Changes and Relationships between Components in the Plant-Soil System and the Dominant Plant Functional Groups in Alpine Kobresia Meadows Due to Overgrazing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear proffessor

I had modification this draft, because there are so many questions in it, so I am not sure whether I had amend all of them, if I did not do or leak some things, please let me know, I will amend. Thank you.

bestwishes

yours' Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks:

The introduction section should be considerably shortened. Please focus on your problem. There are too many issues being introduced, without being the aim of your study or being further focussed or discussed.

A clear formulated hypothesis is missing, which should be present in the introduction section. Please state clearly the link between the forage ecotypes chosen, and its possible importance to understand the overgrazing process. The answers to the questions are normally stated in the conclusion section. This is not the case in the present manuscript.

The statements are limited, as just one single plant community per stocking rate was studied. There is no information about the “base line” regarding botanical composition in year 1995, when the plots were treated by different households. There is no replication of sites, only the time frame, which is a dynamic process when considering overgrazing. The stocking rate is not well documented with regard to intensity along the years and within each plot, or if there are adaptation along the years, e.g. as a result of fluctuation in precipitation. The grazing days should be mentioned. Environmental aspects are important determinants for the onset of overgrazing processes and probably the changes in botanical composition and dominance.

In the M&M section, describe the sampling procedure mentioning handling of the samples before storage, and define the development stage of plants, as this is important to compare harvest time among plots with different stocking rates. Please describe any other agronomic trait applied to these fields, like fertilization, cutting, etc.

The Discussion section is far too long and should be shortened considerably. Please focus on your problem/hypothesis. However, there are interesting statements, which may be of interest for others working in the area. The first paragraph in Chapter 4.2 (L487-502) is more related to pasture management, which is also a decision of the herdsmen and/or decision makers. I don’t pick up the need to have this information here.

The sentences in L503-518 should be almost completely transferred to the Introduction section.

In general, the authors should link better their statements in this section with their own findings.

The conclusion section is poorly written too. Overgrazing is described here as a process over the years (which is true), but doesn’t agree with the data presented.

 

Specific:

L59: “vegetation health” should be defined in the text. At which point vegetation can be considered “healthy”?

L73: change edible by palatable throughout the text.

L77: depasturage. What does this mean?

L83-91: what do you want to say here? Delete?

L93: make new sentence: … Understanding the relationships…

L95: to determine

L95: please define “different disturbances”

L98: is the limiting nutrient…

L100: …was of inorganic source…

L101: please define: plants propagating…

L108: use subscripts for NH4 and NO3 throughout the text.

L128-129: the magnitude of grazing effects…

L137-140: try to write these sentences as statement, and not as question. By the way, I don’t think you are able to test all these points, as overgrazing is already achieved as a state in vegetation. You don’t have temporal series to follow the changes, only an endpoint in time.

L147: use italics for latin names throughout the text

L161: single pasture? Do you mean continuous grazing (as opposite to rotational grazing)?

L206: the chapter should be named Calculations and Statistical Analyses

L212 and following: I guess indexes should be italics.

L224-228: the statistical analyses are poorly described. Please include the statistical model you used, the factors (fixed and random), replicates, and how did you treat repetitions among years. Please describe also the post-hoc test used to separate means.

L438 and L483: such large titles are rather uncommon. Please make them shorter and get your point.

L529-530: “soil microorganisms and the roots are the main nutrient producers in an alpine meadow” occurs only in overgrazed pastures? Please define the situation you are describing here.

Author Response

Dear professor，

Thank you for your suggestions on my manuscript, I added the obscure method, renew the statistics data in the rda analysis and changed the rda table into map, but I don't know whether I had understand your core ideas, if I had leak some things, please let me know, thanks again.

best wishes

Yours' Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors do not describe the the statistical analyses used. There were 3 sampling dates, but there doesn't appear to be a clear indication of this factor in the results. The presentation is somewhat cumbersome, the text seems to jump between succession and grazing intensities. Also, the authors seem to have variables in the presentation that do not appear in the methods, and calculations which are not shown explicitly in tables and figures. These make it difficult to follow the many details the authors discuss. The authors should identify lettering ("a", "b", "c", etc.) in the figures. Figure 13 is difficult to follow: Is this a response surface? Are we meant to understand that the variables are continuous functions across plots? Could the authors present their PCA analysis in plots? If so, this would be helpful to the reader.

Author Response

Dear professor，

Thank you for your suggestions on my manuscript, I added the obscure method, renew the statistics data in the rda analysis and changed the rda table into map, but I don't know whether I had understand your core ideas, if I had leak some things, please let me know, thanks again.

best wishes

Yours' Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks:

The introduction section is still too long. Please keep focussing on your problem you are addressing in your manuscript. Additional explanatory text, which is important, should be transferred to the Supplementary Material.

This should be:

• Your opinion to my comments regarding L503-518 of the R0-version
• The definition of “separated pasture” regarding L161 of the R0-version

I still miss in the M&M section, the description about the sampling procedure mentioning handling of the samples before storage. Please define the development stage of plants, as this is important to compare harvest time among plots with different stocking rates. Please describe any other agronomic trait applied to these fields, like fertilization, cutting, etc.

The Discussion section is far too long and should be shortened considerably.

 

Specific:

L161 please still define “different disturbances”

Although improved now, “different disturbance intensities” doesn’t reflect if there was disturbance by grazing, cutting (hay making) or both, which may show other effect in the plant community, regardless the intensity.

 

 

L312: the statistical analyses are still poorly described. Although I understand the dynamics among weather, season, soil types etc. it is important to include in the statistical model the factors (fixed and random), replicates, and an explanation how you treated repetitions among years.

Author Response

Dear professor

Thanks for your advise, I modified the mauscript and the responded as attachments, and I am available  at any time if you have any question about the text. Those days are the Chinese New Year, I hope to send my sincerest wishes to you from China and wish you all the best in the new years, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

please find attached some suggestion. Please include the answers as a way to improve your manuscript. You don't need to explain my suggestions to me. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor

Thank you for you checking my manuscript so carfully, and I modified all the errors I found in the attachment. I also found some of the errors caused by typesetting, and they will be revised after using the offical version which I will go over carfully then. I am not sure whether the revised version is suitable, and please contact me at any time if you find some else errors in the document. Thanks again.

yours' Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors answered most of the requested points, some remarks and answers were not provided.