Driving Forces Analysis of Non-structural Carbohydrates for Phragmites australis in Different Habitats of Inland River Wetland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Perhaps a better the title should be used such as: Driving Forces Analysis of Non-structural Carbohydrate for Phragmites australis in different habitats of Inland River Wetland – it is only a suggestion.

Introduction: In the introduction only positive aspects of Phragmites australis expansion are included. It is also worth mentioning the negative side of Phragmites australis expansion. In some countries reed is considered an invasive species which lowers the local plant biodiversity.

The subchapter “Study area”:  Hydrological background of the study area should be included. Water level fluctuations in water reservoir and surface water sources seem to be particularly important. In addition, it is worth including information on whether the impact of local human activity is marked in the study area on a surface water and groundwater, soil salinity e.t.c.

Line 121: Explain why the month May was chosen to carry out the research? It is also worth adding information about the precipitation occurrence before and during sampling or the lack of precipitation. Can other results of analysis be expected in case of a different  period being researched or/and in case of the occurrence of precipitation?

Line 123: Add the reference to the figure 1

Figure 2: Explain why soil bulk density is higher in the case of desert than in wetland?

Line 363: What climate changes are predicted  in the study area? Give an example(s) of climate change scenario(s).

Conclusions:  In the analysed area, positive effects of reed expansion are more likely to be expected? Reed expansion can be dangerous?

Author Response

We appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive suggestions on our paper. We have studied the editor comments carefully and have submitted to the new version which marked in highlighted yellow. At the same time, we have responded to your suggestions one by one. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall this is paper reports on a good research project. It has a few outstanding issues which are mostly in how the research is framed, rather than what the research found.

 

First paragraph: Please identify the broader ecological importance of non-structural carbohydrates. It becomes clear later in the paper that this is ultimately tied to carbon cycling, but it could be put up front. Its also clear that this is important for wetland hydrology, but that aspect is not brought out until the end of page 2. The importance of this research is best stated in line 246, which should appear much earlier.

 

Line 42 lay out what these environmental controls are before delving into other case studies.

 

Line 88 Clonal, not clone

 

Line 90, research is uncountable, not “researches”

 

Line 165 Please explain in greater depth what exactly the relative importance factor calculation does. We see how it is calculated, but the text does not explain what this calculation tells us, or how to interpret the outputs. The weakest point of the paper empirically is in explaining what exactly the relative importance factor tells us about the results. This also should be tied to findings from the literature review, but it does not appear that the relative importance calculations were tied to previous research. If this is a novel method it should be identified as such, if not, comparisons should be identified.

 

Figures 2 and 3, please include error bars on the figures. It looks like maybe they are there, but only above the values not below, and they are hard to read and interpret. Also note what (e.g standard deviations, confidence interval) the error bars are illustrating.

 

One final thought, I’m not sure that ‘spatial variation’ is really the best way to describe the research design. Transect data is not necessarily spatial (since variation between the groups is only in one dimension, and topology is not necessarily important). Perhaps a better title would be “Habitat variation and driving forces….”

Author Response

We appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive suggestions on our paper. We have studied the editor and reviewers’ comments carefully and have submitted to the new version which marked in highlighted yellow. At the same time, we have responded to your suggestions one by one. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx