Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Vegetation Dynamics, Productivity, and Carbon Stock in Plant Matter in the Drained Berkazan-Kamysh Peatland (Bashkir Cis-Urals) After Rewetting

Land 2025, 14(9), 1729; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091729

by Nikolay Fedorov^1,2, Pavel Shirokikh^1,2

, Elvira Baisheva¹

, Svetlana Zhigunova^1,2,*, Albert Muldashev¹, Ilshat Tuktamyshev^1,2

, Ilnur Bikbaev^1,2

, Vasiliy Martynenko¹

and Leniza Naumova³

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Cheuk Hei Marcus Tong

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Land 2025, 14(9), 1729; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14091729

Submission received: 15 July 2025 / Revised: 21 August 2025 / Accepted: 22 August 2025 / Published: 26 August 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ecological Functions and Conservation of Wetland Systems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines productivity, carbon sequestration, and vegetation dynamics at the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland in the Bashkir region of Russia following the implementation of rewetting in 2017. The study analyzes changes in plant biomass, carbon content, and plant community composition over the seven years since the restoration of this previously drained peatland began.

The strengths of the article include a comprehensive methodological approach that combines field studies, satellite analysis, and laboratory work. It characterizes the long-term nature of the research, spanning seven years of monitoring and detailed descriptions of various plant community types. The findings have practical significance for peatland restoration projects, with the accurate documentation of vegetation cover changes through mapping adding additional value.

However, the paper has weaknesses, primarily the lack of comparative data from undisturbed peatlands in the same region and limited information regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Although the observation period of seven years is substantial, it may still be considered short for processes occurring in peatland ecosystems.

Additionally, the work lacks a cost-benefit analysis of the rewetting process and an insufficient discussion of the long-term stability of the achieved effects. Also, the water source for rewetting the lowland peatland (fen peatland) is interesting. The peatland was drained, so the water source for rewetting should be indicated.

Based on the article review, the research includes limited statistical analysis focused solely on determining the mean and standard deviation. The description of the statistical methods employed in the study requires further expansion, as merely citing the specific calculation software does not adequately convey the applied statistical techniques.

Moreover, there is no statistical analysis comparing the effects of rewetting, particularly in terms of carbon storage, which would help confirm the significance of the reported changes. The work should also include an uncertainty analysis of the mapping results, or at least provide a description of the cross-validation scheme representing some form of uncertainty analysis.

The conclusions seem neither original for the degraded peatlands.

Overall, the study is primarily descriptive, with elements of basic descriptive statistics. The authors focus on presenting numerical data with standard errors, but do not conduct advanced statistical analyses that could confirm the significance of observed differences and relationships. This represents a methodological weakness of the paper, especially when comparing the effectiveness of different species community types in carbon sequestration.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! Thank you for your careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of the manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments (in the text of the manuscript, corrections are marked in green color).

Answer: Unfortunately, there are no available data on the productivity of plant communities in undisturbed peatlands in the Republic of Bashkortostan, because of such investigations were not conducted previously. In the corrected Discussion section, we compared our results with data on the productivity of fens in the forest-steppe zone of other regions of Russia. We would also like to note that the data presented in the article are not the result of regular annual observations over a period of seven years but represent a comparison of our results for 2023-2024 with literature data on this peatland for 2017. We agree that a seven-year observation period is short and that the research should be continued. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the study.

Additionally, the work lacks a cost-benefit analysis of the rewetting process and an insufficient discussion of the long-term stability of the achieved effects.

Answer: There are undoubtedly financial benefits to rewetting. This is evidenced by the creation of climate projects based on rewetting and obtaining carbon credits (for example, in the Tver region at the «Orshinsky Moss» peat deposit (https://csdt.ru/news/tpost/9u36m7s581-vpervie-v-rossii-zaregistrirovan-klimati). Within the framework of this article, we are not authorized to discuss commercial aspects. However, in addition to the financial component, rewetting in this case has a number of positive aspects for the environment. Firstly, it puts an end to peat fires, which have become much more frequent on this peat bog since it was drained. Secondly, it improves the water supply to the Tyulyan River. This has already led to the partial restoration of the fauna (for example, the Great White Egret Casmerodius albus, listed in the Red Book of the Bashkortostan, has returned).

Also, the water source for rewetting the lowland peatland (fen peatland) is interesting. The peatland was drained, so the water source for rewetting should be indicated.

Answer: We fully agree with you. These data are discussed in the corrected Materials and Methods section.

Answer: Thanks for comment. We have described the methods used in the study in more detail.

Moreover, there is no statistical analysis comparing the effects of rewetting, particularly in terms of carbon storage, which would help confirm the significance of the reported changes

Answer: The effects of rewetting, particularly in terms of carbon storage, can only be assessed by taking into account data on peat deposits. This study did not examine carbon accumulation across the entire ecosystem, including peat. The topic of the article has been adjusted based on the work that has been done. From a statistical point of view, the established twofold increase in primary production is statistically significant in any case. Work on studying this peatland continues. Currently, greenhouse gas flows are being re-examined, which will allow for more statistically sound conclusions to be drawn in the future.

The work should also include an uncertainty analysis of the mapping results, or at least provide a description of the cross-validation scheme representing some form of uncertainty analysis.

Answer: We agree with your comment. We have described these issues in more detail in the corrected Materials and Methods section. When creating the map, we selected the Prediction Probability function. This function allows us to evaluate the quality of predictions in each pixel of the raster of the resulting map. The mapping result we selected had very high average prediction quality values (80-90%), which indicates the high quality of the model. In addition, a manual check of the model quality was performed. For this purpose, the obtained model was verified using 200 points of plant community types that were not included in the Random Forests training. The prediction quality was 88%. Furthermore, given that in a few number of cases the plant communities were smaller than 10 m (resolution of satellite images), the map was slightly adjusted manually using an image from a UAV with a resolution of 30 cm per pixel.

The conclusions seem neither original for the degraded peatlands.

Answer: The study of the restoration of different types of fens in various regions and environmental conditions is important to gain new knowledge which will be used to define restoration measures based on types of fens and starting regional conditions. In Russia, rewetting of peatlands has only begun in recent decades in a few regions, and Berkasan-Kamysh Peatland is the only one located in the forest-steppe zone. No studies on the effects of rewetting of peatlands in the forest-steppe zone of Russia had been conducted prior to this research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' effort to investigate vegetation dynamics and carbon accumulation following rewetting of a forest-steppe peatland. The topic is relevant and potentially valuable, particularly given the underrepresentation of forest-steppe ecosystems in the rewetting literature. However, I have several major concerns regarding the manuscript’s structure, clarity, and scientific framing. My detailed comments are outlined below.

Introduction:

Currently, only a few sentences near the end of the Introduction attempt to do so, e.g., “There are also few data comparing these processes with similar data on undisturbed and drained peatlands [32, 34].” In my view, this is misleading, as many recent studies have investigated vegetation transitions following rewetting. As a result, I am not fully convinced that the present study is addressing a timely or well-defined research gap.

I would suggest narrowing the scope to focus on forest-steppe ecosystems. Instead of citing studies from peatlands in different climatic or land-use contexts, the authors could clarify what makes peatlands in forest-steppe systems distinct, what has been studied so far, and how this article contributes specifically to that domain.

Methods:

Furthermore, Figure 1 does not effectively communicate the site conditions. Readers would typically expect this figure to illustrate key environmental features such as hydrological setting, rewetting infrastructure (if any), and vegetation zonation. Its current form misses the opportunity to contextualize the study location adequately.

Results:

The authors devote a considerable amount of text to describing species compositions within each vegetation category. However, since these categories are based on established literature (e.g., Vicherek 1973), such detailed species descriptions are not necessary in the main text. Instead, this information would be more appropriate as a table in the Methods or supplementary material.

More importantly, I find that two critical comparative perspectives are missing in the Results section:

1) Comparison with drained conditions:

Given that the study focuses on the effects of rewetting, it is essential to show how vegetation has changed relative to the drained state. Without a direct comparison, the treatment effect cannot be fully evaluated. While the authors present such comparison in the discussion, this is not logical. Information about the pre-rewetting vegetation should be briefly introduced in the Methods section (e.g., via references [51, 52]), and the resulting changes should be quantitatively presented in the Results section.

2) Environmental context of spatial variation:

Presenting spatial variation in vegetation is not meaningful unless it is contextualized with relevant geographical or environmental data. For example, how does vegetation variation relate to proximity to rivers, water table depth, or other site conditions? These factors should be presented in the Results and further interpreted in the Discussion. Without this context, the spatial vegetation patterns lack explanatory value.

Discussion:

A large portion of the text in this section appears more appropriate for the Methods or Results sections rather than the Discussion. As currently presented, there is a lack of in-depth analysis and interpretation of the spatial and temporal changes in vegetation, as well as their ecological implications, particularly regarding ecosystem carbon balance. Furthermore, the discussion does not sufficiently engage with relevant literature to contextualize the findings within the broader research field.

Detailed comments by lines:

Line 22: What does it mean by “developed”?

Line 29: “decreased by 2 times” is confusing. Use decreased by half or decreased by 50% instead.

Line 29: from ”808” to ”398.9”. Beware of the different number of decimal places.

Line 58: I have doubt on the statement “the carbon content of fen peat is significantly higher than that of raised bog peat [3].” At least I do not find such argument in the reference [3]. In many places, the C content at Raised bog peat can be higher then fens.

Line 59-60: Same question here. You mentioned that “Compared to raised peat, fen peat has a higher density, as well as nitrogen and carbon content [16].”. Can you list where in reference 16 did they mention this? To me, fen has usually a higher decomposing rate, so the C content could be lower than in the bogs.

Line 83-86: This paragraph is a bit oversimplified or biased to me. The main purpose of rewetting is to stop or at least minimize peat decomposition by turning the site anaerobic. If you argue that peatland increases carbon sequestration by the mire species, then indeed the plants or trees growing under drained conditions can also take up a lot of carbon.

Line 88: What sequestration ? Is it carbon sequestration?

Line 93-96: There have been numerous studies comparing vegetation across rewetted, drained, and natural peatlands—many conducted over extended periods. You should strengthen the justification for this study by more clearly articulating the research gap and its significance. Specifically, summarize what previous research has achieved to date, what gaps remain, and how this study addresses those gaps and contributes to advancing the field.

Tuittila, E. S., Vasander, H., & Laine, J. (2000). Impact of rewetting on the vegetation of a cut‐away peatland. Applied Vegetation Science, 3(2), 205-212.

Kreyling, J., Tanneberger, F., Jansen, F., Van Der Linden, S., Aggenbach, C., Blüml, V., ... & Jurasinski, G. (2021). Rewetting does not return drained fen peatlands to their old selves. Nature communications, 12(1), 5693.

Purre, A. H., & Ilomets, M. (2021). Vegetation composition and carbon dioxide fluxes on rewetted milled peatlands—Comparison with undisturbed bogs. Wetlands, 41(8), 120.

Komulainen, V. M., Tuittila, E. S., Vasander, H., & Laine, J. (1999). Restoration of drained peatlands in southern Finland: initial effects on vegetation change and CO2 balance. Journal of applied ecology, 36(5), 634-648.

Line 97-99: You mentioned that the rewetting started in 2017, but in the abstract, you wrote that the site was rewetted in 2017. In many conditions, start of rewetting can be very different from being rewetted, as rewetting could take time. Unfortunately, you did not show the WTD variation in the site, which makes it not available to see the transitions.

Line 106-108: How is the climate condition?

Line 111-112: While you mention that in the Davlekanovsky District, the peatlands are rare and occupy less than 1% of the territory, this also implies that peatland is not that important for total regional / national C budget. This raises my concern in the significance of this study.

Line 111: How do you define peatland? Based on the soil C content or peat depth? I miss this information in this study.

Line 114: So it is a fen, which you need to mention in this paragraph.

Line 116: The manuscript doesn’t explain how the rewetting was done. Did you block ditches or change the river flow? Please add a short paragraph in the Methods describing the rewetting process clearly.

Line 120: The manuscript does not provide any explicit information on the water table depth (WTD) following rewetting. Given that WTD is a critical factor controlling vegetation composition and growth in peatlands, this represents a significant omission. Did you measure WTD during the study period? Although there is a citation at line 412, if relevant WTD data exist in the referenced work, these should be summarized here in the Methods or presented in the Results section (e.g., Section 3.1).

Figure 1: What is the green area in panel A? Currently, the figure only includes a screenshot of the map and satellite image with the site marked. However, this figure could be much more informative. For example, can you provide additional context on the site's hydrology—such as indicating the direction of water flow, inflow/outflow points, or drainage features? It would also be helpful to include the locations of key sampling points or measurement areas. Instead of showing the political borders, which have nothing to do with ecology in this context, this figure has the potential to convey far more relevant information to help readers understand the site setup and environmental context.

Given that the study area is likely subject to strong seasonality, which should be explicitly described in the manuscript, it is important to specify when and where each relevé was conducted. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the consistency and representativeness of the vegetation data, and there is a risk of temporal or spatial bias in the results..

Line 137-139: The relationship between the 166 geobotanical relevés and the 900 georeferenced points used for training the vegetation classification is unclear. If only 166 field surveys were conducted, how were 900 georeferenced points obtained for classification training? Did you derive additional points through extrapolation, expert interpretation, or secondary sources?

Line 173-187: Much of the information presented in this section would be more appropriately placed in the site description subsection (e.g., Section 2.1).

Line 175: The majority of these soils seem to be mineral in nature, which raises the question: if this was originally a peatland, should the upper soil layer not be dominated by peat deposits?

Line 177: How much peat has been extracted in the site? If majority of C is gone, what is the significance of this study? Peat extraction has enormous impact on the ecosystem recovery after rewetting. This also needs to be addressed in the intro and discussion.

Line 180: As mentioned above, you need to describe the proportion of these five main soil types in the ecosystem. If peat does not dominate then I really doubt the definition of peatland at this site.

Line 189: Is it section 2.6 or 3.1?

Line 202: How to the range come from? Is it the range of the eight cloudless images collected in 2024? Please clarify.

Line 222: And the range is very large (30-90%). Why is the range so large? Is it really due to the seasonal variation, or is it just due to your modelling uncertainty?

Line 394: I would expect this important information to be included in the Methods section. Alternatively, presenting the change in vegetation in the Results would also be acceptable. Introducing it for the first time in the Discussion section seems problematic and disrupts the logical flow.

Line 394–396:

It is unclear whether the same remote sensing methods and satellite sources were used for vegetation classification in both 2016–2017 and 2024. If the same method and imagery were applied, this should be stated explicitly in the Methods section. If different approaches or datasets were used, the authors should clarify this and provide justification to support the validity of any cross-year comparisons.

Table 3: The level of detail provided across the columns appears imbalanced. Some comparisons could just be the same, but instead you have a more detailed illustration for the column after rewetting.

Line 431: Again, it is logically not correct to say something decreases “by 2 times”.

Figure 2 of discussion section: For the figure after rewetting, what is the difference with the figure 3 in the result section? Did you just simply combine some subgroups, from 11 to 4? How could the area of “open water 11” in result figure 3 belong to “reed-cattail communities 4” in discussion figure 2? This makes me very confused.

Line 468-472: That’s why there is no meaning to compare apples with oranges. You should focus on comparing and citing the papers from peatlands with similar climate and management history.

Line 477-479: You wrote that “A characteristic feature of the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland is the significant differences in stocks of aboveground phytomass between different types of plant communities.” This is a common sense as difference vegetation species should have different biomass, e.g. higher biomass of vascular species than mosses. I do not understand why you mention this here and explain this by the influence of historical drainage.

Line 486–493:

This section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion, ideally supported by a quantitative comparison and references to relevant studies that have examined similar post-rewetting transitions. As it stands, the paragraph lacks analytical depth and misses an opportunity to link vegetation change to ecosystem function.

Line 501-503:

Higher NPP does not necessarily indicate greater ecosystem carbon accumulation. While reed and cattail communities may exhibit higher NPP than moss-dominated systems, they are also often associated with elevated heterotrophic respiration. Therefore, the observed NPP increase only reflects higher plant productivity, but does not allow conclusions about net carbon sequestration at the ecosystem level.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Introduction:

I can follow the general logic in the Introduction, where the authors present a progression from natural to drained, and then to rewetted peatlands, in terms of vegetation and carbon storage. However, rather than providing a general overview of peatland vegetation dynamics, I would expect the authors to better engage with recent research efforts and clearly identify existing knowledge gaps. Currently, only a few sentences near the end of the Introduction attempt to do so, e.g., “There are also few data comparing these processes with similar data on undisturbed and drained peatlands [32, 34].” In my view, this is misleading, as many recent studies have investigated vegetation transitions following rewetting. As a result, I am not fully convinced that the present study is addressing a timely or well-defined research gap. I would suggest narrowing the scope to focus on forest-steppe ecosystems. Instead of citing studies from peatlands in different climatic or land-use contexts, the authors could clarify what makes peatlands in forest-steppe systems distinct, what has been studied so far, and how this article contributes specifically to that domain.

Answer: We fully agree with you. Introduction section was corrected. However, it should be noted that in Russia, rewetting of peatlands has only begun in recent decades in a few regions, and Berkasan-Kamysh Peatland is only one located in forest-steppe. No studies on the effects of rewetting of peatlands in the forest-steppe zone of Russia had been conducted prior to this research.

Methods:

Several critical pieces of information are missing, and the overall structure of the manuscript lacks logical coherence. For example, essential details such as site climate and the specific methods used for rewetting are absent, despite their likely substantial influence on hydrology and vegetation patterns. Writing needs to be improved as I feel confused to understand some sampling processes. Furthermore, Figure 1 does not effectively communicate the site conditions. Readers would typically expect this figure to illustrate key environmental features such as hydrological setting, rewetting infrastructure (if any), and vegetation zonation. Its current form misses the opportunity to contextualize the study location adequately.

Answer: We agree with you. Materials and Methods section has been corrected.

Results:

Answer: The description of vegetation is based on a geobotanical survey of the study area. The floristic composition and structure of communities in the study area, as well as in the South Ural region as a whole, differ significantly from the data on peatland vegetation in Central Europe. Attribution of communities to higher units of syntaxonomy (orders and alliances mostly identified in Central Europe) is not a sufficient characteristic. A detailed characteristic of plant communities is necessary for further use of productivity data by other researchers. We have moved the description of vegetation types to the Materials and Methods section.

More importantly, I find that two critical comparative perspectives are missing in the Results section:

1) Comparison with drained conditions:

Answer: The section “Dynamics of vegetation on the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland after rewetting” is included in to the Results section.

2) Environmental context of spatial variation:

Answer: Thanks for the comment! We have added data on groundwater levels in sites with different types of plant communities. In the Discussion section, we also presented data on the changes in groundwater levels before and after rewetting. According to literature data, before rewetting, WTD in areas with marsh-meadow vegetation ranged from -30 to +150 cm. According to our data, the WTD range is approximately the same (from -30 to +200 cm), but the area of communities with positive WTD increased significantly. After rewetting, the areas of hygro- and hydrophytic communities increased almost by 200 % (from 218 hectares to 608 hectares). On average, in the central part of the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland, the groundwater level increased by 70-100 cm over 7 years since the beginning of rewetting. In some places (near the dam), the WTD increase is 150-170 cm.

Discussion:

Answer: We corrected the text in the Discussion section. The part “Dynamics of vegetation on the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland after rewetting” is included in to the Results section.

Detailed comments by lines:

Line 22: What does it mean by “developed”?

Answer: Thanks. Corrected.

Line 29: “decreased by 2 times” is confusing. Use decreased by half or decreased by 50% instead.

Answer: Thanks. Text “During the same time, the area of meadow communities decreased by 2 times (from 808 to 398.9 ha)” has been replaced with: “During the same time, the area of meadow and salt-marsh communities decreased by half (from 808.0 to 398.9 ha)”

Line 29: from ”808” to ”398.9”. Beware of the different number of decimal places.

Answer: Thanks. Done.

Answer: Source:

Loisel, J.; Yu, Z.; Beilman, D. W.; Camill, P.; Alm, J.; Amesbury, M. J.; Anderson, D.; Andersson, S.; Bochicchio, C.; Barber, K.; Belyea, L. R.; Bunbury, J.; Chambers, F. M.; Charman, D. J.; De Vleeschouwer, F.; Fiałkiewicz-Kozieł, B.; Finkelstein, S. A.; Gałka, M.; Garneau, M.; Zhou, W. A database and synthesis of northern peatland soil properties and Holocene carbon and nitrogen accumulation. The Holocene, 2014, 24, 1028–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596 83614538073

Abstract:

“For all northern peatlands, carbon content in organic matter was estimated at 42 ± 3% (standard deviation) for Sphagnum peat, 51 ± 2% for non-Sphagnum peat, and at 49 ± 2% overall”.

Page 7:

“In increasing order, mean C% of the peat types is Sphagnum < Humified = Brown Moss < Herbaceous = Woody (Table 1). The frequency distribution of C % in peat is also characterized by a second, though minor, mode at 40% (Figure 3d). The latter is mostly associated with Sphagnum peat samples, as their average C% is significantly lower than those for other peat types (Table 1). This difference is likely caused by the high content of complex and recalcitrant compounds found in Sphagnum tissues such as lipids and waxes, which have lower C% than more labile biopolymers such as cellulose (Cagnon et al., 2009).

Answer: Source: Vitt, D. H.; House, M. Bryophytes as key indicators of ecosystem function and structure of northern peatlands. Bryophyte Diversity and Evolution, 2021, 43, 253-264. https://doi.org/10.11646/bde.43.1.18

According to S.N. Tyuremnov (1976), the average carbon content in euthrophic peats is 58 %, in transitional mire peats 58.3 %, and in bog peats 56.9% of their organic mass. Source: Tyuremnov S.N. Torfyanyye mestorozhdeniya [Peat deposits] / S.N. Prisonov. Moscow: Nedra, 3rd ed. 1976.487 p. [in Russian]

Answer: Thanks. Corrected. Text “This enhances carbon sequestration by rewetted peatlands, including through a longer period of root growth in deep peat layers” has been replaced with: “This enhances carbon sequestration in rewetted peatlands as increased above-ground and root biomass promotes greater peat accumulation under high moisture conditions that prevent peat decomposition”. This aspect has also been addressed in the revised Discussion section.

Line 88: What sequestration? Is it carbon sequestration?

Answer: Carbon sequestration. We have made a correction to the text.

Tuittila, E. S., Vasander, H., & Laine, J. (2000). Impact of rewetting on the vegetation of a cut‐away peatland. Applied Vegetation Science, 3(2), 205-212.

Purre, A. H., & Ilomets, M. (2021). Vegetation composition and carbon dioxide fluxes on rewetted milled peatlands—Comparison with undisturbed bogs. Wetlands, 41(8), 120.

Answer: Thanks. We revised the Introduction and Discussion sections, taking your comments into account.

Answer: Thanks. The text was correct.

Line 106-108: How is the climate condition?

Answer: Climate conditions have been added to the text.

Answer: In the Davlekanovsky District, the peatlands are rare and occupy less than 1% of the territory. Nevertheless, the Berkazan-Kamysh is one of the largest peatland for the forest-steppe zone of the European Russia.

Line 111: How do you define peatland? Based on the soil C content or peat depth? I miss this information in this study.

Answer: We categorize all wetland ecosystems with peat deposits as "peatlands". Data on peat deposit of the study area were added: The main reed-sedge peat reserves are located in the western part of the peatland and amount to 267 hectares within the peat deposit boundary, including 185 hectares of industrial peat deposit with a depth over 0.7 m. The maximum depth of the peat deposit is 3.9 m, and the average is 2.2 m. Peat reserves amount to 1,298 thousand tons. The necessary explanations have been included into the text of the article.

Line 114: So it is a fen, which you need to mention in this paragraph.

The necessary explanations have been included into the text of the article.

Answer: Materials and Methods section has been corrected.

Answer: Thanks for the comment! We have added data on water table levels in sites with different types of plant communities.

Answer: In Figure 1, we added the locations of the points used for vegetation description and mapping. We have provided a scheme of the hydrography of the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland.

Line 129-130: Further clarification is needed regarding the design of the 166 geobotanical relevés. Were they conducted across different locations, and if so, how were these locations selected? Was there any replication within each vegetation category or plot type? Additionally, did sampling occur at different times of the year? If so, how was temporal variability—particularly seasonal vegetation dynamics—accounted for? Given that the study area is likely subject to strong seasonality, which should be explicitly described in the manuscript, it is important to specify when and where each relevé was conducted. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the consistency and representativeness of the vegetation data, and there is a risk of temporal or spatial bias in the results.

Answer: Geobotanical relevés and data sampling for estimation of phytomass and carbon content were performed in 2023–2024 in July–early August during the period of maximum phytomass development. The number of phytomass sampling points depended on the mosaic type of the plant community and varied from 15 to 30.

Answer: A total of 166 full geobotanical relevés were made and classified according to the Braun-Blanquet approach. These relevés were used to identify vegetation types and integrate them into a syntaxonomy system of European wetland vegetation. Sample plots for phytomass sampling were established at each site of the geobotanical relevé. In addition, the study area was surveyed using the route method, and the main vegetation types were identified in 900 georeferenced points (without compiling of detailed geobotanical relevés), which were subsequently used to train the Random Forest model used for mapping.

Line 173-187: Much of the information presented in this section would be more appropriately placed in the site description subsection (e.g., Section 2.1).

Answer: Done.

Line 175: The majority of these soils seem to be mineral in nature, which raises the question: if this was originally a peatland, should the upper soil layer not be dominated by peat deposits?

Answer: Currently, five main types of soils are represented on this peatland: mead-ow-chernozem soil, meadow weak solonchakish soil, meadow solonchak, peat soil, and peat-bog soil. Peat and peat-bog soils predominate in the western part of the study area. Meadow weak solonchakish soil and meadow solonchak soil are developed in the eastern part of the peatland, where also the initial studies of peat formation sporadically occur in small depressions with clay deposits. Meadow-chernozem soils are located at the foot of hills near the southern and northwestern edges of the peatland.

The main reserves of reed-sedge peat are located in the western part of the peatland and amount to 267 hectares within the peat deposit boundary, including 185 hectares of industrial peat deposit with a depth over 0.7 m. The maximum depth of the peat deposit is 3.9 m, and the average is 2.2 m. Peat reserves of the study area amount to 1,298 thousand tons.

Answer: We do not know the data on the volumes of peat extracted from the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland. There is only information that extraction was carried out only in the western part of the peatland. We have not conducted a study of the peat. This was not the objective of this study.

Answer: Data on peat reserves are given in the Materials and Methods section.

Line 189: Is it section 2.6 or 3.1?

Answer: Corrected.

Line 202: How to the range come from? Is it the range of the eight cloudless images collected in 2024? Please clarify.

Answer: The range of projective cover is calculated on the basis of the geobotanical releves.

Line 222: And the range is very large (30-90%). Why is the range so large? Is it really due to the seasonal variation, or is it just due to your modelling uncertainty?

Answer: A wide range of projective cover is characteristic of mosaic vegetation. We made at least 30 geobotanical relevés for each mosaic type of plant community in order to ensure that the average projective cover value was representative.

Answer: We fully agree with your comment. We have changed the structure of the manuscript.

Line 394–396: It is unclear whether the same remote sensing methods and satellite sources were used for vegetation classification in both 2016–2017 and 2024. If the same method and imagery were applied, this should be stated explicitly in the Methods section. If different approaches or datasets were used, the authors should clarify this and provide justification to support the validity of any cross-year comparisons.

Answer: In 2024, mapping was carried out using a very high-resolution UAV image, taken in the middle of the growing season. In 2024, we used eight satellite images throughout the growing season for mapping, and we used very high-resolution images from a UAV for manual correction.

Line 431: Again, it is logically not correct to say something decreases “by 2 times”.

Answer: Thanks. Corrected.

Table 3: The level of detail provided across the columns appears imbalanced. Some comparisons could just be the same, but instead you have a more detailed illustration for the column after rewetting. Figure 2 of discussion section: For the figure after rewetting, what is the difference with the figure 3 in the result section? Did you just simply combine some subgroups, from 11 to 4? How could the area of “open water 11” in result figure 3 belong to “reed-cattail communities 4” in discussion figure 2? This makes me very confused.

