Planting Native Herbaceous Species During Land Reclamation: 3-Year Growth Response to Soil Type and Competing Vegetation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

This manuscript presents a restoration study utilizing native herbaceous species in disturbed sites, with a particular focus on the potential use of early successional, perennial forbs for restoring the understory of previously undisturbed ecosystems. The study is timely and of academic value. The experimental design, including soil placement and vegetation competition control, offers practical insights for ecological restoration.

However, the manuscript requires improvements in its organization and clarity, consistency in terminology and formatting, and clearer description of methods and presentation of results. To enhance the scientific quality and readability of the paper, I recommend addressing the following revisions.

 

Major Reviews

1. Use and Citation of Supplemental Information

Supplemental materials should include additional or supporting data that are too detailed for the main text (e.g., full datasets, repeated trial results, detailed statistical values), as well as additional figures and tables (e.g., site maps [Figure S1], experimental schematics [Figure S2], supplementary tables [Table S1]) or code used in analysis.

In contrast, general descriptions of methodology, theoretical discussions, and references that can and should be integrated into the main text should not be relegated to the supplemental section.

In particular, herbicide treatment is a critical variable in this study. Therefore, detailed herbicide information currently placed in the supplemental material should be clearly stated in the main text.

Moreover, vague statements such as "See supplemental information for restoration treatment, soil placement, and herbicide details” appear frequently throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors should explicitly refer to specific figures or tables in the supplemental section using direct labels such as Figure S1, Table S1, etc., for clarity and transparency.

 

2. Abstract Clarity and Logical Structure

The abstract would benefit from a clearer logical flow. Please revise to ensure a smoother and more coherent structure connecting the background, research questions, methodology, results, and implications.

In particular, only one research question is currently presented in the abstract, while two research questions are outlined in the Introduction. This discrepancy should be corrected to reflect both questions accurately.

 

3. Result Presentation

The Results section is currently organized by species. Reorganizing the results based on response variables (e.g., survival rate, percent cover, biomass) would facilitate clearer cross-species comparisons and strengthen the logical structure of result interpretation.

This structure would also allow for a more integrated discussion of the effects of soil treatment and year.

 

Minor Reviews

1. (Lines 94–95) In the sentence: “All plant material was oven dried at 70°C until weight constancy and dry biomass weighed to the nearest 0.001 g. Mean root mass of showy aster was 2.0 g (±0.5 SD), spreading dogbane was 1.9 g (±0.4 SD) and goldenrod was 3.1 g (±1.3 SD),”

please clarify the unit of measurement. It is recommended to specify that the values refer to the mean root mass per individual seedling, e.g.,

“dry biomass was weighed to the nearest 0.001 g per individual seedling,”

to ensure clarity and reproducibility.

 

2. (Lines 85 & 98) The coordinate systems used to describe study locations are inconsistent. One uses degrees and minutes (e.g., 56°14′ N), while another uses decimal degrees (e.g., 56.23957°, -110.85934°).

For consistency and clarity, please adopt a single format, preferably decimal degrees, throughout the manuscript.

3. (Line 143, Table 1) According to Table 1, a statistically significant difference exists between the L and HC treatments in the first year, contrary to the description in the main text. Please revise the text accordingly to accurately reflect the results.

4.  (Lines 178–179) Panels in Figure 2 labeled as 2f, 2i, 2l should be corrected to Figure 3f, 3i, 3l, as they appear to be misnumbered.

Author Response

 

Reviewer #1

General Assessment

This manuscript presents a restoration study utilizing native herbaceous species in disturbed sites, with a particular focus on the potential use of early successional, perennial forbs for restoring the understory of previously undisturbed ecosystems. The study is timely and of academic value. The experimental design, including soil placement and vegetation competition control, offers practical insights for ecological restoration.

However, the manuscript requires improvements in its organization and clarity, consistency in terminology and formatting, and clearer description of methods and presentation of results. To enhance the scientific quality and readability of the paper, I recommend addressing the following revisions.

Major Reviews

1. Use and Citation of Supplemental Information

Supplemental materials should include additional or supporting data that are too detailed for the main text (e.g., full datasets, repeated trial results, detailed statistical values), as well as additional figures and tables (e.g., site maps [Figure S1], experimental schematics [Figure S2], supplementary tables [Table S1]) or code used in analysis.

In contrast, general descriptions of methodology, theoretical discussions, and references that can and should be integrated into the main text should not be relegated to the supplemental section.

In particular, herbicide treatment is a critical variable in this study. Therefore, detailed herbicide information currently placed in the supplemental material should be clearly stated in the main text.

Moreover, vague statements such as "See supplemental information for restoration treatment, soil placement, and herbicide details” appear frequently throughout the manuscript. Instead, the authors should explicitly refer to specific figures or tables in the supplemental section using direct labels such as Figure S1, Table S1, etc., for clarity and transparency.

 We have moved all contextual information and methodological details from the supplemental section to the main text, making sure to include critical elements such as herbicide treatment.

2. Abstract Clarity and Logical Structure

The abstract would benefit from a clearer logical flow. Please revise to ensure a smoother and more coherent structure connecting the background, research questions, methodology, results, and implications.

In particular, only one research question is currently presented in the abstract, while two research questions are outlined in the Introduction. This discrepancy should be corrected to reflect both questions accurately.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the abstract to improve logical flow and to clearly present both research questions outlined in the Introduction. 

3. Result Presentation

The Results section is currently organized by species. Reorganizing the results based on response variables (e.g., survival rate, percent cover, biomass) would facilitate clearer cross-species comparisons and strengthen the logical structure of result interpretation.

This structure would also allow for a more integrated discussion of the effects of soil treatment and year.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to organize the Results by response variables. However, we have retained the species-based organization because it better serves practitioners who may be interested in specific species and want to examine their responses in detail. Presenting results by species allows readers to directly evaluate survival, cover, and biomass for the species most relevant to their restoration goals, while still providing clear information on the effects of soil treatment and year within each species. 

Minor Reviews

1. (Lines 94–95) In the sentence: “All plant material was oven dried at 70°C until weight constancy and dry biomass weighed to the nearest 0.001 g. Mean root mass of showy aster was 2.0 g (±0.5 SD), spreading dogbane was 1.9 g (±0.4 SD) and goldenrod was 3.1 g (±1.3 SD),”

please clarify the unit of measurement. It is recommended to specify that the values refer to the mean root mass per individual seedling, e.g.,

“dry biomass was weighed to the nearest 0.001 g per individual seedling,”

to ensure clarity and reproducibility.

 Thank you for this comment, we have revised the sentence to be more specific.

2. (Lines 85 & 98) The coordinate systems used to describe study locations are inconsistent. One uses degrees and minutes (e.g., 56°14′ N), while another uses decimal degrees (e.g., 56.23957°, -110.85934°).

For consistency and clarity, please adopt a single format, preferably decimal degrees, throughout the manuscript.

We have changed all coordinates to decimal degrees.

3. (Line 143, Table 1) According to Table 1, a statistically significant difference exists between the L and HC treatments in the first year, contrary to the description in the main text. Please revise the text accordingly to accurately reflect the results.

Thanks, revised to reflect the results.

4. (Lines 178–179) Panels in Figure 2 labeled as 2f, 2i, 2l should be corrected to Figure 3f, 3i, 3l, as they appear to be misnumbered.

Thank you for noticing this, we have corrected the figure annotations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the findings presented in the manuscript ‘Planting native herbaceous species in land reclamation: 3-year growth response to soil type and competing vegetation’ to be clearly and simply presented in the figures and text. Occasionally, there is a slight need for harmonisation. The discussion is also substantial and clear, but would benefit from looking beyond the very limited scope.

 

Implications for Practice

Line 35: Previously, only the Latin plant names appeared, but here suddenly only the common names appear. Perhaps a step towards harmonisation could be taken.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Line 48 and elsewhere: double space

 

Lines 53 and following: Interesting and not universally applicable: In Germany, for example, there are many wild plant seed propagation companies that even use the regional seed principle (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2024.11.004; https://www.natur-im-vww.de/startseite/karte-der-ursprungsgebiete/), and the environmental authorities very often require the use of regional seeds for recultivation, but also for the construction of solar parks and roadside greenery.

 

Line 60: How are the occurrence rates to be understood?

 

Line 64: It would be appropriate to give the Latin names for all three species.

 

Line 68: I think ‘emerge’ is used instead of ‘arise’ in such contexts.

 

Lines 69 and following: What is the ultimate intention? To improve microclimatic conditions...?

 

 

METHODS

Line 103: Which ‘pre-emergent herbicide’?

 

Lines 108 and following: At first, it sounds like planting, but then the last sentence in the paragraph surprises us by saying that it is now about planting. So the preceding text was more of a description of the design. Can you clarify this? Please also explicitly state how many seedlings were used to start the experiment.

 

 

RESULTS

Lines 144-145: What do the numbers 0.25, 0.35 and 0.49 mean; would 1.0 correspond to 100% coverage? Can the standard deviations, which then follow in Table 1, already be indicated in the text with ±?

 

Line 171: A percentage cover value is now given here. See previous comment.

 

Line 177: Speaking of ‘living’ – there were losses among the planted seedlings. How were these handled in the calculations? Are they included as 0 values or left out?

 

Lines 214-215: Measurements of the longest lateral roots are noteworthy.

 

 

DISCUSSION

Lines 241 and following: The explanations are simple and coherent. Everything else will be difficult to prove, but it could be discussed. I will share my thematic observations with you; perhaps there is now some literature on this subject. In a prominent study area in the context of opencast lignite mining in Germany, we found the annual (winter annual) Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2011.07.001) to be the first spotaneous coloniser. These and other species, which are among the early pioneer species, showed particularly good individual performance when the substrate had been freshly disturbed (moved). If the substrate ‘settled’ over time, performance and fitness parameters, such as individual height, declined sharply. If a small-scale substrate movement (disturbance) occurred again somewhere, stronger individuals reappeared. At the time, I tried to explain this with an ‘initial nutrient peak’ hypothesis and other ideas, but in fact, the only thing that has been publicly acknowledged and supported is that these are phenomena of ‘initial overshooting’. Whatever the reason may be (for example, competition with organisms such as microbes or algae and cyanobacteria, which can colonise the newly created area in the soil or form biological soil crusts)… The view that it should be regarded as an opportunistic performance was ultimately widely supported by the expert audience at conferences (see title of the publication in Flora)! I think this could also be reflected in your data if the performance then declines in the third year in the N treatment with Solidago.

 

Line 255 and following: Goldenrod is a potent pioneer species on raw soil.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Line 325: Bibliographic reference missing – article number (849246).

 

Line 334: Bibliographic reference missing – end of page range (44–50).

 

Line 334: Bibliographic information missing – entire page range (703–732).

 

Line 348: Bibliographic information missing – entire page range (905–921).

 

Author Response

Reviewer #2

I find the findings presented in the manuscript ‘Planting native herbaceous species in land reclamation: 3-year growth response to soil type and competing vegetation’ to be clearly and simply presented in the figures and text. Occasionally, there is a slight need for harmonisation. The discussion is also substantial and clear, but would benefit from looking beyond the very limited scope.

Implications for Practice

Line 35: Previously, only the Latin plant names appeared, but here suddenly only the common names appear. Perhaps a step towards harmonisation could be taken.
Thank you for picking that up, we mentioned both scientific and common name, after first mention we will revert to using just the common name.

INTRODUCTION

Line 48 and elsewhere: double space

Reformatted in the updated version.

Lines 53 and following: Interesting and not universally applicable: In Germany, for example, there are many wild plant seed propagation companies that even use the regional seed principle (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2024.11.004; https://www.natur-im-vww.de/startseite/karte-der-ursprungsgebiete/), and the environmental authorities very often require the use of regional seeds for recultivation, but also for the construction of solar parks and roadside greenery.

 We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important example. We agree that in some regions, such as Germany, access to native plant propagules is facilitated by specialized seed companies and regulatory requirements promoting the use of regional seeds. Our statement was intended to reflect the broader challenge observed in North American contexts, where commercial availability of native forb propagules is often limited and species-specific germination requirements remain a barrier. We have clarified this regional context in the revised manuscript to avoid overgeneralization.

Line 60: How are the occurrence rates to be understood?

 Thank you, we have clarified this statement.

Line 64: It would be appropriate to give the Latin names for all three species.

Showy aster’s latin name was mentioned in the sentence prior, we mentioned both scientific and common name, after first mention we will revert to using just the common name.

Line 68: I think ‘emerge’ is used instead of ‘arise’ in such contexts.

We have changed to ‘emerge’. 

Lines 69 and following: What is the ultimate intention? To improve microclimatic conditions...?

We have added the ultimate intention of this work, which is to support biodiversity and improving the site’s long-term ecological resilience. 

METHODS

Line 103: Which ‘pre-emergent herbicide’?

We have added more information about the herbicide used in this sentence.

Lines 108 and following: At first, it sounds like planting, but then the last sentence in the paragraph surprises us by saying that it is now about planting. So the preceding text was more of a description of the design. Can you clarify this? Please also explicitly state how many seedlings were used to start the experiment.

We have tried to clarify this language as well as indicate the number of seedlings in the treatments and wholistically across the study.

RESULTS

Lines 144-145: What do the numbers 0.25, 0.35 and 0.49 mean; would 1.0 correspond to 100% coverage? Can the standard deviations, which then follow in Table 1, already be indicated in the text with ±?

We have clarified in the written text that these are proportions. We have included the confidence intervals along with the mean estimates in the text now.

Line 177: Speaking of ‘living’ – there were losses among the planted seedlings. How were these handled in the calculations? Are they included as 0 values or left out?

We calculated survival as a binomial model (0,1) to estimate the proportion of plants that were living each year.  This is also described in the statistics section.

Lines 214-215: Measurements of the longest lateral roots are noteworthy.

Agreed!

DISCUSSION

Lines 241 and following: The explanations are simple and coherent. Everything else will be difficult to prove, but it could be discussed. I will share my thematic observations with you; perhaps there is now some literature on this subject. In a prominent study area in the context of opencast lignite mining in Germany, we found the annual (winter annual) Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2011.07.001) to be the first spotaneous coloniser. These and other species, which are among the early pioneer species, showed particularly good individual performance when the substrate had been freshly disturbed (moved). If the substrate ‘settled’ over time, performance and fitness parameters, such as individual height, declined sharply. If a small-scale substrate movement (disturbance) occurred again somewhere, stronger individuals reappeared. At the time, I tried to explain this with an ‘initial nutrient peak’ hypothesis and other ideas, but in fact, the only thing that has been publicly acknowledged and supported is that these are phenomena of ‘initial overshooting’. Whatever the reason may be (for example, competition with organisms such as microbes or algae and cyanobacteria, which can colonise the newly created area in the soil or form biological soil crusts)… The view that it should be regarded as an opportunistic performance was ultimately widely supported by the expert audience at conferences (see title of the publication in Flora)! I think this could also be reflected in your data if the performance then declines in the third year in the N treatment with Solidago.

The data with goldenrod doesn’t seem to suggest a decline in growth, per se, in year 3. At least based on the cover data (Figure 2f). What is suggested above, however, is interesting to consider – it is possible that we could yet see a decline in vigor longer-term though as we don’t have this data yet, it is a limitation of the present study which we have acknowledged (L 457-463).

Line 255 and following: Goldenrod is a potent pioneer species on raw soil.

Agreed – an extremely versatile species in this context. In our region we also often find it co-occurring with other competitive, non-native graminoids and forbs. As these species can be a real challenge in land reclamation in our region, having a native species that can co-compete with these species and tolerate a wider range of soil conditions is advantageous.

REFERENCES

 

Line 325: Bibliographic reference missing – article number (849246).

 

Line 334: Bibliographic reference missing – end of page range (44–50).

 

Line 334: Bibliographic information missing – entire page range (703–732).

 

Line 348: Bibliographic information missing – entire page range (905–921).

 

Thank you for highlighting these missing details, they were integrated into the bibliography.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is of particular interest to specialists, but the manuscript does not have a general purpose of research. It is not clear what is fundamentally new in the presented study?

If the focus is on the relationship between soil preparation methods and the root system, then this needs to be described in more detail. It is advisable to first describe the recommended capacity of the humus horizon necessary for the development of the plant's root system, and then describe your options.

The physical parameters of soils regulating the water-air properties in the root zone are very important, but they are not included in the study.

There are also more questions about the manuscript:

How many FORb seedlings were used for the experiment?

Were all the seedlings similar in morphological parameters after extraction from the blocks?

What other root parameters besides mass have you studied?

Did the roots have a similar morphology? In our opinion, mass alone is not enough.

If there is, then for clarity it is good to add a photo of the roots of the studied plants or a schematic image.

From which soil was the surface layer formed for reclamation?

From what depth and in what order were soil samples taken?

Figure 1. Principal components analysis on soil properties (0-30 cm depth), but the Field study site description and experimental design section states that "The site contained four replica blocks where varying depths of topsoil were placed: standard topsoil placement with a target of 15 cm depth (H), shallow or low top soil depth placement with a target of 5 cm depth (L), and no topsoil placed (N)." How do you describe the soil parameters for a 0-30 cm layer? This is not entirely correct.

To evaluate the soil parameters, it is better to add a table with properties for each site. Figure 2 is not very suitable for this.

Placing Table 2, Figure 2, and Figure 3 in a row in the text without comments makes it difficult to perceive the information.

There is no conclusions section in the manuscript. For example, two questions were asked in the introduction and the answers to these questions can be written as conclusions.

It is necessary to work on the literary review in the "INTRODUCTION" section and think over the entire structure of the article once again.

I hope that these remarks will help improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

The manuscript is of particular interest to specialists, but the manuscript does not have a general purpose of research. It is not clear what is fundamentally new in the presented study?

We thank the reviewer for their comment. While the study focuses on specialists, its primary contribution is providing empirical evidence on the use of early successional, perennial native forbs to restore understory vegetation on disturbed sites, this is an area with limited published data as far as we have been able to find. The findings offer practical guidance for restoration practitioners and advance understanding of species-specific responses to soil treatments and planting approaches, representing a novel contribution to restoration ecology.

If the focus is on the relationship between soil preparation methods and the root system, then this needs to be described in more detail. It is advisable to first describe the recommended capacity of the humus horizon necessary for the development of the plant's root system, and then describe your options.

The physical parameters of soils regulating the water-air properties in the root zone are very important, but they are not included in the study.

We thank the reviewer for these suggestions. The focus of our study is not on soil preparation methods per se, but rather to better understand if native forb development would behave similarly across a contrasting range of reclamation treatments (topsoil depths [0, 5, and 15 cm]. This study design will allow reclamation specialists to understand if these species demonstrate broad tolerance and suitability to a wider range of reclamation conditions or whether they have narrower growth requirements. The combination of aboveground growth and belowground measurements examining root egress and vegetative spread provide insights with respect to these goals.

Of course we agree that root development is important, but in our situation, we assessed root spread by looking at lateral root spread to better understand how these plants are vegetatively spreading across the sites in the context of the soil treatments they were planted into.  Collecting total root biomass, while interesting, was out of scope with our core goals, it was already very labour intensive to collect the belowground sampling we did complete in this work. Instead, we used additional aboveground measures as proxies to infer belowground growth. Additionally, we have included bulk density information in Table S2 to provide context on physical soil parameters that may influence plant responses.

There are also more questions about the manuscript:

How many FORb seedlings were used for the experiment?

We have now explicitly stated the experimental sample size in the “Field study site description and experimental design” section of the manuscript.

Were all the seedlings similar in morphological parameters after extraction from the blocks?

We did stock characterization, and we have confirmed that the seedlings are similar in morphological parameters when we lifted them from the blocks for planting. We have summarized the root mass averages and standard deviation in the methods section to illustrate the range of spread.

What other root parameters besides mass have you studied?

We only assessed root spread by tracking the number of lateral roots and longest lateral roots.

Did the roots have a similar morphology? In our opinion, mass alone is not enough.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding root morphology. While we agree that root structure provides valuable insights, assessing root morphology was beyond the scope of this study. Our focus was on doing limited belowground monitoring (assessing lateral roots) and focusing on aboveground responses as proxies for overall plant development. This belowground investigation was intended to better understand vegetative spread by soil treatment rather than an examination of changes in root morphology by soil type.

If there is, then for clarity it is good to add a photo of the roots of the studied plants or a schematic image.

We have included an image set (Figure S3) that illustrates excavation activities and an example of a lateral root that was manually excavated.

From which soil was the surface layer formed for reclamation?

Top soil and subsoil salvaged from site was used for reclamation.

From what depth and in what order were soil samples taken?

We have this information in the supplemental section:

In September 2021, soil samples were collected for soil chemical characterization. Within each replicate soil treatment (no-topsoil, shallow, standard or standard + competition control) a transect was delineated and three soil pits dug to a depth of 45 cm where bulk density was determined at 0–15, 15-30, and 30–45 cm layers by inserting three 5cm x 5cm cylindrical cores into the soil profile. A composite soil sample of each of these layers was also collected using a hand auger and sent to the Canadian Forestry Service (CFS) analytical lab, and the following parameters determined: soil texture, conductivity, pH, N, P, K, and total anions/cations.

Figure 1. Principal components analysis on soil properties (0-30 cm depth), but the Field study site description and experimental design section states that "The site contained four replica blocks where varying depths of topsoil were placed: standard topsoil placement with a target of 15 cm depth (H), shallow or low top soil depth placement with a target of 5 cm depth (L), and no topsoil placed (N)." How do you describe the soil parameters for a 0-30 cm layer? This is not entirely correct.

To evaluate the soil parameters, it is better to add a table with properties for each site. Figure 2 is not very suitable for this.

We have summarized soil parameters in Table S2.

Placing Table 2, Figure 2, and Figure 3 in a row in the text without comments makes it difficult to perceive the information.

Thanks for the suggestion, we have split the text so that the table and figures are not in a row without context.

There is no conclusions section in the manuscript. For example, two questions were asked in the introduction and the answers to these questions can be written as conclusions.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a conclusion section to address the findings for the 2 questions proposed in our manuscript.

It is necessary to work on the literary review in the "INTRODUCTION" section and think over the entire structure of the article once again.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the Introduction and overall structure. At this time, we have chosen to retain the current structure, as we believe it clearly presents the study objectives, context, and findings.

I hope that these remarks will help improve the manuscript.

Thank you much appreciated!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments. The introduction, methods, and results are clearly presented, and the conclusions are well supported by the data. Figures and tables are improved and the English language is appropriate. Overall, I find the manuscript to be sufficiently improved and suitable for publication in Forests.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for working on the manuscript. Despite the fact that the main global goal of the study has not been formed, the addition of the "Conclusions" section makes up for this shortcoming.