Introducing a New Pyrogenic Podzolic Sub-Horizon to Clarify Organic Matter Pools in Pine Forest Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article provides information on the association after wild fires, which have acent on the detail morphological soil descriptions of pine forest soils and horizons identification. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the potential correlation between carbon loss and its deposition depended on for the specification after a ground and crown wild fire in pine forest.

The discussion focuses on the limitations of a field diagnostic, which is need within the upper part of the podzol horizon (E), as a principle to mark this layer during field description, sampling and analytical procedure. This article raises a potentially important issue that need to be considered when interpreting the distinct morphological features of the organic-mineral pyrogenic sub-horizon (Eopyr) as well as the greying pyrogenic podzolic horizon (Epyr). It has to be considered the challenge in accounting for and describing the thin pyrogenic organic-mineral sub-horizon due to its placement at the boundary between the organic and mineral sections of the soil profile. This article did the conclusions about specific effects of study and the proposal to separate the surface part of the pyrogenic podzolic horizon Epyr into a new pyrogenic organic-mineral sub-horizon Eopyr, consisting of a charcoal, detritus, humus, and mineral particles. It has concluded, that Eopyr and Epyr differ in color intensity as well in larger inclusions compared to the Epyr horizon.

Usually the post-fire is associated with soil degradation, as well the result common consists of much more stable compounds such as humic substances, PyrCo and detritus.

The study has found association with the humic matter absorbed by detritus and charcoal on the total carbon content and focus on the soil organic matter precise measurements of carbon pools as in forest litter as well in soil.

The authors should consider revising their references as [9] was not found in the main text. There is a concern of terminology of litter and forest floor.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in editing our manuscript. Your input has greatly improved the quality of our work. We appreciate your help in enhancing our manuscript.

The manuscript was also substantially revised based on the comments of all the experts.

A native speaker has made corrections to the English language grammar.

You will find detailed responses to your comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is not significant enough for publication and has flaws in some of its technical details and English grammar. The paper is not wrong, but the data are insufficient and there are only two soil profiles. Please give more soil profiles and statistics for this research.

Here are some mistakes and comments. 

Line 63- The distribution and quantity of PyrCo in the soil profile after forest fires have BEEN  poor investigated.

Line 65 –soil surface have BEEN  not studied

Line 65 – The detail-ed  information –bad English !  

Line 70 –2022). Mistake

Line 93 - (https:/. ???

Line 113 – Figure 1 is confusing.

Line 205 - 4.1. Vegetation and the Recent Forest Fires History at the Studied Sites – move this paragraph in materials and methods .

Line 244 - (8 Gorshkov et al., 2005). [8] !

Line 252  - Albic Podzol – please give a citation for classification – WRB 2022 or other?

Line 348 - Komi Republic (Dymov et al., 2022)  - strange citation in conclusion?

Line 359 - forests.enable ??

Here are some

Line 63- The distribution and quantity of PyrCo in the soil profile after forest fires have BEEN  poor investigated.

Line 65 –soil surface have BEEN  not studied

Line 65 – The detail-ed  information –bad English !  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in editing our manuscript. Your input has greatly improved the quality of our work. We appreciate your help in enhancing our manuscript.

Additionally, we have incorporated feedback from two other reviewers and included data from two key sites in the Results section. For each location, the average values for five distinct samples per bee subterranean and surface layer are provided.

We have addressed any spelling errors you may have noticed.

A native speaker has made corrections to the English language grammar.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript “Introducing a new pyrogenic podzolic sub-horizon to clarify organic matter pools in pine forest soils” deals with pedogenic characterisation of soil profile and the processes of formation of a thin organo-mineral pyrogenic horizon in green-moss pine forests after fires in southern taiga, Russia. The authors propose to separate the surface layer of the pyrogenic podzolic horizon Epyr into a new pyrogenic organic-mineral sub-horizon Eopyr.

 The topic of the article is quite relevant, especially considering the increasing frequency of forest fires, which not only damage the environment but also affect the genesis of the soil profile. The research was done correctly.

 However, sometimes it is difficult to follow the main idea of the authors because the writing style is not entirely fluid. In addition, there are many grammatical, stylistic and spelling errors.

 The structural organization of the article also requires consideration for compliance with the standards.

For example, the first paragraphs in the Results section refer to the Materials and Methods section.

While the section 2. Literature Review. State of Art is a part of Introduction section.

And the sub-sections 2.2. and 2.3. are parts of Discussion section.

Detailed comments and suggestions are given in the text in a highlighted mode.

Below there are some of the comments:

Abstract:

Lines: 15-16: “Scientists mark this layer during field description of soils, but do not sample and analyze it”. – rewrite this sentence something like this “Usually this layer is recorded during field surveys but is not sampled or analysed”

 The sections “Introduction” and “Literature Review. State of Art” should be combined into one Introduction section. The introduction of the article involves a review of published articles.

 Line 42: Did you mean "State of soil organic matter"? What does mean "Stationary of soil organic matter"?

 Line 46: May be better to say something like "... and the methods used in this study such as fieldworks and laboratory analyses...."

 Line 47: “The aim of his study was ….”

 Line 53: Shouldn't the scientific names of plants be in italics?

 Lines 58-59: the source reference for soil classification should be given, for example WRB 2014; or Soil Taxonomy, or FAO...

 Line 65: have not been studied

 Line 66: "Detailed soil description reported (or indicated)...".

 Line 69-70: “For example the authors have determined the profile of the Albic Podzols (Komi Republic) as Oi/Qpyr—Oepyr—Epyr—E—Bs—BC [7]. 2022).” Correct the sentence, something like:

“For example [7] determined the profile of the Albic Podzols (Komi Republic) as Oi/Qpyr—Oepyr—Epyr—E—Bs—BC.”

 Lines 71-72: (Vaccinium vitis-idaea, Ledum palustre) – Latin names of the plants should be in italic font.

Line 93: (https:/. – ???

Lines 117-119: Legend of the Figure 1. Please explain better this “Processes: 7. surface input of pyrogenic compounds on the soil; 8. mixing of pyrogenic compounds with the upper layer of the podzolic horizon E”. Did you mean 7. Ground fire and 8. Crown fire?

 Line 130: “…usually removed and lost data….” – not clear. Please correct

 Lines 131-132: correct writing; not clear

 Line 138: How shoots (plant shoots?) can be a pyrogenic form of carbon?

 All subsequent comments are indicated in the article itself, highlighted in yellow with comments

 Conclusions:

Lines 346-349: these sentences are not for the conclusion.

English must be greatly improved. Some places aren't readable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in editing our manuscript. Your input has greatly improved the quality of our work. We appreciate your help in enhancing our manuscript.

A native speaker has made corrections to the English language grammar.

You will find detailed responses to your comments in the attated file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made the changes. So the manuscript can be accepted.