Assessing the Effect of Undirected Forest Restoration and Flooding on the Soil Quality in an Agricultural Floodplain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find my recommendation for your manuscript entitled "Assessing the effect of undirected forest restoration and flooding on soil quality in an agricultural floodplain":

• L9-22: Please include some representative results in the abstract (numerical form)
• L25: The introduction provides a general overview of land use change and soil health but, in my opinion, it lacks a clear, specific research question or objective. For me the aims of the study are not explicitly stated, making it difficult for readers to understand the study’s focus
• I recommend for authors to improve the introduction section literature review as the current one reference several studies but fail to synthesize them into a cohesive context that leads logically to the research question
• Please consider that the introduction to explicitly state why this research is necessary or what knowledge gap it addresses
• L115-118: Please detail how the spatial images were obtained
• L128: The authors mentioned that they collected 120 soil samples from 60 sites across three zones. For me critical details are missing, so please clearly describe the site selection criteria and randomization process; clarify how specific sampling locations were chosen within each zone. Please clearly explain the spatial distribution of sampling points. Please clarify the temporal aspects of sampling relative to the flood event as it lack detail regarding timing, weather conditions, and soil moisture status.
• Explain the meaning for "combined samples" L128 -biological replicates, technical replicates, pooled samples?
• For describing analytical methods please do not adopt this narrative mode; please be technical and please divide it in relevant and coherent subsection
• For methods please specify if procedural blanks, duplicates, or reference standards were used to ensure data reliability. Please mention the number of analytical replicates per sample
• Please clarify if control sites/unaffected by flooding were considered in this study
• L184: Please considered as a sub-section - Statistical analysis
• The Figures 3 and 4 should include the % of variance an axis
• Table 2 should be reorganized as its current version is hard to understand; check Table 1 also
• The discussion section, in my opinion, often restates the obtained results without providing deeper interpretation or connecting findings to broader ecological or management implications. For example, simply repeating that “organic matter decreased in the field zone after flooding” does not help the reader understand why this occurred or what it means for floodplain restoration.
• In my view, the discussion rarely compares the study’s findings to those of previous research, in that way missing opportunities to highlight agreements, contradictions, or novel contributions. Please consider this 
• Up to me, explanations for observed patterns are sometimes speculative and not enough supported by data. For instance, attributing changes in soil phosphorus solely to flooding, without considering other possible factors (such as prior land use or soil management), weakens the argument.
• I recommend for authors to consider in this section to address the study’s limitations also 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Authors,

Please find my recommendation for your manuscript entitled "Assessing the effect of undirected forest restoration and flooding on soil quality in an agricultural floodplain":

• L9-22: Please include some representative results in the abstract (numerical form)

Thank you for this suggest. Numerical results were added to support the descriptive comparisons. L17-21

• L25: The introduction provides a general overview of land use change and soil health but, in my opinion, it lacks a clear, specific research question or objective. For me the aims of the study are not explicitly stated, making it difficult for readers to understand the study’s focus

Thank you for your comment. We are sorry to hear our intent was not clear. We added several sentences that explain the study goal and how it connects to the introductory material. L41, L56, L73

 

• I recommend for authors to improve the introduction section literature review as the current one reference several studies but fail to synthesize them into a cohesive context that leads logically to the research question

We hope that the deleted text and additions better focus and synthesize the ideas in the introduction. We also hope the changes better capture the study focus and justification. Page 2 and 3

 

• Please consider that the introduction to explicitly state why this research is necessary or what knowledge gap it addresses

We added a statement at the end of the first paragraph to help fill this gap in our original submission. Page 2 and 3

 

• L115-118: Please detail how the spatial images were obtained

Images were obtained from the Vermont orthoimagry database. We have added details about the image processes and spatial reference. L123-127

 

• L128: The authors mentioned that they collected 120 soil samples from 60 sites across three zones. For me critical details are missing, so please clearly describe the site selection criteria and randomization process; clarify how specific sampling locations were chosen within each zone. Please clearly explain the spatial distribution of sampling points. Please clarify the temporal aspects of sampling relative to the flood event as it lack detail regarding timing, weather conditions, and soil moisture status.

Thank you for these suggestions. We have attempted to clarify this information in the revised manuscript. Figure 1 now shows sampling point locations within zones. More detail around the timing of pre-flood sampling, the flood event, and post-flood sampling were added. The area of each zone is now also provided. L126-134, L157-167

 

• Explain the meaning for "combined samples" L128 -biological replicates, technical replicates, pooled samples?

We did mean pooled samples. This term is now used throughout. L148

 

• For describing analytical methods please do not adopt this narrative mode; please be technical and please divide it in relevant and coherent subsection

Technical details were added to phosphorus and statistical methods. Subsections were added to the methods. L182-195, L218-242

 

• For methods please specify if procedural blanks, duplicates, or reference standards were used to ensure data reliability. Please mention the number of analytical replicates per sample

Thank you for your suggestion. These missing details were added to the Pext methods. L182-195

 

• Please clarify if control sites/unaffected by flooding were considered in this study

All zones and sampling sites were flooded and as such we could not use an unaffected reference area. These details were added to the manuscript. L166-168

 

• L184: Please considered as a sub-section - Statistical analysis

Subsection added

 

• The Figures 3 and 4 should include the % of variance an axis

% variance explained was added to ordination plots. Figure 3 and 4 (page 9 and 10)

 

• Table 2 should be reorganized as its current version is hard to understand; check Table 1 also

Table 2 was reorganized to better highlight statistical finds. Page 8

 

• The discussion section, in my opinion, often restates the obtained results without providing deeper interpretation or connecting findings to broader ecological or management implications. For example, simply repeating that “organic matter decreased in the field zone after flooding” does not help the reader understand why this occurred or what it means for floodplain restoration.

We added more comparison to other works and tried to limit simply repeating the results. L349-376, 382-391, 421-443

• In my view, the discussion rarely compares the study’s findings to those of previous research, in that way missing opportunities to highlight agreements, contradictions, or novel contributions. Please consider this

Thank you for your view. We cite additional studies and now discuss in more detail the land use and flood results in comparison to what other studies found. L349-376, 382-391, 421-443

 

• Up to me, explanations for observed patterns are sometimes speculative and not enough supported by data. For instance, attributing changes in soil phosphorus solely to flooding, without considering other possible factors (such as prior land use or soil management), weakens the argument.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. We have tried to tone down the speculative comments and make conclusions more focused on our specific and limited findings. L326-328, 444-446

 

• I recommend for authors to consider in this section to address the study’s limitations also

Thank you for this suggestion. Rather than making a section or paragraph focused on limitations, we added “limitations” statements in the discuss near were this clarification was needed. L350-354, L382-387, L458-460

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

The study primarily investigates how land use history (agricultural vs. forest restoration) and episodic flooding events influence soil quality in a floodplain ecosystem.​​

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case. 

The study bridges gaps between floodplain restoration, legacy agricultural impacts, and episodic flood effects. Most research focuses on terrestrial restoration or floodplain hydrology separately. This study highlights flooding as a potential catalyst for soil recovery, contrasting with typical views of floods as purely disruptive.

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Compared to existing literature, this study emphasizes the empirical evidence that flooding can reduce Pext and shift SOM toward forest-like qualities (humic-rich, stable forms), accelerating recovery.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? 

1)This study adopts robust sampling (120 cores across depths/zones) and  permutation ANOVA/MANOVA to handle non-normal data. However, the area of the plots are not shown, so we don’t know the sampling season and the density of soil sampling is enough or not. And also, this paper lacks the basic information of soil, such as the soil type, soil bulk density and particle distribution. 

2)How do the authors define surface soil, bottom soil and subsurface soil?

3) The extraction time is inconsistency. Pre-flood SOM used 24-hour vs. 30-minute post-flood extractions. Though adjusted, this may affect comparability.​

4) Lack of subsurface SOM quality data: Deep soil cores were only analyzed for SOM content/Pext, missing microbial/humic indicators. So the conclusion of line 238 lacks enough proof .So does line 278-280.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

Land use legacy effects align with global trends and data support the conclusion that flooding homogenized Pext and shifted field-zone SOM toward forest-like signatures.However, because of the legacy of long-time data, the claim that 50–100 years are needed for full SOM recovery is speculative.

 

• Are the references appropriate?

The references are sufficient and cover key topics and recent years’ studies. However, how and why flood causes SOM deposition need more proof.

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Table 1: Clear zone-wise comparisons but lacks statistical significance markers (e.g., asterisks).

Table 2: SOM indices are well-defined. 

Figures:

Figure 1: Effective land-use timeline but lacks GPS coordinates.

 

There are some small errors in grammar or punctuation marks, such as line 11,line 42, line55, 129,302,309 and 333.

The background of the land use history is not described clearly. A table maybe suitable for readers to understand.

This paper depicted that the land use history and flooding changed soil quality, but did not explained the reason for that. If possible, more flooding details should be helpful.

Define soil depth intervals  (0–5 cm vs. 25–30 cm) . 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Simplify verbose sentences (e.g., split compound clauses) and unify terminology (e.g., consistently use “legacy phosphorus” instead of alternating with “legacy nutrient”).

Author Response

• What is the main question addressed by the research?

The study primarily investigates how land use history (agricultural vs. forest restoration) and episodic flooding events influence soil quality in a floodplain ecosystem.

Thank you for demonstrated your understanding of our manuscript focus

 

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The study bridges gaps between floodplain restoration, legacy agricultural impacts, and episodic flood effects. Most research focuses on terrestrial restoration or floodplain hydrology separately. This study highlights flooding as a potential catalyst for soil recovery, contrasting with typical views of floods as purely disruptive.

Thank you for demonstrated your understanding of our manuscript focus

 

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Compared to existing literature, this study emphasizes the empirical evidence that flooding can reduce Pext and shift SOM toward forest-like qualities (humic-rich, stable forms), accelerating recovery.

We are happy that our main take-home message was clear

 

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

1)This study adopts robust sampling (120 cores across depths/zones) and permutation ANOVA/MANOVA to handle non-normal data. However, the area of the plots are not shown, so we don’t know the sampling season and the density of soil sampling is enough or not. And also, this paper lacks the basic information of soil, such as the soil type, soil bulk density and particle distribution.

Thank you for pointing out these missing details. We now include the areas of each zone we sample. We also added the soil type for each zone. In figure 1, we added sampling points. This makes it easier to see how representatively each zone was subsampled. L127-130, figure 1

 

2)How do the authors define surface soil, bottom soil and subsurface soil?

The interval is now defined and explained in the context of the soil type in the Natural Area. Hopefully, these changes help the reader better understand how surface and deeper soil layers relate to the soil horizons present at the site. L132-134, L144-146

 

3) The extraction time is inconsistency. Pre-flood SOM used 24-hour vs. 30-minute post-flood extractions. Though adjusted, this may affect comparability.

Very true, 24 hour and 30 minute extractions are not comparable. We now more clear state that the two extraction methods were not compared in the same analysis. 24 hour extracted was used for pre-flood spatial-zonal comparisons. The 30 minute extracts were used to evaluate the flood effect. L203. L222-224

 

4) Lack of subsurface SOM quality data: Deep soil cores were only analyzed for SOM content/Pext, missing microbial/humic indicators. So the conclusion of line 238 lacks enough proof .So does line 278-280.

We agree. Line 238 was removed. The idea expressed in lines 278-280 was rephrased to make less causal and more specific to our result. L326-328

 

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

Land use legacy effects align with global trends and data support the conclusion that flooding homogenized Pext and shifted field-zone SOM toward forest-like signatures. However, because of the legacy of long-time data, the claim that 50–100 years are needed for full SOM recovery is speculative.

We agree. This statement was deleted from the manuscript

 

• Are the references appropriate?

The references are sufficient and cover key topics and recent years’ studies. However, how and why flood causes SOM deposition need more proof.

Thank you for pointing out this omission. We added references and now more fully discuss the observed effect in the context of what other studies found. Our findings were different than other studies. We believe the accumulation of OM with flooding was caused by a limited leaf litter layer in our study area, the size of the flood, and the nature of the soil. L421-443

 

 

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Table 1: Clear zone-wise comparisons but lacks statistical significance markers (e.g., asterisks).

Thank you for this suggestion. Pairwise comparison markers were added to this table. Page 3 and 4

 

Table 2: SOM indices are well-defined.

That’s great. We are happy that these sometimes odd to understand optical indices came across clearly

 

Figures:

Figure 1: Effective land-use timeline but lacks GPS coordinates.

The coordinates of the natural area are now provided in text as well as in the caption of Figure 1. We also added inset maps of the study area to allow the reader to better locate the study site within the USA. L92-93

 

There are some small errors in grammar or punctuation marks, such as line 11,line 42, line55, 129,302,309 and 333.

Thank you for flagging these errors and pointing out our complex sentences. We have corrected these errors, removed unneeded clauses from sentences, split complex sentences apparat, and delete unnecessary sentences

 

The background of the land use history is not described clearly. A table maybe suitable for readers to understand.

We followed your suggested and added a new table 1 that tracks the land use changes over time in each study zone. Hopefully, this makes it easier to see the dominant land use and how the change. Page 3 and 4

 

This paper depicted that the land use history and flooding changed soil quality, but did not explained the reason for that. If possible, more flooding details should be helpful.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added more information about the flood and how it impacted our study area. L157-166

 

Define soil depth intervals  (0–5 cm vs. 25–30 cm) .

The interval is now defined and explained in the context of the soil type in the Natural Area. Hopefully, these changes help the reader better understand how surface and deeper soil layers relate to the soil horizons present at the site, L144-147

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Simplify verbose sentences (e.g., split compound clauses) and unify terminology (e.g., consistently use “legacy phosphorus” instead of alternating with “legacy nutrient”).

Thank you for flagging these errors and pointing out our complex sentences. We have corrected these errors, removed unneeded clauses from sentences, split complex sentences apparat, and delete unnecessary sentences

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for improving the manuscript. Reading carefully the new version of "Assessing the effect of undirected forest restoration and flooding on soil quality in an agricultural floodplain" I noticed few things that should be considered. Please find them listed below:

L29: "shifts in water management have changed riverine flows" in my opinion this is an improper direct causation assumption as it not consider confounding factors, it doesn't establishes temporal sequence between cause and effect, and moreover it oversimplifies complex hydrological-ecological interactions

L68-80: Please consider to better formulate the hypothesis of this research work. Also in my opinion there is a fundamental temporal scale mismatch between "century of land use change" and a single flood event. Please better formulate

L347-349: In my opinion here the authors oversimplify the redox chemistry - Please reconsider with attention this 

L353: Using of speculative language in discussion "seems tied to", without enough mechanistic evidence, listing multiple factors without establishing their relative importance, and omitting direct measurements of decomposition rates or redox conditions is not proper in my opinion. The authors should reconsider that

For better clarity for readers I would recommend for authors to include "Conclusions" section - this is an optional recommendation but in my opinion it would be benefic for all

Author Response

Dear Authors,

Thank you for improving the manuscript. Reading carefully the new version of "Assessing the effect of undirected forest restoration and flooding on soil quality in an agricultural floodplain" I noticed few things that should be considered. Please find them listed below:

L29: "shifts in water management have changed riverine flows" in my opinion this is an improper direct causation assumption as it not consider confounding factors, it doesn't establishes temporal sequence between cause and effect, and moreover it oversimplifies complex hydrological-ecological interactions

Thank you for you suggestion and helpful reasoning. Our point really is that humans have altered water systems and these alterations impact the land-water linkages. The water management part as you mention mixes up some causation. The statement has been simplified to target human activities rather than be connected to management actions

L68-80: Please consider to better formulate the hypothesis of this research work. Also in my opinion there is a fundamental temporal scale mismatch between "century of land use change" and a single flood event. Please better formulate

Thank you for these suggestions and pointing out which elements needed revisiting for proper alignment. We rephrased several sentences to hopefully better support the study objectives and hypothesis. We bring together the notion of studying together long-term and episodic disturbances. This should help clarify the temporal mismatch.

L347-349: In my opinion here the authors oversimplify the redox chemistry - Please reconsider with attention this 

Thank you for this suggestion and sharing your opinion. We restructured the sentence to better set up the examples that follow, which we think explain in a less technical way the association between flooding and P release from soil. As you and the other reviewer pointed out, this study cannot explain the mechanism behind the pattern. As such, we speculated to much in our original draft. Here we feel adding a technical explanation of redox chemistry and P goes beyond what we can say with our data and could end up as a different form of speculative statement

L353: Using of speculative language in discussion "seems tied to", without enough mechanistic evidence, listing multiple factors without establishing their relative importance, and omitting direct measurements of decomposition rates or redox conditions is not proper in my opinion. The authors should reconsider that

This statement was made more absolute and we added a follow-up concluding sentence that makes clear the results of this study are unable to clearly identify the exact mechanism to explain the results. This seems to work well with the previous comment by being honest about our ability to identify the causal relationships we describe from other studies

For better clarity for readers I would recommend for authors to include "Conclusions" section - this is an optional recommendation but in my opinion it would be benefic for all

Thank you for pointing this out. We took your suggestion and moved the final paragraph to its own conclusion section