Answer: Early studies in 2017 were conducted with the primary goal of assessing greenhouse gas fluxes in different types of communities prior to the proposed rewetting. At that time, the vegetation of the peatland complex consisted mainly of marsh-meadow communities. In addition, there was a high degree of mosaic vegetation. Mapping was carried out using a very high-resolution UAV image, but it was taken only in the middle of the growing season. Therefore, only four types of plant communities were identified. The first map represents the result of this simplification. Open water areas and small areas of tree and shrub vegetation were not used in the calculations but were omitted from the map in the publication we refer to. After rewetting, there was a strong differentiation in vegetation, with a significant increase in the role of halophytic vegetation. In addition, in 2024, we used eight satellite images throughout the growing season for mapping, and we used very high-resolution images from a UAV for manual correction. A detailed field survey of the peatland and the use of time-series satellite images allowed us to identify more types of vegetation. However, for a clear comparison, we compared the types of vegetation identified before and after rewetting, for which we reduced our more detailed vegetation classification to the four types previously identified. When calculating the total phytomass and carbon stocks for 2024, we took into account data for all the vegetation types we had identified.

One more small clarification about open water. Currently, in reed-cattail communities, the groundwater level ranges from +20 to +150 cm. The area of open water may vary depending on the vegetation period. Therefore, in our opinion, such simplification for comparison purposes is quite acceptable.

Answer: Thank you! This sentence was removed. However, it should be noted that bryophytes do not play an important role in the vegetation of the study area.

Line 486–493:

It remains unclear whether the coverage of species with substantial root phytomass increased significantly after rewetting. The authors refer to a “large share” of such species, but do not provide a comparison relative to the drained condition. Clarifying this change is essential, as shifts in species composition—particularly toward those with extensive root systems—could have important implications for carbon sequestration. This section would benefit from a more in-depth discussion, ideally supported by a quantitative comparison and references to relevant studies that have examined similar post-rewetting transitions. As it stands, the paragraph lacks analytical depth and misses an opportunity to link vegetation change to ecosystem function.

Answer: The study of root biomass for individual plant species was not studied. The data on root phytomass and the proportion of roots in the total biomass of plants at the community level are duscussed. In monodominant communities with Phragmites australis and Bolboschoenus maritimus, these data have a high degree of representativeness for assessing the potential contribution of these species roots to the peat formation. According to the literature data, common reed and sedge-common reed peat is widespread in forest-steppe peatlands of Russia. Literature data on the root biomass of plant species growing in forest-steppe fens are very scarce. We thank you for your valuable comment and will continue our studies at the species level in the future.

Line 501-503:

Answer: Thank you for your valuable comment! In the revised Discussion section, we avoided making unsubstantiated conclusions about carbon sequestration. The topic of the manuscript was changed. This issue is addressed in the Discussion section. Our future research aims to study greenhouse gas fluxes in different types of wetland communities of the Berkazano-Kamysh peatland, which will allow us to make more substantiated conclusions about carbon sequestration after rewetting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires significant improvement in English language quality. Grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and unclear sentence structures are frequent throughout the text, which at times makes it difficult to follow the authors’ intended meaning. Professional editing by a native or fluent English speaker is strongly recommended to enhance clarity and readability. The manuscript titled: “Boreal oligotrophic pine forests in the Southern Ural region (Russia)” tries to study distribution and regional features of boreal oligotrophic pine forests in in the Southern Ural region. The manuscript is well-organized as a peer-review paper but needs further improvements.

Answer: Thanks. We will use the MDPI service to correct the English after final approval of the manuscript content by all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peatlands are the most efficient carbon storage among terrestrial ecosystems, yet they can turn from accumulators into emissions sources of carbon after drainage. Rewetting is an effective way to restore ecological functions and sequestration capacities of the previously drained peatlands, the aim of this work is to assess the stock of the phytomass and carbon stock in the plant matter, as well as to study the dynamics of vegetation on the Berkazan-Kamysh peatland which had been rewetted. The purpose of the good is good, and some findings may be useful.

Comments and suggestions

L36 Carbon sequestration? Please clarity

L56-57 It is confusing, because organic matter input and decomposition increased carbon emissions, not carbon sequestration. Please changed

L76 CO? Confusing

L189 Maybe the subtitle was 3.6, not 2.6, please changed

193 -195 I am not sure if it is suitable that put the description of the communities in Results section, maybe some content of these belongs to Methods section

L237 In my opinion, they are pictures, not figures. Authors can merge these pictures into Figure 3

Author Response

Answer: Dear Reviewer! Thank you for your careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of the manuscript. Below are the answers to your comments.

L36 Carbon sequestration? Please clarity

Answer: Thanks. Corrected.

L56-57 It is confusing, because organic matter input and decomposition increased carbon emissions, not carbon sequestration. Please changed

Answer: Thanks. Corrected.

L76 CO? Confusing

Answer: Direct quote from Leifeld & Menichetti (2018): «At present, human activity is either draining or mining ~10%of global peatlands, transforming them from long-term C sinksinto sources by acting on three C loss pathways: CO₂ frommicrobial peat oxidation, dissolved C leaching, and CO₂, CO and CH₄ from peat fires and combustion of mined peat».

L189 Maybe the subtitle was 3.6, not 2.6, please changed

Answer: These design flaws have been corrected.

193 -195 I am not sure if it is suitable that put the description of the communities in Results section, maybe some content of these belongs to Methods section

Answer: We placed the description of vegetation types to the Materials and Methods section.

L237 In my opinion, they are pictures, not figures. Authors can merge these pictures into Figure 3

Answer: In the Rules for Authors, photographs of objects of study are designated as Figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript on productivity, carbon sequestration, and vegetation dynamics following peatland rewetting. Your study addresses an important restoration topic and provides valuable multi-year data from an understudied forest-steppe fen. The comments below are intended to enhance scientific clarity, methodological transparency, and overall readability while preserving the integrity of your findings. I hope these suggestions prove helpful as you prepare your revised submission.

