the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Jan 2026
Key microbial phylum influencing the priming effects of variously degraded alpine meadow soils enriched with animal excrements
Abstract. Tibetan sheep (Ovis aries) and plateau pika (Ochotona curzoniae) excrements are important organic materials that influence soil carbon cycling in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. However, their exact priming effects (PE) on soil and mechanisms of influence in alpine meadows are subject to their health status. To fill this knowledge gap, we carried out a 45-day incubation experiment using alpine meadow soils with differing degrees of degradation that had been enriched with these two types of excrement. Soil PE was assessed via the natural abundance method, while soil microbial communities and their compositions were examined through high-throughput sequencing. The findings indicated that severely degraded alpine meadow soils exhibit significantly stronger positive priming effects (PE) from Tibetan sheep and plateau pika excrements than non-degraded soils (P < 0.05). These excrements restructure soil microbial communities, reducing bacterial α-diversity while increasing β-diversity and microbial biomass C:N ratios. Key microbial drivers of PE include Actinobacteriota (positive correlation, r = 0.70) and Proteobacteria (negative correlation, r = −0.52), whose abundances are modulated by soil properties: the C:N ratio promotes Proteobacteria (r = 0.39), while a lower NO3--N:NH4+-N ratio suppresses Actinobacteriota (r = −0.18). Meadow degradation thus indirectly intensifies PE by altering these microbial phylum and stoichiometric balances. These findings support Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau grassland management through: (1) restricting grazing/pika activity in degraded zones to reduce carbon loss, (2) optimizing soil C:N ratios to suppress priming effect (PE)-enhancing microbes, and (3) conserving intact meadows for carbon sequestration—collectively enabling sustainable grassland management.
- Preprint
(1735 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(76 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 24 Jun 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4985', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 May 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Qinyao Li, 30 May 2026
reply
Response to Reviewer 1
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We have revised the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Figure 8 caption, and Conclusions accordingly. The major revisions include correcting the inconsistency between the Abstract and Results, clarifying that both bacterial and fungal communities were examined, replacing “species” with “phylum-level microbial taxa,” and revising the SEM model-fit criteria and interpretation.
Comment 1: The abstract states that severely degraded alpine meadow soils exhibited stronger positive priming effects than non-degraded soils after the addition of both Tibetan sheep excrement and plateau pika excrement. However, the Results section shows that, after the addition of Tibetan sheep excrement, the cumulative priming effect was significantly higher in non-degraded meadow soils than in severely degraded soils; only after the addition of plateau pika excrement was the cumulative priming effect significantly higher in severely degraded soils than in non-degraded soils. Therefore, the abstract is inconsistent with the Results section, and the authors should check whether this is a writing error.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this inconsistency. This was a writing error in the original Abstract. We have revised the Abstract to make it consistent with the Results section.
In the revised Abstract, we now state that the effects of excrement addition on cumulative PE depended on both excrement type and meadow degradation level. Specifically, after Tibetan sheep excrement addition, non-degraded soils showed a higher cumulative PE than severely degraded soils, whereas after plateau pika excrement addition, severely degraded soils showed a higher cumulative PE than non-degraded soils. (Lines 19-23)
This statement is now consistent with the Results section, where the same contrasting patterns are reported: after Tibetan sheep excrement addition, non-degraded soil had a higher cumulative PE than severely degraded soil, whereas after plateau pika excrement addition, severely degraded soil had a higher cumulative PE than non-degraded soil. (Lines 267-279)
Comment 2: The article title emphasizes “key microbial phyla,” and the abstract identifies the key taxa as Actinobacteriota and Proteobacteria, both of which are bacterial phyla. However, the final sentence of the Introduction states that the aim of the study was to explore the effects of excrement addition on soil fungal communities in alpine meadows under different degrees of degradation. Is the focus of the article on bacteria, fungi, or the microbial community as a whole?
Response 2: We agree with the reviewer that the original wording created confusion regarding the focus of the study. Our study examined both bacterial and fungal communities using high-throughput sequencing, while the phylum-level taxa most closely associated with PE in the SEM were mainly bacterial phyla, including Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, and Chloroflexi.
To clarify this point, the title was revised to “Microbial phyla associated with priming effects in animal excrement-enriched alpine meadow soils across degradation gradients” (Lines 1-2). In the Abstract, we now state that “soil bacterial and fungal communities” were examined through high-throughput sequencing. (Lines 18)
In the Introduction, we revised the study aim to clarify that this study evaluated the effects of Tibetan sheep and plateau pika excrements on soil PE and both bacterial and fungal community composition in alpine meadows with different degrees of degradation. We also revised the objective from identifying “major microbial phylum critical to enhancing soil PE” to identifying “phylum-level microbial taxa associated with changes in soil PE.” (Lines 110-117)
Comment 3：It is recommended that this be changed to “representative”. Change“Fig. 7” to " Fig. 8". Change“e” to "c".
Response 3: Thank you for these careful corrections. We have corrected the spelling error in the Materials and Methods section by changing “representive” to “representative”. We also corrected the figure citation from “Fig. 7” to “Fig. 8” in the SEM-related text, and changed “e” to “c” in the Figure 3 caption. These corrections have improved the accuracy of the manuscript. (Line 126; Line 449; Line 454; Line 818)
Comment 4: They are actually phylum level taxa, not species.
Response 4: We agree with the reviewer. The taxa discussed in the co-occurrence network and SEM analyses are phylum-level taxa rather than species. We have replaced “species,” “key microbial species,” and “key microbial communities” with “phylum-level microbial taxa,” “microbial phyla,” or “network-associated microbial phyla,” as appropriate. (Lines 323, 328, 335, 338, 347, 350, 354, 357, 838)
In the Results section, the co-occurrence network analysis now uses “network-associated microbial phyla” instead of “key phylum”. (Lines 323, 328, 335, 338)
In the SEM Results section, Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, and Chloroflexi are now described as microbial phyla positively associated with PE, rather than species or key microbial communities. (Lines 347, 350, 354, 357)
We also revised the Figure 8 caption by replacing “key microbial species” with “phylum-level microbial taxa”. (Line 838)
Comment 5: The model fit criteria stated earlier that GFI should fall within 0.95-1.00, but in Figure 8, GFI = 0.945, which is below the authors’ own standard.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for noting this issue. We have revised the model-fit description to make the criteria clearer and more consistent with the reported results. In the revised manuscript, all SEM fit indices were reported to two decimal places. Thus, the original GFI value of 0.945 was rounded to 0.95. We also clarified the commonly used interpretation of GFI: values ≥ 0.90 are generally considered to indicate acceptable model fit, while values close to or above 0.95 indicate good fit. Therefore, the rounded GFI value of 0.95, together with CMIN/df = 1.02, P = 0.42, RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 1.00, and NFI = 0.98, indicates that the model achieved acceptable overall fit. We also revised the text to emphasize that SEM was used as an exploratory approach and that the fitted pathways were interpreted as statistical associations rather than definitive causal effects. (Lines 248-250; Lines 257-263; Lines 345-348; Lines 838-839)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4985-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Qinyao Li, 30 May 2026
reply
Response to Reviewer 1
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We have revised the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Figure 8 caption, and Conclusions accordingly. The major revisions include correcting the inconsistency between the Abstract and Results, clarifying that both bacterial and fungal communities were examined, replacing “species” with “phylum-level microbial taxa,” and revising the SEM model-fit criteria and interpretation.
Comment 1: The abstract states that severely degraded alpine meadow soils exhibited stronger positive priming effects than non-degraded soils after the addition of both Tibetan sheep excrement and plateau pika excrement. However, the Results section shows that, after the addition of Tibetan sheep excrement, the cumulative priming effect was significantly higher in non-degraded meadow soils than in severely degraded soils; only after the addition of plateau pika excrement was the cumulative priming effect significantly higher in severely degraded soils than in non-degraded soils. Therefore, the abstract is inconsistent with the Results section, and the authors should check whether this is a writing error.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this inconsistency. This was a writing error in the original Abstract. We have revised the Abstract to make it consistent with the Results section.
In the revised Abstract, we now state that the effects of excrement addition on cumulative PE depended on both excrement type and meadow degradation level. Specifically, after Tibetan sheep excrement addition, non-degraded soils showed a higher cumulative PE than severely degraded soils, whereas after plateau pika excrement addition, severely degraded soils showed a higher cumulative PE than non-degraded soils. (Lines 19-23)
This statement is now consistent with the Results section, where the same contrasting patterns are reported: after Tibetan sheep excrement addition, non-degraded soil had a higher cumulative PE than severely degraded soil, whereas after plateau pika excrement addition, severely degraded soil had a higher cumulative PE than non-degraded soil. (Lines 267-279)
Comment 2: The article title emphasizes “key microbial phyla,” and the abstract identifies the key taxa as Actinobacteriota and Proteobacteria, both of which are bacterial phyla. However, the final sentence of the Introduction states that the aim of the study was to explore the effects of excrement addition on soil fungal communities in alpine meadows under different degrees of degradation. Is the focus of the article on bacteria, fungi, or the microbial community as a whole?
Response 2: We agree with the reviewer that the original wording created confusion regarding the focus of the study. Our study examined both bacterial and fungal communities using high-throughput sequencing, while the phylum-level taxa most closely associated with PE in the SEM were mainly bacterial phyla, including Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, and Chloroflexi.
To clarify this point, the title was revised to “Microbial phyla associated with priming effects in animal excrement-enriched alpine meadow soils across degradation gradients” (Lines 1-2). In the Abstract, we now state that “soil bacterial and fungal communities” were examined through high-throughput sequencing. (Lines 18)
In the Introduction, we revised the study aim to clarify that this study evaluated the effects of Tibetan sheep and plateau pika excrements on soil PE and both bacterial and fungal community composition in alpine meadows with different degrees of degradation. We also revised the objective from identifying “major microbial phylum critical to enhancing soil PE” to identifying “phylum-level microbial taxa associated with changes in soil PE.” (Lines 110-117)
Comment 3：It is recommended that this be changed to “representative”. Change“Fig. 7” to " Fig. 8". Change“e” to "c".
Response 3: Thank you for these careful corrections. We have corrected the spelling error in the Materials and Methods section by changing “representive” to “representative”. We also corrected the figure citation from “Fig. 7” to “Fig. 8” in the SEM-related text, and changed “e” to “c” in the Figure 3 caption. These corrections have improved the accuracy of the manuscript. (Line 126; Line 449; Line 454; Line 818)
Comment 4: They are actually phylum level taxa, not species.
Response 4: We agree with the reviewer. The taxa discussed in the co-occurrence network and SEM analyses are phylum-level taxa rather than species. We have replaced “species,” “key microbial species,” and “key microbial communities” with “phylum-level microbial taxa,” “microbial phyla,” or “network-associated microbial phyla,” as appropriate. (Lines 323, 328, 335, 338, 347, 350, 354, 357, 838)
In the Results section, the co-occurrence network analysis now uses “network-associated microbial phyla” instead of “key phylum”. (Lines 323, 328, 335, 338)
In the SEM Results section, Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, and Chloroflexi are now described as microbial phyla positively associated with PE, rather than species or key microbial communities. (Lines 347, 350, 354, 357)
We also revised the Figure 8 caption by replacing “key microbial species” with “phylum-level microbial taxa”. (Line 838)
Comment 5: The model fit criteria stated earlier that GFI should fall within 0.95-1.00, but in Figure 8, GFI = 0.945, which is below the authors’ own standard.
Response 5: We thank the reviewer for noting this issue. We have revised the model-fit description to make the criteria clearer and more consistent with the reported results. In the revised manuscript, all SEM fit indices were reported to two decimal places. Thus, the original GFI value of 0.945 was rounded to 0.95. We also clarified the commonly used interpretation of GFI: values ≥ 0.90 are generally considered to indicate acceptable model fit, while values close to or above 0.95 indicate good fit. Therefore, the rounded GFI value of 0.95, together with CMIN/df = 1.02, P = 0.42, RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 1.00, and NFI = 0.98, indicates that the model achieved acceptable overall fit. We also revised the text to emphasize that SEM was used as an exploratory approach and that the fitted pathways were interpreted as statistical associations rather than definitive causal effects. (Lines 248-250; Lines 257-263; Lines 345-348; Lines 838-839)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4985-AC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Qinyao Li, 30 May 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4985', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 May 2026
reply
The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic concerning the effects of Tibetan sheep and plateau pika excrements on soil priming effects and microbial communities across alpine meadow soils with different degrees of degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The study combines stable isotope techniques, soil physicochemical analyses, high-throughput sequencing, microbial co-occurrence network analysis, and structural equation modeling, resulting in a potentially valuable and comprehensive dataset.
Overall, the manuscript is scientifically interesting and relevant to the scope of SOIL. The topic is novel, and the integration of isotope-based measurements with microbial community analyses is a notable strength. The results provide useful insights into the relationships among meadow degradation, microbial community composition, stoichiometric ratios, and soil carbon dynamics.
However, several substantial issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
The most important concern is the possibility of pseudoreplication. According to the Methods, soils collected from multiple plots within each degradation category were mixed before incubation. If the three field plots were composited into a single bulk sample for each degradation level, then the incubation replicates represent technical rather than true biological replicates. This issue has major implications for the validity of the ANOVA, PERMANOVA, and structural equation modeling results. The authors should clearly define the true experimental unit and explain how field replication was preserved throughout the study.
The ecological relevance of the excrement application rate (9 g excrement added to 120 g soil) also requires stronger justification. This rate appears relatively high and may not accurately represent field conditions. The authors should provide equivalent field-scale estimates and discuss how the selected rate may influence the magnitude of priming effects and microbial responses.
Several conclusions based on microbial co-occurrence networks and structural equation modeling are presented too strongly. These analyses are based on correlations and do not demonstrate direct causal relationships. Statements regarding “key microbial phyla,” “community stability,” and causal mechanisms should be interpreted more cautiously.
There is also an inconsistency between the Abstract and the Results. The Abstract reports a negative correlation between Proteobacteria and priming effects, whereas the Results and structural equation model indicate a positive direct effect of Proteobacteria on priming effects. This contradiction must be resolved.
The manuscript further provides management recommendations such as restricting grazing and plateau pika activity. Because the study is based on a short-term laboratory incubation, these recommendations should be presented more cautiously and framed as hypotheses requiring field validation.
The Data Availability statement should be improved by depositing raw sequencing data and associated metadata in a public repository such as NCBI SRA.
Finally, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical and stylistic issues and would benefit from careful English language editing.
In summary, this manuscript addresses an important scientific question and contains potentially valuable data. Nevertheless, substantial revisions are required to clarify the experimental design, strengthen the statistical interpretation, and moderate the conclusions.
I recommend that the manuscript be reconsidered after major revisions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4985-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Qinyao Li, 01 Jun 2026
reply
Response to Reviewer 2
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our study and for the constructive comments. We are pleased that the reviewer recognized the importance of the topic and the value of integrating stable isotope techniques, soil physicochemical analyses, high-throughput sequencing, microbial co-occurrence network analysis, and structural equation modeling. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. The major revisions include clarifying the experimental unit, justifying the excrement addition rate, moderating the interpretation of network and SEM results, correcting inconsistencies between the Abstract and Results, revising management implications, improving the Data Availability statement, and editing the language throughout the manuscript.
Comment 1: The most important concern is the possibility of pseudoreplication. According to the Methods, soils collected from multiple plots within each degradation category were mixed before incubation. If the three field plots were composited into a single bulk sample for each degradation level, then the incubation replicates represent technical rather than true biological replicates. This issue has major implications for the validity of the ANOVA, PERMANOVA, and structural equation modeling results. The authors should clearly define the true experimental unit and explain how field replication was preserved throughout the study.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern. We apologize for the ambiguity in the original Methods description. The three 50 m × 50 m plots within each degradation level were not pooled into one bulk soil sample. Instead, soil cores collected within each 50 m × 50 m plot were homogenized to form one plot-level composite sample, and samples from different plots were kept separate. We have revised the Methods section to clarify that the plot-level composite sample, rather than the individual soil core or incubation bottle, represented the biological replicate. Specifically, three independent 50 m × 50 m plots were selected for each degradation level, and one plot-level composite sample was obtained from each plot. Therefore, three independent plot-level composite samples were used as biological replicates for each degradation level in the incubation experiment. (Lines 133–142)
Comment 2: The ecological relevance of the excrement application rate (9 g excrement added to 120 g soil) also requires stronger justification. This rate appears relatively high and may not accurately represent field conditions. The authors should provide equivalent field-scale estimates and discuss how the selected rate may influence the magnitude of priming effects and microbial responses.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that the ecological relevance of the excrement addition rate should be more clearly justified. In the revised manuscript, we added the rationale for selecting the 9 g addition rate and provided an equivalent field-scale estimate. In the Methods section, we now explain that the 9 g addition rate was selected based on a preliminary test using 3 g, 9 g, and 15 g excrement additions per 120 g dry soil. We also state that the 9 g excrement addition corresponded to 7.5% of soil dry mass and was equivalent to approximately 120–150 Mg dry excrement ha⁻¹. Based on the measured organic C concentrations of the excrements, this addition supplied approximately 3.03 g C from Tibetan sheep excrement and 2.57 g C from plateau pika excrement per 120 g dry soil. We further clarified that this relatively high rate was intended to simulate localized excrement-enriched microsites or nutrient hotspots rather than average meadow-wide excrement deposition. (Lines 162–169).
We also revised the Discussion to state that such high organic matter and nutrient inputs may amplify PE by increasing labile C and nutrient availability. Therefore, the observed PE should be interpreted as a response of localized excrement-enriched microsites rather than an average meadow-wide response. (Lines 369–374; Lines 380-381)
Comment 3: Several conclusions based on microbial co-occurrence networks and structural equation modeling are presented too strongly. These analyses are based on correlations and do not demonstrate direct causal relationships. Statements regarding “key microbial phyla,” “community stability,” and causal mechanisms should be interpreted more cautiously.
Response 3: We agree with the reviewer. We have revised the manuscript to avoid overinterpreting correlation-based co-occurrence networks and SEM results. Terms such as “key microbial phyla,” “directly influenced,” “direct positive impact,” and “community stability” were replaced with more cautious expressions, including “network-associated microbial phyla,” “phylum-level microbial taxa,” “positively associated with,” and “network topology/connectivity.” In the Methods section, we clarified that SEM was applied as an exploratory approach to evaluate potential direct and indirect statistical associations, rather than to infer direct causal relationships. We also added that the fitted SEM pathways were interpreted as statistical associations rather than definitive causal effects. (Lines 247–250; Lines 259–264)
In the Results section, we revised the SEM description to use association-based language. For example, excrement type was described as negatively associated with PE, while Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, and Chloroflexi were described as positively associated with PE. We also revised “key phylum” to “network-associated microbial phyla” in the microbial network analysis. (Lines 323, 325–328, 335,338; Lines 345–357)
In the Discussion, SEM-related statements were revised to emphasize potential associations rather than direct causal mechanisms. For example, the manuscript now states that SEM suggested potential associations among stoichiometric ratios, phylum-level microbial taxa, and SOC PEs. (Lines 435–476)
Comment 4: There is also an inconsistency between the Abstract and the Results. The Abstract reports a negative correlation between Proteobacteria and priming effects, whereas the Results and structural equation model indicate a positive direct effect of Proteobacteria on priming effects. This contradiction must be resolved.
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. This was a writing error in the original Abstract. The negative coefficient originally reported for Proteobacteria referred to the pathway from meadow degradation degree to Proteobacteria, not the association between Proteobacteria and PE. We corrected the Abstract to state that Actinobacteriota, Proteobacteria, and Chloroflexi were positively associated with PE. We also described these relationships as associations rather than direct effects. The revised Abstract now reports that soil C:N ratio was positively associated with Proteobacteria, whereas the NO₃⁻-N:NH₄⁺-N ratio was negatively associated with Actinobacteriota. (Lines 25–28)
The Results section now reports the SEM relationships consistently: Proteobacteria was positively associated with PE, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.29, whereas meadow degradation degree was negatively associated with Proteobacteria, with a standardized path coefficient of −0.52. (Lines 349–357)
Comment 5: The manuscript further provides management recommendations such as restricting grazing and plateau pika activity. Because the study is based on a short-term laboratory incubation, these recommendations should be presented more cautiously and framed as hypotheses requiring field validation.
Response 5: We agree with the reviewer. We removed the strong management recommendations from the Abstract and revised the relevant statements in the Discussion and Conclusions to make them more cautious. In the revised Abstract, we now state that the findings provide a potential mechanistic explanation for PE responses in excrement-enriched microsites of degraded alpine meadow soils, and that whether these incubation-based responses reflect long-term grassland carbon dynamics requires further field validation. (Lines 30–33)
In the Discussion, we revised the management-related statement to note that the potential benefit of Tibetan sheep excrement for restoring degraded meadows should be verified through long-term field experiments before being translated into management recommendations. (Lines 488–490)
In the Conclusions, we now state that, because the study was conducted under short-term laboratory incubation conditions and used a relatively high excrement addition rate, future long-term field experiments are needed to verify whether regulating livestock grazing, plateau pika disturbance, and excrement-derived organic inputs can effectively influence soil carbon dynamics and alpine meadow restoration. (Lines 511–516)
Comment 6: The Data Availability statement should be improved by depositing raw sequencing data and associated metadata in a public repository such as NCBI SRA.
Response 6: We agree with the reviewer. We have revised the Data Availability statement. The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study have been deposited in Mendeley Data and are publicly available at [DOI: 10.17632/v2grfymnt7.2]. The deposited dataset includes raw bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal ITS sequencing data, associated sample metadata, and the main data used for statistical analyses. Additional information supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. (Lines 518–523)
Comment 7: Finally, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical and stylistic issues and would benefit from careful English language editing.
Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript for grammar, clarity, and terminology. We corrected unclear or inaccurate expressions in the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, and figure captions. For example, we revised the Abstract to improve logical consistency and clarity, clarified the research focus in the Introduction, revised SEM-related wording in the Methods and Results, and replaced inaccurate terms such as “species” with “phylum-level microbial taxa” in the Figure 8 caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4985-AC3 -
RC3: 'Reply on AC3', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2026
reply
he authors have carefully addressed most of the concerns raised in the previous review. The revised manuscript is substantially improved in terms of methodological clarification, interpretation of the SEM and network analyses, consistency between the Abstract and Results, and the presentation of management implications. In particular, the clarification regarding the experimental design and biological replication significantly improves the transparency of the study. The revised discussion of the excrement addition rate and its relevance to localized excrement-enriched microsites is also appropriate. I also appreciate the authors’ efforts to moderate causal interpretations associated with microbial co-occurrence networks and structural equation modeling. Nevertheless, I encourage the authors to ensure that the revised Methods section fully and unambiguously describes the sampling and replication structure, especially regarding the handling of plot-level composite samples and the effective biological replication used in the statistical analyses. In addition, although the interpretation of the microbial network analyses has been moderated, the manuscript should still avoid implying ecological stability beyond what can be directly supported by correlation-based network topology metrics. Overall, the manuscript has improved considerably and now provides valuable insights into priming effects and microbial associations in degraded alpine meadow soils. I believe the manuscript could be suitable for publication after minor revision and careful editorial checking of the revised text
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4985-RC3
-
RC3: 'Reply on AC3', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2026
reply
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Qinyao Li, 01 Jun 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 649 | 268 | 98 | 1,015 | 154 | 89 | 167 |
- HTML: 649
- PDF: 268
- XML: 98
- Total: 1,015
- Supplement: 154
- BibTeX: 89
- EndNote: 167
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This article addresses a potentially valuable topic and includes relatively rich types of data. However, there are currently two obvious issues. I recommend that the authors carefully review and revise the manuscript. Other minor issues have been noted in the comments.