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 authors have addressed the comments given by the previous reviewers and the said reviewers are satisfied with the revisions done in the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
I have read the revised manuscript carefully, the authors have made the necessary modifications, and the argument is sufficient. It is recommended that the editorial department accept this version for publication.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I think the authors have basically addressed the comments or questions.
Although both the reviewers have labelled their decision as 'minor revisions', I think the improvements required according to their comments merit 'major revisions'. The authors are advised to consider all comments carefully.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
This article is well written with good English command and is well structured. However, since this article is not the focus of soil erosion, the soil erosion map in Figure 1a is not suitable. In addition, Figure 1 should mark the location of Muhuang Town, or Yinjiang County ;
The information of stratigraphic and lithology of the sampling site should be given. The conclusion that tillage causes the difference of soil pH and element content in AC profile is not sufficient （line362-367）, and it is more likely to be caused by the difference of geological background.
It is not rigorous to say geological background analog within the mall catchment in Lines212-213；
lines237-238, SON contents continued to decline due to microbial abundance should supplement the literature.
The ' fingerprint ' in the title is not suitable. Apart from the title, the paper does not see the demonstration of the fingerprint of nitrogen isotopes, and it is recommended to delete it.
There are few discussions on the characteristics of soil organic nitrogen in karst areas, and the influence of calcium-rich alkaline on nitrogen turnover should be supplemented in the discussion.
This study conducted sampling on soil profiles of diverse lands uses to investigate SON variations and its response to coupled natural and anthropogenic disturbances in karst regions. Corresponding conclusions are useful for further evaluating soil development and its influence on agricultural management in fragile karst ecosystems.
The “dynamics” in the title seems to be inapposite as a single sampling campaign in this study cannot provide evidence to support discussions over time scales.
If there are some coupled discussions on the correlations between SON and soil organic carbon (SOC), it may be more persuasive to highlight the contribution of this study to the sustainable development of agroecosystems in karst regions.
This study lacks some comparison with other karst regions, e.g., Puding in Guizhou and Huanjiang in Guangxi, to elevate its scientific significance.
Microbial activities showing significant seasonal differences are important controls on both SON and SOC variations, which cannot be well reflected by only a single sampling in Sept. It needs more evidence to support your discussions.
no comment
no comment
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.