Analysis and Prospective Use of Local Mineral Raw Materials to Increase the Aesthetic and Recreational Value of the Vyzhyvka River (Western Ukraine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the manuscript suggests a novel approach to river restoration by the use of raw materials.  Those materials - what was explained partially in the title, partially in the text - are not only of local origin but also a waste from mining industry, providing a restoration method that fits into the rules of circular economy. The only problem is that the application of raw materials is only a proposition, without any - even experimental - confirmation of positive results for studied object. And in fact, the manuscript presents in details water quality and macrophyte composition in one of small plain rivers in Ukraine, not the use of raw materials, as the title suggests. So there is a quite clear discrepancy between the manuscript title and its content, and future manuscript corrections are required to deal with this inconsistency. It seems to me that the title needs a thorough revision, aiming at the real content emphasis – the chemical and biological characteristics of studied river.

Combining this subject with the proposal of raw materials usage in order to restore the river without any real application or at least small experimental local application seems questionable. It is even more doubtful that the water chemistry as well as MIR assessment indicates good ecological status, fitting into the objectives of Water Framework Directive. Is the river restoration proposal here justified?

Other comments:

The manuscript has a typical correct structure, with clear and informative tables and graphs. I have found only one error that needs to be correct:  

Fig. 3 – incorrect values on Y axis (rather in micrograms per liter than miligrams per liter).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We would like to thank the you for careful reading, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript, by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion incorporated the manuscript. Suggested changes to the text are marked in yellow.

Below, we included the point-to-point response to the Reviewer’s comments:

The title of the manuscript suggests a novel approach to river restoration by the use of raw materials.  Those materials - what was explained partially in the title, partially in the text - are not only of local origin but also a waste from mining industry, providing a restoration method that fits into the rules of circular economy. The only problem is that the application of raw materials is only a proposition, without any - even experimental - confirmation of positive results for studied object. And in fact, the manuscript presents in details water quality and macrophyte composition in one of small plain rivers in Ukraine, not the use of raw materials, as the title suggests. So there is a quite clear discrepancy between the manuscript title and its content, and future manuscript corrections are required to deal with this inconsistency. It seems to me that the title needs a thorough revision, aiming at the real content emphasis – the chemical and biological characteristics of studied river.

Combining this subject with the proposal of raw materials usage in order to restore the river without any real application or at least small experimental local application seems questionable. It is even more doubtful that the water chemistry as well as MIR assessment indicates good ecological status, fitting into the objectives of Water Framework Directive. Is the river restoration proposal here justified?

Thank you very much for your careful analysis of the manuscript and your entirely valid comment regarding the discrepancy between the previous title and the main content of the study. We fully agree that the focus of the presented material is primarily on the chemical and biological characteristics of the Vyzhyvka River, and the proposal to use locally sourced mineral raw materials is still a theoretical recommendation without experimental confirmation within the scope of this work. The title has been revised and adjusted accordingly to better reflect the content.

At the same time, we would like to explain the logic of the scientific argumentation underlying the recommendation section. We would like to emphasise that the water body under study has water quality that does not pose a dangerous sanitary and epidemiological impact on the environment and humans. At the same time, this object is not currently used by humans for recreational or aesthetic purposes. Its value can be increased by introducing the proposed natural materials – non-toxic, harmless waste that does not deteriorate water quality or inhibit the functioning of the biocenosis.

It is particularly important to find environmentally safe and affordable solutions for creating recreation areas in Western Ukraine, where a large number of internally displaced persons from regions affected by hostilities currently reside. Therefore, the use of local minerals, in particular waste from the mining industry and quarries rich in silicon, calcium and other biophilic components, may become a promising direction that combines environmental efficiency with social expediency.

Although according to modern hydrochemical indicators and the MIR index, the river belongs to the ‘good’ class, the identified imbalance in the structure of macrophytes –  in particular, the low proportion of submerged root forms – indicates a potential risk of reducing the stability of the ecosystem in the medium term. It is in this context that we recommend considering the use of bottom-up regulatory mechanisms aimed at optimising the physical and chemical conditions to stimulate the development of root vegetation.

Thus, although the proposed approach requires further experimental verification, it is based on previously published results by the authors (Trach, Y.; Melnychuk, V.; Melnychuk, G.; Mazur, Ł.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E. Using Local Mineral Materials for the Rehabilitation of the Ustya River – a Case Study. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 232, 346–356, doi:10.5004/dwt.2021.27559) and has the potential to comprehensively improve both the ecological and social status of water bodies. The manuscript clearly distinguishes between the results of empirical research and the recommendations to avoid any misunderstandings regarding their status. Additionally, the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections have been revised accordingly.

Other comments:

The manuscript has a typical correct structure, with clear and informative tables and graphs. I have found only one error that needs to be correct:  

Fig. 3 – incorrect values on Y axis (rather in micrograms per liter than miligrams per liter).

Thank you for your helpful comment. We have rechecked all values. All indicators (BOD₅, NH₄⁺, NO₃⁻, PO₄³⁻, TP) are given in the text in units of mg/dm³ (equivalent to mg/l), which complies with accepted hydrochemical standards. Therefore, the Y-axis label in the corresponding figure is also correct.

Thank you again for your valuable comments, which have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript!

Best regards, Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

THE USE OF MINERAL RAW MATERIALS OF LOCAL ORIGIN IN THE BIOENGINEERING APPROACH TO THE RESTORATION OF RIVER ECOSYSTEMS: THE CASE OF THE VYZHYVKA RIVER (UKRAINE)

 

This is very interesting manuscript focusing on the investigation of the macrophytes which diversity, density, and depth of cover indicate the ecological state of aquatic environments. To ensure a functional balance between submerged and other forms of macrophytes, a scientifically based approach is proposed by author, including the use of mineral raw materials of local origin, in particular, mining and quarrying wastes rich in silicon, calcium and other mineral components that promote the development of basal aquatic vegetation and stabilisation of bottom sediments. Although it has a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the ecology of macrophytes and bioengineering, the concrete experiment and some evidence are missing. The results indicate the quality status of the river and this could be the main aim and focus of the manuscript.

Specific comments are listed below.

Abstract: Please check the Instruction for Authors (The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum), and shorten the Abstract, accordingly.

Page 1, line 59: At the same time, river ecosystems are among the most vulnerable to anthropogenic changes, as they accumulate significant amounts of pollutants of industrial, domestic and diffuse origin [1] – please choose some other reference e.g. some review focusing on the freshwater pollution

Page 2, 85-94: Please shorten this paragraph

Page 3, line 118-127: Generally, the Introduction is too long. I suggest, shorten this paragraph or use this paragraph in the Discussion

Page 4, line 144-160: I suggest, shorten this paragraph

Page 4, line 177-187:  I suggest, shorten this paragraph

Page 5 and 6 - I suggest, shorten the text on these pages

Page 10, line 394: This approach to assessing surface water quality is supported by scientific research [57,58] – This is generally known. Please delete this sentence and references.

Page 10, line 397: The results were presented in the form of graphs showing the distribution of medians within the general population of 25-75% and fluctuations between the maximum and minimum values. Statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test (p≤0.05) – What those it means “general population”? Physical and chemical parameters?

Page 10, 397-406: I suggest move this paragraph in the line 388 after the 2023-2024, and then explain laboratory analyses

Page 11, 470-475: This was previously mentioned (Materia and methods), it is not necessary to repeat it

Page 14, line 542: The content of nitrogen compounds - ammonium (NH₄⁺), nitrate (NO₃-) and nitrite (NO₂-) – please do not use the full name and abbreviation of physical and chemical parameters constantly through the text. Ones explained abbreviation in the Material and Methods could be use only as abbreviation further in the text. Please, correct it through the manuscript.

