The Characteristics of Soil C, N, and P Stoichiometric Ratios as Affected by Geological Background in a Karst Graben Area, Southwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting but I have some concern on the fit to the scope of the journals “Forest”. Authors compare soil C, N and P stoichiometry from different landforms and different rocky desertification grade in karst graben basin. What is the relation with vegetation, forest?  I suggest addressing this point in the introduction and especially in the discussion sections.

Formulate aims and objectives of the study more clearly. What hypotheses do you rise?

Lines 97-109. Description of site characteristics is confusing. The characteristic of soil is missing.  I suggest adding main vegetation and soil parameters in to a table.

Lines 127-131. Statistical analyses methods are not described.

Table 1. The lowercase letters and abbreviations are not explained.

Lines 161-166. (P<0.01) should be lowercase letters (p<0.01).

I suggest the figures 3 and 4 incorporate in the results section, because they reflect results of the study.  

Conclusions need revision. They should stay main finding of the study and be closely related with objectives of the study.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We have revised the manuscript following the comments of the editor and two reviewers, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. In particular the following changes have been made to the manuscript (note: line numbers refer to the lines in the revised MS.). The questions/queries are repeated in black and the answers in red.

We appreciate very much for your time in editing our manuscript and the referees for their valuable suggestions and comments. I am looking forward to hearing from your next decision.

Point 1: The topic of the manuscript is interesting but I have some concern on the fit to the scope of the journals “Forests”. Authors compare soil C, N and P stoichiometry from different landforms and different rocky desertification grade in karst graben basin. What is the relation with vegetation, forests? I suggest addressing this point in the introduction and especially in the discussion sections.

Response 1: We added a description and discussion of vegetation types in the study area, especially in Table 1 and Fig. S2.

Point 2:  Formulate aims and objectives of this study more clearly. What hypotheses do you rise?

Response 2: We have revised thoroughly the manuscript, and make the hypothesis. Please see the details in the Introduction section.

Point 3: Lines 97-109. Description of site characteristics is confusing. The characteristic of soil is missing. I suggest adding main vegetation and soil parameters in to a table.

Response 3: We have added a description in Table 1.

Point 4: Lines 127-131. Statistical analysis methods are not described.

Response 4: We have added a description in “2.4. Data analysis” section.

Point 5: Table 1. The lowercase letters and abbreviations are not explained.

Response 5: We added a description below Table 2.

Point 6: Lines 161-166 (P<0.01) should be lowercase letters (p<0.01).

Response 6: It has been corrected. All expressions like that in MS have been corrected.

Point 7: I suggest the Figures 3 and 4 incorporate in the results section, because they reflect results of the study.

Response 7: The original Figure 3 and 4 has been concentrated in the results section as Figure 4.

Point 8: Conclusions need revision. They should stay main findings of the study and be closely related with objectives of the study.

Response 8: We have revised the conclusions according to the comments, and deleted the specious sentences.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments of Yang et al. The characteristics of soil C, N, and P

The Introduction, and Material and Methods are clearly described. However, the Results sections would benefit from being extended to help the reader grasp your findings. Further, it would be an advantage for the reader if you also publish element concentration (or content) data and not only ratios.

I have some trouble with the term 'desertification', to me that imply forming of a desert. Deserts are defined as areas with very low precipitation, with is obviously not the case here (precipitation >2 m).   

I suggest that You should use an other word, for example 'barren rock', 'soil erosion'

Minor comments

line 32 'ksarst' shoaled be 'karst'

line 108 'bidens' should be 'Bidens' 

line 188 'cnoncentration' should be 'concentration'

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We have revised the manuscript following the comments of the editor and two reviewers, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. In particular the following changes have been made to the manuscript (note: line numbers refer to the lines in the revised MS.). The questions/queries are repeated in black and the answers in red. Please see the attachment.

We appreciate very much for your time in editing our manuscript and the referees for their valuable suggestions and comments. I am looking forward to hearing from your next decision.

Point 1: The Introduction, and Material and Methods are clearly described. However, the Results sections would benefit from being extended to help the reader grasp your findings. Further, it would be an advantage for the reader if you also publish element concentration (or content) data and not only ratios.

Response 1: We have improved this section.  Using ‘concentration’ instead of ‘content’ in this study.

Point 2: I have some trouble with the term “desertification”, to me that imply forming of a desert. Deserts are defined as areas with very low precipitation, with is obviously not the case here (precipitation>2m).I suggest that you should use another word, for example ‘barren rock’, ‘soil erosion’.

Response 2:  Rocky desertification is one of the most threatening environmental issues, resulting from serious soil erosion, extensive exposure of basement rocks, a drastic decrease in soil productivity, and the appearance of a desert-like landscape (Fig. S1). It happens mainly because of the irrational and extensive human activities on fragile carbonate rock formations.

In addition, we are terribly sorry for the data of precipitation. It is the average precipitation in the whole city not the study area. We correct it in the ‘2.1 study area’.

Point 3: Line 32 ‘ksarst’ should be ‘karst’

Response 3: It has been corrected. All expressions like that in MS have been corrected.

Point 4: Line 108 ‘bidens’ should be ‘Bidens’

Response 4: It has been corrected. All expressions like that in MS have been corrected.

Point 5: Line 188 ‘cnoncentration’ should be ‘concentration’

Response 5: It has been corrected. All expressions like that in MS have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept revision.