Soil Characteristics and Fertility of the Unique Jarrah Forest of Southwestern Australia, with Particular Consideration of Plant Nutrition and Land Rehabilitation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript describes the soil characteristics of jarrah forest in Australia. Analyzed soil indicators were rich in physical and chemical. Phosphorus sorption isotherm and 31P-NMR were also conducted to elucidate the present of phosphorus in soil. All soil indicators were discussed with respect to plant nutrition and land rehabilitation. However, there was no direct evidence related to the practical measures of plant growth and land rehabilitation. As mentioned, the soil is P-deficiency and has a high sorption potential. Is it suitable for plant growth without P input? Moreover, what is the standard of soil used for nature vegetation or cultivation. A speculative analysis is not reasonable. Cite some literatures to discuss the soil properties on the basis of soil quality.
L341-346, The expression indicated jarrah soil is not suitable for plant growth without supplemented N and P, because N and P are in low available in the soil.
L361, Low soil pH is also associated with lower cation exchangeable capacity. If so, how to explain soil acidification without the change of CEC?
Author Response
We are very excited to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitle “Soil characteristics and fertility of the unique jarrah forest of south-western Australia, with particular consideration of plant nutrition and land rehabilitation” for Land, manuscript ID. land-2415852. We carefully considered the comments of both reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations and we also addressed their doubts. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance.
We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in Land. Next, we offer detailed responses of the reviewers.
Comment:
The manuscript describes the soil characteristics of jarrah forest in Australia. Analyzed soil indicators were rich in physical and chemical. Phosphorus sorption isotherm and 31P-NMR were also conducted to elucidate the present of phosphorus in soil. All soil indicators were discussed with respect to plant nutrition and land rehabilitation. However, there was no direct evidence related to the practical measures of plant growth and land rehabilitation.
Response:
Our intention was to address the lack of information on essential soil properties to allow optimal soil management and fertilisation regimes to be determined locally, dictated by local land use objectives. We cite a number of paper which investigated specific land rehabilitation objectives, e.g. [3, 4, 8, 12, 85].
Comment:
As mentioned, the soil is P-deficiency and has a high sorption potential. Is it suitable for plant growth without P input?
Response:
As we mentioned in the manuscript, these materials were used primarily in land restoration projects where low levels of P is essential for native plant growth. The question of the reviewer has been addressed previously by references [15, 20, 21, 22, 62, 85].
Comment:
Moreover, what is the standard of soil used for nature vegetation or cultivation. A speculative analysis is not reasonable. Cite some literatures to discuss the soil properties on the basis of soil quality.
Response:
To our knowledge, there are only two studies investigating this matter which we cited in the manuscript [17 and 20].
Comment:
L341-346, The expression indicated jarrah soil is not suitable for plant growth without supplemented N and P, because N and P are in low available in the soil.
Response:
We did not find these sentences in lines 341-346 and we could not follow this comment.
Comment:
L361, Low soil pH is also associated with lower cation exchangeable capacity. If so, how to explain soil acidification without the change of CEC?
Response:
To clarify, we state “Low soil pH is also associated with lower cation exchange capacity; as fewer cations are available with increasingly acidic conditions. The ECEC of both soil layers was low, suggesting they are relatively infertile”. To the best of our understanding this seems to answer the question. If there is still confusion, please clarify the question and we will be happy to address this.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript is very interesting for the scientific community of international readers. The authors have written it nicely and provided valuable information in this manuscript. All my comments are below:
All my comments are below:
Comments:
Abstract
The abstract of the manuscript is written, nicely, but must need to add a few lines of the conclusion of the present finding of the study.
Introduction
The introduction of the manuscript is written very nicely by the authors. Please must be added vegetation to the study area in the introduction section.
Materials and methods
The materials and methods section of the manuscript is also written very nicely, but please must incorporate the photographs of the study sites.
The difference in soil characteristics and fertility in depths must be statistically analyzed.
Please write the depth of the pallid zone layers.
Results
The results section of the manuscript was written very nicely.
Discussion
The discussion of the manuscript must be improved by adding some new references.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the study must be improved.
Author Response
We are very excited to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitle “Soil characteristics and fertility of the unique jarrah forest of south-western Australia, with particular consideration of plant nutrition and land rehabilitation” for Land, manuscript ID. land-2415852. We carefully considered the comments of both reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations and we also addressed their doubts. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance.
We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in Land. Next, we offer detailed responses of the reviewers.
Comment:
The abstract of the manuscript is written, nicely, but must need to add a few lines of the conclusion of the present finding of the study.
Response:
We agree and we have modified the abstract based on the comment of the reviewer. We also added more keywords for completeness.
Comment:
The introduction of the manuscript is written very nicely by the authors. Please must be added vegetation to the study area in the introduction section.
Response:
Excellent suggestion. The vegetation has been added to the introduction based on this comment.
Comment:
Please write the depth of the pallid zone layers.
Response:
Figure 1 shows that the saprolite layer situated in depth (>12 m). We mentioned this in the material and methods base on the comment.
Comment:
The conclusion of the study must be improved.
Response:
This has now been improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comment to this manuscript.
