Effects of Film Mulching on Plant Growth and Nutrients in Artificial Soil: A Case Study on High Altitude Slopes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper highlights the benefit of film mulching on plant growth and soil nutrient conservation on high altitude slopes. The finding of this study could be used for soil conservation and vegetation establishment in slop areas. Although the find of this research is supported by literature but it would have been better if author had recorded soil temperature and soil moisture because most of the finds were reported to be affected by soil temperature and moisture.
Other comments are in attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled "Effects of film mulching on plant growth and nutrients in artificial soil: A case study on high-altitude slopes" intends to explore the potential of film mulching for vegetation restoration in such environments, plant growth and nutrients in artificial soil on slopes in high-altitude areas were determined.
Moreover, the manuscript, aims to investigate the effects of film mulching on plant growth and nutrients in artificial soil of slopes on high-altitude areas, and to provide theoretical sup- port for the effective guarantee of slope vegetation restoration in high-altitude areas.
The study area was the Jiuzhaigou County which is in the transition zone between the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and Sichuan Basin, administratively belonging to the Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province, in China. The experimental slope was a soil-rock slope about 2860 m above sea level, covering an area of about 2600 m2, with a gradient of 48° and a slope height of 10 m. The slope had a direction of 30° south of the east (S30E) with an extremely thin layer of topsoil.
The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has almost the appropriate structure and language been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a short extent (about 3,800 words), the tables (2) and figures (11) make the paper to reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words. It is advised to revise figures, compare them, or use appendix.
The title is all right. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study, but it has a long length (about 248 words). The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating but is too short.
Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, for this reason I would be good to reduce [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Front Matter / Abstract: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/sustainability-template.dot)].
For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with similar results and will probably be tested in others. In this way it is documented that a project which is tested in a place with its own characteristics can be implemented in other places around the world. I would be much more satisfied if you increase the number of references which are not from Asia, and I would appreciate it if also included data from the entire world (America, Europe, and Australia e.tc.) not only from Asia (you have about 15 references from all the world and 60 from Asia). The total number of references are fine. Please revise the references of the manuscript and include references which are already exists in bibliography (as you did).
The results and discussion sections are very good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. The same applies to the conclusions, which it could be longer.
It is advised to revise the Conclusion. Discussion and Conclusion sections should be consistent in terms of Proposal, Problem statement, Results, and of course, future work. Your conclusion section is too short and does not do justice to your work. Make it your key contributions, arguments, and findings clearer. You must refer to the literature and previous studies in your discussion and conclusion sections. It is recommended to remove paragraphs from Results and Discussion and put them in the Conclusion with nice order and of course to be enriched.
Please, revise the references, they must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. Do not forget, DOI numbers (Digital Object Identifier) are not mandatory but highly encouraged and make the review easier.
Please, revise the reference " 69. Ndubuisi, M. C. Physical Properties of an Ultisol Under Plastic Film and No-Mulches and their Effect on the Yield of Maize %J The Journal of American Science. 2009, 5", lines 498-499 and delete the “%J”. I think must be revised as “Ndubuisi, M.C. Physical Properties of an Ultisol Under Plastic Film and No-Mulches and their Effect on the Yield of Maize. J. Am. Sci. 2009, 5, 25–30.”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
