Macro- and Microelements and the Impact of Sub-Mediterranean Downy Oak Forest Communities on Their Composition in Rainwater

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the paper entitled "Macro- and Microelements and the Impact of Sub-Mediterranean Downy Oak Forest Communities on Their Composition in Rainwater", submitted to the Forests journal. Overall I found the paper quite interesting as the study of the chemical composition of precipitation and its variability due to the different land cover are important in the context of rainwater purification and geochemical issues. However, I the current form the manuscript should not be published and I recommend some changes and improvements before resubmitting the manuscript. My general remarks are listed below:

1. The introduction section should better highlight the novelty of the work and how the paper differentiates from the wide literature on the subject, e.g. what new or modified methods were applied?

2. Study area paragraph should be added, as in the current form there is no specific information about Crimean Peninsula. Please report the type of the climate; the Köppen-Geiger typology is recommended to use due to its global recognition.

3. Although the methods were reported, in some places the description should be definitely more extended. The samples were collected several times – so the results report average values of concentrations? Why the authors did not present the seasonal variability of the chemical composition of rainwater? Moreover, additional details are needed on sample analysis. Do the authors consider a proper quality control for sampling regime and samples analysis? The authors point out that some of the trace elements was below the detection limit. What was the detection limit? What certified reference materials were used? This should be reported.

I'm also wondering about the photo showing the rain gauge under the forest canopy. There is a lot of light there, which indicates that the area is little covered by the tree crowns...

4. The paper needs more graphical content, as tables are generally hard to read and analyze...

5. In the case of the macroelements (such as Ca, Mg, Na, K) in table 1 you could use mg/L.

6. The Results and Discussion sections should be linked into one paragraph. In the current form the discussion section reports the results, as well as some information about statistical analysis (why there is no information about the correlation analysis in the methods section?). Overall, the manuscript is poorly structured and simultaneously – very chaotic and difficult to read. I recommend to rewrite the whole paper in more sophisticated way, as in fact it brings some interesting findings about the role of canopy cover in water chemical composition modification.

Minor editing of English language is required (some sentences are difficult to read). 

Author Response

Dear reviewer!
Thank you very much for your interest in the article. The attached file contains responses to your comments.
Best regards, authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Lines 36-37 The composition of the atmosphere is rather constant. Please reformat this sentence. 

37-38 Dry deposition and wet deposition. 

39 Start a new paragraph. 

Lines 39-40 This is an oversimplification. Complete this sentence. 

Line 40 Since dust can be deposited on soil and plants by both wet and dry deposition, the composition of rainfall does not necessarily translate into forest pollution. Please include this in your considerations. 

42-46 Please support these statements with references.

Introduction 32-46 is a bit chaotic and lacks support in the literature. Please add. 

76-77 References?

Methods: 87-105 Some of the work is lengthy and the results are published in different articles. Please provide a brief characterisation of the area analysed without searching for this information in other articles. 

Please indicate how many combined samples were analysed and what volume was obtained each time.

112-117 is not a method

118-133 In the description of the methodology, please state what was determined and the method or formula by which the values were calculated. An explanation of the background should be given in the discussion section. 

Figure 2 What is normal?

Table 1 It would be better to give some of the results in mg or even g. 

165-167 Delete this sentence as you are presenting some results.

167-168 How is this possible?

In your paper you refer to the impact of industrial activities. At what distance from the study area are there industrial sites whose emissions could have influenced the results? What kind of facilities are they?

Conclusions should concisely summarise the results obtained and not be an extension of the discussion. Please correct this.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!
Thank you very much for your interest in the article. The attached file contains responses to your comments.
Best regards, authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 88 - Materials and methods – two times!

Line 102 - Precipitation samples were collected from July 2020 to September  2020, and from April 2021 to January 2022. How many samples were taken?

Line  162 - heavy metals (Fe, Co, Ni, Sr) -    V, Cr, Mn, Cu, Cd, Pb, these are also heavy metals

Line 215 -  slightly alkaline pH (average 6.56) – slightly acidic.

Line 259 Table 3. The correlation coefficient between element concentrations and mean monthly precipitation (α = 0.05) – please explain how many samples were analyzed.

Please give a correlation matrix  coefficient between element concentrations.

Correlation between pH and  all other values almost always gives correlation because pH varies too low!

Line 355 – The conclusion is too long. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!
Thank you very much for your interest in the article. The attached file contains responses to your comments.
Best regards, Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been revised on the basis of recommendations from the previous review. In addition, responses to my comments have been included which sufficiently improve the perception of the paper.

In its present form, the paper is suitable for publication.