Effects of Long-Term Enclosing on Vertical Distributions of Soil Physical Properties and Nutrient Stocks in Grassland of Inner Mongolia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors corrected all reviewer comments. Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you for the comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is my 3^rd review of this manuscript.  The current version has been improved significantly. At my new comments I highlight some points of the manuscript than need revision in order to further improve its quality.

1. The manuscript has poor quality of English, like for example in the introduction “Livestock only use a little nutrients they ingest …” and at the results “The dry matters of green …”. In several places, words that are not appropriate have been used. The entire manuscript needs to be revised by an English native language speaker.
2. At line 12 in the Abstract, the authors mention “38 years” as an explanation for the enclosing treatment. What about the grazing treatment? It was not the same duration (38 years)? Is this a mistyping error?
3. At lines 31-33, the added text is the results of a research but the way that is added is abrupt and cut off from the normal flow of the text.
4. At line 67, consider revising “leymus chinensis” to “Leymus chinensis”.
5. At line 68 mention that Cleistogenes chinensis was a secondary species.
6. For Figure 1 add reference in the caption or in the text.
7. One major point that needs revision is the lack of consistency at the presentation of the comparison of means of the results. For example at Figures 3 and 4 the ** indicate that there are statistically significant differences, but there are no letters to show the differences of the comparison of means. On the other hand, at Figures 4-7, there is a comparison of each factor (soil layer, treatment) and the presentation of the results of the statistical analysis are really confusing. There is no clear description on lowercase and capital letters represent (which factor). For example, at layer 0-10 of Figure 4C, the ** are for the layer or the treatment factor? Moreover, since the experiment has 2 factors, the authors should have investigated the interaction of the 2 factors at the ANOVA.
8. On my 2^nd review I had the following comment:

“In their response for the 1st comment, the authors provide information as requested, but they didn’t incorporate it in the manuscript, like “The total sampling area was 5000 m2. In long term grazing plot and long term enclosing plot, five quadrats were established at 10 m intervals in each plot, and the replications of treatment was seemed as five”. Moreover, some questions were not answered, like for example “the grazing intensity. The authors should mention the number of sheeps ha−1 year−1.”. At their response The information regarding the grazing intensity is still missing from the manuscript. Their answer was: “Thank you for the comment. We had added this information in Sampling and analysis section. The grazing intensity was about”. It seems that a part of the sentence is missing as it ends abruptly.

Author Response

1. The manuscript has poor quality of English, like for example in the introduction “Livestock only use a little nutrients they ingest …” and at the results “The dry matters of green …”. In several places, words that are not appropriate have been used. The entire manuscript needs to be revised by an English native language speaker.

Response: Thank you for the comment. “Livestock only use a little nutrient they ingest” has been revised as “Livestock only absorb a small number of nutrients they ingest”. “dry matters of ...” has been revised as “dry matter of ...”.

2. At line 12 in the Abstract, the authors mention “38 years” as an explanation for the enclosing treatment. What about the grazing treatment? It was not the same duration (38 years)? Is this a mistyping error?

Response: Thank you for the comment. In this study, the experimental site includes long term enclosing plot continued 38 years inside of fence and long term grazing plot outside of fence. “The biomass of green plant and litter, and vertical distributions of soil physical properties and nutrients stocks were evaluated at grazing treatment and enclosing 38 years treatment in a semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia”, has been revised as “The biomass of green plant and litter, and vertical distributions of soil physical properties and nutrients stocks were evaluated at long term enclosing plot continued 38 years inside of fence and long term grazing plot outside of fence in a semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia”.

3. At lines 31-33, the added text is the results of a research but the way that is added is abrupt and cut off from the normal flow of the text.

Response: Thank you for the comment. “The K, P, Ca, and Mg feed by cow was excreted into grassland by 11%, 65%, 78%, and 80% respectively. The different amounts of various nutrients excreted might lead to a redistribution of soil nutrient in grazing grassland”, these two sentences in lines 31-33 have been deleted.

4. At line 67, consider revising “leymus chinensis” to “Leymus chinensis”.

Response: Thank you for the comment. “leymus chinensis” has been revised to “Leymus chinensis”.

5. At line 68 mention that Cleistogenes chinensis was a secondary species.

Response: Thank you for the comment. “The mean percentage of Cleistogenes chinensis was 8.22%” 

has been deleted.

6. For Figure 1 add reference in the caption or in the text.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The annual average temperature is 2.3 °C and the annual average precipitation is 330 mm (Figure 1)[17]. Hoffmann, C.; Funk, R.; Wieland, R. Effects of grazing and topography on dust flux and deposition in the Xilingele grassland , Inner Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments 2008, 72:792–807.

7. One major point that needs revision is the lack of consistency at the presentation of the comparison

of means of the results. For example at Figures 3 and 4 the ** indicate that there are statistically significant differences, but there are no letters to show the differences of the comparison of means. On the other hand, at Figures 4-7, there is a comparison of each factor (soil layer, treatment) and the presentation of the results of the statistical analysis are really confusing. There is no clear description on lowercase and capital letters represent (which factor). For example, at layer 0-10 of Figure 4C, the ** are for the layer or the treatment factor? Moreover, since the experiment has 2 factors, the authors should have investigated the interaction of the 2 factors at the ANOVA.

Response: * and ** indicate the significant difference of soil parameters (bulk densities, pH, EC, SOC stock, TN stock, TP stock, TK stock, Ca stock, Mg stock, S stock, AN stock, AP stock, and AK stock) in each soil layer between two treatments (t test). Different letters indicate the significant differences of soil parameters among different soil layers at each treatment (ANOVA).

We had revised the notes of figures.

Fig.2: Note: * and ** show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01of green plant dry matter and litter dry matter between two treatments (t test), respectively. Error bars were one standard deviation.

Fig.3: Note: * and ** show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of each grain size category between two treatments, respectively, and NS shows no difference between two treatments (t test). Error bars were one standard deviation.

Fig.4:Note: * and ** show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of bulk density, pH value, and electrical conductivity in each soil layer between two treatments, and NS shows no difference (t test). Lowercase and capital letters show significant differences of bulk density, pH value, and electrical conductivity at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 among different soil layers at each treatment by ANOVA. Error bars were one standard deviation.

Fig.5: Note: * and ** show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of SOC, TN, TP, and TK stocks in each soil layer between two treatments, and NS shows no difference (t test). Lowercase and capital letters show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of SOC, TN, TP, and TK stocks among different soil layers at each treatments by ANOVA. Error bars were one standard deviation.

Fig.6: Note: * and ** show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of Ca, Mg, and S stocks in each soil layer between two treatments, and NS shows no difference (t test). Lowercase and capital letters show differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of Ca, Mg, and S stocks among different soil layers at each treatment by ANOVA. Error bars were one standard deviation.

Fig.7: Note: * and ** show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of AN, AP, and AK stocks in each soil layer between two treatments, and NS shows no significant difference (t test). Lowercase and capital letters show significant differences at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 of AN, AP, and AK stocks among different soil layers at each treatment by ANOVA. Error bars were one standard deviation.

8. On my 2^ndreview I had the following comment:

“In their response for the 1st comment, the authors provide information as requested, but they didn’t incorporate it in the manuscript, like “The total sampling area was 5000 m2. In long term grazing plot and long term enclosing plot, five quadrats were established at 10 m intervals in each plot, and the replications of treatment was seemed as five”. Moreover, some questions were not answered, like for example “the grazing intensity. The authors should mention the number of sheeps ha−1 year−1.”. At their response The information regarding the grazing intensity is still missing from the manuscript. Their answer was: “Thank you for the comment. We had added this information in Sampling and analysis section. The grazing intensity was about”. It seems that a part of the sentence is missing as it ends abruptly.

Response: We are sorry. “The total sampling area was 5000 m². In long term grazing plot and long term enclosing plot, five quadrats were established at 10 m intervals in each plot, and the replications of treatment was seemed as five” had added in paper. The grazing intensity was about 5 sheep·hm^-1·year^-1 in long term grazing plot.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript is typical for Agronomy.

The aims of the study were to: (1) analyze the differences of dry matter of green plant and litter of long term grazing and enclosing in semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia; (2) explore the changes of surface soil texture and the vertical changes of pH value, bulk density, and electrical conductivity of long term grazing and enclosing; (3) clarify the vertical distributions (0-100 cm) of SOC, TN, TP, TK, Ca, Mg, S, AN, AP, and AK stocks of long term grazing and enclosing.

The manuscript needs some corrections:

• Abstract is too long (200 words maximum.). You need to shorten the abstract.
• The introduction is too poor. You must widen it.
• There are not research hypotheses in the manuscript. You should add them.
• It will be better if you add a map with marked research locations.
• Add more information about research sites.
• How many repetitions of laboratory analyzes were performed for each soil sample?
• How was the quality of laboratory analyzes controlled?
• References citation in manuscript is not correct. Should be numbers (it is surnames now). Correct it.
• Many of the references (21 from 56) cited in the paper are quite old (pre-2010). Add some new references to the manuscript, especially to the Discussion section.
• The references numbering (from 36) is invalid in References section. References should be standardized according to Agronomy's editorial requirements (see Instructions for Authors).
• Add a main (summarizing) conclusion to the Conclusions section.
• The format of the paper is not correct. Format the manuscript. Paper needs some other editorial corrections (see Instructions for Authors).

Author Response

The aims of the study were to: (1) analyze the differences of dry matter of green plant and litter of long term grazing and enclosing in semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia; (2) explore the changes of surface soil texture and the vertical changes of pH value, bulk density, and electrical conductivity of long term grazing and enclosing; (3) clarify the vertical distributions (0-100 cm) of SOC, TN, TP, TK, Ca, Mg, S, AN, AP, and AK stocks of long term grazing and enclosing.

The manuscript needs some corrections:

• Abstract is too long (200 words maximum.). You need to shorten the abstract.

Response: The abstract had been shorted in 200 words.

• The introduction is too poor. You must widen it.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had added some contents, and rewrote the introduction.

• There are not research hypotheses in the manuscript. You should add them.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had added the hypotheses. “We hypothesized that: (1) long term enclosing would increase the dry matters of green plant and litter, and improve soil physical properties; (2) the nutrients stocks in soil would be different between long term grazing and long term enclosing.”

• It will be better if you add a map with marked research locations.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had added a map.

• Add more information about research sites.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had added some information about research sites. The mean percentage of Leymus chinensis and Stipa grandis was 21% and 57% respectively.

• How many repetitions of laboratory analyzes were performed for each soil sample?

Response: Each soil sample performed two repetitions of laboratory analyzes.

• How was the quality of laboratory analyzes controlled?

Response: The indicators such as SOC, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, pH, EC, and soil particle size distributions were all determined by Testing Center, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The measurements of these indicators were all normal technologies. In addition, each soil sample performed two repetitions of laboratory analyzes.

• References citation in manuscript is not correct. Should be numbers (it is surnames now). Correct it.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had revised the references citation in manuscript.

• Many of the references (21 from 56) cited in the paper are quite old (pre-2010). Add some new references to the manuscript, especially to the Discussion section.

Response: Thank you for the comment, we have deleted several old papers, such as:

Bai, Y., Han, X., Wu, J., Chen, Z., Li, L., 2004. Ecosystem stability and compensatory effects in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Nature 431, 181–184.

Hinsinger, P., Plassard, C., Tang, C., Jaillard, B., 2003. Origins of root-mediated pH changes in the rhizosphere and their responses to environmental constraints: A review. Plant Soil.248, 43–59.

Mekuria, W., Veldkamp, E., Haile, M., Nyssen, J., Muys, B., Gebrehiwot, K., 2007.Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ. 69, 270–284.

McLauchlan, K., 2006. The nature and longevity of agricultural impacts on soil carbon and nutrients: a review. Ecosystems 9, 1364–1382.

Pineiro, G., Paruelo, J.M., Jobbágy, E.G., Jackson, R.B., Oesterheld, M., 2009. Grazing effects on belowground C and N stocks along a network of cattle exclosures in temperate and subtropical grasslands

Reeder, J.D., Franks, C.D., Milchunas, D.G., 2001. Root biomass and microbial processes. Potential of U.S. Grazing lands to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. New York: Lewis Publishers, 139–166.

Reeder, J.D., Schuman, G.E., 2002. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed grass and short-grass range lands. Environmental Pollution, 116:457–463.

Williams, P.H., Haynes, R.J., 1990. Influence of improved pastures and grazing animals on nutrient cycling within New Zealand soils. New Zealand Journal of Ecology,14:49–57.

Yates, C.J., Norton, D.A., Hobbs, R.J., 2000. Grazing effects on plant cover: soil and microclimate in fragmented woodlands in south-western Australia:implications for restoration. Aust. Ecol. 25, 36–47.

We have added one paper:

Baudron, F., Mamo, M., Tirfessa, T., Argaw, A. Impact of farmland exclosure on the productivity and sustainability of a mixed crop-livestock system in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 207, 109–118.

• The references numbering (from 36) is invalid in References section. References should be standardized according to Agronomy's editorial requirements (see Instructions for Authors).

Response: Thank you for the comment, the reference 36 had been deleted. The format of references had been revised according to agronomy.

• Add a main (summarizing) conclusion to the Conclusions section.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had added a main summarizing conclusion “Therefore, long term enclosing could improve grassland production, but decrease most of nutrients stocks in soil”.

• The format of the paper is not correct. Format the manuscript. Paper needs some other editorial corrections (see Instructions for Authors).

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have revised the format of paper according to instructions for authors of agronomy.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments to the manuscript:

Vertical Distributions of Soil Physical Properties and Nutrients Stocks as Affected by Long Term Grazing and Enclosing in a Semi-Arid Grassland of Inner Mongolia

 

The manuscript is about the long-term effects of grazing or enclosing on soil physical-chemical properties and their vertical distribution and also on the effects on the production of dry matter of green plant and of litter of semi-arid grasslands located of inner Mongolia.   

The work was developed from field results obtained in a long-term experiment for 38 years. The management practices to a more sustainable use of grasslands are crucial to maintain this type of soil use in many parts of the world with a special focus on semi-arid regions.  So, the topic of this manuscript is relevant not only for these regions but also in a scenario of global warming.

The manuscript is well done, with appropriate methodology and detailed information about the results obtained. The results are well presented and discussed, and conclusions are also well supported by the field results.

So, I agree with the consideration of the manuscript after some revisions:

 

2. Methodology

Line 73- Could the authors provide the soil classification?

Line 110- Please confirm the expression to calculate the nutrient stock.

Since the nutrient content is quantified in the soil fraction < 2mm, in this formula this faction must be included.  

Ex: 90 % of soil particles < 2mm

Nutrient stock (g/m2): Nut. Content (g/kg) x Bulk density x soil depth (m) x Area (1 m2) x 0.90 x 1000

 

4. Discussion

Line 308- The electrical conductivity refers to the concentration of salts in the soil solution. So, the increase of soil EC is due to an increase of soluble salts which could be attributed to leaching of livestock excreta (salts from dung and urine) and also of salts from biomass and litter mineralization.

Line 333- The C/N ratio of plant was significantly lower than what?

Author Response

Reviewer comments to the manuscript:

Vertical Distributions of Soil Physical Properties and Nutrients Stocks as Affected by Long Term Grazing and Enclosing in a Semi-Arid Grassland of Inner Mongolia

The manuscript is about the long-term effects of grazing or enclosing on soil physical-chemical properties and their vertical distribution and also on the effects on the production of dry matter of green plant and of litter of semi-arid grasslands located of inner Mongolia.   

The work was developed from field results obtained in a long-term experiment for 38 years. The management practices to a more sustainable use of grasslands are crucial to maintain this type of soil use in many parts of the world with a special focus on semi-arid regions.  So, the topic of this manuscript is relevant not only for these regions but also in a scenario of global warming.

The manuscript is well done, with appropriate methodology and detailed information about the results obtained. The results are well presented and discussed, and conclusions are also well supported by the field results.

So, I agree with the consideration of the manuscript after some revisions:

1. Methodology

Line 73- Could the authors provide the soil classification?

Response: Thank you for the comment. Yes, we had provided the soil classification in line 74. The soil is dark chestnut.

Line 110- Please confirm the expression to calculate the nutrient stock.

Since the nutrient content is quantified in the soil fraction < 2mm, in this formula this faction must be included.  

Ex: 90 % of soil particles < 2mm

Nutrient stock (g/m2): Nut. Content (g/kg) x Bulk density x soil depth (m) x Area (1 m2) x 0.90 x 1000

Response: It is a very useful comment. The dates of nutrient stocks in this paper had considered the 90% of soil particles <2 mm. But the expression of formula was wrong, and we had corrected as follow, Nutrient stock (g/m²)=nutrient content (g/kg) ×bulk density (g/cm³)× soil deep (m)×area (1 m²) ×0.9×1000.

 

Discussion

Line 308- The electrical conductivity refers to the concentration of salts in the soil solution. So, the increase of soil EC is due to an increase of soluble salts which could be attributed to leaching of livestock excreta (salts from dung and urine) and also of salts from biomass and litter mineralization.

Response: It is a very useful suggestion. We had revised as “which might be attributed to the leach of livestock excreta and the mineralization of plant and litter”.

Line 333- The C/N ratio of plant was significantly lower than what?

Response: The C/N ratio of plant in grazing grassland was lower than that of enclosing grassland. We had revised the sentence as “Ding et al. (2012) indicated that the C/N ratio of plant in grazing grassland was lower than that of enclosing grassland, therefore the decomposition rate of plant residue in grazing grassland was faster.”

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The description of the section 2.1, concerning the study site and experimental design is not described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate the experiment. Some information of major importance is missing. The authors should extensively describe how the two treatments (grazing and enclosing) were applied to the experimental field. For example, at the grazing plots, where there some kind of animals or machines (simulation) used for the grazing? What was the grazing intensity? The authors should mention the number of animals (sheeps?) ha⁻¹ year⁻¹. For the enclosing plots, they were enclosed for any kind of use and access for 38 years? Regarding the experimental design, what was the area of the experimental plots? What was the number of the replications? In addition, the authors should provide detailed information for the climate parameters, for every year of the experiment. Moreover, during all these 38 years, was there any structural break in the setup of the experiment that has to be analyzed?
2. Introduction is too short (38 lines) and is not providing sufficiently the current state of the research field.
3. The manuscript needs moderate English changes, mainly due to the use of unsuitable expressions like “it is very necessary” (Line 59), wrong syntax like the sentence in lines 18-21 and wrong tenses like in the final sentence of the Abstract.
4. At line 49, consider revising “scholar”.
5. At the final paragraph of the introduction, the abbreviation of some soil nutrients used in the first lines (55-56) is not in consistency with the abbreviations in line 64.
6. At line 73, the authors mention “evaporation”. They should describe what is this measurement, how it was taken, why is important and provide a more accurate number.
7. At lines 74-75, consider revising “leymus chinensis and stipa grandis” to “Leymus chinensis and Stipa grandis”. Moreover, please state the mean percentage of these two dominant pasture species and mention any other species that were present.
8. At line 75, remove the bullet symbol.
9. At line 86-87, consider revising “From each soil sampling location, three soil cores were collected (0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-50 cm, 50-70 cm, and 70-100 cm depth) to make a composite sample”. It is unclear how many cores were collected. Three at each soil depth?
10. The following sentence is statistically wrong: “One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the standard errors of treatments and compare the means of soil parameters in different soil depths of one sites”. Consider revising.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The description of the section 2.1, concerning the study site and experimental design is not described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate the experiment. Some information of major importance is missing. The authors should extensively describe how the two treatments (grazing and enclosing) were applied to the experimental field. For example,

at the grazing plots, where there some kind of animals or machines (simulation) used for the grazing?

What was the grazing intensity? The authors should mention the number of animals (sheeps?) ha⁻¹ year⁻¹.

For the enclosing plots, they were enclosed for any kind of use and access for 38 years?

Regarding the experimental design, what was the area of the experimental plots?

What was the number of the replications?

In addition, the authors should provide detailed information for the climate parameters, for every year of the experiment.

Moreover, during all these 38 years, was there any structural break in the setup of the experiment that has to be analyzed?

Response:

At the grazing plot, the main livestock was sheep.

The enclosing plot was managed by the Inner Mongolia Grassland Ecosystem Research Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, therefore, there was almost no structural break.

The total sampling area was 5000 m². In long term grazing plot and long term enclosing plot, five quadrats were established at 10 m intervals in each plot, and the replications of treatment was seemed as five. 

Thank you for the comment. The detailed information for the climate parameters indeed are very important for this paper, but we have not the dates at present. We need more time to download relative dates from official website.

1. Introduction is too short (38 lines) and is not providing sufficiently the current state of the research field.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had added some results of research field, and rewrote the introduction,  

1. The manuscript needs moderate English changes, mainly due to the use of unsuitable expressions like “it is very necessary” (Line 59), wrong syntax like the sentence in lines 18-21 and wrong tenses like in the final sentence of the Abstract.

Response: Thank you for the comment.

“it is very necessary” had be revised as “it is necessary”.

Lines 18-21: “Although long term enclosing significantly increased the stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK) in surface soil, while obviously decreased the stocks of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulphur (S), and available nitrogen (AN) in each soil layer (0-100 cm)”. This sentence had be revised as “Long term enclosing significantly increased the stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK) in surface soil, while obviously decreased the stocks of total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulphur (S), and available nitrogen (AN) in each soil layer (0-100 cm)”

Line 22-24: “enclosing for 38 years could restore vegetation and improve soil physical properties, but accumulate abundant of litter and decrease most of nutrients stocks in soil profile in a semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia.” This sentence had been revised as “long term enclosing restored vegetation and improved soil physical properties, but decreased most nutrients stocks in soil in a semi-arid grassland of Inner Mongolia.”

Moreover, we had carefully revised the English language in this paper.

1. At line 49, consider revising “scholar”.

Response: We had revised as “researchers”.

1. At the final paragraph of the introduction, the abbreviation of some soil nutrients used in the first lines (55-56) is not in consistency with the abbreviations in line 64.

Response: Thank you for the moment. We have revised N, P, and K as TN, TP, and TK.

1. At line 73, the authors mention “evaporation”. They should describe what is this measurement, how it was taken, why is important and provide a more accurate number.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Evaporation is indeed not the important indicator, and we had deleted the relative description.

1. At lines 74-75, consider revising “leymus chinensis and stipa grandis” to “Leymus chinensis and Stipa grandis”. Moreover, please state the mean percentage of these two dominant pasture species and mention any other species that were present.
2. Response: Yes, we had revised “leymus chinensis and stipa grandis” to “Leymus chinensis and Stipa grandis”. The mean percentage of Leymus chinensis and Stipa grandis was 21% and 57% respectively.
3. At line 75, remove the bullet symbol.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We had revised.

1. At line 86-87, consider revising “From each soil sampling location, three soil cores were collected (0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-50 cm, 50-70 cm, and 70-100 cm depth) to make a composite sample”. It is unclear how many cores were collected. Three at each soil depth?

Response: We had revised as “From each soil sampling location, three soil cores were collected to make a composite sample in each soil layer (0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-50 cm, 50-70 cm, and 70-100 cm depth).”

1. The following sentence is statistically wrong: “One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the standard errors of treatments and compare the means of soil parameters in different soil depths of one sites”. Consider revising.

Response: It is a useful comment. We had revised as “Group means were compared by the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences between treatments were determined at 95% and 99% confidence levels.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved after review. Majority of my comments were used in corrected manuscript. The Authors removed 9 old references and added only 1 new reference.  

The paper needs corrections before consideration.

• Correct mistakes in citation of references in the manuscript.
• Add some new references to discussion section.
• Paper needs some other editorial corrections - spaces, dots, etc. (see Instructions for Authors).

Reviewer 3 Report

1. In their response for the 1^st comment, the authors provide information as requested, but they didn’t incorporate it in the manuscript, like “The total sampling area was 5000 m2. In long term grazing plot and long term enclosing plot, five quadrats were established at 10 m intervals in each plot, and the replications of treatment was seemed as five”. Moreover, some questions were not answered, like for example “the grazing intensity. The authors should mention the number of sheeps ha−1 year−1.”.
2. In the same comment, regarding the climate parameters, the authors said: “Thank you for the comment. The detailed information for the climate parameters indeed are very important for this paper, but we have not the dates at present. We need more time to download relative dates from official website”. As they admit that the climate data are very important, I believe that they will provide them at their final revised version of the manuscript.
3. As the remaining percentage of the rest plant species was 22%, I think that is important to mention some major secondary species.