Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Quality Reconstruction in Agroforestry Ecosystems of High-Altitude Areas: A Case Study of the Jiangcang Mining Area, Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This could be an interesting manuscript on the use of various indicators for assessing soil quality in mining areas, but in its current form the work requires major corrections. The work is very poorly prepared, especially in terms of editing, e.g.: repeated chapter titles, and even identical content of two chapters, poor readability of graphs, poor editing of literature citations in the main text, and about 12 citations are missing. More detailed comments can be found below.

 

Line 29-31 – The authors will not explain this issue in the Discussion. Address this in the appropriate section.

line 34 - 37 – The authors do not confirm this in their Conclusions.

Introduction

The Introduction are written superficially and chaotically. Very general sentences, no deeper insight into the presented topic. The Introduction contains only information about the research area, which should largely be included in the Material and Methods chapter. What about the indicators they used to assess soil quality? Why do they think they are so important - especially in the area they studied? What about water-carbon processes? So strongly emphasized in the Abstract. Please add missing information based on international literature. The Introduction should definitely be improved. Or even considered writing it again.

Moreover, it is very difficult to assess whether the information presented by the Authors is correct, because they often refer to References that cannot be found on the websites. In my opinion, this is a major shortcoming of this work.

Line 47 -Reference [1] – in my opinion it is off-topic. In my opinion, this work lacks information on the characteristics of the area studied by the Authors. This should be corrected.

Line 51- Reference [2] - concerns the impact of climate change on groundwater and soil temperature in cold and temperate regions, not mining activities. Reference [3] is also questionable.

Line 55, 57, 94 - references [4,5,6,7,13] – where can find full texts or at least abstracts of these works? The lack of DOI makes finding them on websites much more difficult or practically impossible.

Line 58-60 and 60-65 – no reference to literature

Line 61 - ''innovative restoration techniques'' what do you mean? What's so innovative about them?

line 61 - ,,local materials’ – what do you mean exactly?

Line 65-69 - this should be a separate paragraph. And the information contained therein should be expanded/supplemented (based on international literature)

Line 71-72 – What "gap" are you talking about specifically? It is not clear what the previous studies were about, and what new things do these studies bring?

Line 86-88 – in what way? The Authors do not explain this in the Discussion or Conclusions

Materials and Method

This chapter repeats the content from the Introduction, this should be changed. In addition, there is no detailed description of the reclamation procedures carried out in the studied area.

I suggest adding a map with the research area marked on the world background.

Line 134-137 – in what years exactly were the studies conducted? In 2020 or 2024? Because it is not clear. Please provide specific dates of sampling.

Line 137 – Feng et al. missing in References

Line 149-151 – this could be in the Introduction. Besides, there is no reference to literature in my opinion

Line 161-174 – provide a literature reference

Line 172, 199, 205 – 17, 18, 19 – Are these References? If so, please fix the edit

Line 177, 195, 218 –  why are there 3 subchapters? since they have one name? and there are too few references to literature

Results

Line 228-230 – What is this ?

The readability of all figures should be improved. The font should definitely be increased, and in some cases the size of the figures should be increased. The readability of Fig. 3b and all figures Fig. 4 should be improved in particular.

Line 232-235 – this information should be in the Introduction. Besides, the literature could be newer.

Line 235 - Fig. 3 a or b?

Line 239-246 – no reference to figure or table

Line 231, 249, 284, 301– why are the titles the same? please change it

Fig. 4. - please add the designations a, b, c... etc. to the individual figures and include this in the description of the results (line 250-277). The figure is very illegible, which significantly complicates interpretation. This should be corrected.

line 290-291 – which figure from Fig 5 does this refer to? Please indicate specifically

line 292 – is figure 6 correct?

Line 294-295 – why is the entry double? (e.g. y=10.3x+156.5, y=10.3x+156.5)

Line 296-298 – no reference to the figure

Line 304-305 – Fig 7 ? is this correct?

Line 308 - the North Slag Heap Platform at No. 4 or No5? is that correct?

Line 302- 309 - include in the results description also a short description of table 4

Line 336 -350 – make sure the description of the results is correct

There are no references to Fig 7. Furthermore, why did the authors not refer to the Pesrson’s correlation in Material and Methods?

Line 369 – Fig. 5 is correct?

Line 369- 372 – no reference to the Figures. Also, is the record correct?

Line 378-381 – where does this conclusion come from? No reference to table or fig

In my opinion, the authors should also refer to the tables presented in Appendix in the Results or Discussion

Discussion

The discussion is poorly written. There is too little discussion and explanation of certain phenomena and references to the obtained results in the "Discussion" chapter. Therefore, it is necessary to re-edit this chapter in the light of the latest research.Line 390,399, – czy nie ma nowszych badań na ten temat?

Line 390-392 – no reference to literature

Line 400- 407 - no reference to literature

Line 405-407 – but why? explain, expand

Line 412-434 – this is the same information as in 4.1.

No discussion on chemical properties

Line 436-446 – But what does this mean for the Authors’ research and the area they investigated?

Line 447-452 - no reference to literature

Line 457 – 464 – this is a duplication of the description of the results – not a discussion.

Fig 9 – no references to it in the main text.

Line 477-485 – no reference to own research

Line 503-516 – no reference to literature

Why don't the Authors refer to SQI, TDS, MDS in their discussion? What about the impact on water-coal processes that the Authors so strongly refer to in the Abstract?

Conclusions

This chapter should also be rewritten. These are not conclusions, but a repetition of the description of the results. The authors should emphasize the novelty and practical application of their research in this part.

Reference

Line 566-576- What is this ?

The lack of a DOI makes it much more difficult to find the right citations. This should be added.

References 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 45 - missing in the main text

Furthermore, the entry in the main text of references is questionable (lack of brackets): 17,18,19,22,25,33,34,35,36,37,38,14,16,39,41,42,43,44,46

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

we have made modifications point-by-point. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is very interesting. However, the work needs improvement. The descriptions are too detailed. Unit notation needs to be corrected. Much improvement is needed in the discussion. Complete lack of discussion with information given by other authors. 27 comments are marked in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer： we have made modifications point-by-point.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer： we have made modifications point-by-point.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments and I suggest it be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you again for the valuable feedback you provided on our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have not done an improved job. Many errors remain. Correction of unit notation still needed. Much improvement is needed in the discussion. Authors removed introduction replacing it with elements of methodology. Still complete lack of discussion with information given by other authors. Figures are not corrected, they are still unreadable. Some strange figures and comments have appeared in the text. 14 comments have been highlighted in the text. In this version the paper is not acceptable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments : Why was the location information moved from the methodology to the introduction? Response 1: Thank you very much for your attention to our article. When we were rewriting the introduction, we wanted to emphasize in the first paragraph that the geographical location of the Muli mining area is very important and that the ecosystem is fragile. The Muli mining area is located at the southern foot of the Qilian Mountains, which is an important part of the water conservation and ecological safety barrier of the Qilian Mountains, and it is also a typical representative of the alpine meadow ecosystem on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. As one of the important grassland ecosystems on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, alpine meadows serve as significant carbon sinks in the "Third Pole" region, playing an important regulatory role in the global carbon balance. However, the mining area is characterized by aridity, cold temperatures, strong radiation, and oxygen deficiency, with thin and poor soil layers and a short plant growing season, resulting in significant fragility of the alpine meadow ecosystem. Therefore, based on these considerations, we placed the geographical location in the introduction, while focusing on the sample collection setup in the materials and methods section. Comments 2: Why is the number 19 written down? What are these strange comments? Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. First of all, I sincerely apologize for the unpleasant experience caused to you. I am not sure whether it is due to the uploaded word file being too large or some other reason, but all the references in the modified compared version downloaded from the website have turned into garbled text. Therefore, when I submit the revised paper this time, I will make sure to check it and also send a copy of the revised version to the editor via email. Thank you very much! Comments 3: What does this product mean? Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. The Muli mining area is also the largest coal mining area in Qinghai Province, with proven resource reserves of 33.39 × 108 tons. The figure of 33.39 × 108 t at this location represents the proven resource reserves, which account for approximately 83% of the coal reserves in Qinghai Province (as of 2017). This figure primarily indicates that the Muli mining area is rich in coal resources, which leads to the discussion of the ecological damage caused by mining development. Comments 4: The number is missing. Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have re-added the serial number 2.1. 2.1. Soil Sample collection and analysis Comments 5: Please write the units correctly. Correct everywhere. Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We have carefully checked the units of the detection indicators and changed the units of Microbial Biomass Carbon and Easily Oxidizable Organic Carbon from mg/kg and g/kg to mg C/kg and g C/kg. Turning Point Microbial Biomass Carbon (mg C/kg) Easily Oxidizable Organic Carbon (g C/kg) Total Cr (mg/kg) Total Cu (mg/kg) Total Cd (mg/kg) Total Pb (mg/kg) Total Hg (mg/kg) Total As (mg/kg)   Function Type S-shaped Descending S- shaped x1 386 5.5 53.2 17.6 0.1 13.8 0 5.4   x2 1611.6 41.2 520 28.3 0.6 28.0 0.1 9.8   Line 247-249: easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOOC) contents in the natural grassland were 247.86 g/kg (Fig. 6a), 143.11 g/kg, 1611.62 mg C/kg (Fig. 6c), and 41.20 g C/kg (Fig. 6d). Line 247-249: Table A2 Comments 5: What kind of comment is that? Response 5: I sincerely apologize for the trouble caused to you. This problem is the same as the comment 2; it may have been caused by garbled text during the submission process. When we resubmit the revised text, we will make sure to revise it carefully. Thank you very much. Comments 6: Figure 4 is no different from the previous version. Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. The strikethrough in the "compared" version may have been unclear. Originally, Figure 4 combined soil moisture, electrical conductivity, and nutrient data. We have now separated these into Figure 4 (soil pH, moisture, and conductivity) and Figure 5, with enlarged fonts for better readability.   Figure 4. Chemical properties of reconstructed soils. (a) pH of reconstructed soils; (b) cinductivity of reconstructed soils; (c) water content of reconstructed soils. Comments 7: Where is Table A2? Response 7: Thank you very much for your attention. Table A 2 is on Line 582, and it is Appendix A.2. Comments 8: On what basis is this valuation. Response 8: We sincerely appreciate for your interest. You have raised a profound scientific question-what should ultimately be the goal of soil remediation? Current assessment of mining soil remediation predominantly emphasizes pollutant concentration standards and vegetation coverage rates. In response, we have developed an "Ecologically Adaptive Remediation Classification Framework" that anchors remediation targets to native regional soil quality based on the principle of natural selection optimization. Guided by the functional equivalence principle, we establish the following classification criteria: remediation achieving ≥80% of native soil quality is classified as High tier, 60-80% as Medium tier, and <60% as Low tier. This framework aligns with established scholarly consensus. A higher Soil Quality Index (SQI) value indicates superior soil quality, using the SQI of natural grassland as a reference standard. Based on the principle of natural selection optimization, we linked remediation targets to regional native soil quality, using Q to represent the degree of soil environmental quality restoration. Following the functional equivalence principle, we classified the post-remediation soil environmental quality of slag heaps into three tiers: : Q ≥ 0.8 (High), 0.6 ≤ Q < 0.8 (Medium), and Q < 0.6 (Low). And this classification is consistent with the findings of relevant scholars [27,28]. Comments 9: The discussion is uncorrected. There is no element of discussion in this passage. Response 9: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten 4.1 Impact of Soil Physical Properties on Soil Quality. Soil texture and bulk density are core indicators reflecting soil environmental quality, directly influencing ecosystem health and restoration capacity. In the Jiangcang mining area, natural grasslands are predominantly silty loam (41.10% sand, 44.00% silt, and 14.90% clay), with a relatively low bulk density (0.55 g/cm³). In contrast, reconstructed soils on waste dumps, due to factors such as mechanical compaction, engineering sieving, and organic matter loss, are primarily composed of sand and clay, with lower silt content, resulting in textures such as clay loam or sandy clay loam. The bulk density of these reconstructed soils is 2-3 times higher than that of natural grasslands. Located on the northeastern edge of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, the Jiangcang mining area receives an average annual rainfall of 500 mm, concentrated mainly in July and August. This means that during months with less rainfall, sandy soils exhibit stronger drought sensitivity, with higher evaporation rates, while clayey soils are prone to cracking under drought conditions, significantly accelerating water loss [27]. These factors exacerbate plant water stress, directly limiting photosynthesis and nutrient uptake, thereby inhibiting growth. Additionally, studies have shown that when bulk density exceeds 1.6 g/cm³, soil aggregates break down, macropores are compressed, and pores >30 μm are significantly reduced, impairing water retention and decreasing plant-available water while increasing root penetration resistance [28]. High bulk density also reduces the diffusion rates of O₂ and CO₂ while increasing N₂O emissions, intensifying anaerobic conditions [29], further hindering plant growth. Principal component analysis (PCA) in this study further confirmed that bulk density is a key indicator (weight: 0.07) in the minimum data set (MDS) for soil quality. Its variation explains the significant differences in texture and bulk density between reconstructed waste dump soils and natural grasslands, resulting in lower soil quality in the reconstructed areas. Therefore, during mechanical crushing of reconstructed soils in this region, it is essential to employ graded crushing to increase sand content while incorporating lignin-modified biochar to reduce bulk density. Comments 10: What are those strange numbers in the text? Response 10: I sincerely apologize for the trouble caused to you. This problem is the same as the comment 2 and 5. When we resubmit the revised text, we will make sure to revise it carefully. Thank you very much. Comments 11: References should be edited according to the editor's requirements. Authors should read the instructions on the journal's website. Response 11: Thank you very much for your patience and earnestness. We have reorganized the references of this paper according to the requirements of Agronomy for references. Thanks again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You do a good work, correcting the original version,

Author Response

Thank you again for the valuable feedbacks you provided on our paper.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have not done a proper job of improving the work. Many errors remain. Correction of unit notation still needed. Authors included elements of methodology in the introduction. Still complete lack of discussion with information given by other authors. Figures are not corrected, still unreadable. 13 comments are highlighted in the text. This is the third review. The paper still needs to be revised properly. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf