All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript is revised on the suggestions of the reviewers and it can be accepted in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors have made the necessary changes as suggested
The experimental design, the discussions have been improved compared to previous manuscript draft
This section has been improved
Authors are required to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Abstract replace “the critical role played by soil available phosphorus” with “soil available phosphorus played a critical role in…”
P60-62 the sentence order should be reversed.
P66-72 separate this sentence into two short sentences.
P74 delete “According to the studies,”
P78-80 rephrase this sentence.
P81 delete “The previous findings demonstrated that”.
P88 you mean that enzyme differently respond various P fertilizers inputs?
P92 replace with “desert steppe as a typical fragile grassland ecosystem is especially…”
P96-102 it is a very long sentence. Rephrase.
P104 please unify “grassland” or “steppe”? “we sought to…” can be another sentence.
P106 “short-term warming” ? how long? Please define.
P107-108 “activities and stoichiometries” Singular or plural, please unify. Do not use “Based on the previous studies (Waring et al.,2014; Zheng et al., 2020” or you can explain detailly.
P114 replace “northwest” with “Northwest”.
P118 this has been mentioned in the first sentence.
P120 “phosphorus” abbreviation should be used.
P124 reordering “control, CK”.
P135 rephrase “the existing research foundation of the team…”
P144 “Three soil cores (5 cm in diameter, 15 cm in depth) were collected randomly from each plot” you mean main plot or subplot or others?
P154 delete this old reference.
P157 add “continuous flow analyzer;” equipment model.
P158 “Soil SOC” is not often noted.
P162 a reference is enough.
P177 replace “are” with “were”.
P180 it did not show properly.” {ATAN2”.
P206 replace “,or ” with “and”.
P226 “MBP responded differently from MBC and MBN” it is not clear.
P229 this sentence is also not clear.
P232 delete “the effects of”. The same below.
P241 it is better to provide the P values in Fig 4.
P250 “Soil SMC content” the repeated expression should avoid.
P255 delete “By using a redundancy analysis,”.
P263 delete this sentence.
P266 replace “which was consistent with”with“supporting”.
P268 delete the expression such as “Correlation analysis and redundancy analysis revealed”.
P277 It is suggested to replace this expression, such as “The experiment demonstrated that”.
P284 replace “the activities of soil microbial” with “soil microbial activities”.
P291 replace “Content” with “contents”.
P292-394 the relationship between varying alteration of microbial biomass and P fixation is not clear? Please explain.
P306 why decreases in vector length and angle show C and P limitation?
P311 delete “In this study,” because you have cited the Figs at the end of sentence.
P315 abbreviations for “available carbon and nitrogen”.
P321-323 I don’t know why?
P338 “while the addition of P10 alleviated” please further explain.
P340-341 can you give a probable reason for this?
P348-350 please rephrase.
P352-353 delete the first sentence. Please describe your results directly. This section is like a abstract but not conclusions. Please revise.
P368 the style of reference should be revised according to this journal.
Figures dpi should be adjusted for clarity.
This manuscript investigates how soil C, N, and P acquisition enzyme activities and stoichiometries responded to short-term warming and P addition in desert grassland. The data is sufficient and the analysis is reasonable. However, there are some deficiencies that should be corrected before publication. 1. What is the basis for P addition levels, soil P content or previous studies？2 this is a short-time experiment from April 2022 to August 25, 2022, so it is not known if this effect is due to the experiment itself or to seasonal variations? 3. Sampling methods are highly confusing. 4. You need to avoid the long sentences in the text that contain multiple aspects. Also delete the unnecessary sentence, such as “Combining the results of the redundancy analysis and correlation analysis,” in the discussion section. 5. Abbreviations mixed with full names often occurred in the text. Finally, the language needs further polishing by an English expert.
Authors have tried to investigate the response of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus acquisition enzyme activities and stoichiometry to short-term warming and phosphorus addition in a desert grassland. Overall, the study has suggested that short-term warming, phosphorus addition, and their interaction significantly affected soil extracellular enzymes and stoichiometry, which in turn changed microbial resource acquisition techniques in desert steppe.
The language has to be improved in the manuscript as most of the sentences are confusing
Too much abbreviation in a paragraph creates lot of confusion of what the authors would like to say to the readers. It creates too much pressure to the eyes. Readers should be able to read the paragraph with ease. Authors need to see the paper in place of readers
Line 37: Mention Phosphorous (P) in the background section of the abstract
Line 121 – Mention it as the dominant plant species
Authors could provide figures of experimental design, experimental setup to understand the study through visualization
The language in the methodology section has to be improved as long sentences in a paragraph are confusing and difficult to understand
Are there any suggestions for future research that could build on the findings of this study?
Authors need to provide more detail on the methods used to measure and control soil temperature. What was the initial soil temperature before initiating the study?
Authors need to discuss the potential implications of the observed changes in soil enzyme activity and stoichiometry on soil nutrient cycling and plant growth ?
Were there any limitations to the study design that could have influenced the results? If so, please discuss how it was addressed?
Could Authors discuss the potential implications of the findings for understanding the mechanisms by which desert steppe ecosystems may adapt to global warming and microbial nutrient constraint?
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.