Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting study focusing on alluvial plains with forest types and landscapes that are highly dynamic. The complex interactions of natural conditions (i.e. climate dependent river/groundwater hydrology) and human interventions (hydraulic engineering, agricultural/forestry land-use) in a more pedological context haven't been subject to detailed studies so far.

The manuscript is well written and clearly structured. Language and style could be improved (see minor comments and suggestions for ext editing in the document attached). 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached corrected version of the manuscript "Morphology and physicochemical properties of alluvial soils in riparian forests after river regulation” (Dorota Kawalko, Pawel Jezierski, Cezary Kabala). We have addressed all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Nearly all suggestions were implemented in the corrected version. The only few omitted corrections are justified in the Response to Reviewer comments. Thank you the reviewers for their valuable help and improvements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am very happy that I could read this interesting article for me. The authors took up the difficult problem of describing soils of the riparian forest in the transformed river valley. They pointed to a very important classification issue that not all alluvial soils belong to the Fluvisols RSG.

The work is good in terms of content and analysis, description of the results and discussion. The article is based on many literature items. Abundant documentation of the results confirms the correctness of the descriptions

The language is understandable to the reader. The specialised vocabulary for soil science is sufficiently explained.

I have included some minor comments below.

lines 100 and 101

There is a reference to Figure 1: “Soil pits (21 in total) were located in 5 transects on the lowest terrace (former flood-100 plain) (Figure 1) […]”.

Rev.: Soil pits, 5 transects, and the lowest (?) terrace are not marked in the Fig. 1.

I am not sure, about English naming, but in the geomorphology, more common are “lower and higher/upper” floodplain terraces. E.g.:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0341816297000179

Only when there are more than two floodplain terraces in the river valley can the highest form of the adjective be used.

line 101

There is: “(a) typical riparian forest”.

Rev.: In my opinion, “typical” can be Ficario-Ulmetum minoris, but not riparian forest in general, especially when we generalize the concept of a riparian forest as a plant community.

Salici-Populetum R.Tx. 1931 Meijer Dress is also typical.

Klimo E., Hager H. eds. The Floodplain Forests in Europe: Current Situations and Perspectives. Chapter 4.1. Phytosociological characteristics of the most important  floodplain forest communities, page 256: “The Salici-Populetum communities dominate alluvial terraces bordering the river bed”.

line 105

There is: „study hane been”

Rev.: study have been?

line 116

There is: “the Munsell Colour Atlas”

Rev.: The formal name is “Munsell Color Charts” (color – am. English)

Not Atlas. The atlas definition is here: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/atlas

line 121

There is: “a soil:liquid ratio of 1:2.5 (v/v)”.

In my opinion the ratio is w/w.

van Reeuwijk 2002:

4-1.4. Procedure

“1. Weight 20 g fine earth […]”

Rev.: What is the volume of it?

“2. Add 50 ml liquid (water or 1 M KCl solution) […]”

Rev.: Weigh 50 ml of water is about 50 g.

20 g (soil) : 50 g (water) – the ratio is 1:2.5 w/w.

lines 124-126

There is: “The exchangeable acidity (EA) was measured potentiometrically after sample extraction with 1 M potassium chloride (pH 7).”

Rev.: If the Authors determined EA according to van Reeuwijk, it is probably not the potentiometrical method.

11-1.4.2. Determination of exangeable acidity – is the titration method.

Lines 153-154

There is: “Black dots indicate the top-153 soil (0-50 cm) and the red the subsoil (50-150 cm) […].”

Rev.: “the red the subsoil”. I am not sure is it correct.

line 156           Table 1

The header, there is: N – number. More often “n” is used.

Rev.: N – number, to put the abbreviation N in the explanations below the table? Or change similar to Fig. 8B – there is “n” – number.

Table 1, there is: pHw

Rev.: In van Reeuwijk [41] – pH-H₂O; to put the abbreviation pHw in the explanations below the table?

Line 174

Header, Tab. 2. There is: “Pearson correlation coefficients for the relationships […]”

English possessive? – Person’s correlation?

Line 243

„the SOC and BC concentrations”

Rev.: I am not sure if is “BC” (exchangeable base cations) the concentration. This is the cationic charge in a soil mass unit (cmol(+)/kg).

Line 255

„Alol” – All?

Line 408 Table 3

“Forests”, international journal of forestry and forest ecology.

Because the journal has a wide range of topics, not only soil science, it seems to me that it is worth describing the symbols of the Polish Soil Classification 2019. For most readers, even from Poland, these abbreviations (e.g.: CFbr, BFog, BFh-og) are unreadable.

Line 461

There is: “2016, p. 385”.

Rev.: No. 385, 131 pp.

https://wydawnictwo.up.lublin.pl/5412/?rid=13402

Line 465 and the next

There is: “Soil Sci. Annu.”

Rev.: The official abbreviation is Soil Sci. Ann.

http://ssa.ptg.sggw.pl/

Author Response

Please find attached corrected version of the manuscript "Morphology and physicochemical properties of alluvial soils in riparian forests after river regulation” (Dorota Kawalko, Pawel Jezierski, Cezary Kabala). We have addressed all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Nearly all suggestions were implemented in the corrected version. The only few omitted corrections are justified in the Response to Reviewer comments. Thank you the reviewers for their valuable help and improvements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf