The Plant Species Composition of an Abandoned Meadow as an Element of an Ecosystem Mosaic within an Urban-Industrial Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research article entitled "Abandoned meadow plant species composition as an element of urban-industrial landscape ecosystem mosaic" is very useful for science, especially biodiversity related to the richness and diversity of grassland species.

This title is quite interesting, I appreciate what is obtained from the results of this research.

Keywords should be presented in the form of words, not like sentences

In the Introduction Chapter, it is quite good because it provides an overview of the research background, objectives, and hypotheses.

In the Materials and Methods chapter, Results, and Discussion, and Conclusions: overall it can be understood and presented well.

   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study concerns an important aspect of the degradation of permanent grasslands due to the lack of proper management. On the backgroud of control, it was studied four treatments: mowing the sward once (1) or twice (2) a year and the biomass removing, mowing the sward once (3) or twice (4) a year and the biomass leaving. The left biomass acts as soil-protective mulch, at the same time increasing the pool of organic matter, and its decomposition increases the pool of nutrients. It is a reason that species with high nutritional requirements dominate under such conditions in grasslands and can persist for a long time. Improving biodiversity is becoming a very difficult undertaking. Sometimes only partial destruction of the sward and sowing with a mixture of grasses and legumes can improve the quality of the plant cover. Management through under-sowing is a significant but effective method of changing the cover of neglected / abandoned grasslands. In my opinion, it is not unequivocally indicated whether the natural grasslands were examined or those developed after the reclamation of a post-industrial site, since the work was carried out as part of a project on such an issue (as we see in ‘Funding’). If so, the dominance of Calamagrostis epigejos is the essential reason for the dominance of this remediation species, not just the ongoing recession in agriculture and cessation of farming for use.

Modern methods of statistical analysis of obtained results were used.

The paper requires a systematizing the discussion of the results (e.g. the impact of subsequent treatments on the value of the assessed parameter). It also requires the unambiguous clarification of the discussed relationships (which parameters have changed significantly and which have not changed after applying a given treatment).

Sample comments

The cover of C. epigejos in the control plots CTRL became significantly different from the 5th 4th year concerning the first year and the from 6th year compared to the first three years. The mowing once a year and biomass removed (MOH) caused the same chnges as for control treatment. In case of the mowing twice a year and biomass removing (MTH) significant changes of cover of C. epigejos were between 1th and last three years of the study, as well as between the 5th and 6th years comparing to the 3rd year. The treatment of mowing once or twice a year and leaving the biomass (MOL, MTL) significantly changed the cover of C. epigejos in all years of the study in comparison to 1st year, but there were no differences between succesive years from 2nd to 7th.

The desription – ‘Only in the control plots is the first year always significantly different from all the others’ – is not true in case of species richness (S) and Shanon-Winer index (H) – as we can see in Table 2.

There were significant differences between the years 2nd, 6th and 7th when considering the species richness, and 6th year differs from 2nd to 4th years when taking into account the Shannon-Wiener index values.

From the value of species richness and the Shannon-Wiener index, no significant changes between the years were found for the treatment of mowing once a year and removal of biomass (MOH).

There are no differences between the first year and the remaining years in the studied plots under the MOL treatment when taking into consideration the species richness, and the significant differences were detected between the years 2nd, 6th and 7th, as well as 3rd and 6th. The mowing once a year and leaving the biomass (MOL) caused differences in the values of the Shannon-Wiener index only between the 3rd and 6th years.

And so on...

The discussion is conducted correctly.

The conclusion are generally correct. However, the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the conclusions are statements that do not result from the conducted research, so they can be omitted.

The list of the cited references should take into account the results of research obtained under comparable conditions and in long-term experiments.

Appendix B contains Tables and Figures which are in text of paper and is not needed repetition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study covers how we should manage C. epigejos species as weed control in abandoned grassland. Authors tried to analyze and provide better insight into whether we should mow and remove hay regularly or do not have to do that by waiting they are spontaneously declined over time. However, I think there are some vague description and missing points in this manuscript. I added some comments in this pdf file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Point 1: This study covers how we should manage C. epigejos species as weed control in abandoned grassland. Authors tried to analyze and provide better insight into whether we should mow and remove hay regularly or do not have to do that by waiting they are spontaneously declined over time. However, I think there are some vague description and missing points in this manuscript.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment and for pointing out the missing points in our manuscript.

 

Point 2: I added some comments in this pdf file.

Response 2: We have answered all your comments in the pdf file and then corrected our manuscript in a Word file.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors tried to answer all of my comments and reflected on them mostly. I believe it is enough to finalize the revision process in the author's capacity. Once again, I appreciate authors.

The only minor thing I want to request is L 165. Please find the attachment.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf