Effects of Larix olgensis Henry Stumps and Coarse Roots on Phosphorus Fractions and Availability in Plantation Microsite Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a brief study that showed that the stumps and coarse roots of larch affected the concentrations of total phosphorus and phosphorus fractions in microsite soils, and that the maximum horizontal influence range was different in the different soil layers of two plantations. For a depth up to 40 cm,  the influence range of the total phosphorus and phosphorus fractions as affected by larch stumps and coarse roots in the mixed plantation was greater than that in the comparative pure plantation. Furthermore,  the total phosphorus concentration in the pure plantation was mainly related to the change in NaOH-Pi and NaOH-Po concentrations, but in the comparative mixed plantation, it was related to the HCl-Pi, HCl-Po and NaHCO3-Po concentrations. The results are significant and of interest to some of "Forests" journal readership in the sense that they suggest that the position of stumps and coarse roots should be considered when reforestation sites are selected. However, the study was limited to a sole mineral (P), thus is very limited in both significance and scope. 

Here are some things to consider when preparing the revised version for resubmission:

Line 31: "can not only [...] but also have" (not "has", "can have")

Table 1: What are the values in the column denoted "Canopy coverage"? What is the unit of measurement here? Is it a fraction? A percent? (If it is a fraction, that the column heading should be "Fraction of canopy coverage")

Line 106: cross out "was"

Line 117: must provide a citation for the "colorimetric method" or describe it in detail if original

All figures: fonts are way too small on both axes and in legends. Please enhance the fonts!

Line 147-148: SIGNIFICANT differences (there will always be differences, but not always significant as determined by specific statistical tests)

Also, I believe the information in the caption of Fig. 3 about statistical differences and the meaning of capital and lowercase letter markers should be repeated for other figures (and tables as it seems to apply to some of the tables as well). There are no space restrictions with online publishing, so no need to save space with generic statements such as that on lines 151-152.

There is no need to put a comma before inserting a citation (lines 249 and 263 are examples of such instances)

There is an excessive use of first person constructions throughout the manuscript (lines 153, 230, 245, 282 etc.) Write impersonally, using the passive voice, as much as possible! e.g. You can rephrase to "It can be seen" rather than "we can see", "It was found that" rather than "We found that", "This work" rather than "our work" etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

    Thanks for your comments and these kind suggestions of our manuscript entitled “forests-2105853, Effects of Larix olgensis stumps and coarse roots on phosphorus fractions and availability in plantation microsite soils”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. The reviewer’s comments are laid out below in specific concerns have been numbered.

    We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for your work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

First author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Effects of Larix olgensis stumps and coarse roots on phosphorus fractions and availability in plantation microsite soils” quantified the horizontal influence of stumps and coarse roots on the phosphorus fraction, availability of microsite soils, and explore influence range changes of different plantation types. The results of the paper maybe interesting for the local studies. Major revision must be considered for this paper. Also, needs thoroughly editing of English language.

1.       LN 22: what do you mean by “ranges for larch stumps”? You mean DBH?

2.       LN 45: “Previous studies have shown that….” How increases the nutrients? These stumps increase only P?

3.       LN 48: “evaluation of the effect of stumps….” What do you mean? Elevation above sea level that trees grow?

4.       LN 64-69: These sentences must be written in Material and Methods. Instead of these. Write about the necessity of this study. What is the novelty?

5.       Introduction: Aims of the study are not clear. Clarify explain the main and secondary aims of the study.

6.       Section 2.1: Add a study area map.

7.       Section 2.1: What about the ground cover? What are the species?

8.       Section 2.2, LN 90: How do you consider the degree of decay? What are the criteria? Do you consider classification for it?

9.       LN 94: What is the decay class IV? Add more information about the decay classes. Also, add a reference.

10.   LN 95-96: What is the diameter of the coarse roots and fine ones? How do you classify fine and coarse roots? In root studies, researchers usually consider fine roots less than 2 mm, so what is your classification?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106410

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106574

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05764-z

11.   LN 99? Which side of tree soil samples were collected?

12.   LN 100: How do you know that roots in the soil samples are not belong to the other tree close to your tree that sampling?

13.   Did you measure the stumps diameter?

14.   How many trees did you measure?

15.   Use histogram instead of box plots for figures 3, 4, and 5. Because box plots are not clear and recognizable.

16.   Discussion: This section must be comprehensive and discuss about your results. Revise and complete this section.

17.   Conclusion: You repeat the results again in conclusion without the implications of your study. So how can your study help others?

 

 

                                                                                   

 

 

                                                                                                         

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

    Thanks for your comments and these kind suggestions of our manuscript entitled “forests-2105853, Effects of Larix olgensis stumps and coarse roots on phosphorus fractions and availability in plantation microsite soils”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. The reviewer’s comments are laid out below in specific concerns have been numbered.

    We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for your work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

First author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job!