Comparison of Aboveground Vegetation and Soil Seed Bank Composition among Three Typical Vegetation Types in the Karst Regions of Southwest China
, Yufei Li 1,2, Jianxing Li 1, Jiaqi Li 1,2, Shujun Wen 1, Fuzhao Huang 1, Wen He 1, Bin Wang 1, Shuhua Lu 1, Dongxing Li 1, Wusheng Xiang 1 and Xiankun Li 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author and editors, I think that this paper is well written and presented, however some mandatory errors have to be corrected: please find attached the paper with some corrections as the figures quality; the citations are not correctly showed considering this journal rule, etc.
However, to be honest, my main concern is related with the novel aspect of this paper. I am not sure at this moment considering the great impact factor of this journal (Q1 in JCR). For example, I noted that authors performed analysis such as PCA and ANOVA, and, although both of them are suitable, there is no novel aspect. I need time to think about this aspect. Therefore, in this step, I am going to recommend major revisions and I hope that author’s improve the quality of figures and the novel aspect of the paper in order to check it in the next revision round.
Kind regards
The reviewer.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Dear author and editors, I think that this paper is well written and presented, however some mandatory errors have to be corrected: please find attached the paper with some corrections as the figures quality; the citations are not correctly showed considering this journal rule, etc.
However, to be honest, my main concern is related with the novel aspect of this paper. I am not sure at this moment considering the great impact factor of this journal (Q1 in JCR). For example, I noted that authors performed analysis such as PCA and ANOVA, and, although both of them are suitable, there is no novel aspect. I need time to think about this aspect. Therefore, in this step, I am going to recommend major revisions and I hope that author’s improve the quality of figures and the novel aspect of the paper in order to check it in the next revision round.
Response: According to your suggestion, all figures have been improved and the citations have been corrected following the journal style.
As you said, the Agronomy journal has high impact factor with Q1 in JCR. PCA, CCA and ANOVA are classic and widely used statistical method in ecology researches. We would also argue that there is lacking innovation in this paper. The experimental design and statistical method are regular. But, the research contents and results are of significance to ecological restoration in karst areas.
- I would start with a more general sentence, not in the first sentence talking about the southwest of China.
Response: According to your suggestion, we have revised the first sentence of the abstract. See page 2, lines 18-20.
- Please add citations to justify this information as for example scientific papers, technical reports from local authorities, etc.
Response: According to your suggestion, we have revised the first sentence of the abstract. See page 5, line 120.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Initially, I would like to congratulate the authors for the excellent work submitted to the journal. The importance of discussing the discussed topic is of unique relevance to environmental science as a whole. However, the work is lacking in some aspects, which end up weakening it too much.
1. In the introduction, lines 32 to 36, it would be interesting to include more multidisciplinary references that talk about the karst region mentioned in the research, in addition to a map identifying the total size, since the area selected for the research is a smaller area within of the entire karst context.
2. The maps and photos in Figure 1, I suggest they be dismembered. Leave in Figure 01, only the location map of the study area, while the figures of the types of vegetation investigated, can be transformed into Figure 02, and cited between lines 115 and 127, as they are where they were mentioned in the text.
3. Quality of figures 2 to 7 must be improved a lot.
4. For the explanations referring to lines 156, 157 and 161, schemes, drawings and sketches should be made with these measures to facilitate and instigate the reader to understand the methods and procedures listed.
Author Response
Initially, I would like to congratulate the authors for the excellent work submitted to the journal. The importance of discussing the discussed topic is of unique relevance to environmental science as a whole. However, the work is lacking in some aspects, which end up weakening it too much.
- In the introduction, lines 32 to 36, it would be interesting to include more multidisciplinary references that talk about the karst region mentioned in the research, in addition to a map identifying the total size, since the area selected for the research is a smaller area within of the entire karst context.
Response: According to your suggestion, we have added more multidisciplinary references in the first paragraph of the introduction. See page 3, lines 45-48.
- The maps and photos in Figure 1, I suggest they be dismembered. Leave in Figure 01, only the location map of the study area, while the figures of the types of vegetation investigated, can be transformed into Figure 02, and cited between lines 115 and 127, as they are where they were mentioned in the text.
Response: According to your suggestion, we have revised Figure 1 and Figure 2. See page 28 and 29.
- Quality of figures 2 to 7 must be improved a lot.
Response: According to your suggestion, all figures have been improved.
- For the explanations referring to lines 156, 157 and 161, schemes, drawings and sketches should be made with these measures to facilitate and instigate the reader to understand the methods and procedures listed.
Response: According to your suggestion, we have added a sketch in our revised manuscript. See Figure S1 in page 42.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made the corrections and suggestions given to improve the article. The presentation of the results and the quality of the graphic material has been adjusted and improved. Therefore, I recommend publishing the manuscript. Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of our work. We'll do better in the future.
We will undergo extensive English revisions by the editing services from MDPI.
Thanks again.
