Soil Hydrological Properties’ Response to Long-Term Grazing on a Desert Steppe in Inner Mongolia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to intuition, light grazing is also considered the optimal mode of grazing. From the perspective of soil hydrological parameters, this paper utilizes abundant data to demonstrate that light grazing has minimal negative impact on grassland ecology. This article appears to be quite impeccable in terms of background, data analysis, and writing quality. However, upon closer examination, there still several areas that require improvement:

1.      Whether nutritional elements etc belong to hydrological properties？

2.      M&M part：Can the range of annual temperature provided？Can more Information about Misuse of abbreviated format: It is usually abbreviated after one appearance. Eg, bulk density (BD) in Line 33 and in Line 132.

3.      August 2021 provided？Why you choose this time and this month？Whether it is better to provide more information in this part.

4.      Line 47, spelling error，Aa should be As.

5.      Line 380, ‘T Bulk densitymean what?

6.      Line 413. ‘0.40 m3m-3’??

7.      So many non-standard formats and errors about Table 1: The upper left corner is not blank usually. The upper and lower weight of a three-wire meter is larger. ‘SAN(mg g-1)’should be ‘SAN(mg kg-1)’.

8.      Discussion Part：There is a lot to discuss, can you improve the logic of the discussion, such as adding subheadings to improve readability? More recent and relevant studies (in the last three years especially) can also be compared to highlight the value of this paper.

9.      I hope this manuscript can become a classic after these modifications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is good. However, please check whole manuscript to avoid minor mistakes.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your suggestions and comments. We have revised our manuscript in accordance with these suggestions. We have also made other major changes in an effort to improve the readability and flow of the paper. Please see our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments.

1.Whether nutritional elements etc belong to hydrological properties？

>> The nutritional elements (including soil organic carbon, nitrogen et al) in this study was not belong to hydrological properties but was belong to soil chemical properties. Here, we want explore the relationship between hydrological and chemical properties to emphasized the important role of soil hydrological in regulating grassland functions.

2.M&M part：Can the range of annual temperature provided？Can more Information about Misuse of abbreviated format: It is usually abbreviated after one appearance. Eg, bulk density (BD) in Line 33 and in Line 132.

>> Done, we added the range of annual temperature (the annual temperature ranged from -25℃ to 33 ℃). The abbreviation format was also checked.

3.August 2021 provided？Why you choose this time and this month？Whether it is better to provide more information in this part.

>> This study was carried out in 2021, the samples were taken In August. Since in our study area, Inner Mongolia desert steppe, August is the peak period of growing season, which can reflect the normal situation of this steppe.

4.Line 47, spelling error，Aa should be As.

>> Done

5.Line 380, ‘T Bulk density mean what?

>> It should be Bulk density; we have changed it.

6.Line 413. ‘0.40 m3m-3’??

>> we changed the unite to 40%.

7.So many non-standard formats and errors about Table 1: The upper left corner is not blank usually. The upper and lower weight of a three-wire meter is larger. ‘SAN(mg g-1)’should be ‘SAN(mg kg-1)’.

>> we revised Table carefully.

8.Discussion Part：There is a lot to discuss, can you improve the logic of the discussion, such as adding subheadings to improve readability? More recent and relevant studies (in the last three years especially) can also be compared to highlight the value of this paper.

>> Done. We added subheadings and some new reference.

9.I hope this manuscript can become a classic after these modifications.

>> Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the authors to pay attention to the comments to the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your suggestions and comments. We have revised our manuscript in accordance with these suggestions. We have also made other major changes in an effort to improve the readability and flow of the paper. Please see our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments.

1. Change the keywords: Soil Hydrological properties, grazing, desert steppe because it coincides with the title.

>> Done. we changed the key worlds as: bulk density; soil porosity; soil depth; soil chemical properties

2. What physical properties of soil are altered in grassland ecosystems. What is the limit of compressive stress so that the soil can resist compressive pressure?

>> as show in our study, most physical properties such as bulk density, porosity et al were all changed by grazing. In another study, we found that the stability of soil physical properties was also changed. In present study we can not found the limit of compressive stress that you mentioned, since we only have three grazing intensities.

Line 69. Indicate what is meant by physical properties essential for the consolidation of soil structure as grazing intensity increases.

>> soil physical properties play an important role in regulating soil structure, especially in the face of grazing which can alleviate the effects of sheep trampling.

Lines 72 - 74 indicate the soil type based on WRB where the decrease in porosity and bulk density occurred and the depth of the different genetic horizons.

>>we changed those sentences. Detail sees revised manuscript.

The authors should mention the soil type or types (based on the World Reference Base; WRB) located in the desert steppe and their spatial variability of the pastures to have a reference of the desirability and erosion caused by anthropogenic factors in the livestock production system.

Evaluating the degree of compaction of the superficial horizon is also recommended.

It is recommended that the authors describe the profile (one for each experimental plot) by the method proposed by the WRB and separate the genetic horizons, noting the depths of the different epipedons and endopedons of the experimental plots. They should perform texture analysis by the pipette method and analyze the soil texture of the experimental plots and the depths of the epipedon and endopedon of each of the experimental plots.

Line 116 changes Chestnut to an international system such as the World Reference Base (WRB) or Soil Taxonomy and identifies the different surface and subsurface horizons and their physical properties regarding depth. Soil organic matter regarding depth to better understand the changes caused by intensive grazing.

>> Done

Figure 1 and Figure 2. Significant improvement: titles are not understood and overlap, and there are gaps between lines 224 - 257.

>> Done

Line 216. The authors should confirm whether grazing caused the increase in bulk density caused by soil compaction. Do not assume.

>> Done

Figure 3. Modify the figure since it is not understood, and place the titles on the ordinate and abscissa axes.

>> Fig 3 shown the correlations among different soil hydrological properties. The red color indicates two indicators corelated negatively and the black color indicates two indicators corelated positively.

 

Figure 4. Modify the image as it is confusing.

>> Fig 4 shown the relationship between soil hydrological properties and soil nutrients. The red color indicates two indicators corelated negatively and the blue color indicates two indicators corelated positively.

Line 354. What physical-chemical properties does grazing affect? Perhaps the authors meant to say physical-chemical properties.

>> yes

Line 368, the authors should report the organic matter content of the soil during the evaluation of the grazing system and how it changed over time. This is due to the direct effect of decreasing bulk density and soil porosity.

>>Done

Mention how it was determined that grazing reduced total soil porosity and caused compression of macropores but increased the number of microporos. Also define how they determined the reduction of mesopores with grazing to be compared with other authors.

>> Light grazing increased soil porosity, the reason may arise from 1) light grazing benefit the growth of plant especially for below-ground biomass which may favor the maintain of soil structure; and 2) animal trampling may accelerate the decomposition of dead litter, and hence increase the content of soil organic carbon. In contrast, HG results in a de-cline in soil porosity, likely due to the compression of macroporosity and the collapse of sizeable mesopores because of soil compaction.

Line 441. It is recommended that authors only respond to the research objectives.

>>Done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted article has interesting results and aligned with the aims and scopes of "Sustainability". I suggest to accept after minor editing. Authors are also suggested to go through their manuscript carefully and improve language, typo and coherence.

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten. For example, L 18. Please specify soil depth. L21. What kind of of relationship did you observe? Please specify? Positive, negative or neutral?  Please rephrase L 20-22. Again, L 22-25 need to be rewritten. It's not clear from the presented findings.

2. Delete "systematically" from L101.

3. Authors are suggested to include soil nutrients data from other depths e.g., 20-30 cm.

4. L215, replace "response" with "responded".

5. Rewrite L 325-326.

6. Latest literatures are suggested to include in the discussion section.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your suggestions and comments. We have revised our manuscript in accordance with these suggestions. We have also made other major changes in an effort to improve the readability and flow of the paper. Please see our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments.

1. The abstract needs to be rewritten. For example, L 18. Please specify soil depth. L21. What kind of of relationship did you observe? Please specify? Positive, negative or neutral?  Please rephrase L 20-22. Again, L 22-25 need to be rewritten. It's not clear from the presented findings.
   >> we changed L21 as Further more, we found that field capacity and soil moisture content were positively but soil non-capillary porosity was negatively corelated with most soil nutrients. And changed L22-25 as: our results indicate that over-grazing has detrimental effects on soil hydrological properties which may further negatively affects soil nutrients content. While, light grazing maybe an optimal grazing intensity in this semi-arid steppe as respect to soil hydrological properties.
   2. Delete "systematically" from L101.
   >> Done
   3. Authors are suggested to include soil nutrients data from other depths e.g., 20-30 cm.
   >> We admit that if add soil nutrients in depth soil will be better. Unfortunately, the analysis of deep soil nutrients was not done. Therefore, in present study we only used the data of surface soil
   4. L215, replace "response" with "responded".
   >> Done
   5. Rewrite L 325-326.
   >> we changed this sentence as: Those results suggested that soil hydrological properties were closely related to soil chemical properties which indicated that grazing induced change of soil hydrological properties may have important effects on soil nutrients content
   6. Latest literatures are suggested to include in the discussion section.  

           >> Done. we added some new literatures in discussion part.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Paper: "Impacts of Long-Term Grazing on Soil Hydrological Properties in a Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia"

The manuscript titled "Soil Hydrological Properties Response to Long-Term Grazing in a Desert Steppe of Inner Mongolia" explores the influence of different grazing intensities (ranging from no grazing to heavy grazing) over an extended period on various parameters related to soil hydrological properties at different soil depths. The authors' research indicates a significant connection between these hydrological properties and soil chemical characteristics, underscoring their pivotal role in regulating nutrient cycles within grasslands. The manuscript is well-written, requiring only minimal improvements.

I commend the authors for their valuable efforts and the presentation of high-quality work. However, I would like to highlight some minor issues in different sections of the manuscript that, if addressed, could further enhance its overall quality.

Title: The title is appropriate and effectively conveys the paper's focus.

Abstract: The abstract is well-composed, but there are a few areas that could benefit from refinement:

• Line 23: Rewrite "facilitate the maintain" for improved clarity.
• Consider incorporating a couple of lines from the methodology section to provide a more comprehensive summary.

Introduction: The introduction is well-crafted and utilizes relevant literature and citations. I suggest making the following minor changes:

• Line 37: Check the spelling of "Aa carrier."
• Line 49: Review for clarity.
• Line 52: Verify if there is missing information in "BD in 30-50 soil layer."
• Line 54: Ensure consistency in the citation style, either by number or by author names.

Materials and Methods: The use of scientific language is commendable, but I have a couple of suggestions:

• On line 114, consider adding the authors' names to the species when they are first introduced in the text.
• Including a location map in the manuscript would be a valuable addition for context.

Results: The results section is well-written, but there are some issues with figures and captions:

• Verify the figures for any caption overlap issues that hinder readability.
• Correct "show" to "shown" in line 216 for spelling and grammar.
• Remove the empty space between lines 239 and 257.
• In Figure 3, ensure that the caption does not overlap with the figure itself.
• Check for the significance values (e.g., "*") in Figure 3; if they are missing, add them to improve clarity.
• Review line 295 and 296 for spelling errors.

Discussion: Check line 242 for clarity to enhance the overall cohesiveness of the discussion section.

References: Overall, the paper effectively utilizes recent literature in the references section.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor spelling and grammar issues.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your suggestions and comments. We have revised our manuscript in accordance with these suggestions. We have also made other major changes in an effort to improve the readability and flow of the paper. Please see our detailed responses to reviewers’ comments.

I commend the authors for their valuable efforts and the presentation of high-quality work. However, I would like to highlight some minor issues in different sections of the manuscript that, if addressed, could further enhance its overall quality.

Title: The title is appropriate and effectively conveys the paper's focus.

Abstract: The abstract is well-composed, but there are a few areas that could benefit from refinement:

• Line 23: Rewrite "facilitate the maintain" for improved clarity.
• Consider incorporating a couple of lines from the methodology section to provide a more comprehensive summary

>> Done. we rewritten the conclusion of abstract and add some details in the methodology.

Introduction: The introduction is well-crafted and utilizes relevant literature and citations. I suggest making the following minor changes:

• Line 37: Check the spelling of "Aa carrier."
• Line 49: Review for clarity.
• Line 52: Verify if there is missing information in "BD in 30-50 soil layer."
• Line 54: Ensure consistency in the citation style, either by number or by author names.

>> Done.

Materials and Methods: The use of scientific language is commendable, but I have a couple of suggestions:

• On line 114, consider adding the authors' names to the species when they are first introduced in the text.
• Including a location map in the manuscript would be a valuable addition for context.

>> we added the the authors' names to the species. And we do not have a map of our experiment site.

Results: The results section is well-written, but there are some issues with figures and captions:

• Verify the figures for any caption overlap issues that hinder readability.
• Correct "show" to "shown" in line 216 for spelling and grammar.
• Remove the empty space between lines 239 and 257.
• In Figure 3, ensure that the caption does not overlap with the figure itself.
• Check for the significance values (e.g., "*") in Figure 3; if they are missing, add them to improve clarity.
• Review line 295 and 296 for spelling errors

>> Done. we modified syntax and format errors

Discussion: Check line 242 for clarity to enhance the overall cohesiveness of the discussion section.

>> Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 From Author's notes in website,  It's well done. A little question: SOC and DOC belongs to soil  nutrients in Table 1? 

 

Author Response

Thanks. we think SOC and DOC belongs were all belongs to soil  nutrients but in different forms. So we put them in Table1. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments for authors

Author Response

Thanks