The Impact of Waste Application on the Reclamation and Biological Life of Degraded Soils
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled "The impact of waste application on reclamation and biological life of degraded soils" is dealing with waste material application for rejuvenation or reclamation of soil. In this study, authors have taken data for the year 2004 and then after reclamation using different inorganic and organic techniques, the soil was left to restore its biophysical properties for next ~15 years. Again the soil biophysical and water related parameters were estimated and compared. The work highlights the nature-based solutions for restoration of Sulphur-mine degraded landscape in this study. However, tC
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript is very poorly presented. Sentences are not clear and not in a flow so that one can follow. Authors need to substantially work on the language and present a clear and precise manuscript after incorporating appropriate Statistical analyses.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In reference to Review 1, I have taken into account the Reviewer's comments such as:
- I have corrected the entire article in terms of linguistic correctness,
- I have corrected the abstract
- I have arranged keywords in alphabetical order
- I have removed chapter 2 – the aim of the work
- I have added a subchapter – research area
- I have added a subchapter – laboratory analyses
- I have added a subchapter – statistical analysis
- I have added the date of their taking to the photos and have explained in detail in which year the research was carried out
- I have corrected the markings of the photos, e.g. Photo 1 in the text and on the photo
- I have added explanations of symbols in the tables and in the text of the article
- I have developed the results in statistical terms
- I have added a chapter Research results and discussion
- I have replaced the literature with more recent ones, i.e. from 2015
- I have formatted the chapter Research literature.
Above, I have briefly presented in points the corrections that I made in the article. I am sending the entire corrected manuscript in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript is dealing with soil reclamation in landscapes devastated after sulfur mining. The subject may be of interest for Sustainability. However, the manuscript needs an overhaul, before it can be accepted for publication.
My main concern is related to the organization of the manuscript. Most of the content of the Material and Methods in fact should be included in the Results section. On the other hand, in the Material and Methods section the description of the analytical methods should be included.
Other specific comments:
Abstract. In addition to qualitative statements, quantitative results should be included.
Introduction. Sentence in Lines 25 to 28 is similar to sentence in Lines 10 to 13.
Sentences in Lines 75 to 80 need references.
Line 89. Objectives, i.e. “Purpose of the work” belong to the Introduction section. Please, don´t do an extra section called “Purpose of the work”.
Material and Methods. The location of the experimental area should be thoroughly described. Where is Jeziórko? Please, give latitude, longitude, altitude.
Please describe methods of determination of soil (pH, cation exchange capacity, heavy metals, etc.).
As stated before, most of the contents of this section belongs to the Results section?
Results. Again, this section should be completed.
Conclusions. More quantitative statements are required.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language should be improved. Extensive editing during revision is recommended. Here, there are some examples of language flaws.
Many sentences are too long. For example, Lines 25 to 28, 41 to 44, etc.
Line 107. What means Low-clay sand?
Line 117. What means light clay sand?
Please, note that the above are only examples, and that many other language mistakes can be found in the text of this manuscript version.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have taken into account the Reviewer's comments such as:
- I have corrected the entire article in terms of language correctness,
- I have re-edited the article,
- I have added a detailed description of the research area with the geographical longitude and latitude and photos,
- I have added a description of selected analytical methods,
- I have statistically processed the results,
- I have included quantitative results in the summary,
- I have corrected the introduction of the work taking into account the purpose of the work in this chapter,
- I have deleted the chapter on the purpose of the work,
- I have replaced the literature with more current ones, i.e. from 2015,
- I have formatted the chapter on research literature,
- regarding the phrases clayey sand and light clayey sand, these are the names of soil formations consistent with the Polish soil science taxonomy.
Above, I have briefly presented in points the corrections that I made in the article. I am sending the entire corrected manuscript in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
this is part of an interesting research please see the following comments
1. there is a dire need for english language corrections. there are many writing and comprehensions mistakes. please see some comments but there are many more
you state
Among the many forms of degradation, the most visible are changes caused by in-25 dustry and in particular the mining industry - causing not only chemical transformations 26 of the environment, but also disruption of water relations in large areas, which may affect 27 areas theoretically not within the direct impact of the mining plant
unclear meaning
replace
Sulfur borehole min-28 ing has, compared to other branches of the mining industry, resulted in specific transfor-29 mations of the soil and water environment.
Sulfur borehole mining is able to cause detrimental transformations in soil and in water, compared to other methods utilized in the mining industry.
you state
It was the result of the chemically active min-30 eral, the pre-exploitation properties of the environment and the mining process itself
unclear meanining please rephrase
what is the Frasha borehole method? reference?
you state
This 35 method, although ecological in principle
how it was ecological? it doesnts look ecological
you state
Systematic and increasing human interference in the natural environment causes the 38 degradation of soil properties, which limits or eliminates their role in the environment [8].
textbook info not useful
you state
According to the Polish Soils Systematics, such soils
what soils?
replace
The reduction in pH is very strong, unheard of in the process of natural acidification
with
The reduction in pH is very high and much more pronounce that in cases of, natural acidification
etc....
2. in the introduction part about the sewage sludge you need to give more information on the framework of use and limitations of use. Please see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172718 for an updated info on this use. because you also use some other amendments in this experiment-are there similar legislations for these amendments in soil in the level of the EU? please elaborate
3. In 2. Purpose of the work you have to say why this is important for an international audience
4. in 3.1. Plot experiment you have to give the coordinates of the field plot
5. I cannot really understand the layout of materials and methods at al. first of all what is the difference between the plot and the microplot experiment? also do you give results of the soil analysis in your materials and methods or there are part of your results? what exactly are your results and what are results from the bibliography? what is the use of the photos? they have to signify something otherwise do not use them. you never decribe the methods of analysis (eg how you analyzed the metals)? unless there are from other studies. if they are from other studies what experiments were done here? the way it is written is very confusing and it should become clear
Comments on the Quality of English Language
extensive corrections needed
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have taken into account the Reviewer's comments such as:
- I have corrected the entire article in terms of language correctness,
- I have re-edited the article,
- I have removed Chapter 2 - the aim of the work
- I have added a sub-chapter - the research area - with the geographical longitude and latitude and photos
- I have added a sub-chapter - statistical analysis
- the difference between the plot and micro-plot experiment was the size of the plots - in the plot experiment these were plots in a larger area, while in the micro-plot experiment these were plots with a smaller area. In the chapter on material and research methods, I have described both experiments in detail and provided their area,
- the photos included in the article illustrate the research areas both before and several years after the reclamation and what biological life looks like at present after sulfur extraction,
- I have added a description of selected analytical methods
Above, I have briefly presented in points the corrections that I made in the article. I am sending the fully revised manuscript in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled "The impact of waste application on reclamation and biological life of degraded soils" has been revised substantially in light of the suggestions given earlier. However, there are still several issues which need to be addressed properly. For example,
1. Break the introduction in 2-3 paragraphs. Also a few sentences need citations for more clarity and thorough discussion
2. Present the aim and objectives of the study in the last paragraph of introduction and also present the hypothesis, if any
3. The study design can be clearly presented. The results presented in Results section are based on pot-experiment or field level data? I guess, it is for pot-level data. Then where are the results of field scale plots and what are their significance? What were the parameters for assessing field data. Were they statistically significant? Statistical analysis section should be presented at the end of methodology section and it should be elaborated for more clarity. Was there any comparative account or analysis done for exploring the best model for restoration
4. Some results are described in the methodology section, if yes, clarify or present in the results section
5. Replace all the terms, 'photo' with 'figure'
6. Query: So all these restoration efforts were taken into consideration simultaneously or at different time intervals? And if taken simultaneously, so this study is presenting a comparative account of different restoration techniques?
7. Tukey's results are not presented in the Data table. Present it for more clarity of the treatment level variations.
8. Principal Component Analysis can be done for depicting the improvement in soil properties under different treatment combinations.
See the attached pdf file for a few more specific comments which can be helpful in revising the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to review 1
According to the Reviewer's request, I have taken into account the kind comments and corrected and explained them:
- I have divided the introduction of the article into paragraphs (5 paragraphs)
- I have added the aim of the work in the introduction
- the results contained in this article refer to field studies and unfortunately, these are the results I received
- I agree with the Reviewer that the subsection concerning the description of the results of the materials used in the experiments should be included in the Material and methods of research chapter - of course I have corrected this
- I have replaced all the terms "photograph" with the term "figure"
- regarding the question of whether all these restoration efforts were taken into account simultaneously or at different intervals? And if they were undertaken simultaneously, does this study present a comparative report of different restoration techniques? I answered yes - they concern reclamation variants and were taken into account in equal time intervals
- Statistical analysis was included in the tables and shows NIR, i.e. the smallest significant differences between reclamation variants and between the study dates
- Principal component analysis was conducted to present the improvement of soil properties using different combinations of treatments.
- I removed paragraph 58-60
I tried to include other comments from the Reviewer in accordance with the attached PDF file.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The corrected version of this manuscript has been improved, regarding various minor aspects. However, my main recommendation has not been taken into account. Author should be aware that that subsection 2.6. titled “Properties of materials used in the experiments” don’t belong to the Material and research methods section, but should be included in the Results and discussion section. I already sent this comment in my previous review.
It should be taken into account that in this section, first, two tables (Table 1 and Table 2) are presented and then results are commented and discussed. Obviously result presentation and discussion in general can´t be admitted in the methodological section.
The only exception that could be contemplated is previous publication of results from Table 1 and Table 2. Is this the case? If this is the case, author are required to tell me. Otherwise, again, Table 1 and Table 2 are to be included in the Results and discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate revison of Enlish Language is recommended.
Author Response
Responses to review 2
I would like to thank you very much for your valuable comment on subsection 2.6. entitled "Properties of materials used in experiments". Of course, I agree that it does not belong to the Materials and methods section, but it should be included in the Results and discussion section. I apologize for not including it earlier, but everything is corrected now.
I tried to include other comments from the Reviewer in accordance with the attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
To be honest the author has not answered point by point the comments
for example in the text it is written
It is in line with 59 the EU directive and the Environmental Protection Act.
which conveys absolutely no relevant information -what directive and what protection act? what exactly is the latter (EPA) is it in EU or in US? It would be appreciated to have a point by point answer
Comments on the Quality of English Language
corrections needed
Author Response
Responses to review 3
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments and kind remarks. I tried to take all of them into account, but if I missed any, please forgive me. At the request of the Reviewer, I am sending below the clarified comments to the article point by point:
- I have corrected the entire article in terms of linguistic correctness (I am sending the certificate in attachment), so I hope that the errors that occurred in connection with linguistic correctness are clear and understandable.
I agree with the Reviewer's comment that the following paragraph should read: "Borne extraction of sulfur, compared to other branches of the mining industry, causes specific transformations of the soil and water environment. Extraction of sulfur by boreholes can cause unfavorable changes in the soil and water compared to other methods used in the mining industry. As for the Frash method, it was a method discovered by an American of German origin, Herman Frash, consisting in melting sulfur deep in the earth and extracting it to the surface through a closed pipeline system (Frasch method).
This method seemed to be safe for the environment, but the reality turned out to be completely different and this method caused huge destruction of soils (terrain) to the level of degradation and even devastation.
The paragraph on the Polish Soil Systematics referred to degraded soils and of course I corrected it in the article. I also agree with the Reviewer's statement that the decrease in pH is very large and much more pronounced than in the case of natural acidification. - In accordance with the Reviewer's recommendation, in the introductory part on sewage sludge, I provided more information on the framework of use and restrictions on use in accordance with the link attached by the Reviewer https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172718.
- In the article I added and described the aim of the work and why it is important.
- I also added a subsection on the field experiment and provided the coordinates of the field plot and photos of the research area.
- Regarding the comment in point 5, I would like to explain that the difference between the field experiment and the microplot experiment was the size of the plots - in the field experiment, these were plots in a larger area, while in the microplot experiment, these were plots with a smaller area. In the chapter on material and research methods, I described both experiments in detail and provided their area.
I agree with the Reviewer that the subchapter regarding the description of the results of the materials used in the experiments should be included in the chapter on Material and research methods because Tables 1 and 2 are the results of my own research and should not be quoted - I have already corrected this, of course.
Regarding the Reviewer's question regarding the photos: the photos included in the article illustrate the research areas both before recultivation and several years after the recultivation was carried out, as well as what biological life looks like at present after sulfur extraction, so I believe that they are an added value to the work and will interest the reader.
I have also described laboratory analyses, such as how I determined the content of heavy metals. In addition, the article contained the sentence "This is in accordance with the EU directive and the Environmental Protection Law", which was of course incorrect and unnecessary, so I removed it (paragraphs 58-60).
I am attaching the entire corrected manuscript and a certificate of linguistic correction of the article, and I would like to thank you once again for your valuable advice.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The organization of this manuscript has been very much improved. Congratulations!.
Before the manuscript is accepted for publication I recommend tightening up in all of the sections. Amelioration is required mainly to increase readibility. In the comments about the English Language I´m providing examples .
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is recommended to improve the English Language. Ameliorations are required in a number of sentences and I can´t be exhaustive. Again, author is requested to carefully revise all the sections.
Examples:
Lines 24 and 25. This sentence is difficult to understand.
..........
Lines 435 to 437. I would suggest to rewrite as: "The sand reed (Calamagrostis epigejos) wasd the only" ....etc. So please, place together the current name and the scientific name.
Lines 441 to 444. The two sentences in this lines are not vey precise. The word "many" appears three times, becoming redundant. Moreover, how many years are actually "many years"?. PLease, rewrite.
Author Response
Once again, I would like to thank you very much for devoting your valuable time to the review and for your kind advice. In accordance with the reviewers comments, I have carefully analyzed the entire article and made corrections to this article. Among other things, I have corrected lines 24-25, 435-437, 441-444. I am sending the corrected version of the article in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
accept
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor spelling
Author Response
Once again, I would like to thank you very much for devoting your valuable time to the review and for your kind advice. I am sending the corrected version of the article in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
