Next Article in Journal
Assessing Grain Productivity Coupled with Farmers’ Behaviors Based on the Agro-Ecological Zones (AEZ) Model
Previous Article in Journal
China’s Transport Land: Spatiotemporal Expansion Characteristics and Driving Mechanism
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Fire, Herbivores, and Vegetation Type Shape Soil Biochemistry in Sodic Patches of a Semi-Arid Savanna Ecosystem

Land 2022, 11(8), 1148; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081148
by Siviwe Odwa Malongweni * and Johan van Tol
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Land 2022, 11(8), 1148; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081148
Submission received: 3 July 2022 / Revised: 20 July 2022 / Accepted: 22 July 2022 / Published: 25 July 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the effect of fire, herbivores and vegetation type in soil biochemistry in sodic patches of a semi-arid savanna ecosystem.

 

The text is generally very well-written. Some points are raised below.

 

1.           Ls. 31-32: Please, rephrase.

2.           Section 2: For how long were data collected? Which were the time intervals between the samples collection?

3.           L. 125: NaHCO3: “3” should be placed as subscript.

4.           L. 126: NH4OAc: “4” should be placed as subscript.

5.           L. 126 and all over the text: Please, replace Ca with Ca2+/Mg with Mg2+/K with K+/Na with Na+. All valences should be placed as superscript.

6.           More info is needed regarding the fires, e.g., who put the fires, how much time before the study the place was on fire, if there is a standard procedure for fire, etc.

7.           The explanation that fire positively affected SOM is very weak. In fact, this observation is very hard to believe esp. if the fire had been recent. For this purpose the authors should provide adequate References a) regarding the experimental setup (Sections 2.2, 2.2) to ensure that their experimental setup was according to literature and b) to support their findings (Section 4.2).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has discussed the effects of wildfire and animal behavior on the biochemical properties of patch soil. The research is relatively new, and the content is substantial and very meaningful. However, there are also some problems to be discussed, as follows:

1 It would be more accurate to ask whether fire should be wildfire

2 In abstract “Moreover, fire, herbivores and vegetation type play an important role in the maintenance of species richness and diversity in sodic patches”. Which species ? plant, tree or vegetation ?

3 Line 126, pay attention to the upper and lower indices

4 Line 136-138, the index has been mentioned in 2.4 section, and can be directly written in shorthand, such as EC or total C.

5 Figure 2. The ordinate maintains a uniform significant digits.

6 line 164, where is Table 2B and C ?

7 Line 167, where is Figure 3A ?

8 In table 1 for EC, does there has no difference on 1.611 and 1.946 ?

9 In 3.4 where is Figure 4A and Table 4B ?

10 In Figures, the bar chart lacks error lines.

11 All figures, the uppercase letters used in the text, and the lowercase letters used in the figures

12 In table 2, Na+ No significant difference between 309.760 and 252.781 ?

13 In section 3.6, why is the organic matter content after burning still higher than that without burning? There is no relevant explanation in the discussion section.

14 line 294-296, this part is supported by literature data ?

15 In conclusion “fire, and herbivores play an important role in the maintenance of species richness and diversity in these nutrient hotspots” . I didn't get that conclusion from the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “Fire, Herbivores and Vegetation Type Shape Soil Biochemistry in Sodic Patches of a Semi-arid Savanna Ecosystem” by Malongweni and van Tol, describes, as it title promises, the effects of fire, herbivore exclosure, and vegetation type (trees, grass) on several soil biochemical (mainly chemical) parameters. The authors find complex interactions as one can expect from a three factors experimental design. For example they found that the interaction between those three factors affected SOM, exchangeable Ca and Mg, total N and C, CEC, Available P, and microbial activity. Overall, I really liked this article, it is easy to follow, well written, the experiment is quite good (good size), and the analyses are also easy to follow. I just have minor comments on this manuscript below.

 

Title

L.2. Change “Herbivores and Vegetation” for “Herbivores, and Vegetation”.

 

Abstract

L.12. Change “aimed at” for “aimed to”.

L.13. Change “type and their” for “type, and their”.

L.15. Change “higher main” for “a higher main”. Change “capacity and soil” for “capacity, and soil”.

L.14-15. Here, a higher effect of fire, as compared to what? Be more specific.

L.16. Change “Na and Mg” for “Na, and Mg”.

L.17. Change “capacity and microbial” for “capacity, and microbial”.

L.18. Change “matter and cation” for “matter, and cation”.

L.21. Change “herbivores and vegetation” for “herbivores, and vegetation”.

 

Introduction

L.37. Change “it may result” for “grazing may result”.

L.39. Change “on the lower” for “in the lower”.

L.43. Unique vegetation in what sense? Describe this briefly.

L.44. Change “evasion and wallowing” for “evasion, and wallowing”.

L.59. Change “herbivores and vegetation” for “herbivores, and vegetation”. Here, vegetation diversity and/or structure?

L.60. Change “study is aimed” for “study aimed”.

L.61. Change “type and their” for “type, and their”.

 

Materials and Methods

L.67. Please indicate altitude as well.

L.78. Add a comma (,) before “and Senegalia”.

L.76-78. All these species names should go in italics.

L.91. Change “partial and full” for “partial, and full”.

L.90-93. This is a very nice experimental design, but I wonder if there were replicates for each treatment combination… If there were not, still, given the sizes of the exclosures, that would be ok.

L.119. Change “Data collection” for “Soil biochemical analyses”.

L.124. Change “by dry combustion” for “by the dry combustion”. Here, “NC analyzer” or “CN Analyzer”?

L.125. Change “by molybdenum” for “by the molybdenum”.

L.126. Change “K+ and Na+” for “K+, and Na+”.

L.132-133. How? With which methods? Be more specific.

L.140. Change “exclosure and vegetation” for “exclosure, and vegetation”.

L.141. Change “we used” for “were used”.

 

Results

L.159. Change “fire and vegetation” for “fire, and vegetation”.

L.163. Change “exclosure, fire” for “exclosure, fire,”.

L.169, 177, 181, 199, 229, 233, 244, 264. Change “fire and vegetation” for “fire, and vegetation”.

L.209. Change “fire and” for “fire, and”.

 

Discussion

L.276-277. Add a reference for this.

L.278. Change “pawing and wallowing” for “pawing, and wallowing”.

L.275-279. Are not these sentences contradicting themselves? At least they seem to contradict each other.. Maybe, be more specific in what you mean here.

L.282. Change “densities and decreased” for “densities, and decreased”.

L.284. Change “Na and Mg”.

L.295. Change “microbes thus resulting” for “microbes, thus resulting”.

L.333. Change “from rooting zone” for “from the rooting zone”.

L.344. Change “capacity and pH” for “capacity, and pH”.

L.346-347. Change “Ca and Mg, SOM and CEC” for “Ca, and Mg, SOM, and CEC”.

L.354. Change “exclosure and vegetation” for “exclosure, and vegetation”.

L.366. Change “exclosure and vegetation” for “exclosure, and vegetation”.

L365-366. It is like the third time in the paper that you repeat this.

L.368. “These reporters”? They are not reporters.

L.371. Change “in sodic” for “in the sodic”.

 

Conclusions

L.390-391. Change “On the other hand” for “In contrast”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made good modifications, but there are still some small problems to be improved, as follows:

1. The color of the squares in Figure 1 is not consistent with the color in the map, and the inverted order is not convenient for readers to see.

2. The coordinate axes of Figures 2a and 2c are not clear, the numbers are not standard, and there is no error line in bar. Other legends have the same problem.

3. Only one significant digit is required for the data in Table 2.

4. As can be seen from the data, Fire, Herbivores, and Vegetation Type interaction only affect organic carbon, while other indicators are not affected by multiple factors. However, it is stated in section 4.4 that exchangeable Ca and Na, CEC, and SOM have influence among the three, so I don't know how to evaluate them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop