Soil and Plant Characteristics in a Restored Area under Mid-Term Site Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please consider comments and recommendations given in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are kindly asked to explain or adjust the discrepancy in numbers of studied plots.
 In chapter 2. Materials and Methods, resp. 2.1. Study Site, the authors state 32 studied arears, resp. 64 plots.

In chapter 3. Results, rep. 3.2. Effectiveness of Sward Restoration, the authors state only 56 plots (the same apply to Figure 5).

 

I also recommend to increase the size of Figure 3 to improve its legibility and I do not understand  top descriptions of some pictures showing soil physical properties ( a, a, a, a,….).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer comments:

I received for review of the article Soil and Plant Characteristics in a Restored Area under Mid-term Site Management. After studying it, I present the following questions and comments, to which the authors should respond within the major revision.

General comments:

The article deals with the suitable soil conditions (physical and chemical soil properties) after a restoration project, but I miss information about soil conditions (physical and chemical) before building of the rail segment (initial condition). Do you have any information concerning that and were these measurements carried out? Please complete this information if you have it. If not, please mention marginally why you do not have this information.

Please consider adding several sentences about the hypothesis of the origin of alien and ruderal species. Because from the map of the Rail Freight Corridor it is possible to suppose that these species can come from the extensive area.

Moreover, I consider it important to add the information on how far from the railway track were selected or established the research plots; how large the buffer was. Particularly in connection with alien species (their ability to spread), their presence, and proportion.

The USDA classification is used for soil types, it would be also appropriate to use WRB classification. Topsoil and subsoil were considered in the study of soil properties (see Figures 3 and 4), but not different soil types. The article should also contain information on the influence of individual soil types, which certainly differ in properties.

It would be appropriate to add whether a significant spread of invasive or non-native plant species has been identified in rehabilitated areas.

It would be worth noting which of the monitored soil parameters had the greatest impact on the successful restoration of damaged areas.

Finally, specific recommendations for future restoration should be better described for similar impaired areas.

 

Detailed comments:

Line 104-108: Why did you choose this herbaceous species mixture? Please add this information and information about the origin of the herbaceous species mixture.

Line 182 and 198: Please complete what correlation coefficient was used? Spearman´s or Pearson´s or other?

 

Line 226: “Both physical and chemical parameters of soil showed a wide range of values among the areas…”

            I think the statement that in figures 3 and 4 is showed a wide range of values among the areas is not correct (not clear). A wide range of values is noticeable in the topsoil or subsoil in all areas; you did not display ranges in areas or differences between areas in these graphs. I propose to change the sentence for example - Both physical and chemical parameters of soil showed a wide range of values between topsoil and subsoil in areas.

 

Line 244-245: “Dashed lines indicate high, medium, or low content thresholds for TOC, TN, and C/N.“

            I do not understand this sentence. For example: in figure 4, the graph for TOC content: which of the dashed lines (the top or the bottom) indicates a high or medium or low content threshold for TOC? What does mean the space in the middle of dashed lines? Does it mean that dashed lines in the first graph indicate a high content of threshold for TOC, in the second, indicate medium content of threshold for TN, etc.? Please explain or describe this better in the article.

 

Line 250-252: “This result was confirmed by the correlation between sown and spontaneous species (Figure 5). Areas in which sown species did not establish successfully were colonized by spontaneous species (r = -0.918; p<0.001).“

            What does mean in this part of the article spontaneous species? I do not know which of the groups mentioned in lines 148-162 fall into the spontaneous species in this part of the text, which were used for the correlation. Please specify it in the text and also in figure 5.

As a footnote, I would like to mention that it could be very interesting to make this correlation not only with spontaneous species but in more detail directly with ruderal species, typical grassland species, or others. This finding could provide more accurate information on which of the spontaneous species  can colonize places in which sown species did not establish successfully.

 

Line 280-283 + table 2: It was indicated that sown species cover significantly reduced the cover of alien, ruderal, and typical grassland species. Was also tested the option  that the typical grassland or ruderal species can reduce alien species? It could be interesting, especially in the context of future development herbaceous species in these areas.

 

 

Comments to figures (figure 3, 4, 6, 7, 8):

Please complete the information about what the line inside the box plots means. Is it arithmetic mean? Also, it is not obvious what displays the whiskers in box plots. Is it interquartile range or min-max range? In the legend of graphs is stated that stars and circles mean an outlier. I suppose that stars mean extreme values and circles mean outlier if it is true I would mention it in the legend.

Comments to format rules:

Line 179: a dot is missing after the parenthesis

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf