Afforestation of Abandoned Agricultural Land: Growth of Non-Native Tree Species and Soil Response in the Czech Republic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript investigates the initial growth performance of three introduced tree species (Castanea sativa, Platanus acerifolia, and Corylus colurna) under three soil treatment regimens on afforested agricultural land in the Doubek Locality, Czech Republic, specifically on sites of abandoned agricultural soil. Authors conducted a long-term field study (2020-2024) to evaluate the survival and mortality of the tree species, and compare the soil dynamics among the three ecosystems with two soil-improving materials (Humac and Alginit). The key findings provide essential insights into improving afforested agricultural land through tree species selection and soil quality enhancement. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed. The major comments are listed as follows:
Abstract
- The abbreviations such as "Subplot II", "control-C", "KS", "LS", etc., need to be written out in full when they first appear.
Introduction
- The research question or hypothesis should be clearlyproposed in this section.
- Alginitor Alginate? Given that the research pertains to soil improvement and materials utilized in soil experiments, “Alginate” should be specified as the correct term. Kindly confirm its usage with the research context.
- In this section, the rationale for using Humac and Alginit as soil treatment agents should be clearly articulated.
Results
- The presentation of the figures and tables lacks effectiveness and could be significantly improved. They need to be enhanced in order to better convey the information. In general, the Figures and Tables should clearly illustrate the differences between species, soil treatments, and measurement years. Table 1 presents information similar to that in Figures 2-4. Therefore, this data should be displayed only in the figures to avoid redundancy.
- The statistical difference between soil treatments needs to be tested. Additionally, the interaction between tree species and soil treatments needs to be tested.
- All measurements (including soil properties) should be clearly presented in figures or tables, in accordance with the appropriate statistical results.
Discussion
- The citation “as reported by [37].”on line 420 should be corrected to “as reported by Novák et al.[37].” Similar errors, where only the reference number is used without the authors' names, should be reviewed and corrected throughout the entire manuscript to ensure proper citation format.
- The relationship between soil properties and initial growth performance need to be further discussed in this section.
Conclusion
- The current version is somewhat lengthy; as suggested, the conclusion should be more concise.
Author Response
We provided our point-to-point response letter in a folder
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is of particular interest to specialists and contains a large set of data. However, there are questions about the design and some data.
Can Figure 1 be made clearer? The captions in
the drawings are hard to read .
For a better understanding, add a table with the names of the soil types for each site and the basic properties (pH, organic matter content, granulometric composition, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium,
etc., which you determined) before starting the experiment.
Work on the design of table 4. It is very difficult to understand the information.
If you have received a difference in the properties of humus horizons, it is advisable to add information about the ash composition of plant litter.
This information can help explain the pH and phosphorus levels.
What is the percentage of grassy vegetation on each site? Probably, the contribution of deciduous and grass litter can help explain the results obtained.
If the difference in chemical composition is well expressed for the lower horizons of soils, is this not related to different soil-forming rocks?
If some areas were used for agriculture, what crops were grown there and what fertilizers? Maybe this will help explain your results.
I hope the answers to these questions will help improve your manuscript.
Author Response
We provided our point-to-point response letter in a folder
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to the important and urgent issue of afforesting abandoned agricultural lands. The authors evaluated the initial growth of Castanea sativa, Platanus acerifolia, and Corylus colurna under three soil treatments on abandoned agricultural soil, evaluate the survival and mortality of the tree species, and compare the soil dynamics among the three ecosystems. However, the use of non-native species is still quite controversial, it would be interesting if a study was conducted to compare the impact on soils of native and non-native species. The study has practical potential, but the theoretical significance is not emphasized.
Title
The title generally matches the content. However, I would recommend specifying the species.: “Initial Growth of Castanea sativa, Platanus acerifolia, and Corylus colurna on Afforested Agricultural Land: Soil Comparison in Three Ecosystems with Two Soil-Improving Materials In the Doubek Locality, Czech Republic”.
Abstract
In my opinion, it is worth emphasizing the novelty of the study and adding more quantitative results, and it is also worth strengthening the theoretical and practical significance of the study.
Introduction
The introduction does not contain all the background information. In my opinion, the authors should add studies on the influence of Non-Native Tree Species on soils, on the development of the herbaceous layer, and also justify the choice of species for this study.
Materials and Methods
I recommend that authors include information about the native vegetation of the region in their description of the research area. It would also be good to provide information about how long the agricultural land was abandoned, what was previously grown on it, and what fertilizers and pesticides were used there.
I don't quite understand why other tree plantings (subplot I) are mentioned, since they are not studied in this paper. Perhaps it would have been worth mentioning in the introduction, briefly writing what is important for the study area, what plantings have already been made, and then stating the objectives of this study.
Data Collection and Analysis are not presented in detail. Soil sampling and data analysis should be supported by references. It is also worth describing the soil sample preparation, and describing in more detail the methods used to determine the height and increment (individual parameters) of the tree species and soil parameters. It is also worth describing the three soil treatments used.
In my opinion, it would be good to present a research outline to improve clarity and visibility.
Results
The results are not presented clearly and visually enough. In my opinion, the Latin names of tree species should be included in the figures. I recommend grouping the figures differently to increase their clarity. The height and increment of tree species should be shown in different figures. It would be nice to show the mean ± error in the figures.
Line 265. In my opinion, it is worth editing the title, noting that the time dynamics (2020-2024) are shown.
Line 276. The table needs editing. Perhaps you should not include the total value in the first column. That is, for each type, only provide mortality and healthy state of tree species.
Line 289. Units of measurement are not given.
Line 301. Edit the table to make it look concise and clear.
Discussion
The results are discussed quite well. However, I would recommend better placing the obtained results in an international context.
Conclusions
The conclusions should be presented more concisely and the theoretical significance of the study should be indicated.
Author Response
We provided our point-to-point response in a folder
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript authors are reporting about the Initial Growth of Selected Introduced Tree Species on Afforested Agricultural Land: Soil Comparison in Three Ecosystems with Two Soil-Improving Materials In the Doubek Locality in Czech Republic. The manuscript is well prepared and needful has been done. Although there are a few concerns that must be addressed.
In abstract section authors have argued that that control had the highest general growth for KS and LS, Alginite-A did best for PT, and Humac-B had the lowest growth. Soil dynamics among the three ecosystems showed that the old forest (Plot Two) significantly differs from the four other plots in Horizon. Authors finally concluded that sparing old forests and afforestation of abandoned agricultural soils using control treatment for improved tree growth and sustained soil quality. Authors must provide numerical data to support these findings and KS, LS, PT must be mentioned full in the abstract where used for the very first time.
In the introduction section authors have provided un necessary multiple citations e.g. line 71, 72. These must be omitted. Authors must provide some background insight about the use of Humac and Alginate. Why these materials were selected. Line 110-112 must be rephrased for better clarity.
line 169-181. It must be mentioned as a paragraph.
Heading 2.3. Data analysis seems too confusing for the readers. It has a lot of redundancy. It must be well written. Version of the SPSS software must be mentioned.
Heading 3.1. line 2.4. what type of increase authors are talking about? It must be made clear.
Graphs presented in figure 3 and 4 must be re-formatted keeping in view previously published manuscripts.
Data mentioned in section 3.1 regarding growth parameters must be provided as %age change in comparison to rest of the treatments e.g.
Standard error or standard deviation is missing in tables. The data must be mentioned as mean± standard error.
Why some values in table 4 are bold.
Like figures, tables must be formatted keeping in view previously published manuscript of the same journal.
Discussion is well written.
Authors must revise conclusion section and made it short as a small paragraph of few sentences consisting on take home message. Results must not be revised.
Author Response
We provided our point-to-point response in a folder
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no new comments.
Author Response
No review is needed
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYou've done enough work on the notes and the manuscript has improved significantly.
Author Response
No review is needed
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the article and taken into account some of my comments.
The authors have slightly changed the title of the article. The studied tree species are not included in the title. The abstract is supplemented with quantitative results.
The introduction has been revised and now contains the necessary background information.
The authors have supplemented the methodology and now I have no comments on this section.
The results section has been edited and now contains only tabular material, which reduces the clarity of the results. However, the results are presented quite clearly and are supported by statistical analysis.
The discussion was revised to reflect the international context.
Conclusions follow from the results and are reasonable. The authors did not emphasize the theoretical significance of the study for the global scientific community.
Author Response
We adapted all the comments, as you can see in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have done needful. The manuscript can be accepted.
Author Response
No review is needed
