Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article (essay) is mainly concerned with the history of the transformation of the use and hydrographic network of the Great Hungarian Plain (GHP). Special attention is given to issues related to the geological structure of the GHP and river regulation. The effects (mainly based on photos) of the 2022 drought are presented, and measures are proposed to improve the water retention capacity of the GHP area. The proposed measures (peatland restoration, water retention in reservoirs, water damming in watercourses and increasing the water retention capacity of soils) are not innovative and can be categorised as standard methods. The topics of the reviewed essay are within the scope of the Land journal's theme. The strength of the article is to show the transformation in the GHP area over the years.

 Minor comments:

 In the abstract Authors write “We review the impact of intensive agricultural cultivation on soils and the amount of water stored in the landscape, comparing this to the meteorological elements of the 2022 drought" (line 13-14) in my opinion this data are missing in the text of the paper.

In Chapter 7, “Changes in soil structure due to industrialised agriculture”, the Authors cite literature on the deterioration of water retention capacity due to soil compaction from areas outside the GHP (items 46-48). I would suggest citing Hungarian data (if available) from GHP.

 Line 389-390 „using the excess water stored in this way, evapotranspiration by vegetation will provide sufficient near-soil moisture during the summer” – it is not clear for me, evapotranspiration reduce soil moisture.

 Figure 9 – description” 4: dry layer below the impermeable layer 5: partly saturated soil owing to the plants penetrating the impermeable layer” I can't see any difference - the same pattern on both drawings

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, criticisms and comments. They have helped us a lot to improve the text of the paper. Below is a summary of how we have taken them into account in the revision:

“The proposed measures (peatland restoration, water retention in reservoirs, water damming in watercourses and increasing the water retention capacity of soils) are not innovative and can be categorised as standard methods.” – we agree on this. A new part of the Chapter 9 was added to make it clearer the main novelty of our proposal.

“In the abstract Authors write “We review the impact of intensive agricultural cultivation on soils and the amount of water stored in the landscape, comparing this to the meteorological elements of the 2022 drought" (line 13-14) in my opinion this data are missing in the text of the paper.” – papers, containing of these data were referenced, and in the review process, we added more of them. The main figures, characterizing the 2022 drought, however, are given in the text.

“In Chapter 7, “Changes in soil structure due to industrialised agriculture”, the Authors cite literature on the deterioration of water retention capacity due to soil compaction from areas outside the GHP (items 46-48). I would suggest citing Hungarian data (if available) from GHP.” – a new, long paragraph was added to Chapter 7, with four new references from Hungary and three ones from other parts of the world. However, this is also a subject of further research, as we point it out in the new Chapter 10.

“Line 389-390 „using the excess water stored in this way, evapotranspiration by vegetation will provide sufficient near-soil moisture during the summer” – it is not clear for me, evapotranspiration reduce soil moisture.” – we absolutely agree on this. A new paragraph was added to Chapter 9, explaining that the stored water shall be used for elongated evapotranspiration during the summer heat. So: the soil is the water storage and the vegetation habitat makes the transpiration.

“Figure 9 – description” 4: dry layer below the impermeable layer 5: partly saturated soil owing to the plants penetrating the impermeable layer” I can't see any difference - the same pattern on both drawings” – a short explanation is added to the figure caption. Part C is not the return to the original structure, just a first step to restore the water storage capacity of the deep soil layer.

Thank you again for giving valuable additions to our concept and paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With the title and aim of the study drought vulnerability and increase in resilience against droughts as 2022 are the topics - but in the paper their is a long description of geological -, historical land use- and river control measures! Chapter 3 can be sweeped - also chapter 4-6 has no clear relationship to the drought 2022. To describe the drought 2022 we miss climate tables, figures to compare with rainfall and evapotranspiration in normal years. Also examples of soil moisture content are mssing - not clear how references (52-55) adress the Hungarian plaine. Also in chapter 9 no concrete evidences for restoring peatland and wetland - how authors get the values 5000-7000 km2 (rows 415/416) ? In Fig. 7 not clear visible where LU-change is possible? In Fig. 4 legend (numbers 1,2,3) for 1785 is missing. Title for the paper content is more "Development of Great Hungarian plaine and consequences for resilience against droughts"

but this must be described more specific.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, criticisms and comments. They have helped us a lot to improve the text of the paper. Below is a summary of how we have taken them into account in the revision:

“With the title and aim of the study drought vulnerability and increase in resilience against droughts as 2022 are the topics - but in the paper their is a long description of geological -, historical land use- and river control measures!” – The title was changed with respect to this comment, thanks for pointing it out.

“Chapter 3 can be sweeped - also chapter 4-6 has no clear relationship to the drought 2022.” – We argue this, so we tried to make it more visible in the revised paper, why Chapter 3 is necessary to understand the whole story. A new paragraph was added to Introduction accordingly, summarizing this “story”. A new figure (the new Fig.3) was added to provide a link between Figs.2 and the (new) Fig.4, emphasizing it also in figure captions.

“To describe the drought 2022 we miss climate tables, figures to compare with rainfall and evapotranspiration in normal years. Also examples of soil moisture content are mssing - not clear how references (52-55) adress the Hungarian plaine.” – precipitation and (still partially available) evapotranspiration data were published in papers referenced in the article, and a new one (with agro-meteorological aspects) is added now. The main precipitation figures, characterizing the 2022 drought in Hungary, are given in the text. The mentioned references (original 52-55), were regrouped, according to this comment, leving referring the GHP only the right ones.

“Also in chapter 9 no concrete evidences for restoring peatland and wetland - how authors get the values 5000-7000 km2 (rows 415/416) ?” – True, it is only an estimation, albeit party based on original [28] (now [29]) reference. Now we emphasize it, and also move this item to „Future directions” chapter, giving the accurate questions to be answered by this kind of continuation.

“In Fig. 7 not clear visible where LU-change is possible?” – the figure caption is updated with an explanation.

„In Fig. 4 legend (numbers 1,2,3) for 1785 is missing.” – the whole figure was recompiled, no more number codings, with separate legend items for 1783 and 2018 maps.

„Title for the paper content is more "Development of Great Hungarian plaine and consequences for resilience against droughts" but this must be described more specific.” – the title was changed, not especially to this one but according to its logic, thanks for pointing to is.

Thank you again for giving valuable additions to our concept and paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This essay focused on the water storage in the Great Hungarian Plain. It interestingly introduced the landscape change and associated it with an extremely hot summer in 2022. The content of the manuscript is well structured and would attract certain readers who may interested in knowing the history of ecology and hydrology of the Great Hungarian Plain. However, as a review article, the discussion with the current studies was weak and the may objectives of the manuscript were difficult to find. There are some specific comments to improve the manuscript:

1.     Figure 3: The introduction and some stories about the map from ‘Many refer to this map’ to ‘draw a more accurate picture than this’ should move to the main text but not in the figure caption.

2.     Section 4, line 144-145: ‘According to Andrásfalvy (2007) this specific management, …’ The Andrásfalvy (2007) is numbered as 24 in the reference, here it should add [24] next to it.

3.     Section 4, line 178-179: The word ‘surviving’ used in ‘The surviving data’ was not appropriate. I suggest the authors put more explanation on it and use another word to replace it.

4.     Section 5, line 210: As the authors listed three aims of the river regulation, why did it say the aims were threefold?

5.     Section 5, line 258-259: It is difficult to see the shrunk from Figure 4 as figure 4 compares the difference between the years 1785 and 2018.

6.     Figure 4: It is better to include ‘Number codes: 1: water surface and marshland; 2: meadow and pasture; 3: agricultural fields; 4: forests (note that in the old map, the “marsh-forests” were drawn as “marsh”. In the figure legend instead of using numbers.

7.     Figure 5: ‘Europa’ should change to ‘Europe’.

 

8.     Reference, line 584: Please check if the doi of the essay is corrected. 

9. Reference： Please compare the finding and review of points with the references published in last five years.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, criticisms and comments. They have helped us a lot to improve the text of the paper. Below is a summary of how we have taken them into account in the revision:

“However, as a review article, the discussion with the current studies was weak and the may objectives of the manuscript were difficult to find.” – Thanks for this critics, we took it seriously in the recompilation of the text. The main novelty (in other words, our main message) is more focused now, and we added two more review parts, the bigger is to soil structure issues, especially concerning the study area, and the other is to make connection to meteo literature.

“Figure 3: The introduction and some stories about the map from ‘Many refer to this map’ to ‘draw a more accurate picture than this’ should move to the main text but not in the figure caption.” – done.

“Section 4, line 144-145: ‘According to Andrásfalvy (2007) this specific management, …’ The Andrásfalvy (2007) is numbered as 24 in the reference, here it should add [24] next to it.” – thanks for this, corrected.

“Section 4, line 178-179: The word ‘surviving’ used in ‘The surviving data’ was not appropriate. I suggest the authors put more explanation on it and use another word to replace it.” – corrected.

“Section 5, line 210: As the authors listed three aims of the river regulation, why did it say the aims were threefold?” – “threefold” means also “three types of”, we don’t see it any problem.

“Section 5, line 258-259: It is difficult to see the shrunk from Figure 4 as figure 4 compares the difference between the years 1785 and 2018” – thanks for this remark, which led us to modify this figure (now Fig.5) and adding the original marshland to the 2018 map.

“Figure 4: It is better to include ‘Number codes: 1: water surface and marshland; 2: meadow and pasture; 3: agricultural fields; 4: forests (note that in the old map, the “marsh-forests” were drawn as “marsh”. In the figure legend instead of using numbers.” – done.

“Figure 5: ‘Europa’ should change to ‘Europe’.” – corrected

“Reference, line 584: Please check if the doi of the essay is corrected.” – interestingly enough, it is. I’ve tried it when compiling the first version of the text, re-checking now. It is correct. I shall give special attention to this during the proofreading process.

“Reference： Please compare the finding and review of points with the references published in last five years.” – done, also with new paragraphs in Chapters 7 & 9.

Thank you again for giving valuable additions to our concept and paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper is improved in part with a better title, but main critical comments are not well adressed. So it woiuld be good to compare the long-term climate (diagram) with the climate diagram of drought year; also no table or diagram with precipitation and ET is shown! In chapter 1 reasons to describe the geomorphological development of the Hungarian plaine is given; but at the end of chapter 1 no clear aims for the paper are given. Fig. 3 is new and 7 updated, also Fig. 4 is now better.

But still in chapter 7 no concrete examples for soil compactation are given - only general description. No information on soil types, how deep bulk density increase? how are infilration capacities and intensity of thunderstorms (rainfall)? The contrast between arable crop fields and wet pasture fields for ET can be shown, to illustrate the possibility to strengthen the resilience against droughts with higher ET. 5000-9000 km2 is a pure estimation without analysis and is shift into chapter 11 - what must be done. So paper is still a nice description of the floodplain development, but less concrete analysis for drought resilience.

Author Response

Some new items were added to the paper, according to your suggestions:

1. A new figure showing a climate graph of a meteo station in the GHP, with the data of the 2002-2021 averages (for the months of the year) and the similar data for the discussed yaer 2022. Data of precipitation, average temperature and average humidity is shown. Sorry for lacking the ET data, as it is not easy to obtain.
2. A new paragraph is added, showing the general descriptions of the soils of the GHP. Also, data was added concerning the bulk denstity of the soil and the plough pan, as well as more precise size descriptions with a new local reference.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is much improved

Author Response

As here we don't see any new ones, we shall just say thanks for the comments and suggestions in the first review round.