Differential Responses of Soil Extracellular Enzyme Activity and Stoichiometric Ratios under Different Slope Aspects and Slope Positions in Larix olgensis Plantations
Charles McClaugherty
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
To the authors,
All the following comments had been included in the manuscript pdf format as “Insert Text At Cursor”. Please, go through the manuscript and edit as suggested.
Line 11: Abstract should stand by itself. All abbreviations must be spelled out so that readers can understand without going to the main body of the manuscript.
Line 12: change Whereas with However.
Line 16: Spell out each of these abbreviations: (BG, NAG, LAP, AP)
Line 21: Change the one of the ST abbreviations as ST was represented with soil temperature and upper slope of the south.
Line 23: Use similar digits for each ratios. 1.00:1.06:1.17 or 1.0: 1.1: 1.2
Line 30: other factors including environmental conditions and resource availability...
Line 31: space between the sentence and the reference. Follow the same pattern throughout the manuscript.
Line 41: and soil animals), “use soil faun” a terminology that includes both microorganism and higher class animals.
Line 47: The sentence before the reference {21] is incomplete. … Conditions or variabilities
Line 52: … the most prominent element… There is hyperlink attached to this phrase, remove it.
Instead, I would prefer to use ... the vital soil characteristics...
Line 74-75: check for grammar of this sentence.
Line 89-92: Hypothesis are written in present tense form. Check the entire sentences.
Line 96: . . . with an average elevation of 472 m above see level (a.s.l.)
Line 107: . . . planting densities were all 2500 trees/hm2. It is better to express planting densities using a standard unit XXX trees /ha.
Line 109-111: The legends represented as ST (upper slope of the south), BT (upper slope of the north), ET (upper slope of the east), EM (middle slope of the east), and EB (lower slope of the east). Follow the same pattern in the rest of figures and table.
Line 125-126: ST (upper slope of the south), NT (upper slope of the north), ET (upper slope of the east), EM (middle slope of the east), and EB (lower slope of the east). Follow the same pattern in the rest of table and figures.
Line 135: insert methodology reference and pH (Manufacturing Company, state, country)
Line 138: Subscript the number in and remove the extra dash (NO3--N)
Line 255: . . . microbial communities and number refers the same meaning… rather can be rewritten as microbial diversity and number.
Line 282: . . . certain moisture . . . certain soil moisture
With regards,
The reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting manuscript and adds to our understanding of extracellular enzyme activities in forest soils. The work is an interesting application of soil enzyme studies to a small area of larch plantations in northern China and seems to extend our current understanding of how soil enzymes relate to nutrient cycling and offers some implications for nutrient management in plantation forests while considering the role of soil microorganisms and their extracellular enzymes
Unfortunately, the writing needs substantial improvement.
Here is a line by line review of some of the issues that I identified, but I do not claim to be a professional proofreader.
l 11 remove comma after enzymes
l 13 remove Whereas and ,
l 14 remove . after Larix
l 21 change . after NT to ,
l 31 suggest change reshaped to shaped
l 33 change determines to determine
l 34 Remove However
l 39-41 unclear how residues are involved in enzyme secretion
l 47 “environmental” seems to be missing a noun and “showed” is the wrong tense
l 49 XU is not the author of the citated work
l 50 two .. and citation author does not match citation
l 52 Remove Additionally,
l 54 vary should be varies
l 61 “stoichiometry are” does not make sense and “growth, metabolic” is awkward
l 67 is awkward
l 69 did not see CBH previously defined
l 78 “chemometry” is a new word to me
l 92 “Nutrients were limited by N and P…” does not make sense
l 96 none of your plot are within the average elevation
ll 102-104 FAO or other soil classification schemes would be helpful and instructive
Fig 1. NT not included in the legend Plots are not drawn to scale, topographic lines on map would be useful
l 118 “pooled together” is redundant
l 121 Why is Soil capitalized?
l 122 Why “hidden” and what does that mean
Table 1 How was canopy densitny measures (units) Are diameters and height means, and if so what is the range or variability, and is what area is the basis for Basal area.
l 129 Delete it in “dried it at” and in weighed it in the following line.
l 131 Capitalize Soil and offer better explanation for how soil porosity was measured It is not easily measured without a number of assumptions
l 140 you use et al. (with period) elsewhere
l 143 moles or nanomoles or?
l 145 Use of “independence” is unclear
l 150 Spearman should be capitalized
l 151 Crop should be Corp.
Table 3 review use of units g/kg-1 doesn’t make sense and is inconsistent across the table header. Also the numbers wrap within columns making the table heard to read. There are two ST designations in the table. Suggest using site designations that reflect their names as, for example, in NU north upper instead of NT, and EL for east lower instead of EB (being consistent across all 5 locations.
Figure 4. change site to sites in legend
Table 4. BT in note probably meant NT?
l 245 there is no verb in the sentence
l 249 add is between which and consistent
l 250 question if topography is the main factor
l 253 regional scale seems too broad a term here mor like micro or local scale
l 262-265 do not understand in vivo and in vitro in this context
l 268 should “on” be “with”?
l 271 check citation name
l 283 lower case soil or delete Therefore
l 290 redundant “In this study, our study…” anduse of “limitation”
l 296 also question use of “limitation” Limited by perhaps
l 302 OK but Peng focused on grassland ecossytems which are notable different
l 310 remove . after Larix
l 312 Soils are not limited. Do you mean plant growth or something else?
l 313 providing - maybe “provide”
l 314 “Despite this study emphasizes….” Seems awkward
l 317 Question “rainfall warming” define or clarify
This is an interesting manuscript and adds to our understanding of extracellular enzyme activities in forest soils. The work is an interesting application of soil enzyme studies to a small area of larch plantations in northern China and seems to extend our current understanding of how soil enzymes relate to nutrient cycling and offers some implications for nutrient management in plantation forests while considering the role of soil microorganisms and their extracellular enzymes
Unfortunately, the writing needs substantial improvement.
Here is a line by line review of some of the issues that I identified, but I do not claim to be a professional proofreader.
l 11 remove comma after enzymes
l 13 remove Whereas and ,
l 14 remove . after Larix
l 21 change . after NT to ,
l 31 suggest change reshaped to shaped
l 33 change determines to determine
l 34 Remove However
l 39-41 unclear how residues are involved in enzyme secretion
l 47 “environmental” seems to be missing a noun and “showed” is the wrong tense
l 49 XU is not the author of the citated work
l 50 two .. and citation author does not match citation
l 52 Remove Additionally,
l 54 vary should be varies
l 61 “stoichiometry are” does not make sense and “growth, metabolic” is awkward
l 67 is awkward
l 69 did not see CBH previously defined
l 78 “chemometry” is a new word to me
l 92 “Nutrients were limited by N and P…” does not make sense
l 96 none of your plot are within the average elevation
ll 102-104 FAO or other soil classification schemes would be helpful and instructive
Fig 1. NT not included in the legend Plots are not drawn to scale, topographic lines on map would be useful
l 118 “pooled together” is redundant
l 121 Why is Soil capitalized?
l 122 Why “hidden” and what does that mean
Table 1 How was canopy densitny measures (units) Are diameters and height means, and if so what is the range or variability, and is what area is the basis for Basal area.
l 129 Delete it in “dried it at” and in weighed it in the following line.
l 131 Capitalize Soil and offer better explanation for how soil porosity was measured It is not easily measured without a number of assumptions
l 140 you use et al. (with period) elsewhere
l 143 moles or nanomoles or?
l 145 Use of “independence” is unclear
l 150 Spearman should be capitalized
l 151 Crop should be Corp.
Table 3 review use of units g/kg-1 doesn’t make sense and is inconsistent across the table header. Also the numbers wrap within columns making the table heard to read. There are two ST designations in the table. Suggest using site designations that reflect their names as, for example, in NU north upper instead of NT, and EL for east lower instead of EB (being consistent across all 5 locations.
Figure 4. change site to sites in legend
Table 4. BT in note probably meant NT?
l 245 there is no verb in the sentence
l 249 add is between which and consistent
l 250 question if topography is the main factor
l 253 regional scale seems too broad a term here mor like micro or local scale
l 262-265 do not understand in vivo and in vitro in this context
l 268 should “on” be “with”?
l 271 check citation name
l 283 lower case soil or delete Therefore
l 290 redundant “In this study, our study…” anduse of “limitation”
l 296 also question use of “limitation” Limited by perhaps
l 302 OK but Peng focused on grassland ecossytems which are notable different
l 310 remove . after Larix
l 312 Soils are not limited. Do you mean plant growth or something else?
l 313 providing - maybe “provide”
l 314 “Despite this study emphasizes….” Seems awkward
l 317 Question “rainfall warming” define or clarify
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
