Spatiotemporal Variability of Soil Water Repellency in Urban Parks of Berlin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject matter in the presented study entitled “Spatiotemporal Variability of Soil Water Repellency in Urban Parks of Berlin” fits a needed topic in current knowledge, how to avoid further land degradation and promote land restoration, as well as multifunctional use of land and ecosystem services. Additionally, solutions need to embed short-term management in long-term landscape planning of sustainability development. Recognition of environmental conditions and preparing relevant research concepts is crucial to achieving successful adaptation processes due to climate change.

Generally, the manuscript is well-written, and the laboratory methods and statistical analysis are easy to follow. One issue deserves special attention, namely the irrigated system's occurrence during summer months in one of the selected parks, mentioned in the abstract. This crucial issue is not mentioned in the study area description section and is not selected as another boundary condition for analyses and discussion. I put forward for consideration it would be good to compare the irrigation system's influence on improving environmental conditions. I suggest caution on higher amounts of TOC in the soil as a negative issue.

 

I have some suggestions that could be implemented into the manuscript to clarify some points.

 

Section 2.1. should be supplemented by a detailed description of the irrigation system.

In my opinion, it would be necessary to change the order of the individual sections in the Material and Methodological part, i.e. after Study Area and Soil Sampling; the Antecedent Rainfall, Temperature, and Dry Days; Particle Size Distribution and Total Organic Carbon; Soil Water Repellency Analysis.

Additionally, presenting objects in different orders confuses it, it would be better to adopt a uniform order in the way of presentation of objects and their description, and results.

Figures 3a, 3b and 3c belong to the result sections 3.4 and 3.5 and should be presented there. For the Rudolph-Wilde Park in Fig. 3c probably the irrigation system is working for the park ecosystem. The vertical axes could be bigger.

Figures 3d, e, and f would be nice to have bigger vertical axes to see the differences, which are not so large for each park, based on the data from the same meteorological station and various dates of sampling.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. And please let me know if further revision is needed.

Comment1: One issue deserves special attention, namely the irrigated system's occurrence during summer months in one of the selected parks, mentioned in the abstract. This crucial issue is not mentioned in the study area description section and is not selected as another boundary condition for analyses and discussion. I put forward for consideration it would be good to compare the irrigation system's influence on improving environmental conditions.

Response1: Thank you for your feedback. We measured the water content of the soil samples every month, which effectively represents the influence of irrigation on the environment within the park. This water content was considered a key factor and was integrated as a primary boundary condition for the analysis and discussion. While irrigation was not initially identified as a boundary condition in the early stages of the analysis, we did address the potential impact of irrigation thoroughly in the discussion, responding to any questions the audience might have regarding its role (lines: 573-581).

Comment2: I suggest caution on higher amounts of TOC in the soil as a negative issue.

Response2: Since in research we do scientific analysis rather than personal beliefs, I have objectively presented the degree of soil water repellency in relation to TOC characteristics and vegetation health at the sampling sites. Unfortunately, this may lead some audience to perceive high TOC and healthy vegetation as negative issue. How can we mitigate such potential misinterpretation?

Comment3: Section 2.1. should be supplemented by a detailed description of the irrigation system.

Response3: detailed description of the irrigation system was added in Section 2.2/lines: 156-164.

Comment4: In my opinion, it would be necessary to change the order of the individual sections in the Material and Methodological part, i.e. after Study Area and Soil Sampling; the Antecedent Rainfall, Temperature, and Dry Days; Particle Size Distribution and Total Organic Carbon; Soil Water Repellency Analysis.

Response4: I believe the order of the titles is fine and well organized. It starts with the study area, followed by soil sampling, then what we did with the sampled soils (the main soil analysis conducted in the lab) to meet the study's objectives. Next, it includes additional soil analyses that support the research aim. Finally, climatic factors were presented that may influence the state of the soil properties. However, if you think it needs to be reordered, I will gladly make the adjustments.

Comment5: Additionally, presenting objects in different orders confuses it, it would be better to adopt a uniform order in the way of presentation of objects and their description, and results.

Response5: Agree. I modified the sequence of the objects following a uniform order. it was considered in the section 3 as well.

Comment6: Figures 3a, 3b and 3c belong to the result sections 3.4 and 3.5 and should be presented there. For the Rudolph-Wilde Park in Fig. 3c probably the irrigation system is working for the park ecosystem. The vertical axes could be bigger. Figures 3d, e, and f would be nice to have bigger vertical axes to see the differences, which are not so large for each park, based on the data from the same meteorological station and various dates of sampling.

Response6: Agree. I have modified the figure 3 and moved it to section 3.4 (line: 366). Now its large enough to compare the differences.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a significant topic and presents consistent results. However, the novelty of the study appears to be a weakness. Additionally, I have noticed that the document does not fully adhere to the journal's formatting requirements. My comments are intended to guide revisions that could enhance the manuscript’s structure, coherence, and alignment with the journal's standards.

8-9: The objective of the study needs clearer articulation. Please revise for improved clarity in writing.
27-28: This section appears out of scope. Consider revising or omitting.
63-64: The terms 'water distribution,' 'retention,' and 'absorption' require clarification. Please review and explicitly define these terms in relation to soil-water dynamics, including concepts such as infiltration, permeability, and water-holding capacity.
103-113: The research question lacks clarity within the introduction. The hypotheses presented resemble general theory rather than addressing specific scientific issues relevant to the study area.
115-120: This section requires revision for clearer writing. Consider the necessity of this section or the use of subtitles for better organization.
123: Please review the use of abbreviations for consistency and clarity.
129-130: The information appears too general, akin to the introductory content, and its relevance to the specific study area is unclear.
134-139: Include specific categories when describing soil-forming factors and provide the soil taxonomy classification of the study areas.
143-160: There is no need for bold text. Please provide the area of each park and consider revising Table 1 to include columns describing soil cover and usage.
168-174: Specify the quantity of soil sampled and clarify whether the structure was preserved or if it was a disturbed sample. Describe pre-analysis treatment in detail.
Figure 1: The colored dots (red, blue, purple) lack a legend, and the image quality is poor.
203-220: This section is confusing and disorganized. Was moisture measured to constant weight? Describe the instruments used and clarify the sequence of sample treatment, analysis procedures, and physical characterization.
221-237: Clarify whether 'particle size,' 'grain size,' or 'soil texture class' is being discussed. Ensure consistency in terminology throughout, including in Results sections 3.1 and 3.3.
Figure 2: It is unclear whether the line represents temperature and the bars represent rainfall. Clarify this in the caption. Figure 3: Specify whether this belongs to the Results or Methods section. Overall, the quality and text formatting of figures should match the journal template.
Table 3: Review and adjust the format to align with the journal’s template.
422-425: Were any statistical analyses performed to correlate soil characteristics with vegetation or land use?
498-504: This section is redundant and could potentially be removed to streamline the content.
512-519: Discussion should include comparison with multi-year average climate data, including temperature, rainfall, and the duration of dry or wet seasons.
532-539: Specify what constitutes low or high TOC with quantitative ranges and reference values from the literature.
540-545: If soil compaction was measured, please provide specific indicators such as soil porosity and bulk density. The current discussion lacks strength without these characterizations.
Conclusions: The section needs a complete rewrite to succinctly address the study’s objectives and hypotheses.
610-618: This part is too general and redundant. Consider omitting.
619-629: Currently, this section merely summarizes results. It should be rewritten to reflect a deeper analysis.
630-644: Ensure the conclusions are consistent with the stated objectives and hypotheses. This section should include references to strengthen its validity.
645-651: This content is redundant and could be removed for conciseness.
General: The citation style does not align with the journal's requirements. Please conform all references to the journal's prescribed format.

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comment 8-9: The objective of the study needs clearer articulation. Please revise for improved clarity in writing.

Response: we agree with this comment. Therefore, we revised accordingly which can be found in resubmitted manuscript (lines: 8-10)

Comment 27-28: This section appears out of scope. Consider revising or omitting.

Response: we are agreeing and it has been omitted accordingly.

Comment 63-64: The terms 'water distribution,' 'retention,' and 'absorption' require clarification. Please review and explicitly define these terms in relation to soil-water dynamics, including concepts such as infiltration, permeability, and water-holding capacity.

Agree. We have explicitly defined the terms (57-64).

Comment 103-113: The research question lacks clarity within the introduction. The hypotheses presented resemble general theory rather than addressing specific scientific issues relevant to the study area.

Response: objective of the study was revised to clarify the mechanisms involved and ground the hypotheses in measurable scientific processes. Also, the hypotheses were modified. (94-114)

Comment 115-120: This section requires revision for clearer writing. Consider the necessity of this section or the use of subtitles for better organization.

Agree. I have, accordingly, omitted because it was redundant.

Comment 123: Please review the use of abbreviations for consistency and clarity.

Agree. I have modified accordingly. (117)

Comment 129-130: The information appears too general, akin to the introductory content, and its relevance to the specific study area is unclear.

Agree. I have omitted because it was too general.

Comment 134-139: Include specific categories when describing soil-forming factors and provide the soil taxonomy classification of the study areas.

It was revised and the taxonomy classification was added as well (126-133).

 
Comment 143-160: There is no need for bold text. Please provide the area of each park and consider revising Table 1 to include columns describing soil cover and usage.

Agree. We have revised accordingly. And one more column, namely ESS categories were added too (138-163)

Comment 168-174: Specify the quantity of soil sampled and clarify whether the structure was preserved or if it was a disturbed sample. Describe pre-analysis treatment in detail.

Agree. We have modified accordingly (166-167). For consistency and clarity, we explained the Pre-analysis of the soil samples on the lines:187-199.

Comment Figure 1: The colored dots (red, blue, purple) lack a legend, and the image quality is poor.

Agree. We have modified accordingly (189).

 

Comment 203-220: This section is confusing and disorganized. Was moisture measured to constant weight? Describe the instruments used and clarify the sequence of sample treatment, analysis procedures, and physical characterization.

Revised accordingly (198-221). Soil moisture was measured following the established procedure- approximately 100 g of soil from each sample was placed in the oven for 24 hours at 65°C and then the soil was weighted again to calculate the moisture weight (Details in manuscript).

Comment 221-237: Clarify whether 'particle size,' 'grain size,' or 'soil texture class' is being discussed. Ensure consistency in terminology throughout, including in Results sections 3.1 and 3.3.

Revised accordingly. We explain the analysis of the particle size distributions, its steps and the instrument used. then the classification of the soil texture. (230-240). The terminologies have been corrected in section 3.1 (line: 286-288) and section 3.3 (line: 304-306)

Comment Figure 2: It is unclear whether the line represents temperature and the bars represent rainfall. Clarify this in the caption.

Revised accordingly (252)

Comment Figure 3: Specify whether this belongs to the Results or Methods section. Overall, the quality and text formatting of figures should match the journal template.

Revised and moved to the results section (364).

Comment Table 3: Review and adjust the format to align with the journal’s template.

Revised accordingly to align with the journal’s template (293).

Comment 422-425: Were any statistical analyses performed to correlate soil characteristics with vegetation or land use?

Responce: In the field, we recorded vegetation conditions and land use characteristics for each soil sampling site. Each site represents a specific soil cover and usage (as shown in Table 1), which was later considered in the correlation analysis of soil properties (Table 6). The correlation coefficients vary across sites based on their vegetation cover and land use.

While a direct correlation analysis between soil characteristics and vegetation or land use was not conducted, as it was beyond the scope of this study, these factors were inherently accounted for in our analyses.

Comment 498-504: This section is redundant and could potentially be removed to streamline the content.

Agree. Removed

Comment 512-519: Discussion should include comparison with multi-year average climate data, including temperature, rainfall, and the duration of dry or wet seasons.

I anticipated that the results might lack precision due to normalization during the averaging process of multi-year data, which could potentially mislead the audience. To ensure accuracy, we collected soil samples containing field moisture at specific date and analyzed them in the laboratory. Incorporating precise sampling dates, along with recorded rainfall and temperature data, allows for a more accurate assessment of water balance and soil moisture content. However, if you mean comparing the actual rainfall etc with the multi-year average, I can include it as a figure similar to figure 2.

Comment 532-539: Specify what constitutes low or high TOC with quantitative ranges and reference values from the literature.

Revised accordingly

Comment 540-545: If soil compaction was measured, please provide specific indicators such as soil porosity and bulk density. The current discussion lacks strength without these characterizations.

Thank you for your insightful comment. You are correct that the discussion would benefit from more specific indicators to strengthen the analysis. While soil compaction was considered as a factor in the study, we measured the compaction using Eijkelkamp penetrometer to determine the resistance to penetration (bearing capacity) of a soil. but didn’t directly measure soil porosity and bulk density.

Conclusions: The section needs a complete rewrite to succinctly address the study’s objectives and hypotheses.

Comment 610-618: This part is too general and redundant. Consider omitting.

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern regarding the generality and redundancy in the original passage. I have revised the text to make it more concise and specific, removing unnecessary repetition while retaining the key points.

Comment 619-629: Currently, this section merely summarizes results. It should be rewritten to reflect a deeper analysis.

Thank you for your insightful comment. I have revised the section to go beyond summarizing the results by incorporating a deeper analysis of the mechanisms influencing soil water repellency. The revised text now discusses the roles of organic matter dynamics, microbial activity, and seasonal drying in modulating hydrophobicity. Additionally, I have elaborated on the implications of soil composition, land use, and climatic conditions in shaping these patterns. I appreciate your feedback, which has helped improve the depth and clarity of this section (600-616).

Comment 630-644: Ensure the conclusions are consistent with the stated objectives and hypotheses. This section should include references to strengthen its validity.

Revised accordingly

Comment 645-651: This content is redundant and could be removed for conciseness.

Revised accordingly

Comment General: The citation style does not align with the journal's requirements. Please conform all references to the journal's prescribed format.

Revised accordingly

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors for their response and for accepting the recommendations. I have the following minor observations:

• Reconsider hypothesis 4. It is very general; please specify in relation to the scope of the study. (lines 108-110)
• Table 1. Adjust to the format of the journal's template.
• Lines 616-622 of the conclusion can be omitted, as they are redundant.

Author Response

To whome it may concern,

I really appreciate the reviewers for their valuable recommendations and response.

Please find the response below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted Manuscript.

Agree! The hypothesis 4 was modified considering the research guestions (lines: 108-112). 

Agree! Table 1 have been reformated according to the  journal's template.

Agree! We omitted the lines 616-622 of the conclusion.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the revision.

Best regards,

Ehsan Razipoor