Specific comments.

Abstract (Lines 5-35) – The very first sentence over-states peatlands as “the most efficient carbon storage” and should be nuanced to “one of the largest long-term terrestrial carbon stores” to avoid an absolute claim and better align with the literature . A second redundancy appears in “…assess the stock of the phytomass and carbon stock in the plant matter…”, where “stock” is repeated; rephrase as “…quantify above- and below-ground phytomass and its associated carbon pool…” . Finally, consider adding geographic keywords such as “forest-steppe” and “Bashkortostan” to improve article discoverability.

Title and author block – Capitalize the specific peatland name (“Berkazan-Kamysh Peatland”) and remove the definite article “the” before “drained peatland” for smoother English: “Productivity, Carbon Sequestration, and Vegetation Dynamics in the Drained Peatland Berkazan-Kamysh (Bashkir Cis-Urals) after Rewetting”.

Introduction (Lines 94-103) – Delete the definite article in “The peatlands are the most efficient carbon storage…”, making it “Peatlands are among the most efficient terrestrial carbon stores” . The paragraph would benefit from a clear knowledge gap and a one-sentence objective at its end (e.g., “Yet little is known about how rewetting alters biomass allocation in drained forest-steppe fens; here we quantify …”). This strengthens the logical flow into the Methods.

Materials and Methods

Sampling design – Specify why 166 relevés were chosen and clarify whether the 50 × 50 cm biomass plots were randomly or systematically positioned within each community type. Lines 128-135 describe the plots but omit the sampling rationale .

Statistical analysis – No statistical tests are described for comparisons among community types (e.g., ANOVA or non-parametric equivalents). Without these, statements about significant differences lack support. Add a short subsection detailing software, tests, and significance thresholds.

Units and notation – Use SI-compliant spacing and superscripts (g m⁻², t ha⁻¹) rather than g/m2 or t; adopt this consistently in text, tables and figures (see Table 1 header lines 38-46) .

Results

Table 1 – The table mixes en-dashes (“–”) and zeros to denote absence of mortmass. Replace all dashes with “0 ± 0” or a uniform symbol explained in the caption to avoid ambiguity . Moreover, the caption should spell out community numbers (1 = salt-marsh, etc.) rather than rely only on a note beneath the table.

Figures 2 & 3 – Panel lettering appears in the caption but not on the actual images, making cross-reference difficult. Add lowercase letters directly onto each photograph (a–h) and ensure colorblind-safe palette for map polygons (lines 6-14) .

Discussion

The discussion convincingly ties biomass increases to rewetting, yet causal language (“rewetting led to…”) occasionally oversteps observational data. When flux measurements are still pending (as acknowledged in the Conclusions), soften causal claims to “is consistent with” or “suggests”. Additionally, when comparing to Western Siberian bogs, cite quantitative ranges for both regions to strengthen the argument (lines 470-480) .

Conclusions

Emphasize the study’s novelty (forest-steppe fen, seven-year monitoring) and restate the main quantitative outcome (doubling of above-ground phytomass and tripling of hydrophytic area) to leave the reader with clear take-home messages. Consider adding a brief management implication for regional peatland restoration programs.

Implementing these revisions will tighten the manuscript’s language, fortify its methodological rigor and improve overall readability without altering the underlying scientific contributions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Specific comments.

Abstract (Lines 5-35) – The very first sentence over-states peatlands as “the most efficient carbon storage” and should be nuanced to “one of the largest long-term terrestrial carbon stores” to avoid an absolute claim and better align with the literature. A second redundancy appears in “…assess the stock of the phytomass and carbon stock in the plant matter…”, where “stock” is repeated; rephrase as “…quantify above- and below-ground phytomass and its associated carbon pool…”. Finally, consider adding geographic keywords such as “forest-steppe” and “Bashkortostan” to improve article discoverability.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have made the necessary changes to the Abstract.

Title and author block – Capitalize the specific peatland name (“Berkazan-Kamysh Peatland”) and remove the definite article “the” before “drained peatland” for smoother English: “Productivity, Carbon Sequestration, and in the Drained Peatland Berkazan-Kamysh (Bashkir Cis-Urals) after Rewetting”.

Answer: Thanks. We have changed the topic of the article to « Vegetation Dynamics, Productivity, and Carbon Stock in Plant Matter in the Drained Peatland Berkazan-Kamysh (Bashkir Cis-Urals) after Rewetting» to better present the content.

Introduction (Lines 94-103) – Delete the definite article in “The peatlands are the most efficient carbon storage…”, making it “Peatlands are among the most efficient terrestrial carbon stores” . The paragraph would benefit from a clear knowledge gap and a one-sentence objective at its end (e.g., “Yet little is known about how rewetting alters biomass allocation in drained forest-steppe fens; here we quantify …”). This strengthens the logical flow into the Methods.

Answer: We agree with you. Introduction section was corrected.

Materials and Methods

Sampling design – Specify why 166 relevés were chosen and clarify whether the 50 × 50 cm biomass plots were randomly or systematically positioned within each community type. Lines 128-135 describe the plots but omit the sampling rationale.

Answer: A total of 166 full geobotanical relevés were made and classified according to the Braun-Blanquet approach. Sample plots for phytomass sampling were established at each site of the geobotanical relevé. In addition, the study area was surveyed using the route method, and the main vegetation types were identified in 900 georeferenced points (without compiling of detailed geobotanical relevés), which were subsequently used to train the Random Forest model used for mapping. In Figure 1, we added the locations of the points used for vegetation description and mapping.

Statistical analysis – No statistical tests are described for comparisons among community types (e.g., ANOVA or non-parametric equivalents). Without these, statements about significant differences lack support. Add a short subsection detailing software, tests, and significance thresholds.

Answer: Plant community types were determined expertly based on the dominant species and general floristic approach, which does not involve statistical data processing.

Units and notation – Use SI-compliant spacing and superscripts (g m⁻², t ha⁻¹) rather than g/m2 or t; adopt this consistently in text, tables and figures (see Table 1 header lines 38-46).

Единицы измерения и обозначения – Используйте межстрочные интервалы и надстрочные индексы в соответствии с системой СИ (г м⁻², т га⁻¹) вместо г/м² или т; применяйте это единообразно в тексте, таблицах и рисунках (см. заголовок Таблицы 1, строки 38–46).

Answer: Thanks. Corrected.

Results

Table 1 – The table mixes en-dashes (“–”) and zeros to denote absence of mortmass. Replace all dashes with “0 ± 0” or a uniform symbol explained in the caption to avoid ambiguity . Moreover, the caption should spell out community numbers (1 = salt-marsh, etc.) rather than rely only on a note beneath the table. Figures 2 & 3 – Panel lettering appears in the caption but not on the actual images, making cross-reference difficult. Add lowercase letters directly onto each photograph (a–h) and ensure colorblind-safe palette for map polygons (lines 6-14).

Answer: Corrected. Figures 4 and 5 have been corrected using the colorblind-safe palette (available online https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/2022-06/Colorblind%20Safe%20Color%20Schemes.pdf)

Discussion

Answer: We fully agree with you. Discussion section was corrected.

Conclusions

Answer: Thanks. Conclusions section was corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you and congratulations to the authors for their contribution to improving the manuscript. However, the conclusions are still too general - it seems that the three opening sentences of the conclusions do not stem from the content of the work. They present generally known facts from the literature concerning drained peatlands. Probably the last sentences of the abstract (text in green color) should also be part of the conclusions, as they follow from the conducted research.

Author Response

However, the conclusions are still too general - it seems that the three opening sentences of the conclusions do not stem from the content of the work. They present generally known facts from the literature concerning drained peatlands. Probably the last sentences of the abstract (text in green color) should also be part of the conclusions, as they follow from the conducted research.

Answer: Thanks! We corrected Conclusions section.

On behalf of the co-authors Nikolay Fedorov

Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the

Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia

Correspondence: zigusvet@yandex.ru

August 21, 2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of the manuscript titled "Vegetation Dynamics, Productivity, and Carbon Stock in Plant Matter in the Drained Peatland Berkazan-Kamysh (Bashkir Cis-3 Urals) after Rewetting". I would like to commend the authors for the thorough and constructive manner in which they have addressed my previous comments.

They have made substantial improvements to the structure, clarity, and scientific framing of the manuscript. The revised Introduction now provides a clearer context for the study, particularly in highlighting the uniqueness of forest-steppe peatlands and the specific research gap being addressed. The Methods section is now more complete and logically presented, with the inclusion of missing details such as climate data, rewetting methods, and groundwater level measurements. The Results have been reorganized to incorporate pre-rewetting comparisons and relevant environmental context, while the Discussion now offers improved interpretation and linkage to the broader literature.

Overall, I find that my earlier concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the manuscript has improved in both scientific rigor and readability. I have no further substantive comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! Thank you for your careful review of our article. Your recommendations and comments are very useful and improved the quality of the manuscript.

On behalf of the co-authors Nikolay Fedorov

Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the

Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia

Correspondence: zigusvet@yandex.ru

August 21, 2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the careful revisions. The new title, clearer description of the sampling and mapping workflow, SI-consistent units, and the correction of Table 1 (e.g., rendering zeros as 0 ± 0) have improved the manuscript’s readability and transparency. The study addresses an important restoration context and is close to being publishable.

Before acceptance, a few issues still need attention. Please reconcile the total-area figures across text, tables, and maps (e.g., 1204 ha vs. 1026/1006.9 ha totals) and ensure that all reported percentages use the same denominator (for instance, the 29.5% value tied to 130.5 ha). Either add a brief statistics subsection (tests/software/α) to support uses of “significant,” or soften those claims in the Results. A light English edit would help, particularly “assess and quantify” in the Abstract and removal of duplicated wording like “stock of the phytomass and carbon stock.”

With these clarifications, and a concise conclusion that restates the headline quantitative outcomes with a measured management implication, the paper will be substantially strengthened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Before acceptance, a few issues still need attention. Please reconcile the total-area figures across text, tables, and maps (e.g., 1204 ha vs. 1026/1006.9 ha totals)

Answer: Thank you for the valuable comment. The Berkazan-Kamysh peatland has an area of 1204 ha. Table 4 presents data on the areas of plant communities, excluding areas occupied by open water. Since the areas of open water increased after rewetting, the areas of plant communities decreased from 1,026 to 1,006.9 ha.

and ensure that all reported percentages use the same denominator (for instance, the 29.5% value tied to 130.5 ha).

Answer: Thank you for the valuable comment. The error has been fixed. 29.5% has been replaced by 12.5%.

Either add a brief statistics subsection (tests/software/α) to support uses of “significant,” or soften those claims in the Results.

Answer: Thank you! The text of the Results section was corrected. The sentences were rephrased.

A light English edit would help, particularly “assess and quantify” in the Abstract and removal of duplicated wording like “stock of the phytomass and carbon stock.”

Answer: Thanks. The MDPI Language service corrected the English of the manuscript.

On behalf of the co-authors Nikolay Fedorov

Ufa Institute of biology - Subdivision of the

Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Prospect Octyabrya, 69, Ufa 450054, Russia

Correspondence: zigusvet@yandex.ru

August 21, 2025

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Vegetation Dynamics, Productivity, and Carbon Stock in Plant Matter in the Drained Berkazan-Kamysh Peatland (Bashkir Cis-Urals) After Rewetting

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI