Characteristics of Soil Temperature, Humidity, and Salinity on Bird Island within Qinghai Lake Basin, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Soil temperature, humidity, and salt content characteristics and associated influential factors at different soil depths in winter on Bird Island within Qinghai Lake basin, China” studied the patterns of variations of soil moisture, temperature and electrical conductivity at the Bird Island wetland (within Quighai Lake) during winter to understand changes in the soil water content in relation to the climate transitioning from warm and dry to warm and humid conditions. Τhe results are well presented. The authors have employed correctly the techniques. I have found the methodological approach correct. English is not bad and generally is easy to follow. To conclude, I suggest below major revisions for this manuscript:
Ø The title could be improved to represent the paper content.
Ø The purpose of the study should be rewritten.
Ø Figures 5, 8, 11, 13: they are really low quality.
Ø The figure captions are written in different styles. It is necessary to bring in accordance with the requirements of the magazine for the design of figure caption.
Ø Please provide a detailed description for the geological characteristics of the studied area.
Ø Do you have a sampling map of where more precisely the samples are from?
Ø Is the mineralogical composition of the studied wastes related to the compressive strength of the produced concretes? A petrographic description or XRD analyses of the studied wastes could be added.
Ø The article lacks a description of petrographic features of the studied soil samples. Please provide more details about the microscopic examinations of the studied samples (e.g. XRD analyses).
Ø The conclusions of the study should be rewritten. This section is too big.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
On this occasion, I want to congratulate the team for the work done to make this article.
The work is well structured and well organized, which is why I have no comments on the content and information presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This research investigates soil temperature, humidity, and salt content characteristics and associated influential factors at different soil depths in winter on Bird Island within Qinghai Lake basin, China. In general, the idea is exciting, the technical measurements are sound, and the results are compelling. The following comments intend to enable the authors to disseminate their work at the highest possible quality.
Line 91-94. The decision to focus on Bird Island appears from nowhere. Before the decision, the authors should elaborate more on the degradation process of wetland permafrost in the world, followed by an elaborated overview of the entire China. Then, the authors can explain why Bird Island should be chosen and not similar wetland permafrosts in the country.
Lines 100-104. The purpose of this research is to select the case? Please rephrase and divide the sentence into two: one for the case, and the other for the purpose.
Lines 113-127. All facts and statistical information should come from validated sources. For each fact/statistic provided, please add at least a reference from official records and/or peer-reviewed studies.
Lines 132-143. Please add the mapping of the measurement points, and establish arguments why they are located at these points. It should prove that the points are adequate to generalize the findings for the entire area.
Figures 2 & 3. Besides the photographs, please add figures for the technical structure/mechanism of the monitoring systems, and schematic diagrams of how the authors installed them at the measurement points. They would help readers understand how the authors installed the systems and did a proper data collection.
Data analysis (lines 230-237). The authors should elaborate more on each climate factor/variable used. Each climate factor/variable should be explicit for what the factor is (definition)? Why is it necessary in this research (necessity)? And how does it relevant to produce the intended outcome of this study (relevance)? Without these elaborations, the climate factors appear from nowhere and do not have precise definition, necessity, and relevance.
Conclusion. The conclusion could have better linearity by wrapping the research into two points. Consider making one rich paragraph for each part.
Part 1: Summary of this study (from background to research objectives).
Part 2: Present a brief overview of key findings in this study. It should be clear which findings fulfill which specific objective. This part is proof that this study successfully accomplishes its objectives.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is interesting and contributed important information in the context of soil science. However, there are some scope of improvement as follows:
1. The research question must be clearly written in the introduction. Authors are advised to include this in between line no. 105 and 106.
2. Need to cite the following reference in line no 55: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112190
3. Line no 115: Instead of writing Data and Methodology, write only Methodology
4. Line 247: Write Results & Discussion
5. I did not find any proper discussion for the 'Variations in soil moisture'. Authors must include proper scientific background of the data reported in this paper.
6. Why the conclusion part is sub-divided into 1, 2 , 3 ? There is no need of such division. Author must include the final recommendation in conclusion, which is missing here.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors carefully followed the comments and suggestions, made appropriate corrections and the manuscript in the present form was sufficiently improved with respect to the previous version. I recommend to accept this manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the expert review, I will work even harder in the future scientific research to do the best.
Reviewer 3 Report
After thoroughly checking the revised manuscript, I see that almost all concerns are left unaddressed. The additions/revisions do not address the concerns from the previous review round. In fact, no concern is adequately/fully addressed. Since the authors only provided responses for another reviewer, the following comments only refer to the revisions made in the manuscript.
Lines 94-97. The decision to focus on Bird Island still appears from nowhere. Again, the authors should explain why Bird Island should be chosen and not similar wetland permafrosts in the country. For linearity purposes, I strongly recommend moving lines 103-109 before deciding to focus on Bird Island (lines 94-97).
Lines 110-114. These confusing lines are left unaddressed. The purpose of this research is to select the case? Please rephrase and divide the sentence into two: one for the case, and the other for the purpose.
Figure 1. The measurement point is unreadable, resulting in the related comment in the previous review round. Please enlarge this figure to the max paragraph width, and increase the resolution (at least 300dpi).
Figure 2 & 3. There is still no technical structure/mechanism of the monitoring systems, and schematic diagrams of how the authors installed them at the measurement points. These information are criticial to help readers understand how the authors technically/schematically installed the systems to conduct a proper data collection.
Data analysis (lines 249-256). The data analysis remains unelaborated. Again, the authors should elaborate on each climate factor/variable used. Each climate factor/variable should be explicit for what the factor is (definition)? Why is it necessary in this research (necessity)? And how does it relevant to produce the intended outcome of this study (relevance)? Without these elaborations, the climate factors appear from nowhere and do not have precise definition, necessity, and relevance.
Conclusion. There is still no summary of this study (from background to research objectives).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
After thoroughly checking the revised manuscript, the following comments arise for this review round.
Lines 90-92. The decision to focus on Bird Island remains suddenly appearing here. Interestingly, the authors have attempted to argue the reasoning behind selecting Bird Island for this study. However, they did so after the decision had been made. It means that, in terms of linearity and clarity, the reasons are searched for after the decision has been made. It proves the arbitrary and scientifically baseless decision. Thus, this serious flaw remains.
Lines 111-115. The authors claimed that "Amend as follow modified" (per authors' response). However, they did nothing. It is a misleading practice that must not be part of any scientific publishing process.
Figure 1. The request was to make the measurement point readable. However, the replacement figure makes it worse since the measurement point is now nowhere to be found in the figure.
Figure 2 & 3. The authors claimed that "Amend as follow: ..." followed by a bunch of texts in the authors' response. However, some of the claimed texts are dispersed in the manuscript, while many of the claimed amendments are nowhere to be found. Therefore, this concern remains.
Data analysis (lines 248-255). Similarly, the authors' 2-paragraph claim for this concern is not proven amended in the revised manuscript. Another misleading claim.
Conclusion. The added text is part of the overview of key findings (point 2 of the comment on the Conclusion in the first review round). The summary point has never been addressed since the first revision round. This concern remains.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
