A Comparison of Water Uptake by Transpiration from Different Soil Depths among Three Land Cover Types in the Arid Northwest of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors mentioned that the study area covers 51,400 sq. km, with forests accounting for 3.6% of this total. I assume that all the studied ecosystems fall within this 3.6% area. In Fig. 1, the study locations were depicted, but essential details such as the establishment date of the ecosystems, their specific areas, elevation, soil types, tree spacing, and tree density were not provided. Including these details would help readers better understand the characteristics of the study sites.

 Additionally, it would be beneficial to provide information on how soil sampling was replicated, including the number of samples taken within each ecosystem, and to explain the methodology used for Leaf Area Index (LAI) assessment.

 Lastly, I recommend adding error bars to Figs 2, 3, and 4 for improved clarity and to convey the uncertainty associated with the data.

 

Author Response

Reply: Done. 1)We have added Table 1 to give more essential details for all ecosystems.

2) We have added more information to describe how soil sampling was replicated.

3) We have redrawn the Figures.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript (MS) presents quite interesting comparative research which may be of interest to the readership of Forests.

However, before the publishing the MS requires some improvements. Unfortunately, the authors did not provide the line numbers.

p.1 (Abstract), p.2 -> it's unclear what the authors mean under 'controls'.

p.1 (Abstract): (Mean = 0.33 ± 0.22) -> in the Abstract, it's better to provide units because the reader only begins to read.

p.3 -> it's a standard to provide the Latin with the names of the authors at the first appearance in the text.

p.4: evaporation of the intercepeted water -> intercepted?

p.4: Cc and Cs -> the definitions are not given or wrong notations in A2, A3.

p.6: high coefficient of variation -> the value of the coefficient of variation is not given.

p.1 (Abstract), p.6 -> it's not clear what the authors mean under 'unilateral'. The dictionary says it mans 'one-sided', which doesn't seem to pass.

p.6: For the shrub wood forest ecosystem, the LAI of the sand willow forest exhibited a unilateral trend of steady growth, where it al-most reached the peak in the third year, followed by a steadier trend with minimal fluctuation throughout the rest of the study. -> the sentence doesn't seem to match with the Fig.3c. Sand willow is obviously mixed up with Buddleia.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is mostly quite understandable. Sometimes, an uncustomary wording makes the sense unclear, which may be corrected through technical editing.

Author Response

The manuscript (MS) presents quite interesting comparative research which may be of interest to the readership of Forests.

However, before the publishing the MS requires some improvements. Unfortunately, the authors did not provide the line numbers.

p.1 (Abstract), p.2 -> it's unclear what the authors mean under 'controls'.

Reply: It is “control factors”, We have modified that.

p.1 (Abstract): (Mean = 0.33 ± 0.22) -> in the Abstract, it's better to provide units because the reader only begins to read.

Reply: Done. We have added units.

p.3 -> it's a standard to provide the Latin with the names of the authors at the first appearance in the text.

Reply: Done. We have checked through the manuscript.

p.4: evaporation of the intercepeted water -> intercepted?

Reply: Done. We have modified the word.

p.4: Cc and Cs -> the definitions are not given or wrong notations in A2, A3.

Reply: The two parameters are belonged to A1.

p.6: high coefficient of variation -> the value of the coefficient of variation is not given.

Reply: Done. We have added the variation in the new figure.

p.1 (Abstract), p.6 -> it's not clear what the authors mean under 'unilateral'. The dictionary says it mans 'one-sided', which doesn't seem to pass.

Reply: This means that the LAI of the sand willow forest has always been in an upward trend, and has not decreased.

p.6: For the shrub wood forest ecosystem, the LAI of the sand willow forest exhibited a unilateral trend of steady growth, where it al-most reached the peak in the third year, followed by a steadier trend with minimal fluctuation throughout the rest of the study. -> the sentence doesn't seem to match with the Fig.3c. Sand willow is obviously mixed up with Buddleia.

Reply: Yes. You’re right. We have modified the sentence.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe, the MS has been improved, although the Latin names are not provided with the authors' names (p. 3). This may be corrected while editing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has been improved.

Author Response

Reply：Done. We have added the Latin name and have rechecked through the paper. Thank you again!