Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the revisions and improved the manuscript accordingly.

     

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful evaluation of the revised manuscript.

Comments 1: The authors have adequately addressed the revisions and improved the manuscript accordingly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our revisions and for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s time.

Sincerely,

Lidia Oktaba

Warsaw University of Life Sciences

Corresponding author on behalf of all authors

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript by the authors shows significant improvements in scientific rigor, clarity, and transparency. Minor revisions are recommended in the following points:

(1) The authors acknowledge that the "space-for-time" method cannot completely replace long-term monitoring. Therefore, the limitations of this method should be briefly explained in the abstract or introduction.

(2) Furthermore, the limitations of "spurious replication" on statistical inference should be further explained in the statistical methods section to avoid misleading readers into believing that it can be widely generalized.

(3) The sampling diagram in Figure 3 should be enlarged or framed.

(4) The discussion section should explain in detail how the results of this study are related to ecosystem services such as carbon sinks and nutrient cycling to enhance their management significance.

(5) The captions for the PCA plots should include a supplementary explanation of the proportion of variance explained by the principal components.

(6) The conclusion section should further emphasize the practical significance of this study for forestry management, such as suggesting that agricultural legacy effects be considered in the early stages of afforestation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful evaluation of the revised manuscript and for the additional constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to further improve the clarity and interpretation of the study. Below we address each comment point by point. All suggested modifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Comment 1

The authors acknowledge that the "space-for-time" method cannot completely replace long-term monitoring. Therefore, the limitations of this method should be briefly explained in the abstract or introduction.

Response:

We agree with the Reviewer and have added a brief explanation of the limitations of the chronosequence (“space-for-time”) approach in the Introduction. The text now explicitly states that the study compares sites afforested at different times under similar environmental conditions and does not reconstruct soil development trajectories directly through long-term monitoring.

Comment 2

The limitations of spurious replication on statistical inference should be further explained in the statistical methods section.

Response:

We agree and have expanded the Statistical Analysis section to clarify the limitations related to plot-level replication. The revised text explicitly notes that although multiple samples were collected within each plot, the design represents a chronosequence comparison rather than independent spatial replication. Therefore, statistical results are interpreted cautiously and primarily reflect site-specific patterns rather than broadly generalizable regional trends.

Comment 3

The sampling diagram in Figure 3 should be enlarged or framed.

Response:

Figure 3 has been revised. The sampling points and plot boundaries are now more clearly framed and labelled.

Comment 4

The discussion section should explain in detail how the results are related to ecosystem services such as carbon sinks and nutrient cycling.

Response:

The Discussion has been expanded to better contextualize the results within ecosystem service frameworks, particularly with respect to carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. We now discuss how the persistence of agricultural soil legacies may influence long-term carbon storage dynamics and nutrient availability in afforested ecosystems, emphasizing the importance of land-use history in evaluating ecosystem functioning.

Comment 5

The captions for the PCA plots should include an explanation of the proportion of variance explained by the principal components.

Response:

The captions of all PCA figures have been revised to include the proportion of total variance explained by the respective principal components. This information improves interpretability of the ordination diagrams.

Comment 6

The conclusion section should further emphasize the practical significance of the study for forestry management.

Response:

The Conclusions section has been expanded to highlight the practical implications of the results for afforestation management. In particular, we emphasize that agricultural soil legacies may persist for several decades and should be considered during the early stages of afforestation planning, especially on sandy soils where liming history and nutrient dynamics may influence long-term ecosystem development.

 

We thank the Reviewer once again for the helpful comments, which have helped us further strengthen the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Lidia Oktaba

Warsaw University of Life Sciences

Corresponding author on behalf of all authors

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

as attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for carefully reviewing the revised manuscript and for the helpful comments aimed at improving the clarity and presentation of the paper. We appreciate your suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to each comment are provided below.

Comment 1

The abstract is not too many words, and all the sentences should be made together.

Response:

Several sentences were combined to improve readability.

Comment 2

Figure 1 should move and under the first sentence.

Response:

Figure 1 has been repositioned in the manuscript and is now placed immediately after the first mention of the study area to improve the logical structure of the text.

Comment 3

Figure 3 is necessary or not. I think that is not necessary, please make a double check.

Response:

We carefully reconsidered the role of Figure 3. As it illustrates the soil sampling scheme used within each plot, we believe it helps readers better understand the sampling design. However, the figure has been improved to enhance clarity.

Comment 4

Please make the short sentence not alone.

Response:

Short standalone sentences have been moved and merged to improve readability and text flow.

Comment 5

Table 2 and Table 3 are too closed. Check all Tables should be same format.

Response:

Tables 2 and 3 have been reformatted to improve spacing and readability. In addition, all tables in the manuscript have been standardized to ensure consistent formatting and presentation.

Comment 6

Please make the Figure 4 and Figure 5 more clearly.

Response:

To improve the clarity and interpretability of the PCA plots, the captions of all PCA figures have been revised to include the proportion of total variance explained by the respective principal components (PC1 and PC2). This additional information helps readers better understand the contribution of each component to the observed variation in the dataset.

Comment 7

Table 6, 7, and 9 should be revised. The 3 fields should be average.

Response:

Tables 6, 7, and 9 have been revised. The table format has been adjusted.

Comment 8

Section 5 should be revised. Please check journal’s format.

Response:

Section 5 (Conclusions) has been revised to comply with the journal’s formatting requirements.

 

We thank the Reviewer once again for the helpful comments, which have helped us further strengthen the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Lidia Oktaba

Warsaw University of Life Sciences

Corresponding author on behalf of all authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of research "How Long Do Certain Agricultural Features Persist After Afforestation?" (sustainability-4022181)

This research tries to analyse how long the features of agricultural use persist in soils after introducing forest vegetation. Composite samples from five locations in each plot were collected separately from the organic horizons and the mineral horizons. Brunic Arenosols with 15-, 40-, and 80-year-old trees were considered. Overall, the research results are novel, but the following shortcomings still exist:

- . The formation and development of forest soils is a long-term process requiring centuries or even longer to reach a stable state. This study did not adequately account for seasonal or interannual fluctuations in soil properties, which significantly influence long-term trends.

- . Furthermore, soil samples were collected only to a depth of 30 cm, overlooking changes in deeper soil properties. Such variations significantly influence surface ecological processes.

- . This study primarily focused on key indicators such as organic carbon content, total nitrogen, pH, hydrolytic acidity, and cation exchange capacity, while neglecting other variables affecting soil properties, such as microbial community structure and enzyme activity.

- . While principal component analysis (PCA) can identify major variation gradients in soil properties, it cannot fully reveal all underlying interactions and mechanisms. More advanced statistical methods and models (e.g., structural equation modeling, mixed-effects models) are recommended to deeply analyze data relationships and uncover the complex mechanisms of soil property changes post-afforestation.

- . Regional variations in climate conditions, soil types, and vegetation composition significantly influence soil property changes following afforestation. This study primarily focused on Brunic Arenosols, a soil type prevalent in specific regions but not representative of all soil types in afforested areas.

- . Furthermore, the study did not include undisturbed natural forest soils as controls, making it difficult to accurately determine whether soil properties in afforested areas have recovered to natural forest levels. Due to the lack of pre-afforestation soil property data, the authors could not directly assess the specific extent of afforestation's impact on soil properties.

- . While this study primarily examines scientific aspects of soil property changes, it does not sufficiently explore the specific impacts of these changes on forest ecosystem services nor propose targeted management recommendations. Specific policy suggestions should be developed based on the research findings to promote the sustainable development of the GAFL program and enhance soil quality.

- . Furthermore, the analysis of soil biology and microbial processes in this study is relatively simplistic. Soil organisms and microorganisms play crucial roles in soil restoration and nutrient cycling. Neglecting these aspects prevents a comprehensive understanding of post-afforestation changes in soil ecosystems. It is recommended to expand research on soil biology and microbial processes, including microbial community structure, functional diversity, and interactions with soil physicochemical properties, to more fully assess afforestation's impact on soil ecosystems.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors! The study provided usual approach for substitution of time series through sets composed from variously old systems. Although the substitution approach could be enough under stable external conditions, it could not provide sufficiently accurate estimation of true system development any time. Despite this principal defect of the study, I would like to recommend improvements as follows:

1) Introduction: Best when the introductory theory could be written generaly without any affinity to specific country or region, because the study shloud be prepared for international journal. As alternative, you can apply simple comparisons between two or among several regions according to Global Forest Watch system (Science 342: 850-853).

Additionally, generalize last introductory paragraph, where you should present a central question for survey. On the basis of the hypothesis, you shall suggest principles for the study approach. Finally, eliminate mentions about specific land or about tree species. 

2) Material and methods: First, unify abbreviations and various symbols for same variables and terms (for example C_org, Corg and TOC). Material and method section should to be focused on specification about importance of the investigated region as well as of the tree-species. Then you should specify bedrock conditions before soil environment. You should correct information about soil type according to valid WRB edition. What does mean Brunic Arenosol? Is it familiar with Dystric Arenosol? 

Statistical methods require rewriting, bacause they should be based on clear reasons for using. Why did you use descriptive statistics? Why did you use ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test simultanously? Why PCA? In this situation, there is unnecessary to write about any results, which should follow after statistical procedures.

Methods require explanation, if you visited the stands once for sampling or periodically from agricultural use to afforestation. This information is crucial for whole study concept including result interpretation. In case of single-term sampling you cannot consider about soil development, but you should consider about comparison analysis at variously old forest stands, where you cannot obtain, what soil properties persisted from arable land. The single-term survey could suggest only local soil condition heterogeneity.

Did you analyse soil granularity? Definition of Arenosols, based on sandy substrates, requires information about grain size composition.

3) Results and discussion: Please, check, if your description followed strictly spatial differences among variously old forest stands without interpretation on soil restoration after agricultural management. The observation of soil restoration should to be based on historical agricultiral data, that showed differences between both land managements.

Figure 2: Do not start captures for pictures with "picture" nor with "photo". Please,  concentrate on forest stand characteristics seen.

Table 2: Not "some properties", but you presented there properties of soil organic matter.

Table 3: Please, connect Ha, EBC and CEC as soil soprtion defined by analysed indicators.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

1. Provide the full term before introducing the abbreviation (for Corg)
2. The ending of the abstract is abrupt and feels unfinished. The authors should revise the final sentences to provide a clearer concluding message, ideally summarizing the main implications of the findings or their significance. A well-framed closing statement will improve the overall readability and impact of the abstract.

Introduction:

3. Add clearer statement of research gap and explicit objectives (currently implied but not stated concisely).

Materials and Methods:

4. Figure 1 could be improved, as the current map is very basic and lacks detail. The authors may consider refining the map by adding clearer boundaries, labels, scale bar, and other cartographic elements to enhance readability and provide more informative spatial context.
5. Expand the term WRB.
6. The use of only one 20 × 20 m plot per stand raises concerns about pseudoreplication. The authors should clarify the sampling design and discuss the implications of limited plot-level replication.
7. The authors should first define what the Ol and Ofh horizons represent before using these abbreviations. A brief explanation of each subhorizon (e.g., fresh litter vs. fragmented/humified litter) would improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with this terminology
8. Litter sampling: how was thickness measured? were samples volume-normalized?
9. Clarify how S was measured, since earlier methods mention only C, N, pH, Ha, base cations.
10. The statistical methods section needs greater detail. The authors should specify how assumptions for ANOVA were tested, whether post-hoc comparisons were performed, and how data were standardized for PCA. Reporting exact p-values and clarifying the rationale for choosing specific tests would improve transparency and reproducibility.
11. State which software and version was used for carrying out the statistical analysis.

Results:

12. Demonstrate the post-hoc tests done in all the tables 2, 3 and 4.
13. In Table 7 and 8: the term Sz is not defined.
14. Table captions should be more descriptive (indicating statistical significance, horizon explanation).
15. Ensure consistency by referring only to one: either the B horizon or the Bv horizon.
16. It would strengthen the manuscript if the authors reported percentage differences between stands (e.g., between 15-, 40-, and 80-year sites). Presenting % increases or decreases would make the magnitude of changes easier for readers to interpret.

Discussion:

17. The author attributed high S to historical air pollution. This is plausible but needs supporting logic: Why does S accumulate specifically in Ofh and not strongly in A? Could parent material (fluvioglacial sands) influence S? Could microbial immobilization contribute? Provide more context or cite supporting studies.
18. The discussion attributes stronger acidity in older stands mainly to litter effects. However soil acidification may also result from decades-long leaching, legacy fertilization and liming in agricultural history differs by depth, tree species composition changes affect acidity (more deciduous species in older stands should reduce, not increase, acidity).
19. Develop a more balanced explanation including: historical liming intensity, nitrogen cycling changes, leaching processes, mixed-species effects.

Conclusion:

20. Typographical error: “his study” → “This study”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf