Interactive comment on “ Silicon cycle in a temperate forest ecosystem : role of fine roots and litterfall recycling and influence of soil types ”

We would like to thank you (reviewer 1) for this careful review of our paper and the relevance of your comments and suggestions on both form and substance, notably regarding the literature proposed. The corrections made to the manuscript have substantially improved its quality. Please find in the joined pdf: (i) the responses to your comments and the location of the modifications in the revised manuscript with tracks, (ii) the revised version of the manuscript with tracks, (iii) the revised version of the manuscript without tracks, and (iv) the figures (7 in total).

different soil types (Dystric Cambisol, Eutric Cambisol, Rendzic Leptosol). In this context, Turpault et al. aimed to unravel the specific role of fine roots and soil properties on Si cycling. The authors found that fine roots potentially play an important role in Si cycling as their Si concentration seems to be comparable to the Si concentration of leaves. Furthermore, Turpault et al. found the Si concentrations in fine roots and leaves to be dependent on the concentration of dissolved Si in the soils. Turpault et al. concluded from their results that biological processes play a predominant role in Si cycling of the studied sites. In my opinion the article of Turpault et al. generally is of interest for the readers of BIOGEOSCIENCES. However, I identified several shortcomings of the manuscript which should be addressed before potential publication.
In general, the authors should: -Use units following the rules of the 'International System of Units' (e.g., g kg-1 and not g.kg-1; Please check the whole manuscript on that because in almost all units these dots were used) -add some literature that is most relevant to their article from my point of view and will help to present a more appropriate discussion of their results (please see my specific comments to the single sections below) -reconsider the presentation of their results (in the current form I found reading of some subsections of the results section quite exhausting as the authors only repeat the data one-on-one as given in the Tables; I also miss a 'joining' of data, e.g., by some simple correlation analyses) -rework some subsections (in the current manuscript there are some redundant passages in different subsections; Additionally, specific paragraphs should be displaced to corresponding subsections, e.g., methods should be given only in the Materials and Methods section) Please find corresponding details on the different subsections listed below. I am really  C7 l.550: I would recommend stating here that BSi in general is more soluble than soil minerals (Fraysse and co-workers did some nice experiments on this).
l.552: What about deforestation as an important Si output (anthropogenic desilicification)? Please also discuss this important factor and give corresponding literature.
l.563: Please replace 'amoebae' by 'testate amoebae'. Do you have an idea about the population size of testate amoebae at your site (individual numbers)?
ll.580-583: It is known that the concentration of dissolved Si is a key factor for Si concentrations of plant components (as you also write in your introduction). So please give corresponding literature here and do not highlight this result as a new one. Furthermore, there is also a phylogenetic factor, i.e., phytolith production is probably more influenced by the phylogenetic position of a plant than by environmental factors like temperature or Si availability. In this context, you should also discuss and cite, for example, Hodson et al. (2005)  ll.608/609: I would recommend using 'release' or 'instead of 'production'.      Fig. 1: What are the black arrows pointing at (micrograph c)? Please specify or give uniform arrows. Fig. 2 & 3: Why do you use single data of four years in one diagram (Fig. 2) and means with standard deviations in another one (Fig. 3)? I would recommend unifying the presentation of your results.    C10