Quantifying the Spatial Distribution Pattern of Soil Diversity in Southern Xinjiang and Its Influencing Factors
, Yanmin Fan 1,2,*, Hongqi Wu 1,2, Junhui Cheng 1,2, Rui Yang 1,2 and Kai Zheng 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of this study was to identify the primary influencing factors in different geomorphic regions using geographic detectors by establishing the optimal analysis window, calculating landscape pattern indices, and reveal the distribution and characteristics of southern Xinjiang soil. After carefully reading, the following comments should be addressed to improve the manuscript.
(1) The abbreviations should be explained by their complete expression at the locations where they were firstly mentioned; e.g., Line 123: What does “DEM” specifically mean? Please revise them.
(2) Sections 4.1 and 4.2: Titles here are too long, please simplify them.
(3) Abstract and Conclusions: The authors stated that “There is a significant lack of quantitative research on soil diversity and its influencing factors in Xinjiang, a typical arid region.” However, current version of sections Abstract and Conclusions are not informative due to no specific data findings were found. Moreover, the statistical analyses of experimental data are still lacking in the main text.
(4) The research was carried out only in southern Xinjiang. The relevant methods and conclusions are not entirely convincing.
(5) The language should be extensively improved as many grammatical errors were found in the main text; e.g., in Abstract section, “The results indicate a ……” should be “The results indicated a ……”, “……being the largest in area, exhibits the lowest diversity ……mountainous areas show higher soil evenness compared to basins.” should be ““……being the largest in area, exhibited the lowest diversity ……mountainous areas showed higher soil evenness compared to basins.”. Please carefully check them and revise them.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language should be extensively improved as many grammatical errors were found in the main text; e.g., in Abstract section, “The results indicate a ……” should be “The results indicated a ……”, “……being the largest in area, exhibits the lowest diversity ……mountainous areas show higher soil evenness compared to basins.” should be ““……being the largest in area, exhibited the lowest diversity ……mountainous areas showed higher soil evenness compared to basins.”. Please carefully check them and revise them.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions and feedback. Every review comment you provided has been immensely helpful for the revisions of our paper and our future research endeavors. The main body of the manuscript has been revised according to your review comments (highlighted in red). Additionally, we have prepared a detailed document explaining the modifications made in response to your comments (see attached). We have addressed each of your raised concerns individually (our responses are marked in red).Finally, we wish you well and look forward to your response! I consider myself rather slow-witted, so it took quite a while to prepare this paper for you. If I have made any mistakes, I hope you can give me an opportunity to correct them. Thank you very much for your understanding.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current manuscript presents a study of soil distribution with a focus on the influential factors. The writing is generally OK. The reviewer has the following comments:
1) The left panel of Fig 1 should indicate the scope of the right panel.
2) The reason why the six influencing factors are chosen must be delineated and supported by the literature.
3) The species-area curve model should be briefly discussed in the text.
4) Line 178: Does he have a full name?
5) Line 220: The maker of the software and its location (city name, country name) should be cited. Please do the same for other software used in this study.
6) Most graphs contain very small text. Please remake those graphs to be compatible with the requirements of MDPI journals.
7) The reviewer fails to see how the species-area curve is applied in determining influencing factors. Please explain in detail in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo specific issues.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions and feedback. Every review comment you provided has been immensely helpful for the revisions of our paper and our future research endeavors. The main body of the manuscript has been revised according to your review comments (highlighted in red). Additionally, we have prepared a detailed document explaining the modifications made in response to your comments (see attached). We have addressed each of your raised concerns individually (our responses are marked in red).Finally, we wish you well and look forward to your response! I consider myself rather slow-witted, so it took quite a while to prepare this paper for you. If I have made any mistakes, I hope you can give me an opportunity to correct them. Thank you very much for your understanding.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract
Good and concise
Introduction
The last paragraph of introduction spells out what was done and for what. However, the study objectives are not clearly stated as in the abstract. They should be improved.
Materials and methods
Study area is well described.
Data collection procedures well-articulated and easy to understand in a complex analytical study. However, I am not sure whether all the formulae provided was all used. It would be beneficial to minimize their use
Authors acknowledge the challenges of data collection in the expansive area. They have suggested a way to go through this to validate the collected data.
Figure 3 conveys the procedures in an effective way for the reader to grasp how data was collected
The formulae used to determine diversity, richness, and factors influencing soil diversity are well described.
Results
The authors indicate that temperature influences microbial activity, organic matter decomposition rates and mineral weathering processes. How does this compare with other studies?
No significant differences for precipitation and topography – line 288-291. Are these two sentences contradictory?
Tables and figures well presented.
Discussion
Doing the study for the first time in the study area is may not really matter and should not be given much preference as it has in the discussion, methods and the discussion. The importance of the subject matter should.
Line 318-319 is not relevant
The discussion in the first two paragraphs is well but the assertions need to be cited. This applies to the whole discussion, apply relevant citation as appropriate.
Line 392 should go to the conclusion.
Conclusion
Line 424 – human activities influencing soil diversity – was this determined from this study?
Make the conclusion short and to the point, no need to repeat reporting of results.
Last sentence forms a good observation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions and feedback. Every review comment you provided has been immensely helpful for the revisions of our paper and our future research endeavors. The main body of the manuscript has been revised according to your review comments (highlighted in red). Additionally, we have prepared a detailed document explaining the modifications made in response to your comments (see attached). We have addressed each of your raised concerns individually (our responses are marked in red).Finally, we wish you well and look forward to your response! I consider myself rather slow-witted, so it took quite a while to prepare this paper for you. If I have made any mistakes, I hope you can give me an opportunity to correct them. Thank you very much for your understanding.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been addressed. However, the statistical analyses were still lacking in the revised version of this manuscript. Are there any repetitions in the data collection processes? The standard errors were not found in all figures and tables. Please revise them.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Hello and thank you very much for providing us with further feedback on our manuscript. We are truly grateful for the time and effort you have dedicated to this process. Throughout the rounds of revisions, I have gained invaluable insights that will significantly aid my future academic endeavors. I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to have you as my reviewer.
Warm regards,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for providing a revised manuscript and corresponding response. Most issues were clarified. The reviewer would like to see the actual parameters for the fitted equations though (not just the R2 numbers).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo issue detected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Hello and thank you very much for providing us with further feedback on our manuscript. We are truly grateful for the time and effort you have dedicated to this process. Throughout the rounds of revisions, I have gained invaluable insights that will significantly aid my future academic endeavors. I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to have you as my reviewer.
Warm regards,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe proposed comments and suggestions have been considered and responded. The manuscript has been improved significantly and currently can be considered to be accepted for publication.
