Effect of Grazing on Plant and Soil Parameters of Steppe Pastures on Mount Aragats, Armenia
, Tatevik Sargsyan 1, Harutyun Daveyan 2, Bagrat Mezhunts 1 and Eleni M. Abraham 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Our detailed response to reviewer comments is in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript not only assesses the effects of grazing on grassland plant parameters (e.g., plant height, productivity, and biomass of different functional groups), but also explores changes in soil chemistry (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content, pH, and soil litter), providing a relatively comprehensive view of grazing impacts. The background and process of this research is described in detail, and is innovative and significant. I have just a few comments:
1. The abstract suggests additional data to support the conclusions.
2. Are there photos of all sample plots? Suggest adding to Figure 1 or showing separately.
3. There is an overlap between Figures 3c and 3d.
4. Why did grazing have no effect on phosphorus , potassium content and pH?
5. It is suggested that the discussion be illustrated in different sub-points for more visual reading and understanding.
6. The limitations of the study and future work should be added to the discussion. For example, soil physical properties could be added to future studies, and the effects of grazing on soil microorganisms could also be studied.
7. Reduce similarity (Percent match: 17%).
Author Response
Our detailed response to the comments is in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Our detailed response to the comments is in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study outlines an important issue, namely soil degradation due to grazing. However, this reviewer does not completely agree with the conclusions and discussion of the results. I believe it is very interesting to compare the results with similar studies that have opposite outcomes. The message conveyed by the conclusion is misleading and can be easily misconstrued by readers. To give the study more significance, it is essential to discuss grazing density and the management of any rotations to specify the density for each study site. This would give more weight to your results and could confirm the importance of sustainable grazing management. It is important to highlight the significance of sustainable grazing management and how it can be leveraged to improve soil characteristics and ecosystem services as a whole. Therefore, I suggest mentioning the grazing density for each study site; including in the discussion and conclusions the importance of grazing density and management. For these reasons, I disagree with the initial part of the conclusion in lines 409 and 410.
minor comments:
The figure 1 should be slightly improved as the description becomes confusing. Indicate in the figure which part is A, B, C, and D according to the guidelines provided for authors.
In paragraph 2.2, the pedological characteristics of each site should be described in more detail, referring to the characteristics in the table.
At line 170, regarding "Fig.1 map," indicate with the appropriate letter.
In paragraph 2.5, there are reference errors, for example, at line 202 (Sandel et al., 2010). Adjust all references in the manuscript, including those referring to the software used.
Table 3 is not mentioned in the text. I assume there is an error at line 221. Additionally, I believe that the description of the results in Table 3 should be improved both in detail and in the formulation of the sentences to enhance readability.
Author Response
Our detailed response to comments is in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made improvements in this paper and also accepted the suggestions.
Good job.
