Evaluation of Soil Loss Tolerance and Tree Growth Features Based on Planting Ground Methods in the Alpine Center, Degraded Forestland in the Republic of Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

Greeting!

After reviewing your manuscript, I found that you did a poor field experiment design. Even, I could not find a clear trial design, e.g. split-plot, etc. No clear sampling design or laboratory analysis.

You should consider this issue for sound scientific study.

Keep good work

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract is descriptive and qualitative. Hence, this needs rewriting. Addition of introduction is needed in the start of Abstract.

Please ensure “mix-seeding”? Line 57. Its seeding or seedling?

Introduction part is not fully justify the Title of the study. Please re-write it.

The authors carefully check the typos throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is quite interesting and informative paper about soil management and reclamation practice in degrader lands of Korea under various tretments of the soil surface. This paper give some contribution to undestanding soil losses rate and redistribution of soil particles in landscape under various chemical and biochemical treatments. Experiment is clear and well described. But, only one notice I can give for major reconsideration of paper - why there is no any ecological and pedological interpretation of data? Forest is process, soil is a process. In a current form there are no analyses of soil develoments nad forest develoment, data presented like a dataset, but not like analyses and interpretation of environmental processes, so I reccomend to turn discussion to ecosystem as whole.

followng questions and comments adressed to authors:

-how did you classified soil types and subtypes in the studied plot?

-what is "soil hardness" - density or penetration?

-what type of climate and precipitation/evaporation rate in plot of study?

-reference no 14 shoud be amended by some international manual for soil chemical analyses

-the chapter "results and discussion" is started from soil climatic characteristic, but, first of all, it should starts from soil morphology, characteristics of soil horizons, soil sufraces.

-OM and TM nitrogen data should be provided in g/kg

-I dont beleiwe to 0,00 % content on Nitrogen even in biochar version - this is mistake.

-why pH was measured with soil and water ration 1:5 , normale rate is 1:2,5

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors provided comments for all of my suggestions, at the same time, I think that confusion with soil-water ration should be expained in materials and methods chapte, nameley, you have to explaine if data, derived with ratio 1:5 are comparable with data obtained by normal way with soilto water ration 1:2,5

Also, at least soil naming on level of order according to WRB or USDA taxonomy should be provided.

Author Response

Firstly, we authors really appreciated your comments on this manuscript. We have attached the revised manuscript, and any changes made were marked in blue colored with bold text.

For the comments related to the soil-water ratio, we have added a sentence in Lines 147-148.

Also, in Lines 234-235, we have classified the soil according to the USDA taxonomy.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx