Effects of Soil Warming on Soil Microbial Metabolism Limitation in a Quercus acutissima Forest in North Subtropical China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This study conducted a well-designed manipulative experiment to test effects of soil warming on soil enzyme activities and nutrient availability in a Quercus acutissima forest in North subtropical China. Results showed that soil warming increased the activities of β-1,4-glucosidase and L-leucine aminopeptidase, as well as soil nitrate nitrogen and available phosphorus contents. In addition, soil warming enhanced soil microbial carbon limitation and alleviated soil microbial phosphorus limitation, resulting in a large amount of soil organic matter decomposition. These findings can facilitate our understanding on the mechanisms underlying forest carbon responses to climate warming. This is an interesting and relevant study and represent a good candidate for Forests.

 

The whole manuscript is mostly well organized and the analyses and results are solid. However, the writing of the manuscript needs great improvements. I have several major concerns on result presentation and writing skills that might improve the clarity of this manuscript before the manuscript can be acceptable for publications.

 

There were several errors and inappropriacies in the result presentation.

First, the authors mentioned several times that soil warming increased soil ammonium nitrogen content (e.g., Lines 18-19 in Abstract, Line 267, Line 354). However, in fact, soil ammonium nitrogen content did not change under the warming treatments (Table 1).

Second, the description of the results in Table 1 in the first paragraph of Results section is confusing and does not follow the variable order in Table 1. In addition, the writing is not concise and clear enough. For example, “Table 1 showed that compared with T0, simulated warming significantly reduced 154 SOC content by 19.25% and 17.93% (P < 0.05), and significantly reduced SWC (P < 0.05).” could change to “Compared with T0, soil warming of 2°C and 4°C significantly reduced SOC content by 19.3% and 17.9% (both P < 0.05), respectively, and decreased SWC by ??? and ???, respectively (both P < 0.05).”. Please revise this issue throughout the whole section.

Third, the description of the results of linear regressions is very confusing (Results section 3.3, Figure 3). Based on Figure 3a, b, c, SOC, SWC, and AP were dependent variables, and Vector L was independent variable. The sentence of “The results of correlation analysis further showed that microbial C limitation was significantly positively correlated with AP (P < 0.05, Figure 3c), and negatively correlated with AP, SOC, SWC and Vector A (P < 0.05, Figure 3a,b).” had several errors. “The results of correlation analysis further showed that AP was significantly positively correlated with microbial C limitation (P < 0.05, Figure 3c)” is the correct expression. In addition, Figure 3a,b could not show “negatively correlated with AP, SOC, SWC and Vector A”.

Finally, many of the sentences in Discussion are not supported by data (e.g., Lines 256-257, Lines 308-309). I did not find these correlation analyses.

 

The hypotheses proposed in this study lack basis. The first and third hypothesis were not hypotheses. In addition, I cannot deduce the second hypothesis “Simulated warming significantly increased soil nitrogen availability, but did not affect soil available phosphorus content” on the basis of the statement of Introduction.

 

There are many Spaces and case issues in the manuscript. Some sentences lack or have extra Spaces (e.g., Lines 48, 79, 159, 177, 181, 191, 214, 216, 217). Case issues: e.g., Line 169: “in Soil…”, Line 255, Line 315. Please check these issues throughout the whole manuscript carefully.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 2-4: change the title to “Effects of soil warming on soil microbial metabolism limitation in a Quercus acutissima forest in North subtropical China”?

Line 34: the citation “IPCC 2013” is out-of-date. Change it to “has risen by 1.07°C (IPCC 2021)”.

Lines 57, 96: delete “and so on”.

Lines 102-103: change “simulated control” to “disturbed control”.

Line 124: add “an” in front of “elemental analyzer”. In addition, abbreviations cannot used at the beginning of a sentence.

Lines 130-131: this sentence was incomplete.

Line 177: “respectively” was not necessary.

Line 242: “significantly” was not necessary.

Line 247: delete “global”.

Line 277: “phosphorus”?

Lines 268, 281: “Couple studies”, “coupling relationship” ???

Line 291: the term “it” had no clear reference.

Line 300-304: long sentence, rewrite it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled " Effects of simulated warming on soil microbial metabolism limitation in Quercus acutissima forest in North subtropical 3 China". The authors studied how soil warming affect the soil enzyme activity and the soil C/N content. This topic is highly interested for the readers of the readers off Forests. The manuscript is generally well written and very concise. I only have minor comments.

 

L156: This sentence is confusing, which parameter is the author describing?

L154-L161: Please added asterisk symbol in Table 1 for the parameters that are significantly different.

Figure 4a and 4b: Authors can combine these two plots into a single one.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The whole manuscript is well written. The section on experiments could be improved. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx