Studies on Grass Germination and Growth on Post-Flotation Sediments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well-structure, however some adjustments are needed:
The materials and Methods section should include a brief description of the substrate characterization methods.
Consider standardizing the term used to refer to the soil in the experiment, choosing between "substrate" o "growing medium"
How many determinations were performed to report the substrate characteristics? The values should be accompanied by their standard deviation
In table 1 and 2 format should be improved by ensuring that all cell borders are included for a clearer and more uniform presentation.
The descriptive title of table 2. should be improved, should be self-explanatory
The first column of table 2 and 3, should be title "Grass specie" instead "Genus, species, cultivar etc"
The description of the table data should be improved. Instead of the current explanation, consider using a clearer and more detailed statement, such as: The values represent the mean and ± SD values (n=x). Different lowercase letters indicated statistically significant differences between grass species, while different uppercase letters show differences between germination medium (Duncan´s test, P≤0.05)
Between lines 173 and 197, check that each studied species has its corresponding abbreviation. Additionally, ensure that scientific names are italicized.
Please review the text between lines 173 and 197, as Figure 1 is not mentioned to reference the data presented. Ensure that the figure is properly cited in the text
Please verify the legend of the Y-axes in figure 1, as no details are provided regarding the parameter each axis represents. Remember that the figure should be self-explanatory
In the title of figure 1. please use "uppercase letters" instead "capital letters" and use "lowercase letters" instead "small letters"
In table 4, explanation of designation of statistical significance should be detailed the statistical test in this case Pearson correlation coefficient
In line 225 please use "reliable predictor" instead "decent predictor"
Author Response
The article is well-structured, however, some adjustments are needed:
Comment 1: The Materials and Methods section should include a brief description of the substrate characterization methods.
Response 1: All information regarding the description of the substrate characterization methods were included as extra column in Tab 1.
Comment 2: Consider standardizing the term used to refer to the soil in the experiment, choosing between "substrate" or "growing medium."
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We choose “substrate” instead of “growing medium” in the whole document.
Comment 3: How many determinations were performed to report the substrate characteristics? The values should be accompanied by their standard deviation
Response 3: All procedures concerning substrate analysis until the presentation of results were performed according to rules of accreditation of Regional Chemical-Agricultural Station. In their official documents with results of analysis, no SD were given, however, each result is the mean value of at least 3 replications (personal communication).
Comment 4: In table 1 and 2, the format should be improved by ensuring that all cell borders are included for a clearer and more uniform presentation.
Response 4: The format of tab 1 and tab 2 has been changed according to your recommendations.
Comment 5: The descriptive title of table 2 should be improved and should be self-explanatory
Response 5: The Title has been changed to be more self-explanatory: Seed Germination Rates (%) of Eight Grass Species Under Three Different Conditions.
Comment 6: The first column of table 2 and 3, should be title "Grass specie" instead "Genus, species, cultivar etc"
Response 6: Thank you for your comments. Changes have been made.
Comment 7: The description of the table data should be improved. Instead of the current explanation, consider using a clearer and more detailed statement, such as: The values represent the mean and ± SD values (n=x). Different lowercase letters indicated statistically significant differences between grass species, while different uppercase letters show differences between germination medium (Duncan´s test, P≤0.05)
Response 7: Thank you for your help. Your suggestions have been approved, and changes in the text have been made.
Comment 8: Between lines 173 and 197, check that each studied species has its corresponding abbreviation. Additionally, ensure that scientific names are italicized.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestions. It has been checked.
Comment 9: Please review the text between lines 173 and 197, as Figure 1 is not mentioned to reference the data presented. Ensure that the figure is properly cited in the text
Response 9: Figure 1 was cited in line 176.
Comment 10: Please verify the legend of the Y-axes in figure 1, as no details are provided regarding the parameter each axis represents. Remember that the figure should be self-explanatory
Response 10: Thank you for your kind remark. The figure was corrected acc. to your suggestions.
Comment 11: In the title of figure 1, please use "uppercase letters" instead of "capital letters" and use "lowercase letters" instead of "small letters."
Response 11: Thank you for your kind remark. The figure was corrected acc. to your suggestions.
Comment 12: In table 4, the explanation of designation of statistical significance should be detailed in the statistical test, in this case, the Pearson correlation coefficient
Response 12: Corrections have been made. Thank you.
Comment 13: In line 225, please use "reliable predictor" instead of "decent predictor."
Response 13:. Thank you for your kind remark. This was corrected acc. to your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your chance to review. “Studies on Grass Germination and Growth on Post-flotation Sediments”，this study investigates the germination and growth of grass species on post-flotation tailing sediments, an ecologically relevant topic. The experimental design is generally clear, and results are comparable. However, significant revisions are needed to improve logical structure, methodological clarity, and discussion depth.
1.Abstract lacks a structured format. Consider rewriting as:(1)Background: Post-flotation sediments from copper tailings are typically poor in nutrients and rich in heavy metals, posing challenges to vegetation recovery.(2)Objective: To evaluate the germination and growth of various grass species on tailing sediments compared to reference soil.(3)Methods: Greenhouse pot trials with four grass species using tailings and control substrates.(4)Results: Festuca rubra showed the highest germination rate and biomass under both substrates; Lolium perenne was more sensitive to tailings.
2.State which statistical tests were used and SPSS or R software was used in materials and methods.
3. Standardize all figures (font size, axis labels), such as Figure 1, add units, standard error bars, and significance indicators in Figures and Tables.
4. Strengthen the mechanistic interpretation of results: how do some species tolerate high metal content? (root exclusion, chelation, biomass dilution) in discussion Section. Compare findings with previous studies on similar substrates or species.
5. The manuscript would benefit from thorough English language editing to correct awkward phrasing and improve readability.
Author Response
Thank you for your chance to review. “Studies on Grass Germination and Growth on Post-flotation Sediments”，this study investigates the germination and growth of grass species on post-flotation tailing sediments, an ecologically relevant topic. The experimental design is generally clear, and results are comparable. However, significant revisions are needed to improve logical structure, methodological clarity, and discussion depth.
Comment 1: Abstract lacks a structured format. Consider rewriting as: (1)Background: Post-flotation sediments from copper tailings are typically poor in nutrients and rich in heavy metals, posing challenges to vegetation recovery.(2)Objective: To evaluate the germination and growth of various grass species on tailing sediments compared to reference soil.(3)Methods: Greenhouse pot trials with four grass species using tailings and control substrates.(4)Results: Festuca rubra showed the highest germination rate and biomass under both substrates; Lolium perenne was more sensitive to tailings.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions. An abstract section has been rewritten according to your suggestion, however, we missed sections description as (1) Background, (2) Objective, (4) Results etc. .
Comment 2: State which statistical tests were used and SPSS or R software was used in materials and methods.
Response 2: All details concerning statistical tests were given in the 2.3 section of Materials & methods. We used STATISTICA ver. 12.0 PL. Fisher test was used to calculate LSD differences. A t-test was used to calculate the differences
Comment 3: Standardize all figures (font size, axis labels), such as Figure 1, add units, standard error bars, and significance indicators in Figures and Tables.
Response 3: Thank you for your kind remark. The figure was corrected acc. to your suggestions.
Comment 4: Strengthen the mechanistic interpretation of results: How do some species tolerate high metal content? (root exclusion, chelation, biomass dilution) in discussion Section. Compare findings with previous studies on similar substrates or species.
Response 4: In our work, we analyzed only the level of Cu (copper) in flotation tailing. In fact, it was not very high, far below acceptable levels of Cu concentration in soil. Therefore, any speculation about the relationship between plants and a substrate with an elevated content of heavy metals would be detached from the experimental conditions and the obtained results.
Comment 5: The manuscript would benefit from thorough English language editing to correct awkward phrasing and improve readability.
Response 5: Thank you for your kind remark. We made the necessary language corrections.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study provides useful information for sustainable land reclamation by examining the viability of utilizing grass species for the ecological restoration of flotation tailings from post-mining operations. Nonetheless, a number of changes are required to improve precision, clarity, and scientific rigor.
Replacing Bromus tectorum with the suggested species (Bromus inermis, Bromus catharticus, and Elytrigia elongata) would bring terminology into line with the findings, since the discussion specifically discourages its use due to its invasiveness.
It is necessary to pay attention to reference formatting, which includes fixing broken hyperlinks and changing misspelled author names from "Lepold" to "Leopold."
The term "cuvettes" could mislead readers and impair methodological clarity; using "trays" or "containers" instead would eliminate ambiguity.
It is justified to use river sand as a control substrate because of its high pH (8.1), which could not be representative of normal agricultural or natural soils in areas damaged by mining.
The results need to be corrected for statistical reporting errors, such as defining "" as p > 0.001 rather than p < 0.001, and the captions for the homogeneity group labels in Figure 1 (A, B vs. a, b) need to be more explicit.
Table 1's assertion that sand has an organic matter concentration of less than 0.30 percent is unusual and needs to be supported or explained.
The argument might be strengthened if the high germination rate of Bromus tectorum and its ecological hazards were explicitly reconciled, as this is inconsistently addressed throughout the discussion.
Credibility is damaged by citation errors (for example, Salesman & Thomsen referenced Bromus inermis rather than Vogel et al.) and missing page numbers in references 51 and 53.
A brief explanation of the statistical justification for selecting Duncan's test over alternatives such as Tukey's HSD is necessary, as is an examination of the lack of Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.
Readability could be improved by standardizing phrases like flotation tailings and rephrasing difficult lines like "Human-induced changes differ fundamentally from evolutionary changes."
Author Response
The study provides useful information for sustainable land reclamation by examining the viability of utilizing grass species for the ecological restoration of flotation tailings from post-mining operations. Nonetheless, a number of changes are required to improve precision, clarity, and scientific rigor.
Comment 1: Replacing Bromus tectorum with the suggested species (Bromus inermis, Bromus catharticus, and Elytrigia elongata) would bring terminology into line with the findings, since the discussion specifically discourages its use due to its invasiveness.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. Changes have been made in the text.
Comment 2: It is necessary to pay attention to reference formatting, which includes fixing broken hyperlinks and changing misspelled author names from "Lepold" to "Leopold."
Response 2: Thank you for your remark. Changes and corrections have been made.
Comment 3: The term "cuvettes" could mislead readers and impair methodological clarity; using "trays" or "containers" instead would eliminate ambiguity.
Response 3: Thank you for your remark – changes have been made (“cuvettes” on “trays”).
Comment 4: It is justified to use river sand as a control substrate because of its high pH (8.1), which could not be representative of normal agricultural or natural soils in areas damaged by mining.
Response 4: The sand used was not intended to reflect typical soil conditions in areas polluted by the mining industry because such conditions are not subject to standardization – they are not "typical". It was a natural substrate for plant growth, the closest in physical and chemical terms to flotation sediments.
Comment 5: The results need to be corrected for statistical reporting errors, such as defining "" as p > 0.001 rather than p < 0.001, and the captions for the homogeneity group labels in Figure 1 (A, B vs. a, b) need to be more explicit.
Response 5: Thank you for your remark. Changes and corrections have been made.
Comment 6: Table 1's assertion that sand has an organic matter concentration of less than 0.30 percent is unusual and needs to be supported or explained.
Response 6: Analyses were made by the Regional Agro-Chemical Station, so results were also given according to them. Results of organic matter content were marked as ‘below the limit of quantification (LOQ)’, which in this case is below 0.3 mgꞏkg-1.
Comment 7: The argument might be strengthened if the high germination rate of Bromus tectorum and its ecological hazards were explicitly reconciled, as this is inconsistently addressed throughout the discussion.
Response 7: Thank you for your kind remark. Appropriate changes were made to the text to meet the requirements outlined in the reviewer's suggestions.
Comment 8: Credibility is damaged by citation errors (for example, Salesman & Thomsen referenced Bromus inermis rather than Vogel et al.) and missing page numbers in references 51 and 53.
Response 8: Thank you for your remark. The references have been checked once more. In our opinion, the cited references have been appropriately placed within the text. Vogel et al. is a source containing general information, while Salesman et al. provides some more specific information.
Comment 9: A brief explanation of the statistical justification for selecting Duncan's test over alternatives such as Tukey's HSD is necessary, as is an examination of the lack of Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons.
Response 9: The choice of the Duncan test over Tukey’s SD or alternatives was mostly driven by its higher statistical power for pairwise comparisons. Duncan's test employs a less conservative critical value compared to Tukey's HSD. Duncan's has its own built-in adjustment, Bonferroni can be overly conservative, and the focus is on overall patterns. Given the balance between controlling Type I error and maintaining statistical power, and considering the adjustment within Duncan's test itself, we chose not to apply an additional Bonferroni correction. Furthermore, the interpretation of the results focuses on the overall patterns and the identification of the most promising species rather than solely on isolated pairwise significances.
Comment 10: Readability could be improved by standardizing phrases like flotation tailings and rephrasing difficult lines like "Human-induced changes differ fundamentally from evolutionary changes."
Response 10: Thank you for your valuable remark. Changes have been made.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more comments
