Ash Treatment Promotes the Revegetation of Abandoned Extracted Peatlands
, Reimo Lutter 1, Marju Kaivapalu 1, Reeno Sopp 1, Kristjan Täll 1 and Hardi Tullus 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSection 1: Please rewrite the whole introduction section. The importance and novelty of this study should be intensively presented. In addition, the literature review should closely follow the objectives of the study.
Subsection 2:
- The methods and purpose of experiment should be clearly described with a diagram.
- The landuse map of the study area should be added to the manuscript.
- The experimental field should be plotted. Figures of the instruments that were used to measure should be described and presented.
Line 168: Add references
Section 3:
- Explain the reason why there are changes in the volumetric water content and chemical properties of peat substrate in time at different locations.
- The meteorological data shown in the section 2 has been not used in this section.
- The purpose of the analysis must be improve so that readers undertand the importance of your study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language must be revised
Author Response
1.Section 1: Please rewrite the whole introduction section. The importance and novelty of this study should be intensively presented. In addition, the literature review should closely follow the objectives of the study.
Answer: Introduction section has been supplemented and rewritten, changes has been highlighted in the manuscript.
2.Subsection 2:- The methods and purpose of experiment should be clearly described with a diagram.
Answer: Diagram (Figure 1) has been added.
- Subsection 2:- The landuse map of the study area should be added to the manuscript.
Answer: Landuse map (Figure 2) has been added.
- Subsection 2:- The experimental field should be plotted. Figures of the instruments that were used to measure should be described and presented.
Answer: Experimental fields (Figure 2) and instruments (Figure 3) have been presented.
- Subsection 2:Line 168: Add references
Answer: References have been added.
6.Section 3:- Explain the reason why there are changes in the volumetric water content and chemical properties of peat substrate in time at different locations.
Answer: Explanations have been added.
7.Section 3:- The meteorological data shown in the section 2 has been not used in this section.
Answer: The effect of meteorological data has been added.
- The purpose of the analysis must be improve so that readers undertand the importance of your study.
Answer: The objectives and novelty of this study are rewritten that readers undertand the importance of our study.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript examines the effects of wood and oil shale ash fertilization on the re-vegetation of abandoned peat extraction fields. Ash treatments were applied in 2011. Different levels of fertilization as well as mixtures were used. Vegetation and soil properties were assessed in 2016, 2017 and 2019.
The manuscript is generally clear and presented in a well-structured manner. However, it remained incomprehensible whether water levels and hydrologic regime had ever been attempted to stabilize (or not) in Puhatu after peat extraction field was abandoned, which is crucial for understanding the applicability of results. 1-2 photos of the general conditions in experiment field could also help readers to understand the context much better.
Specific comments:
1) ‘Abandoned peatland’ is too vague as a term, particularly in the title and abstract of the manuscript. Better terms would be ‘abandoned extracted peatland’ or ‘abandoned peat extraction site’ etc.
2) The role of hydrology and water level fluctuations in general for restoration success of extracted peatlands should be also covered in introduction.
3) When was Puhatu peat extraction site abandoned? Has there been any other restoration activities (e.g. to stabilize water level fluctuations) already done? Please, explain the history of experiment site more thoroughly in the section of methodology.
4) Planted tree seedlings are very briefly mentioned in methodology (line 124). Please, explain in more details. Were tree seedlings planted also to the control plots? How the planted seedlings affected re-vegetation and how the planted seedlings were considered in species richness?
5) Lines 110-111 tell that peat milling fields had been up to 30-40% naturally re-vegetated. Why none of the control plots re-vegetated during observation period? Was it a deliberate choice to establish control plots in specific locations were hydrology or other environmental conditions prohibited re-vegetation naturally? Please, explain in more details the selection criteria of plot locations and what prevented re-vegetation in control plots?
6) Please, specify, how far and which direction was the nearest (Jõhvi) meteorological station from the experimental area? (line 153)
7) Can distance from the nearest seed banks also affect the re-vegation in this study area? Please, describe the study area in more details from the perspective of distance from the nearest seed banks.
Author Response
However, it remained incomprehensible whether water levels and hydrologic regime had ever been attempted to stabilize (or not) in Puhatu after peat extraction field was abandoned, which is crucial for understanding the applicability of results. 1-2 photos of the general conditions in experiment field could also help readers to understand the context much better.
Answer: Explanation and photo (Figure 2) have been added to the section Materials and Methods.
Specific comments:
1) Abandoned peatland’ is too vague as a term, particularly in the title and abstract of the manuscript. Better terms would be ‘abandoned extracted peatland’ or ‘abandoned peat extraction site’ etc.
Answer: Changed in ″abandoned extracted peatland″ or ″abandoned peat extraction site″ (title and over all text of manuscript).
2) The role of hydrology and water level fluctuations in general for restoration success of extracted peatlands should be also covered in introduction.
Answer: Explanation and relevant references have been added to the sections Introduction and Materials and Methods.
3) When was Puhatu peat extraction site abandoned? Has there been any other restoration activities (e.g. to stabilize water level fluctuations) already done? Please, explain the history of experiment site more thoroughly in the section of methodology.
Answer: Explanations (history of abandoned extraxted Puhatu peatland, information of restoration activites) have been added to the section Materials and Methods.
4) Planted tree seedlings are very briefly mentioned in methodology (line 124). Please, explain in more details. Were tree seedlings planted also to the control plots? How the planted seedlings affected re-vegetation and how the planted seedlings were considered in species richness?
Answer: Explanation in more details and relevant references have been added to the section Materials and Methods.
5) Lines 110-111 tell that peat milling fields had been up to 30-40% naturally re-vegetated. Why none of the control plots re-vegetated during observation period? Was it a deliberate choice to establish control plots in specific locations were hydrology or other environmental conditions prohibited re-vegetation naturally? Please, explain in more details the selection criteria of plot locations and what prevented re-vegetation in control plots?
Answer: Explanations in more details have been added to the section Materials and Methods.
6) Please, specify, how far and which direction was the nearest (Jõhvi) meteorological station from the experimental area? (line 153)
Answer: Explanation has been added to the section Materials and Methods.
7) Can distance from the nearest seed banks also affect the re-vegation in this study area? Please, describe the study area in more details from the perspective of distance from the nearest seed banks.
Answer: Explanation has been added to the section Materials and Methods.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the results and conclusions of the study are not unexpected, their quantification is valuable and will be useful for future studies of the topic.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language is generally fine. I noticed only the following
Line 37 change ‘from’ to ‘on’
Line 71 should ‘preferre’ be ‘preferred’?
Line 75 should ‘were’ not be ‘was’?
Line 149 I don’t know what 10*10 means.
Line 474 should ‘calcerous’ not be ‘calcareous’?
Author Response
Wording mistakes referred to by the reviewer were corrected in the course of the MDPI proofreading process.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no other comments on the revised manuscript
