Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has a title that does not correspond to what is presented in the text. From the title it seems that the objective of the work is the study of anthropic influence (mainly dust) on urban lawns. In fact, the work does not show any relationship between dust concentration and the development of the plants studied.

There is no demonstration, in this work, of any positive or negative link of pollution (mainly dust) on the development of the plants that were studied.

Measurements of atmospheric dust are presented but no influence on the development of the plants studied is demonstrated.

What is the purpose of analyzing the composition of dust? its composition is specified but there is no conclusion on this analysis? what is the importance for urban lawns of the composition of dust. What is the relevance of studying its composition. No conclusions are drawn regarding urban lawns (damage, plant development, photosynthesis, nutrient and water uptake, etc.). according to my analysis, there is no clear objective in this work.  There are only loose datasets with no apparent connection.

The data collected in this work are original and interesting.
the composition of the dust and its possible origin constitutes an interesting work, based on unprecedented data collected by the authors. However, it is not clear what connection the authors want to establish with urban lawns.

Most of the plants presented are naturally resistant to disturbance of anthropic origin.

Finally, in order to study the influence of dust on plant species, the authors would have to build an experimental design that ensures that the value of the remaining variables does not vary between the sampling points.

 

 

Author Response

Good afternoon, thank you for your comments, which will certainly improve the quality of the article. We decided to adjust the title of the article to better match the study, and added new information to the text. 

1. «There is no demonstration, in this work, of any positive or negative link of pollution (mainly dust) on the development of the plants that were studied. Measurements of atmospheric dust are presented but no influence on the development of the plants studied is demonstrated».

We have tried to focus on the suitability of the selected grass mixtures for the design of urban green areas, that can be useful in landscape design.

 

2. «What is the purpose of analyzing the composition of dust? its composition is specified but there is no conclusion on this analysis? what is the importance for urban lawns of the composition of dust. What is the relevance of studying its composition. No conclusions are drawn regarding urban lawns (damage, plant development, photosynthesis, nutrient and water uptake, etc.). according to my analysis, there is no clear objective in this work. There are only loose datasets with no apparent connection».

We have added information to the dust mineralogical research section.

 

3. «Finally, in order to study the influence of dust on plant species, the authors would have to build an experimental design that ensures that the value of the remaining variables does not vary between the sampling points».

We agree that a more accurate reflection of the dynamics of lawn growth depending on the content of atmospheric dust requires a series of laboratory experiments on special equipment. We plan to try to conduct such tests. With the results described in the work, we try to show that one-time high concentrations of dust in the atmospheric air in natural conditions make it possible to obtain a lawn of the proper quality for landscaping a city.

On behalf of the authors, Goryachev Andrey.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please check your acknowledgement section and correct it

Author Response

Good afternoon, thank you for your comment. We have corrected it.

On behalf of the authors, Goryachev Andrey.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Influence of anthropogenic load on the lawns vegetation in the climatic conditions of the Arctic zone” deals with an important issue about human action on vegetation that lives in extreme conditions. Overall, the knowledge is robust throughout the article and useful for landscape managers. However, some improvements are needed so that this article can be published in the journal Sustainability.

The Introduction presents the ideas correctly, but it should be improved by introducing studies that address the impacts of pollution on vegetation. The last paragraph of the Introduction should present what are the main objectives/questions that this study addresses.

The characterization of the study area of the last paragraph must pass to the methodology. Given the nature of the study, it would be appropriate to add a thermopluviometric chart in order to better represent the type of climate that exists throughout the year. In addition, other information such as the type of soil can add value to the work.

Figure 1 presents several deformations and therefore should be improved in order to enhance the article.

The scientific name of the plants must be accompanied by the respective classifier (this name must not be in italics). Why only Festuca pratensis Huds and Vicia sativa L. have the classifier? This indication must be presented at least the first time the scientific name is presented.

Line 97 – “Pratensis” must be written in lower case.

The results are well presented and do not raise relevant doubts, however, there is no discussion. Authors should buy the data obtained from other similar studies to validate the results obtained or, on the other hand, present the news to the scientific community. Both in the Introduction and in the Discussion topic, authors should base themselves on current knowledge of other articles and indicate them in the bibliographic references.

 The Conclusions seem adequate and are based on the results obtained in the study.

The biggest problem with this article is that the authors present only a shallow bibliographic search (with only 6 bibliographic references), which makes the article a bit fragile.

All these improvement changes will make the article gain greater visibility and reading interest in the scientific community.

Author Response

Good afternoon, thank you for your comments, which will certainly improve the quality of the article. We also decided to adjust the title of the article to better relate to the study. 

1. «The Introduction presents the ideas correctly, but it should be improved by introducing studies that address the impacts of pollution on vegetation. The last paragraph of the Introduction should present what are the main objectives/questions that this study addresses».

We have added references that focus on the effects of pollution on vegetation development. The last paragraph of the introduction now reflects the purpose of our research.

 

2. «The characterization of the study area of the last paragraph must pass to the methodology. Given the nature of the study, it would be appropriate to add a thermopluviometric chart in order to better represent the type of climate that exists throughout the year. In addition, other information such as the type of soil can add value to the work».

We moved the characterization of the Apatity city to the «Materials and Methods» section, and also added information on the composition of urban soils in the city of Apatity.

 

3. «Figure 1 presents several deformations and therefore should be improved in order to enhance the article».

It has been corrected.

 

4. «The scientific name of the plants must be accompanied by the respective classifier (this name must not be in italics). Why only Festuca pratensis Huds and Vicia sativa L. have the classifier? This indication must be presented at least the first time the scientific name is presented».

We have corrected the names.

 

5. «Line 97 – “Pratensis” must be written in lower case».

It has been corrected.

 

6. «The results are well presented and do not raise relevant doubts, however, there is no discussion. Authors should buy the data obtained from other similar studies to validate the results obtained or, on the other hand, present the news to the scientific community. Both in the Introduction and in the Discussion topic, authors should base themselves on current knowledge of other articles and indicate them in the bibliographic references».

We have added to the introduction information about the works devoted to the negative impact of polluted atmospheric air on the development of vegetation. Also added a discussion of the results.

 

7. «The biggest problem with this article is that the authors present only a shallow bibliographic search (with only 6 bibliographic references), which makes the article a bit fragile».

The bibliographic list has been expanded.

On behalf of the authors, Goryachev Andrey.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors read all the comments which resulted in the improvement of several aspects of the article. However, some issues were not clarified correctly.

I continue to see that serious and in-depth bibliographic research was not carried out by the authors. There are many studies similar to this one, which should be cited in the Introduction for the reader to understand what has been done and what studies are needed. This will help justify the importance of this article.

For example, in terms of soil type, what kind of rock was used? Does it have an acidic or basic pH? Authors may consult bibliographic information to indicate the geological type or lithology.

Another serious flaw in this study is the lack of a true discussion. Are there works that obtained similar results? Or are the results obtained in this study completely new to the scientific community?

As this is a work for the Journal Sustainability, the authors should reinforce in the Conclusion the importance of this study for the three essential pillars: environment, economy and society.

Author Response

We appreciate your comments and have tried to improve the quality of our article.

Please see the attachment.

On behalf of the authors, Goryachev Andrey.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx