Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the effects of plant species diversity and major plant functional types on mineland prairies productivity were studied, and the variation of prairie biomass and diversity were assessed by non-destructive methods.

1. The whole site is divided into 11 blocks, and each block is further divided into 312 experimental plots (Line168, 322 plots？). How much plots of each treatment？According to Figure S1, it seems that the area of each plot was not consistent. Will this affect the final statistical analysis?  

2. What are the reasons for selecting plots 1, 2, 6, 8, 10 for fertilization? Will the possible boundary effect make the fertilizer used in the fertilized plot have an impact on the biomass of the adjacent non-fertilized plot?

3. In FigureS1, it seems necessary to explain the usage of the 10 control plots and 5 unused areas around the sample plots.

4. Line 36，the reference style cited incorrect.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled ‘Plant species diversity and dominant plant functional types

 control productivity in a reclaimed mineland prairie' is an interesting paper that deals with the effect of restoration treatments on biomass, species richness and Shannon diversity.

 

The authors found that unfertilised plots generally had higher species richness, especially when seed mixtures were adopted. Furthermore, biomass was significantly correlated with Shannon diversity.

Overall, in my opinion the manuscript was presented correctly and clearly. I only have a few minor suggestions: 

1.   I strongly suggest checking the nomenclature throughout the paper according to the most accepted/used global checklists (e.g. Powo) and naming these plants accordingly using, when first mentioned, the authority, e.g. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30435428-2.

2.   I suggest a sentence in the introduction on the importance of increasing productivity and why it is important to measure it.

3.  I think that it should be better emphasised that the ecosystem function is not only linked to productivity and that this can decrease if non-native species are used, despite being productive.

4.   Explain where/how the information on C3-4 in Table 1 was obtained.

5.   In Table 1 ‘Indiangrass’ is without space

6.   Try to avoid personal sentences such as ‘surveys were completed by us in 2016’.

7.   I suggest that information on the plant composition in each plot should be given in the appendix

8.   I suggest improving the Discussion by mentioning the reliability of passive restoration (also called natural regeneration) as demonstrated elsewhere. See for instance:

Broughton, R. K., Bullock, J. M., George, C., Hill, R. A., Hinsley, S. A., Maziarz, M., ... & Pywell, R. F. (2021). Long-term woodland restoration on lowland farmland through passive rewilding. PloS one, 16(6), e0252466. 

Fois, M., Murgia, L., & Bacchetta, G. (2023). Plant diversity and species composition of the abandoned mines of the Iglesiente mining district (Sardinia, Italy): A restoration perspective. Ecological Engineering, 188, 106879. 

Řehounková, K., Vítovcová, K., & Prach, K. (2020). Threatened vascular plant species in spontaneously revegetated post‐mining sites. Restoration Ecology, 28(3), 679-686.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf