Changes in Physical and Water Retention Properties of Technosols by Agricultural Reclamation with Wheat–Rapeseed Rotation in a Post-Mining Area of Central Poland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After a careful review of the manuscript entitled “Changes in physical and water retention properties of Tech- 2 nosols by agricultural reclamation with wheat-cereal rotation in 3 a post-mining area of central Poland” here are few minor general recommendations. Overall, it is a well written and informative article, but I suggest some revisions in the article. Please address the following points in the revised manuscript.
1. Please add one are more sentences about the novelty in the abstract.
2. Objectives of the study should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript with more details.
3. In the abstract, also mention the major findings and best one results.
4. In the introduction, a lot of grammar and sentences mistakes are observed, try to remove these.
5. Revise the format of the Tables given, Follow the author guide lines for figures and tables in the manuscript.
6. The figures should be changed as these are difficult to understand and use high pixels images.
7. The result needs more details discussion regarding the trend and complete mechanism.
8. At the last, conclusion should be short and relevant to the study.
9. The references should be updated and relevant to the study
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
After a careful review of the manuscript entitled “Changes in physical and water retention properties of Technosols by agricultural reclamation with wheat-cereal rotation in a post-mining area of central Poland” here are few minor general recommendations. Overall, it is a well written and informative article, but I suggest some revisions in the article. Please address the following points in the revised manuscript.
- We would like to thank you for reviewing the manuscript and your valuable comments. We have responded to every remark and according to the comments, recommendations and suggestions of the Reviewer, the manuscript has been corrected, which in our opinion significantly improved its quality. Any changes to the manuscript are visible using the "Track Changes" function (according to the journal's guidelines).
C1. Please add one are more sentences about the novelty in the abstract.
A1. We fully agree with the Reviewer's comment and according to the Reviewer’s suggestion, have added a sentence in the abstract regarding the novelty of the research.
C2. Objectives of the study should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript with more details.
I would also expect some hypothesis about the evolution of physico-chemical properties as a function of the depth in the Technosols' profiles
A2. Thank you very much for pointing out that the objectives of the study should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript with more details. According to the Reviewer's suggestion, the study objectives have been specified.
C3. In the abstract, also mention the major findings and best one results.
A3. Thank you for your valuable comment. The abstract has been revised so that the major findings and best results are included. At the same time, the changes were made to keep the abstract to a maximum of 200 words, according to the journal's guidelines.
C4. In the introduction, a lot of grammar and sentences mistakes are observed, try to remove these.
A4. Before sending the manuscript to the journal, it was checked by a native speaker. However, immediately before sending the manuscript, we made small changes in the "Introduction" section. Hence, there were grammatical inaccuracies. In the revised manuscript, the "Introduction" section was corrected by a native speaker.
C5. Revise the format of the Tables given, Follow the author guide lines for figures and tables in the manuscript.
A5. All Tables and Figures have been revised and adapted to the Journal's guidelines.
C6. The figures should be changed as these are difficult to understand and use high pixels images.
A6. All the figures were sent at a horizontal and vertical resolution higher than 300dpi (500 dpi), which is required by the Journal. Perhaps its resolution decreased during conversion to pdf format.
C7. The result needs more details discussion regarding the trend and complete mechanism.
A7. We are grateful for this comment. In the revised manuscript, we have made the necessary changes to emphasize more the trends of changes in Technosols properties and their reasons and mechanisms.
C8. At the last, conclusion should be short and relevant to the study..
A8. We completely agree that the conclusions are too long and should be shortened. In the revised manuscript, we have shortened the conclusions as suggested.
C9. The references should be updated and relevant to the study
A9. According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have updated the references of relevant items for our study.
We would like to thank you again for taking the time to review the manuscript and for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting and can be published with minor corrections.
Despite my generally good impression after reading the article, I have questions:
- On the effectiveness of fertilization, is the soil pH affected, which can determine other soil properties?
- Is the determination of total soil organic carbon content a sufficient parameter in assessing the rate of change of physical properties? Shouldn't, for example, the amount of humic acids that change under the influence of soil fertilization be determined?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The article is interesting and can be published with minor corrections.
Despite my generally good impression after reading the article, I have questions:
C1. - On the effectiveness of fertilization, is the soil pH affected, which can determine other soil properties?.
A. We would like to thank you for reviewing the manuscript and your valuable comments and questions.
A1. We completely agree that mineral fertilization affects the soil pH and thus other properties. For the Technosols we analyzed, we observed no statistically significant differences in pH between the soils of the 0-NPK, I-NPK and II-NPK plots (unpublished data). This is due to the presence of CaCO3 (Table 1), the amounts of which are still large in Ap horizon and statistically do not differ between fertilizer combinations either.
C2. Is the determination of total soil organic carbon content a sufficient parameter in assessing the rate of change of physical properties? Shouldn't, for example, the amount of humic acids that change under the influence of soil fertilization be determined?
A2. We also fully agree that soil organic carbon content is not a sufficient parameter in assessing the rate of change of physical properties. It is a parameter that indirectly affects the physical and hydrophysical properties of soils. Obviously, a much better parameter would be to know the content of humic substances, especially humic acids, which significantly improve soil fertility and health. We intend to carry out such studies of humic substance content in the future together with biological properties (bacterial community composition and soil enzyme activity). In this manuscript, we wanted to analyze changes in the physical and water retention properties of Technosols after long-term agricultural cultivation, and at the same time identify which properties have improved and which have deteriorated.
We would like to thank you again for taking the time to review the manuscript and for your valuable comments and questions.