Pages 16, 17, 18; Table 2, Table 3, Table 4: Please check the species name (e.g. Rannunculus aquatile should be changed into the Ranunculus aquatilis; Myosotis scorpiodes should be changed into the Myosotis scorpioides etc)

Page 18, line 627:… (Nuphar lutea (L.) Smith.) and semi-submerged plants, among which common arrowroot (Sagittaria sagittifolia L.) dominated – the species name should be written in italics

It is not necessary to write both the Latin and the folk name constantly throughout the text. You can add plant family name as well as the species folk names to the tables, and then you can use one of the above in the text.

Page 21, line 704: … Elodea canadensis hurts the local aquatic flora – please some other words instead of “hurts”, e.g. Elodea canadensis negatively influenced… or similar

Page 23, line 729: Hydrogelophytes?

The paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 are too descriptive and not based on an specific experiment, therefore they should be significantly shortened, combined into one paragraph

Conclusion is too long and needs to be clearer.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We would like to thank the you for careful reading, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript, by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion incorporated the manuscript. Suggested changes to the text are marked in yellow.

Below, we included the point-to-point response to the Reviewer’s comments.

This is very interesting manuscript focusing on the investigation of the macrophytes which diversity, density, and depth of cover indicate the ecological state of aquatic environments. To ensure a functional balance between submerged and other forms of macrophytes, a scientifically based approach is proposed by author, including the use of mineral raw materials of local origin, in particular, mining and quarrying wastes rich in silicon, calcium and other mineral components that promote the development of basal aquatic vegetation and stabilisation of bottom sediments. Although it has a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the ecology of macrophytes and bioengineering, the concrete experiment and some evidence are missing. The results indicate the quality status of the river and this could be the main aim and focus of the manuscript.

Specific comments are listed below.

1. Abstract: Please check the Instruction for Authors (The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum), and shorten the Abstract, accordingly.

Thank you for your comment. The abstract has been shortened in accordance with the requirements of the Instructions for Authors.

2. Page 1, line 59: At the same time, river ecosystems are among the most vulnerable to anthropogenic changes, as they accumulate significant amounts of pollutants of industrial, domestic and diffuse origin [1] – please choose some other reference e.g. some review focusing on the freshwater pollution.

Thank you for your helpful comment. Link [1] has been replaced with a relevant source that provides an overview of the current state of pollution in freshwater ecosystems, particularly taking into account anthropogenic factors.

3. Page 2, 85-94: Please shorten this paragraph

Thank you for your comment. The paragraph on page 2, lines 85–94, has been shortened in accordance with the recommendation, retaining the key scientific provisions without excessive detail (lines 76–85).

 4. Page 3, line 118-127: Generally, the Introduction is too long. I suggest, shorten this paragraph or use this paragraph in the Discussion.

Thank you for your helpful comment. The relevant paragraph has been removed from the Introduction and partially integrated into the Discussion section, taking into account the logic of the presentation of the material and in order to maintain the structure of the article.

 

5. Page 4, line 144-160: I suggest, shorten this paragraph

Thank you for your comment. The paragraph has been shortened in accordance with the recommendation (line 120-128).

 

6. Page 4, line 177-187:  I suggest, shorten this paragraph.

Thank you for your comment. The paragraph has been shortened in accordance with the recommendation (line 143-151).

 

7. Page 5 and 6 - I suggest, shorten the text on these pages.

Thank you for your insightful recommendation. The text on pages 5 and 6 has been shortened in accordance with your comment, taking into account the logical and scientific integrity of the material presented. As a result, the Introduction section has been reduced from 6 to 4 pages, which meets the requirements (line 45-246).

8. Page 10, line 394: This approach to assessing surface water quality is supported by scientific research [57,58] – This is generally known. Please delete this sentence and references.

Thank you for your comment. The sentence and references [57, 58] have been removed as recommended.

 

9. Page 10, line 397: The results were presented in the form of graphs showing the distribution of medians within the general population of 25-75% and fluctuations between the maximum and minimum values. Statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test (p≤0.05) – What those it means “general population”? Physical and chemical parameters?

Thank you for clarifying. The correction is indeed appropriate, as the term ‘general population’ could be ambiguous in this context. It refers to the distribution of values of physical and chemical indicators obtained as a result of experimental measurements. The wording has been corrected to more accurately reflect the content (line 311-313).

 

10. Page 10, 397-406: I suggest move this paragraph in the line 388 after the 2023-2024, and then explain laboratory analyses.

Thank you for your helpful comment. The relevant paragraph has been moved after the reference to 2023–2024 (line 311), and an explanation regarding laboratory analyses has been added in accordance with the structure of the material.

 

11. Page 11, 470-475: This was previously mentioned (Materia and methods), it is not necessary to repeat it.

Thank you for your comment. The relevant section (lines 470–475) has been deleted.

 

12. Page 14, line 542: The content of nitrogen compounds - ammonium (NH₄⁺), nitrate (NO₃-) and nitrite (NO₂-) – please do not use the full name and abbreviation of physical and chemical parameters constantly through the text. Ones explained abbreviation in the Material and Methods could be use only as abbreviation further in the text. Please, correct it through the manuscript.

Thank you for your comment. The repeated use of full names of physical and chemical indicators together with abbreviations has been removed. After the initial explanation in the «Materials and Methods» section, only abbreviations are used throughout the text, as recommended.

 

13. Pages 16, 17, 18; Table 2, Table 3, Table 4: Please check the species name (e.g. Rannunculus aquatile should be changed into the Ranunculus aquatilis; Myosotis scorpiodesshould be changed into the Myosotis scorpioides etc).

Thank you for your comments. Scientific names of species were carefully checked throughout the text, and all errors found were corrected in accordance with modern taxonomy.

 

14. Page 18, line 627:… (Nuphar lutea (L.) Smith.) and semi-submerged plants, among which common arrowroot (Sagittaria sagittifolia L.) dominated – the species name should be written in italics.

Thank you for your comment. Throughout the text, the names of plants have been checked and corrected in accordance with the rules for italicisation.

 

15. Page 21, line 704: … Elodea canadensishurts the local aquatic flora – please some other words instead of “hurts”, e.g. Elodea canadensis negatively influenced… or similar.

Thank you for your helpful comment. The wording on page 21, line 704 has been corrected (lines 612-614).

 

16. Page 23, line 729: Hydrogelophytes?

Thank you for your helpful comment. In the text, the term ‘hydrogelophytes’ has been replaced with the more accurate term ‘moisture-loving coastal macrophytes’ (or hygrophilous riparian species), which better reflects their ecological group. These are plants that grow on the moist banks of water bodies and are able to partially penetrate the aquatic environment, but are not fully hydrophilic. The corresponding changes have been made on page 19 in lines 634-644.

 

17. The paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 are too descriptive and not based on an specific experiment, therefore they should be significantly shortened, combined into one paragraph.

Thank you very much for your comments. We fully agree that sections 3.3 and 3.4 were descriptive in nature and not related to the direct experimental block. In response to this, these sections have been significantly shortened and combined into one, with a clear formulation of their role as a generalised scientifically sound proposal for further research (lines 647-812).

At the same time, we would like to explain the logic of the scientific argumentation underlying the recommendation section. We would like to emphasise that the water body under study has water quality that does not pose a dangerous sanitary and epidemiological impact on the environment and humans. At the same time, this object is not currently used by humans for recreational or aesthetic purposes. Its value can be increased by introducing the proposed natural materials – non-toxic, harmless waste that does not deteriorate water quality or inhibit the functioning of the biocenosis.

It is particularly important to find environmentally safe and affordable solutions for creating recreation areas in Western Ukraine, where a large number of internally displaced persons from regions affected by hostilities currently reside. Therefore, the use of local minerals, in particular waste from the mining industry and quarries rich in silicon, calcium and other biophilic components, may become a promising direction that combines environmental efficiency with social expediency.

Although according to modern hydrochemical indicators and the MIR index, the river belongs to the ‘good’ class, the identified imbalance in the structure of macrophytes –  in particular, the low proportion of submerged root forms – indicates a potential risk of reducing the stability of the ecosystem in the medium term. It is in this context that we recommend considering the use of bottom-up regulatory mechanisms aimed at optimising the physical and chemical conditions to stimulate the development of root vegetation.

Thus, although the proposed approach requires further experimental verification, it is based on previously published results by the authors (Trach, Y.; Melnychuk, V.; Melnychuk, G.; Mazur, Ł.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E. Using Local Mineral Materials for the Rehabilitation of the Ustya River – a Case Study. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 232, 346–356, doi:10.5004/dwt.2021.27559) and has the potential to comprehensively improve both the ecological and social status of water bodies. The manuscript clearly distinguishes between the results of empirical research and the recommendations to avoid any misunderstandings regarding their status.

 

18. Conclusion is too long and needs to be clearer.

Thank you for your helpful comment. The conclusion was indeed too long, so we shortened it and made it clearer and more meaningful (lines 814-838).

Thank you again for your valuable comments, which have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript!

 

Best regards, Authors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content presented in this paper is confusing. First of all, the work is too extensive with disproportionate main parts of the scientific work - the Introduction is written on as many as 6 pages (2 - 7), while the results of own research are very narrowly commented, in contrast to the section "3.3. Use of geogenic minerals to stimulate the development of submerged macrophytes and ecological remediation of the Vyzhyvka River" where on 5 pages (22 - 26) the results of other researches are described and commented. Also, the Conclusion is too broad and inadequately written. And this also applies to the title of the work.

On the one hand, the results of macrophyte vegetation research were presented for the purpose of "identifying the patterns of distribution of morphoecological groups of macrophytes depending on the qualitative composition of the Vyzhyvka River water and substantiating the influence of chemical characteristics of the aquatic environment on the structural and functional organization of aquatic vegetation". The approach, based on the calculation of the Macrophyte Index for Rivers (MIR), was used to assess the ecological state of the river. The obtained results are scientifically significant and with the supplemented discussion they deserve to be one separated scientific paper. The conclusion should be clear and only recommendation for the possibility of "use of mineral raw materials of local origin, in particular, mining and quarrying wastes rich in silicon, calcium and other mineral components that promote the development of basal aquatic vegetation and stabilization of bottom sediments" can be noted.

On the other hand, the authors comprehensively presented( in the sections Introduction and Results and Discussion) the current knowledge about "the possibilities of using mineral raw materials of local origin - in particular aluminosilicates, limestone and other geomaterials - in strategies for supporting macrophyte biodiversity" and improving general ecological state of the rivers. It deserves to be a separated new paper - review paper.

And according to the announcement of the authors themselves, a third paper can be expected in which the authors will analyze "a wide range of aquatic plants to determine their ecological sensitivity to the impact of different geomaterials". The authors' statement that "It is necessary to conduct an in-depth study of the mechanisms of interaction of each of the minerals with representatives of individual macrophyte types to optimise the use of geomaterials for the improvement of aquatic ecosystems" can certainly be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 We would like to thank the you for careful reading, critical and constructive comments on this manuscript, by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion incorporated the manuscript. Suggested changes to the text are marked in yellow.

Below, we included the point-to-point response to the Reviewer’s comments.

The content presented in this paper is confusing. First of all, the work is too extensive with disproportionate main parts of the scientific work - the Introduction is written on as many as 6 pages (2 - 7), while the results of own research are very narrowly commented, in contrast to the section "3.3. Use of geogenic minerals to stimulate the development of submerged macrophytes and ecological remediation of the Vyzhyvka River" where on 5 pages (22 - 26) the results of other researches are described and commented. Also, the Conclusion is too broad and inadequately written. And this also applies to the title of the work.

On the one hand, the results of macrophyte vegetation research were presented for the purpose of "identifying the patterns of distribution of morphoecological groups of macrophytes depending on the qualitative composition of the Vyzhyvka River water and substantiating the influence of chemical characteristics of the aquatic environment on the structural and functional organization of aquatic vegetation". The approach, based on the calculation of the Macrophyte Index for Rivers (MIR), was used to assess the ecological state of the river. The obtained results are scientifically significant and with the supplemented discussion they deserve to be one separated scientific paper. The conclusion should be clear and only recommendation for the possibility of "use of mineral raw materials of local origin, in particular, mining and quarrying wastes rich in silicon, calcium and other mineral components that promote the development of basal aquatic vegetation and stabilization of bottom sediments" can be noted.

On the other hand, the authors comprehensively presented (in the sections Introduction and Results and Discussion) the current knowledge about "the possibilities of using mineral raw materials of local origin - in particular aluminosilicates, limestone and other geomaterials - in strategies for supporting macrophyte biodiversity" and improving general ecological state of the rivers. It deserves to be a separated new paper - review paper.

And according to the announcement of the authors themselves, a third paper can be expected in which the authors will analyze "a wide range of aquatic plants to determine their ecological sensitivity to the impact of different geomaterials". The authors' statement that "It is necessary to conduct an in-depth study of the mechanisms of interaction of each of the minerals with representatives of individual macrophyte types to optimise the use of geomaterials for the improvement of aquatic ecosystems" can certainly be accepted.

Thank you very much for your in-depth analysis and constructive comments on the structure and content of the manuscript. Your comments have been extremely valuable in improving the presented work.

We agree that the Introduction was too long and that the discussion of our results needed more attention. In response to this, the Introduction has been significantly shortened, leaving only the key points directly related to the research topic (lines 46-247).

Regarding section 3.3, which justifies the possibility of using mineral raw materials, your comment is entirely valid.

At the same time, we would like to explain the logic of the scientific argumentation underlying the recommendation section. We would like to emphasise that the water body under study has water quality that does not pose a dangerous sanitary and epidemiological impact on the environment and humans. At the same time, this object is not currently used by humans for recreational or aesthetic purposes. Its value can be increased by introducing the proposed natural materials – non-toxic, harmless waste that does not deteriorate water quality or inhibit the functioning of the biocenosis.

It is particularly important to find environmentally safe and affordable solutions for creating recreation areas in Western Ukraine, where a large number of internally displaced persons from regions affected by hostilities currently reside. Therefore, the use of local minerals, in particular waste from the mining industry and quarries rich in silicon, calcium and other biophilic components, may become a promising direction that combines environmental efficiency with social expediency.

Although according to modern hydrochemical indicators and the MIR index, the river belongs to the ‘good’ class, the identified imbalance in the structure of macrophytes –  in particular, the low proportion of submerged root forms – indicates a potential risk of reducing the stability of the ecosystem in the medium term. It is in this context that we recommend considering the use of bottom-up regulatory mechanisms aimed at optimising the physical and chemical conditions to stimulate the development of root vegetation.

Thus, although the proposed approach requires further experimental verification, it is based on previously published results by the authors (Trach, Y.; Melnychuk, V.; Melnychuk, G.; Mazur, Ł.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; Koda, E. Using Local Mineral Materials for the Rehabilitation of the Ustya River – a Case Study. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 232, 346–356, doi:10.5004/dwt.2021.27559) and has the potential to comprehensively improve both the ecological and social status of water bodies. The manuscript clearly distinguishes between the results of empirical research and the recommendations to avoid any misunderstandings regarding their status. Additionally, the abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections have been revised accordingly.

Taking into account your recommendation regarding the correspondence of the title to the content, it has been changed: now it more accurately reflects the actual content of the work, with an emphasis on the analysis of the morphological structure of macrophytes and the ecological state of the river.

Once again, we thank you for your principled, attentive and professional approach, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript.

Best regards, Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their efforts and improvement of the manuscript.
In general, I think that the last part (lines 634-800) of the manuscript is still too long. The research part of the paper is related to the investigation of the presence of macrophytes, while the last part is based on extensive literature data on the possible application of minerals to stimulate the growth of macrophytes

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors accepted all the reviewer's comments and suggestions and made insightful changes to the first version of the proposed paper. This significantly improved the paper and made it worthy of publication in this prestigious journal.