Biomass Allocation and Competitive Ability of a Semiarid Perennial Grass and a Legume in Mixtures under Periodical Soil Water Decreasing Conditions
, Furong Niu 2,3, Furen Kang 1, Bingcheng Xu 2,3, Xiping Deng 2,3, Jairo A. Palta 4,5 and Yinglong Chen 2,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Delete last page.
In the descriptive section of the material, I recommend that the authors read and supplement the manuscript with a discussion with research about more chemical, physical or energetic aspects of biomass. I recommend reading the article: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113270
In these articles, you can also find information about correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. Similar studies, in particular the division into homogeneous groups, were also missing in the article. You can find information about a fractional breakdown or CHONS analysis as well as correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. It will certainly enrich the manuscript.
Author Response
Review #1
Delete last page.
Authors’ response: Thank you! The last page has been deleted.
In the descriptive section of the material, I recommend that the authors read and supplement the manuscript with a discussion with research about more chemical, physical or energetic aspects of biomass. I recommend reading the article: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113270
Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestion! However we find the chemical, physical/energetic aspects of biomass are out of the scope of this study, we thus opted not to include discussion regarding these. And these aspects will be highly considered in our future works when they are more relevant to the research topic.
In these articles, you can also find information about correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. Similar studies, in particular the division into homogeneous groups, were also missing in the article. You can find information about a fractional breakdown or CHONS analysis as well as correlation using ANOVA with the Duncan test. It will certainly enrich the manuscript.
Authors’ response: Thank you for the suggestion! But, unfortunately, we do not quite follow the comment. Did you refer to the data analysis? Did you mean we should conduct multiple comparisons after ANOVA using the Duncan test? Or should we conduct any type of correlation analysis?
And after careful and thoroughly double-checking, we believe the analysis presented in the manuscript should be robust and appropriate. We could further revise the analysis upon your more specific suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are to be congratulated for presenting a high-quality manuscript, which I found a pleasure to read and review. Thank you to all the authors for ensuring the manuscript was prepared to a high standard.
Please see corrections, suggestions and points of clarification in the PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank your detailed and constructive comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript! We have answered the comments/suggestions in the attached PDF file directly. And we hope that we have adequately addressed all of your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The experimental material described in the article is of practical importance. However, it requires additions and corrections. Detailed comments are provided in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate your insightful and detailed comments, which have considerably helped us in improving the quality of this manuscript! We have responded to all the comments in the PDF file directly. We hope that we have adequately addressed your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript was not correct according to the reviewer requirements. A lot of important suggestion was skipped. Extensive editing of English language and style required, that's why the manuscript can't be checked in every sentence.
Author Response
We have carefully checked English writing and made corrections throughout the whole manuscript. And the manuscript has been proofread by an English native speaker. We believe our English writing should be fine. We thank your suggestion and could revise the manuscript upon your more specific comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Appropriate corrections and additions were introduced in the work. In the current version, figures and tables are easier to read. At the same time, the text uses the new term "rehabilitated grasslands" (in Conclusions). Instead of rehabilitated grasslands, it seems more appropriate to use the term "renovated grasslands".
Author Response
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript, and thanks for your nice comment! We have changed ‘rehabilitated grasslands’ to ‘renovated grasslands' following your comment.
