Fine-Root C:N:P Stoichiometry and Its Driving Factors Are Different between Arbuscular and Ectomycorrhizal Plants in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
C:N:P stoichiometry has been widely studied in soils and plant leaves to predict soil health and plant growth conditions. This study aimed to determine how mycorrhizal fungi could affect fine roots C:N:P stoichiometry by statistical analysis of previous published data. The study is mainly a data-based analysis and showed some interesting results. However, the main issue is the authors only considered MAT, MAP, soil pH, soil C, P, N and conducted correlation analysis. There are additional soil factors such as soil texture, the soil type, the detailed chemical composition of different soils that may play a significant role in mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis with plants and fine root C, N, P ratio. Additionally, the microbial abundance and diversity of the mycorrhizal plant fine roots and the rhizosphere soil can be another important factor affecting nutrient transport from soil to plant root, which ultimately could affect C, N, P ratio in fine roots. Although this study is not experiment-based research, the authors still need to include those important factors in their discussions.
Specific comments:
Abstract: line 21, 23, full term of MAT and MAP.
Introduction: please include the role of potassium and justify why not consider nutrient K in the nutrient ratio. Also please justify why only consider annual temperature and precipitation instead of other climate factors.
Figures: please re-format the figures to make the legend and word/numbers clearer.
References: the formats of the references are not consistent with each other. The layout is messy too.
The English language is fine. I have no difficulty understanding the content.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments, we have made changes according to your suggestions. If there are still problems, we will make futher modifications. The revised version has been uploaded on Word.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is interesting. There are relatively few comments. Only 17 comments have been marked in the text. First, it is necessary to state what the abbreviations AM and ECM mean. There are too many pieces of literature. Several items do not have to be cited in one sentence. Refrences takes up 25% of the pages of the entire work. There are too many decimal places in the results. If the result is 4XX, then an integer is enough. The fingers, however, are unreadable.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. we have made changes according to your suggestions. If there are still problems, we will make futher modifications. The version has been uploaded on Word.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Introduction part:
1. Describe the meaning of C:N:P stoichiometry in the introduction part.
2. L 45-46: How does the fine root help in soil N fixation directly?
3. L 59: Write the full form of AM, and ECM. It is necessary to mention the full form in the introduction part when it appears first in the introduction.
4. L 64-65: Are you sure that fine root C, N, and P stoichiometry have not been studied at the Chinese level, yet? I am surprised to see such a statement.
5. The research gap or the need for this research was not established in the introduction part properly. Need a more promising depiction of the present research gaps.
6. the authors must mention the hypothesis tested in this study. What was the novelty of such study? In my view, it lacks novelty.
Materials and methods part:
1. In the methodology part the authors first need to mention the details about the study then they need to mention the data analysis part. The duration of the study and the place of the study are not mentioned properly.
2. L 81: How did you establish a new database for fine root C, N, and P stoichiometry?
3. Need to rewrite the statistical part with suitable references. Why did the author follow the Mann-Whitney U test instead of the t-test?
4. Mention clearly about the experimental design.
The results section is well written with suitable depiction of figures.
The discussion part needs to be improved focusing on the data recorded in this study. Stepwise regression analysis of AM and ECM plants fine root C, N, P in climate and soil environment part is not discussed well.
The conclusion part must contain a final recommendation which is missing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments, we have made changes according to your suggestions. If there are stil problems, we will make more futher modifications. The revised has been upioaded on Word.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my comments. I am fine with the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
