 3. etc. This will be very helpful for readers to immediately understand the main results of the paper;

b) line 498. No additional explanation of “SOC” is required here;

c) You should also write a couple of sentences about the future prospects of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A slight correction of the English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript contains important and interesting material. Overall, everything is good. The work is well illustrated, the structure and methods used are well thought out. Perhaps, to strengthen the article, it is worth adding additional soil characteristics. It is necessary to give the name of the soils according to the World Reference Base (2022 or 2015). It is necessary to describe how the morphological properties of the upper soil horizons change in the compared areas. Are there any differences in the upper genetic horizons from which samples were taken for analysis? From which horizon (0-20 cm) were samples taken for chemical and biological analysis?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments have been worked out. I believe that the article can be published.

Author Response

thank you for your help