After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results of 15+ Years’ Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presented fits in with the objectives of the journal. It presents very valuable and applicable data in the field of restoration of peatland ecosystems, in particular their plant biocenosis.
Specific comments and suggestions on the manuscript can be found in the attached document.
As general comments, I would like to point out that:
1. the quality of the figures needs to be improved.
2. it is necessary to revise the work as a whole and correct the scientific nomenclature of the species, which should all be in italics.
3. the terms fen, bog, peatbog and peatland are used interchangeably or, at least, confusingly. As peatland typology is an essential parameter in the understanding of evolutionary and restoration processes, I consider it necessary to eliminate this possible terminological ambiguity.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The row numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers.   

1. The quality of the figures needs to be improved.

The quality of the figures was improved.

2. It is necessary to revise the work as a whole and correct the scientific nomenclature of the species, which should all be in italics.

The entire paper has been corrected in accordance with the reviewer's comments made in the text.

The nomenclature was checked and given in italics.

In particular, the following corrections have been made, as per the reviewer's comments in the text:

Keywords – keywords already appear in the title were removed or replaced by the others (rows 31-32).

Regional climate and lithological information was added (rows 122-124).

Information on peat depth and peat type was added (table 1).

This sentence needs an explanation here, as it is not provided in the discussion. Is this relationship associated with reductive processes in the soil, or with increased protonation activity of vegetation, or with increased incorporation of nutrients from lithological materials? The cause of this relationship may have environmental significance in revegetation control and would be a case study for the future. Is it an intra-plot or interplot variation? (initial rows 341-343).

We attribute this change in pH only to the amount of precipitation. The sentence has been reworded to avoid misunderstanding. (rows 356-359).

Is this variation comparable to that detected in similar non-impacted peatlands? Is this information known? (initial rows 344-345).

Unfortunately, no measurements of pH and electrical conductivity have been made in the natural mires of the National Park. We have added general information on electrical conductivity values, which is used to divide mires/peatlands by trophic status (rows 367-369).

 We have changed the format of Figures 7 and 8 so that we can better see the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

3. The terms fen, bog, peatbog and peatland are used interchangeably or, at least, confusingly. As peatland typology is an essential parameter in the understanding of evolutionary and restoration processes, I consider it necessary to eliminate this possible terminological ambiguity.

We tried to streamline the use of terms throughout the manuscript. Сlarification of the use of the basic terms 'mire' and 'peatland' was added (rows 39-43)

Additional comment:

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (rows 212-215).

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors propose a manuscript titled “After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results of 15+ years' Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in  Cutover Peatland”

The article presents original data, is well structured but it needs some changes, even of English language. In particular, this study takes into consideration and highlights an interisting topic on the changes in vegetation cover and environmental factors during self- revegetation, following the impact of peat extraction, wildfire and rewetting in Meshchera National Park (central European Russia). the research has been based on some permanent plots on peatlands disturbed by quarrying and milling peat extraction. Peat extraction pits with relative cover vegetation can be prone to natural fires. The environmental conditions at the abandoned milled peat extraction sites do not favour natural overgrowth.  To prevent wildfires and create conditions favourable for the restoration of mire vegetation, rewetting is required.

 

Title. I suggested:

After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

 

1. Introduction

·         Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

·         Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

·         Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

·         Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

 

2. Materials and methods

·         Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

·         Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

·         Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

·         Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

·         Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

·         Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

 

3. Results and 4. Discussion

·         For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

·         The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

·         Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

·         3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

·         Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

·         Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

·         Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

·         A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

 

5. Conclusion

·         No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

 

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

 

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.;  De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

 

Some literature useful for authors

·         European Commission 1992. Council Directive 92/43 CEE on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. European Community Gazette 206: 1–50.

·         European Commission DG Environment. 2007. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats (version EUR27). Brussels: European Commission DG Environment.

·         Gibson, C.W.D.; Brown, V.K. The effects of grazing on local colonisation and extinction during early succession. Journal of Vegetation Science, 1991, 2, 291-300.

·         Gaucherand, S.; Liancourt, P.; Lavorel, S. Importance and intensity of competition along a fertility gradient and across species. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2006, 17, 455-464.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript.

Below are the responses to your comments given in the review, as well as to the text of the manuscript. The entire manuscript has been edited and checked by a native speaker. The line numbers have shifted, and unless otherwise specified we refer to their new numbers. 

Title. I suggested: After Wildfires and Rewetting: Results and Monitoring of Vegetation and Environmental Factors in Cutover Peatland

We present the results of vegetation and environmental factor monitoring. There are very few works on anthropogenically modified peatlands where long-term observations have been carried out. The indication of 15+ years underlines this. We would therefore like to retain the original title.     

1. Introduction

Rows 35 to 44 and in all introduction. The term peatland is repeated 6 times. Please use a synonymous word or change the period!!!;

Revised

Rows 69-71. This was done but with a lag, and the crisis of the peat industry in the 1990s dramatically increased the area of abandoned milled peat fields [choose reference];

The increase in the area of abandoned peatlands and the associated increase of peat fires is a general conclusion to which we refer below (row 77)

Rows 85-86. Monitoring methods based on satellite data with ground verification already used by other authors inside Protected area [Pisani et al. 2021 and choose other 2 references], the development of which began on the example of peatlands in Meschera National Park [20, 22, 23].

In this case we had in mind only the narrow issue of monitoring of fire-prone and rewetted peatlands. The sentence was rephrased to avoid an extended understanding of the work carried out on the example of the Meshchera national park.  

Rows 88-89. The vegetation of peatlands previously used for so called “wet” peat extraction has been studied in various countries [Tomaselli et al. and choose other 2/3 references], including Russia [23-28].

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.      

2. Materials and methods

Rows 120 and 124. Please decide point or comma. …..7.6 thousand hectares ……more than 9,000 hectares;

Revised.

Rows 129-130. area 11.943 ha…. 3.594 ha….check whole document in this way;

Revised.

Figure 2. The both figures on the left are not clear. The font size are too small or not reported in the full way. Please use the same font and size for all figures;

All figures were redrawn to improve their quality.

Table 1. The coordinates reported which system follow? WGS84? Please specify;

Specified (Table 1).

Table 2. The authors refer to dominant species, but usually in the vegetation works we used a phytosociological table with coverage of each species. Please specify the vegetation method used in you work;

Row 202. The vegetation cover of the plots was described by common geobotanical methods. Ok! but please specify the methods, I don’t know which is the geobotanical methods

We have added a reference to the article presenting the features of the dominant approach to vegetation analysis that we have used in our work, and comparing the dominant and floristic approaches in relation to mire vegetation (lines 213-215).

3. Results and 4. Discussion

For my opinion reporting a table with the Climatic Conditions (…. observation period (2006-2020) with their increase relative to 30-year averages (1981-2010) look like a degree thesis. In a international context as Diversity journal I suggest to cutting the tables 3 and 4 and summarize this part of the article;

The same goes for tables 5, 6 and 7. In general there are bioclimatic diagrams that evaluate all these parameters in one graphic, such as those of Montero de Burgos and Gonzales Rebollar.

We wanted to show regional changes in climatic conditions over the observation period. These data are not publicly available in international or national databases. So we thought it would be interesting to present them in the results. Weather conditions can influence the analysed changes in a complex way and our attempts to integrate temperature and precipitation data together have shown to be less informative. Therefore, we decided to present the temperature and precipitation data explicitly, highlighting by color their deviation from the mean values.    

The format of Figures 7 and 8 have been changed for better presentation the differences in pH and conductivity values between the monitoring sites on the one hand and their differences between the growing seasons of different years on the other (figure 7, figure 8).

Rows 389-390. In italics scientific name of Betula pubescens - Vaccinium uliginosum - Sphagnum fallax

Revised.

3.3. Vegetation Changes. The vegetation changes don't can be discuss with singles or multiple species but with syntaxa! where are? so it seems like a floristic discussion;

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach. Individual species are indicated where appropriate. 

Rows 399-400. In italics scientific name of Chamаenerion angustifolium, Calamagrostis epigejos and Ceratodon purpureus;

Revised.

Row 399. After Chamаenerion angustifolium there is +, with which meaning;

Please check whole paragraph. The fact of not reporting the syntaxa has resulted in reporting all species individually, weighing down all the work!!! Abitualy when a botanist indicates a typology of the plant community refers to the sytaxon.

In the vegetation analysis we used the dominant approach (see comment on line 202), a comparison of which with the floristic approach is given in the link cited. We tried to focus on the associations, according to their naming according to the dominant approach.

A formal point. When report for the first time the scientific plant name, it must be reported in the complete way with the author that have classify for the first time the taxon.

Some species could be cited under different authorship. Therefore, we refer to regional keys (rows 215-216) to avoid possible misunderstandings when naming species.

5. Conclusion

No specific comments, but I suggest to write two more words on the future research and management of this habitat.

We have added a paragraph in the conclusion regarding further research, the need for continued monitoring and the opportunity for broader data analysis offered by the location of the monitoring objects within the specially protected area.

Reference to be added

Tomaselli, V.; Perrino, E.V.; Cimmarusti, G. Paludi Sfinale e Gusmay, due aree umide di rilevante interesse naturalistico nel Parco Nazionale del Gargano. Inform. Bot. Ital. 2008, 40, 183-192.

Our work focuses exclusively on peatlands disturbed by peat extraction, fires and restored through rewetting. Therefore, we do not mention the (very extensive) data obtained from studies of mire ecosystems in SPNAs in general, as this interesting work does. E.g. in Russia, mire ecosystems are protected within 35 Ramsar sires (10 mln ha), various types of federal, regional and local protected areas. Meshchera National Park stands out amongst all the SPNAs because of the vast areas of disturbed peatlands it has inherited.  The term "wet" is here used only for peat extraction methods that do not involve, unlike milling, intensive drainage.     

Pisani, D.; Pazienza, P.; Perrino, E.V.; Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. The Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Biodiversity Components in Protected Areas: A Review for a Framework of Analysis for the Gargano National Park. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11726. doi: 10.3390/su132111726

We have included a reference to this work in the conclusion. It was important to stress the need for a more comprehensive analysis of biodiversity, including an assessment of ecosystem services and their economic value. For disturbed ecosystems this is crucial, as it is difficult to exclude additional impacts outside the boundaries of protected areas.   

Some literature useful for authors

Thank you for your attention to the manuscript review and recommendations, including for publications.

 

On behalf of the authors

Sincerely

Anna Vozbrannaya

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate the

work done following mymsuggestions. In opinion the manuscript is able to be published

Congrat

reviewer