Humus Forms and Organic Matter Decomposition in the Swiss Alps
, Maud Fazzari 1, Pascal Kipf 2, Sergio Rasmann 1,† and Renée-Claire Le Bayon 1,†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review : Humus forms and organic matter decomposition in the Swiss Alps, IJPB-2481010
The paper aims at comparing different humus forms along elevational gradients and the link with organic matter decomposition. The authors conducted field surveys in two valleys of the Swiss Alps and used the small-volume method and the teabag method to quantify humus forms and organic matter decomposition, respectively. The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic, but it would benefit to be improved in order to be clearer at some points and more precise regarding some terms and methods.
General comments.
The authors are talking about the World Reference Base for Soil Resources for soil and humus classification, but they used the Référentiel Pédologique (see appendix 2).
Results of macrorest analysis and tea decomposition rate should be more discussed to well identify the processes.
The authors have to be more precise regarding the terms used for Ponge method: Bernier and Ponge small-volume method, Ponge small-volume method, Ponge analysis, Ponge macrorests. This should be checked and corrected in the text.
The discussion can be improved being less descriptive and more related to biotic and abiotic processes.
Specific comments.
Introduction:
L79- “Amphi systems have two overlapping ecological niches”: an ecological niche is specific to a species. I understand that Amphi systems have two overlapping ecological conditions or ecological environments. And this could create favorable conditions for niche separation between two or more species that would share similar ecological features.
L103 – Bednorz et al. (2000) changed by (Bednorz et al., 2000)
L105-110 – “In addition to humus forms … organic matter turnover”: reduce and merge in one sentence.
L110 – (Ascher et al.) (2012) changed by (Ascher et al., 2012)
Material & Methods
L131-132: not clear, the three plots are the 3 replicate plots?
L139: in the appendix 2 soil profiles were described using the Référentiel pédologique. Correct in the appendix or write the correspondence with the World Reference Base.
L152: Precise which organisms: meso- and macro-fauna
L156: “at a depth of 5 cm”: from the surface or from the top of the A horizon ? And explain how did you manage when the A horizon was below 5 cm depth or less than 5 cm thickness or when A do not exist, as we can see for some soil profiles in appendix 2 ?
L168: Figure 1 must be presented only in the results
L187: “using the hclust function. (Figure 2)” delete the dot.
L187: Change “together so obtain” by “together to obtain”
L187: In table S1 only 10 groups : clarify. You have to add and explain what is the “other” group.
L207: Delete “see Results below”
L208: Change “effectt” by “effect”
Results:
L216: you must homogenize the classification between the text and appendix 2.
L223: The distinction from left to right of rhizoforms and lignoforms is clear on figure 2, but not for mulls.
L225: A horizon of VSM2 reach 12cm depth and not 17cm which is VNM2. You have to correct.
L226: VSM3 is mull and not lignoform?
L228: the holorganic layers do not seem to contribute to the mor humus form on the PCA ? not drive the same axis as cones and needles.
L231: The figure S2 can be delete. You should replace by figure 2 that gives the same information (and remove figure 2 from section 2.4)
L246: change “Rhizoforms horizons” by “Rhizoform horizons”
L277-278: both A) and B) show the result on figure 4, not only A? Table S1 does not illustrate tea litter decomposition.
Discussion:
L301: remove “s” after “ecosystem”
L300-302: humus form classification is obviously related to organic matter degradation so what is innovative with your results?
L304-315: this paragraph is very descriptive and could be integrated in results. A table presenting the principal species related to the plant associations would be useful to better understand how plants can influence (density, quality, acidity…); it could be added as a supporting information.
L309-310: “probably due to the high root density and the soil’s thickness” is this linked to the absence of Earthworms ? can you clarify ?
L306-315: soil pH can strongly affect the presence of earthworms. Appendix 2 seems to show high variation of pH between the sites which can be in part influenced by the vegetation. This should be more discuss.
L326-327: “organic matter composition” you mean its quality ? can you be more precise?
L329-330: it would be interesting to explain the mechanisms involved in the teabags decomposition (differences between the two kind of tea) to discuss more precisely your results with this method.
L330-332: What do you want to discuss with this information according to your results ?
L348-349: the relation with climate change is not clear. May be transfer to the conclusion?
Conclusion:
L372: change “the type tea” by “the type of tea”
L373-374: the sentence can be improved.
Figures:
Figure 1: Ponge small-volume method : change the title. I suggest “Illustration of all different humus forms 'macrorests' types proportions for each region and each replicate plot using the small-volume method (Ponge, 1984)”.
And L175 change “the Ponge analysis” by “the small-volume analysis”
Figure 2: Change the title. I suggest “Divisive hierarchical clustering of 24 humus forms based on the 11 macrorests groups of the the small-volume analysis, including …”.
And L195-199: it would be clearer to write the 10 groups presented in Table S1 and bracketed the detailed subgroups.
L196: Remove the “s” before “skeletonized”
Figure 3: change “Humus system and Ponge” by “Humus system and Ponge macrorest analysis” or rewrite the title
L237: “macrorests to and mineral components” delete “to”
Appendix 2:
The Référentiel Pédologique was used and not the world reference base. You have to correct.
Change Zanella et al. (2018) by Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. (2018)
Figure S2 can be deleted.
Figures S3 and S4: Humus forms have to be more visible. Add the symbols used in Figure 2.
Figure S5 was not cited in the text. Delete.
Author Response
Replies to Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Humus forms and organic matter decomposition in the Swiss Alps, IJPB-2481010
The paper aims at comparing different humus forms along elevational gradients and the link with organic matter decomposition. The authors conducted field surveys in two valleys of the Swiss Alps and used the small-volume method and the teabag method to quantify humus forms and organic matter decomposition, respectively. The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic, but it would benefit to be improved in order to be clearer at some points and more precise regarding some terms and methods.
REPLY: Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript by adding a table (Table S2) for plant associations and Appendix 3, giving all the details of the vegetation surveys carried out according to Braun-Blanquet’s method.
General comments:
The authors are talking about the World Reference Base for Soil Resources for soil and humus classification, but they used the Référentiel Pédologique (see appendix 2).
REPLY: We made it more explicit by changing the main classification used (The Référentiel Pédologique) in the manuscript and adding its World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB, 2022) correspondent soil name. We also add this information to the WRB correspondence in Appendix 2.
Results of macrorest analysis and tea decomposition rate should be more discussed to well identify the processes.
REPLY: we completed the discussion with additional information on macrorests and teabag experiments. Also, to our knowledge, there have been no precise studies of humus forms and their macrorests composition at such high altitudes. Bernier and Ponge (1994) worked at the mountain level, in the French Alps (from 1535 to 1575 m); Ponge (1999) worked in the Ardennes but at the hill level (from 350 to 505 m).
Bernier, N. and J.-F. Ponge, Humus form dynamics during the sylvogenetic cycle in a mountain spruce forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1994. 26(2): p. 183-220.
Ponge, J. (1999), Horizons and Humus Forms in Beech Forests of the Belgian Ardennes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 63: 1888-1901. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.6361888x
The authors have to be more precise regarding the terms used for Ponge method: Bernier and Ponge small-volume method, Ponge small-volume method, Ponge analysis, Ponge macrorests. This should be checked and corrected in the text.
REPLY: We have homogenized the terms in the manuscript and kept only the following wording: "... Ponge small-volume method".
The discussion can be improved being less descriptive and more related to biotic and abiotic processes.
REPLY: As suggested we improved the discussion using reflections on our results and references (insofar as we were able to find any).
Specific comments:
Introduction:
L69-72 “Amphi systems have two overlapping ecological niches”: an ecological niche is specific to a species. I understand that Amphi systems have two overlapping ecological conditions or ecological environments. And this could create favorable conditions for niche separation between two or more species that would share similar ecological features.
REPLY: We changed the sentence; the Amphi system is now better defined.
L94-96 – Bednorz et al. (2000) changed by (Bednorz et al., 2000)
REPLY: We changed Bednorz et al. (2000) with (Bednorz et al., 2000)
L95 – “In addition to humus forms … organic matter turnover”: reduce and merge in one sentence.
REPLY: The sentence was changed and better focused on micro annelids.
L378 – (Ascher et al.) (2012) changed by (Ascher et al., 2012)
REPLY: We changed (Ascher et al.) (2012) with (Ascher et al., 2012)
Material & Methods
L123: not clear, the three plots are the 3 replicate plots?
REPLY: Yes, indeed, we made this more explicit in the text by changing the sentence “… 2 regions x 2 elevations x 2 slopes x 3 replicate plots = 24 sites” line 131 and by adding “replicate plots” line 132.
L138: in appendix 2 soil profiles were described using the Référentiel pédologique. Correct in the appendix or write the correspondence with the World Reference Base.
REPLY: We corrected this information in the manuscript by changing the soil classification system name with the Référentiel Pédologique and adding the correspondence with the World Reference for Soil Ressources in the manuscript and Appendix 2.
L151: Precise which organisms: meso- and macro-fauna
REPLY: We completed the sentence: “The presence of organisms (meso- and macro-fauna) was recorded …”
L156: “at a depth of 5 cm”: from the surface or from the top of the A horizon ? And explain how did you manage when the A horizon was below 5 cm depth or less than 5 cm thickness or when A do not exist, as we can see for some soil profiles in appendix 2 ?
REPLY: the tea bags were buried at the base of the OL horizon, in the upper part of the A horizon; however, indeed, we didn’t mention the fact that the tea bag experiment did not take place at the exact same point where we open a soil profile, but just 2-3 meters apart.
L168: Figure 1 must be presented only in the results
REPLY: We agree and move Figure 1 to the results section where it should have been given.
L: change “the Ponge analysis” by “the small-volume analysis”
REPLY: We changed “the Ponge analysis” with “the small-volume analysis”.
L1174: “using the hclust function. (Figure 2)” delete the dot.
REPLY: we removed the dot.
L187: Change “together so obtain” by “together to obtain”
REPLY: we changed “together so obtain” to “together to obtain”.
L180: In table S1 only 10 groups : clarify. You have to add and explain what is the “other” group.
REPLY: We correct Table S1 (now Table 1) by adding a line for the group “other” and add : “ other (fauna, faeces and undetermined holorganic matter) L 226 for more clarity.
L196: Remove the “s” before “skeletonized”
REPLY: We removed the “s” before “skeletonized”.
L207: Delete “see Results below”
REPLY: We delete “see Results below”.
L208: Change “effectt” by “effect”
REPLY: We changed “effectt” with “effect”.
Results:
L216: you must homogenize the classification between the text and Appendix 2.
REPLY: We homogenized the classification between the text and Appendix 2 by adding the Référentiel Pédologique soil name in the manuscript and the WRB soil name correspondence in appendix 2 (Appendix B).
L210-213: The distinction from left to right of rhizoforms and lignoforms is clear on figure 2, but not for mulls.
REPLY: We changed the sentence for more clarity :” Rhizoforms on the left, Lignoforms with one Mor on the right, and Mulls are spread more or less everywhere (Figure 3). All Mulls were less than 15 cm in depth except for VSM2, VNM2 and VSM3, and the thickest humus forms (> 22 cm) were two Rhizoforms (TSH1, TSH3 ), two Lignoforms (TNM1, TSM1) and one Mull (VSM3).”
L210-213: A horizon of VSM2 reach 12cm depth and not 17cm which is VNM2. You have to correct.
REPLY: We changed this (see comment above).
L210-213: VSM3 is mull and not lignoform?
REPLY: Yes, VSM3 is mull and not lignoform, we corrected it in the text and rephrased it.
L258: the holorganic layers do not seem to contribute to the mor humus form on the PCA ? not drive the same axis as cones and needles.
REPLY: We made it more explicit now by deleting "..by holorganic layers". Also, by "... holorganic layers": I had O layers in mind, not the “wholorganic” variable of the PCA.
L230: The figure S2 can be delete. You should replace by figure 2 that gives the same information (and remove figure 2 from section 2.4)
REPLY: We deleted “Figure S2” and replaced it with “Figure 2” from section 2.4, thanks for the suggestion.
L236: macrorests to and mineral components” delete “to”
REPLY: We deleted “to” between “macrorests and mineral components”.
L245: change “Rhizoforms horizons” by “Rhizoform horizons”
REPLY: We changed “Rhizoforms horizons” to “Rhizoform horizons”.
L277-278: both A) and B) show the result on figure 4, not only A? Table S1 does not illustrate tea litter decomposition.
REPLY: We added “Figure 4A and B” to complete and deleted “Table S1” which we wrongly cited in the text.
Discussion:
L406: remove “s” after “ecosystem”
REPLY: we removed “s” after “ecosystem”
L315-347: humus form classification is obviously related to organic matter degradation so what is innovative with your results?
REPLY: We complete the first paragraph of the discussion and add a paragraph (section 4.1) highlighting the relationships between soils, humus forms and pedogenetic processes.
L350-371: this paragraph is very descriptive and could be integrated in results. A table presenting the principal species related to the plant associations would be useful to better understand how plants can influence (density, quality, acidity…); it could be added as a supporting information.
REPLY: Although this paragraph is very descriptive, we want to keep it in the discussion section. We added a table (Table S2) listing each site's different associations and alliances. We have also created Appendix 3 detailing all the vegetation surveys carried out according to Braun-Blanquet. In addition, we have completed this paragraph by giving more information about the importance of plant communities in decomposition processes, as suggested in another comment.
L372-374: “probably due to the high root density and the soil’s thickness” is this linked to the absence of Earthworms? can you clarify ?
REPLY: As suggested, we clarified this in the discussion section.
L372-374: soil pH can strongly affect the presence of earthworms. Appendix 2 seems to show high variation of pH between the sites which can be in part influenced by the vegetation. This should be more discuss.
REPLY: the soil pH relative to the geological context is now discussed in section 4.1.
L383: “organic matter composition” you mean its quality ? can you be more precise?
REPLY: Yes, I removed “composition” and completed by adding: “… quality (lability)” in the manuscript.
L388-393: it would be interesting to explain the mechanisms involved in the teabags decomposition (differences between the two kind of tea) to discuss more precisely your results with this method.
REPLY: As suggested, we explained more precisely the mechanisms involved in the teabags decomposition in the discussion section.
L392-394: What do you want to discuss with this information according to your results ?
REPLY: We wanted to highlight the importance of microtopography and the plant community in driving humus forms distribution. We completed the manuscript by adding: “Indeed, in our study, we also observe microtopography and plant communities being a decisive factor driving humus forms distribution in the alpine environment, which was also highlighted by the study of Hellwig et al. 2018”.
L429-439: the relation with climate change is not clear. May be transfer to the conclusion?
REPLY: As suggested, we transfer this sentence to the conclusion.
Conclusion:
L429-439: change “the type tea” by “the type of tea”
REPLY: We changed “the type tea” by “the type of tea”.
L:429-439 the sentence can be improved.
REPLY: We improved the sentence.
Figures:
Figure 1: Ponge small-volume method : change the title. I suggest “Illustration of all different humus forms 'macrorests' types proportions for each region and each replicate plot using the small-volume method (Ponge, 1984)”.
REPLY: As suggested, we change the title of Figure 1 (now Figure 2)with “Illustration of all different humus forms 'macrorests' types proportions for each region and each replicate plot using the small-volume method (Ponge, 1984)”.
And L222 change
REPLY: As suggested, we changed “the Ponge analysis” with “the small-volume analysis”.
Figure 2: Change the title. I suggest “Divisive hierarchical clustering of 24 humus forms based on the 11 macrorests groups of the the small-volume analysis, including …”.
REPLY: As suggested, we changed the title of Figure 2 (now Figure 3) with “ Divisive hierarchical clustering of 24 humus forms based on the 11 macrorests groups of the the small-volume analysis, including …”
And L180: it would be clearer to write the 10 groups presented in Table S1 and bracketed the detailed subgroups.
REPLY: As suggested, we added the table describing the 10 groups and subgroups, but to avoid overloading the figure legend with too much information, we preferred to add a table (Table 1) in the manuscript and also added a line in the table for the 11th group “other”.
L196: Remove the “s” before “skeletonized”
REPLY: We removed the “s” before skeletonized.
Figure 3: change “Humus system and Ponge” by “Humus system and Ponge macrorest analysis” or rewrite the title
REPLY: As suggested, we changed in Figure 3 (now Figure 4) “Humus system and Ponge” with “Humus system and Ponge macrorest analysis” in the figure title.
L237: “macrorests to and mineral components” delete “to”
REPLY: We deleted “to” between “macrorests and mineral components”
Appendix 2:
The Référentiel Pédologique was used and not the world reference base. You have to correct.
REPLY: We corrected this information where it was needed in the manuscript
Change Zanella et al. (2018) by Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. (2018)
REPLY: We changed Zanella et al. (2018) with Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. (2018)
Figure S2 can be deleted.
REPLY: We deleted Figure S2
Figures S3 and S4: Humus forms have to be more visible. Add the symbols used in Figure 2.
REPLY: As suggested, we modified Figure S3 (now Figure S2) and Figure S4 (now Figure S3) by adding the symbols used in Figure 2 and changing the color codes.
Figure S5 was not cited in the text. Delete.
REPLY: We deleted Figure S5
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The topic of the article is interesting. The presentation of data is of high quality, based on mathematical methods and computation.
2. Nevertheless, the abstract is too long, and it's not clear for what reason structured?It's unusual in my understanding. However, this must be a decision of the Editors on the abstract preparation. Also, it seems that the big volume abstract does not quite correspond to the brief conclusions... Part of the abstract is not informative, especially at the beginning and at the end of it.
3. I do not think that the description and classification of soil should be given in the Results section 3.1.
4. According the term „humus systems distribution“. In the environment or soil science, the concept of "humus" is deeper, which includes the chemical composition of humus, the transformation of organic matter into humic acids, fulvic acids. Therefore, the term "humus" or „humus systems distribution“ should be used very carefully, and not narrowed... The organic part in the ecosystem is not identical to humus. In the "3.2. Humus systems distribution" section, the discussion of the data should be linked to the references on humus issues.
Author Response
Replies to Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of the article is interesting. The presentation of data is of high quality, based on mathematical methods and computation.
Nevertheless, the abstract is too long, and it's not clear for what reason structured? It's unusual in my understanding. However, this must be a decision of the Editors on the abstract preparation. Also, it seems that the big volume abstract does not quite correspond to the brief conclusions... Part of the abstract is not informative, especially at the beginning and at the end of it.
REPLY: Yes, it is true, the abstract didn't respect the structure and requirements of the journal, so we had to modify the abstract to make it clearer and more structured, while still respecting the format indicated by the journal.
I do not think that the description and classification of soil should be given in the Results section 3.1. REPLY: Soil types are important in this context since this is a holistic study of the scale of the ecosystem, and one of its aims is to establish the link between vegetation and soil and that the nature of the soil can also explain the type of humus forms. Reviewer 3 also stressed the importance of soil and pedogenesis processes in humus formation A specific section in the Discussion was added.
According the term „humus systems distribution“. In the environment or soil science, the concept of "humus" is deeper, which includes the chemical composition of humus, the transformation of organic matter into humic acids, fulvic acids. Therefore, the term "humus" or „humus systems distribution“ should be used very carefully, and not narrowed... The organic part in the ecosystem is not identical to humus. In the "3.2. Humus systems distribution" section, the discussion of the data should be linked to the references on humus issues.
REPLY: We are aware that the term humus is very broad, ranging from the biochemical to the humipedon scale, but in this publication, we focus on humipedon as a concept, the different systems (Para- and Terrosystems), humus systems (Mull, Moder and Mor for terrestrial environment) and humus forms (Dysmull, Hemimoder, ...). For further information, see Zanella et al. 2018 (Humusica 1, article 5). Thus, to be more clear, we modified the title of section 3.2 by writing: " Terrosystems and Parasystems distribution" to be more specific.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is quite interesting in terms of discussion of ecologo-morphological forms of humus in gradient of climatic and biotic factors in European mountain environment, thus is scientifically sounds well and may be published after minor revision.
Few suggestions are made with aim to increase quality of paper:
1. This statement is self evident form the time of V.V. Dokuchaev - "Organic matter decomposition is influenced by abiotic factors (i.e., climate) and biotic 10 factors (i.e., plants and soil decomposers)." also I recommend to cite classical scientist in term of humus morphology, e.g., Oleg Chertov, while the works of Zanella also expected to be classic in future, but the ethics of science requires to cite the founders, I recommend to avoid very general and self evident statements within the whole text.
2. Reference list is different of MDPI requirements, this is tehcnical question, and I have not enough time to manage every reference.
3. Analytical methods for table 2 of appendiz should be provided in Materials and Methods chapter.
4. Funding - why is empty?
5. Data Availability Statement - why is empty?
6. I recommend to add insert map of field plots to main body of paper.
7. Conclusion chapter is to short.
8. As it seems to me, the main drawback of the article is that it states general facts like the influence of one or two factors on humus morphotypes or types of mineralization bags on the component composition of humus, but does not discuss the main thing - soil genetic processes, humus genesis, soil formation process and soil-formation potential of the environment. I recommend adding more analysis of patterns, processes.
In general, the article is interesting, such articles, unfortunately, very rare for Western European soil science, so the study design and background data on soil morphology will be of interest to a wide range of readers and will be in demand in Eastern Europe and Russia, where there are also many mountainous soils and discussions on the forms of humus.
Author Response
Replies to Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is quite interesting in terms of discussion of ecologo-morphological forms of humus in gradient of climatic and biotic factors in European mountain environment, thus is scientifically sounds well and may be published after minor revision.
REPLY: Thank you, we appreciate the comment and your suggestions for the revision process.
Few suggestions are made with aim to increase quality of paper:
- This statement is self evident form the time of V.V. Dokuchaev - "Organic matter decomposition is influenced by abiotic factors (i.e., climate) and biotic 10 factors (i.e., plants and soil decomposers)." also I recommend to cite classical scientist in term of humus morphology, e.g., Oleg Chertov, while the works of Zanella also expected to be classic in future, but the ethics of science requires to cite the founders, I recommend to avoid very general and self evident statements within the whole text.
REPLY: As suggested, we completed the introduction with previous publications highlighting the history of humus forms’ classifications.
- Reference list is different of MDPI requirements, this is a technical question, and I have not enough time to manage every reference.
REPLY: We adapted our reference list to the MDPI requirements
- Analytical methods for table 2 of the appendix should be provided in Materials and Methods chapter.
REPLY: As suggested, we provided all information for the analytical methods used in the method section but in the supplementary materials section (not in the material and method section).
- Funding - why is empty?
REPLY: We completed the Funding section by adding: This work was financed by a Swiss National Science Foundation grant (31003A_179481) to SR , and the APC was funded by the University of Neuchâtel.
- Data Availability Statement - why is empty?
REPLY: We completed this by adding the persistent link to datasets where it was needed: https://datadryad.org/stash/share/2GKtlk4f5WPTN4daanQwc358JKWRx9nmbXP8o55IoFE
I recommend add insert map of field plots to main body of paper.
REPLY: We insert a map of field sites (now Figure 1) in the manuscript
- Conclusion chapter is to short.
REPLY: we rewrite the conclusion, trying to summarize as best as possible the essential facts of our study.
- As it seems to me, the main drawback of the article is that it states general facts like the influence of one or two factors on humus morphotypes or types of mineralization bags on the component composition of humus but does not discuss the main thing - soil genetic processes, humus genesis, soil formation process and soil-formation potential of the environment. I recommend adding more analysis of patterns, processes.
REPLY: as suggested, we provided additional information on pedogenetic processes in a new section (4.1). This new paragraph helps to better understand the relationships between vegetation, humus forms and pedogenesis.
In general, the article is interesting, such articles, unfortunately, very rare for Western European soil science, so the study design and background data on soil morphology will be of interest to a wide range of readers and will be in demand in Eastern Europe and Russia, where there are also many mountainous soils and discussions on the forms of humus.
REPLY: Thank you, we appreciate the nice comment on our study very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved the manuscript by taking into account reviewer's comments, the discussion section has been improved and the text clarified for publication.
Specific comments.
The number of lines refer to the pdf version: ijpb-2481010-peer-review-v2.pdf
Abstract
L17- I would not cite the reference number in the abstract.
Introduction:
L65- “terrestrial systems (Ligno, Rhizo, Crusto, and Bryoforms [19]” changed by “terrestrial systems (Ligno, Rhizo, Crusto, and Bryoforms) [19]”
L66 – “soil aggregates (miA, meA, and maA; [19, 20]” changed by “soil aggregates (miA, meA, and maA) [19, 20]”
L69 – “Ponge et al., 2010 [26]” changed by “Ponge et al. [26]”
L94 – Asher et al. (2012) changed by Ascher et al. [61]
L140-141- “Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. (2018)” changed 2018 by the number of the reference
L180- Table 1 first column changed “Group” by “group number”
L198-199- Add a verb in this sentence: “In Valais, Brunisols Dystriques (VSM1, VNM1, VNM2, VNM3, VNH3, VSH1, VSH2, VSH3) and Alocrisols (VNH1 and VNH2).”
L223-224- redundant with the title: “The figure illustrates all different humus forms 'macrorests' types proportions for each region and each replicate plot.”
Discussion:
L323: “by Chersich (2018)” changed 2018 by the number of reference.
L362- “(VNH1, VNH2 and VNH3; for more details see Table S2, Appendix C.” changed by “(VNH1, VNH2 and VNH3; for more details see Table S2, Appendix C).”
L368-426- For all references changed year by number of reference: Lin et al. (2021) ; Rosenfield et al. (2020) ; Zhu et al. (2013); Ascher et al. (2012). Ckeck all references in the discussion and correct when necessary.
Table S2: may be the list of most abundant plant species in the last column can be written in the same cell for a given site to reduce the size of the table (exemple: TSM1 - Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris, Betula pendula, …, Laserpitium gaudinii, Sorbus aucuparia, Lathyrus linifolius)
Figures S3: “Colors indicate the altitude of the humus forms: north-exposed (light grey), and south-exposed (dark grey) ” : change “altitude” by “exposition”
Author Response
Reply to review report of Reviewer 1 (Round 2):
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors improved the manuscript by taking into account reviewer's comments, the discussion section has been improved and the text clarified for publication.
Specific comments.
The number of lines refer to the pdf version: ijpb-2481010-peer-review-v2.pdf
Abstract
L17- I would not cite the reference number in the abstract.
REPLY: As suggested, we remove the citation in the abstract
Introduction
L65- “terrestrial systems (Ligno, Rhizo, Crusto, and Bryoforms [19]” changed by “terrestrial systems (Ligno, Rhizo, Crusto, and Bryoforms) [19]”
REPLY: As suggested we replace “terrestrial systems (Ligno, Rhizo, Crusto, and Bryoforms [19]” by “terrestrial systems (Ligno, Rhizo, Crusto, and Bryoforms) [19]”.
L66 – “soil aggregates (miA, meA, and maA; [19, 20]” changed by “soil aggregates (miA, meA, and maA) [19, 20]”
REPLY: As suggested we replace “soil aggregates (miA, meA, and maA; [19, 20]” by “soil aggregates (miA, meA, and maA) [19, 20]”
L69 – “Ponge et al., 2010 [26]” changed by “Ponge et al. [26]”
REPLY: We replace “Ponge et al., 2010 [26]” by “Ponge et al. [26]”
L94 – Asher et al. (2012) changed by Ascher et al. [61]
REPLY: As suggested, we replace “Asher et al. (2012)” with “Ascher et al. [34”] .
L140-141- “Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. (2018)” changed 2018 by the number of the reference
REPLY: We replace “Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. (2018)” with “…classification of Zanella, Ponge, Jabiol, et al. [40].”
L180- Table 1 first column changed “Group” by “group number”
REPLY: We changed “Group” to “Group number”
L198-199- Add a verb in this sentence: “In Valais, Brunisols Dystriques (VSM1, VNM1, VNM2, VNM3, VNH3, VSH1, VSH2, VSH3) and Alocrisols (VNH1 and VNH2).”
REPLY: We add: “ soils were Brunisols Dystriques (VSM1, VNM1, VNM2, VNM3, VNH3, VSH1, VSH2, VSH3) and Alocrisols (VNH1 and VNH2).”
L223-224- redundant with the title: “The figure illustrates all different humus forms 'macrorests' types proportions for each region and each replicate plot.”
REPLY: We deleted the sentence to avoid any redundancy with the figure title.
Discussion:
L323: “by Chersich (2018)” changed 2018 by the number of reference.
REPLY: We changed “by Chersich (2018)” to “Chersich [51]”.
L362- “(VNH1, VNH2 and VNH3; for more details see Table S2, Appendix C.” changed by “(VNH1, VNH2 and VNH3; for more details see Table S2, Appendix C).”
REPLY: We replace “(VNH1, VNH2 and VNH3; for more details see Table S2, Appendix C.” by “(VNH1, VNH2 and VNH3; for more details see Table S2, Appendix C).”
L368-426- For all references changed year by number of reference: Lin et al. (2021) ; Rosenfield et al. (2020) ; Zhu et al. (2013); Ascher et al. (2012). Ckeck all references in the discussion and correct when necessary.
REPLY: We corrected and changed references where it was necessary in the manuscript.
Figures & Tables
Table S2: may be the list of most abundant plant species in the last column can be written in the same cell for a given site to reduce the size of the table (exemple: TSM1 - Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris, Betula pendula, …, Laserpitium gaudinii, Sorbus aucuparia, Lathyrus linifolius)
REPLY: A ssuggested we reduce the list of the most abundant species in Table S2, writing them in the same cell.
Figures S3: “Colors indicate the altitude of the humus forms: north-exposed (light grey), and south-exposed (dark grey) ” : change “altitude” by “exposition”
REPLY: We changed “altitude” by “exposition” in the figure legend of Figure S3.
