Assessing Soil-like Materials for Ecosystem Services Provided by Constructed Technosols
, Nadezhda Ananyeva 1, Sofiya Demina 2, Fluza Khabibullina 2, Inna Vaseneva 2, Alexandra Selezneva 1, Andrey Dolgikh 2,5, Sofia Sushko 1,2,6, Sara Marinari 3 and Elvira Dovletyarova 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I find your paper interesting and deals with the current topics, but I have some objections and comments, than need to be referred to. There are as follows:
Abstract
17-32. Abstract should be shortened to max. 200 words.
Materials and methods
l.103. Term ''content' instead of "amount" will be more suitable here. See table 2, also.
l.104. Add “n is number of materials” in the headline of the table
l.106. The sediments used in the study had quite different origin, but surprisingly similar values of C and N. What types of water treatment processes were used in the WT station and what type of water (surface or underground) was treated in this station?
l.107. Dredged sediments excavated from a lake bottom are usually called as "bottom sediments"
l.130, 131. Explain, why did you apply these ratios in case of particular material? Refer to the relevant standards, if possible.
Results
l.217. Why the significant differences has been shown in Table 3 only in case of Cd?
l.127. For what kind of materials these value are obligated?
l.219. How could be the reasons for such high C and N contents in the cultural layers?
Did you examine the significance of the correlation coefficient? Write about it in the methodological part.
l.289. Were these correlations strong or slight?
l.296. In this case, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the raw data had to be performed instead the regression analysis. It would show whether the variability of the examined parameters results only from the examined variables, or whether it is influenced by other factors. Looking at the graphs, it can be seen that the relationships analyzed within the individual groups of materials (see for example red dots (positive correlation) and blue dots (negative correlation) in Fig 4D) are of a different nature than those obtained for the data analyzed together (negative). Moreover, drawing radical conclusions when the all values of determination coefficients R2 are below 0.43 is unjustified. There are rather moderate or weak correlations. Please, refer to the proper scale of estimation of Pearson correlation coefficient (R).
Please, use the covariance analysis and adjust the discussion and conclusions to the obtained results.
l.303. Carbon and nitrogen could not be taken due to the exceeded capacity of their assimilation by microorganisms rather than because they were not available.
l.306. See the comments given above (l. 296).
Discussion
l.406. What do you mean by “sometimes”?
l.408. It is true that C and N contents in soil stimulate microbial biomass but there is a threshold level of soil saturation with carbon (Shahbaz et al., 2017), which depends on soil properties. Under this level rate of CO2 emission increases.
Author Response
Подробные комментарии Рецензента №1
Л 17-32. Аннотация должна быть сокращена до макс. 200 слов
Аннотация сокращена до 199 слов (L 19-34, здесь и далее номера строк даны для отредактированной рукописи).
L 103. Здесь больше подходит термин «содержание», чем «количество». См. Также таблицу 2
Условия были исправлены для заголовков таблиц 1 и 2.
L104. Добавьте «n - количество материалов» в заголовок таблицы.
Количество материалов (n) было добавлено в заголовок и удалено из таблицы.
L 106. Осадки, использованные в исследовании, имели совершенно разное происхождение, но удивительно схожие значения C и N. Какие типы процессов очистки воды использовались на станции WT и какой тип воды (поверхностный или подземный) обрабатывался на этой станции. ?
Мы использовали отложения со станции очистки поверхностных вод, образовавшиеся в результате механической фильтрации (удаления твердых и нерастворимых частиц) воды, взятой из рек или озер перед подачей в домохозяйства. Следовательно, эти отложения имеют аналогичный генезис с отложениями на дне озера. Хотя содержание C и N в материалах было одинаковым, коэффициент дисперсии для группы «Отложения» составлял 10% для C и 20% для N, что кажется разумным для материалов с низким содержанием C и питательных веществ. К рукописи было добавлено краткое объяснение (L107-109).
L 107. Драгированные отложения, вынутые из дна озера, обычно называются «донными отложениями».
Мы изменили термин по рекомендации рецензента и оставили пояснение (L 109).
L130, 131. Объясните, почему вы применили эти соотношения в случае конкретного материала? Если возможно, обратитесь к соответствующим стандартам.
Для органических почв и особенно торфяных материалов pH измеряли в растворах с пониженным соотношением почвы (материала), чтобы избежать образования пасты (из-за очень высокой водоудерживающей способности). Поэтому было реализовано соотношение 1:10. Ссылка на методологию добавлена в рукопись (L 137).
L 217. Почему существенные различия показаны в таблице 3 только для Cd?
Буквы, соответствующие существенно различающимся группам, были добавлены для других переменных.
L 227. Для каких материалов эта стоимость обязательна?
Регламент THL, HS-514-11 содержит пороговые значения содержания потенциально токсичных элементов в любом грунте или материале, используемом для городских почвенных конструкций.
L 219. How could be the reasons for such high C and N contents in the cultural layers?
High C and N content in cultural layers have an anthropogenic origin. They results from a long-term deposition during the residential activity and include organic wastes, wooden cheeps and other artifacts (Vasenev et al., 2013; Alexandrovskii et al., 2015). The explanation was added to the manuscript (L 233-236).
Did you examine the significance of the correlation coefficient? Write about it in the methodological part.
Additional explanation of the significance of the correlation analysis was added to the M&M part (L 210, 218). Besides, the graph on Fig. 4 was substituted by a correlation matrix to illustrate the relationship between the variables in a more clear way.
L 289. Were these correlations strong or slight?
The description of the obtained relationships between the variables was added to the manuscript (L 308-312).
L 296. In this case, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the raw data had to be performed instead the regression analysis. It would show whether the variability of the examined parameters results only from the examined variables, or whether it is influenced by other factors. Looking at the graphs, it can be seen that the relationships analyzed within the individual groups of materials (see for example red dots (positive correlation) and blue dots (negative correlation) in Fig 4D) are of a different nature than those obtained for the data analyzed together (negative). Moreover, drawing radical conclusions when the all values of determination coefficients R2 are below 0.43 is unjustified. There are rather moderate or weak корреляции. Пожалуйста, обратитесь к соответствующей шкале оценки коэффициента корреляции Пирсона (R). Воспользуйтесь ковариационным анализом и скорректируйте обсуждение и выводы с полученными результатами.
Использование ковариационного анализа будет ограничено ограниченной выборкой и ненормальным распределением для некоторых переменных (см. Рис. 4). Вместо этого использовался непараметрический коэффициент ранговой корреляции Спирмена. Обсуждение и заключение были скорректированы по рекомендации рецензентов (L 434-439).
L 303. Углерод и азот нельзя было брать из-за чрезмерной способности их ассимиляции микроорганизмами, а не потому, что они были недоступны.
Мы согласны с этим предположением. Соответствующим образом скорректировано объяснение в рукописи (L 320-323).
L 406. Что вы имеете в виду под «иногда»?
Приговор был перефразирован (L 420).
L 408. Это правда, что содержание C и N в почве стимулирует микробную биомассу, но существует пороговый уровень насыщения почвы углеродом (Shahbaz et al., 2017), который зависит от свойств почвы. При этом уровень выбросов CO2 увеличивается.
К рукописи были добавлены дополнительное объяснение и ценная ссылка (L 426-430).
Reviewer 2 Report
Regarding the Manuscript ID: land-1416878 entitled : Integral assessment of soil-like materials to project ecosystem services provided by constructed Technosols in Moscow megalopolis
It seems that the paper is well-organized and well-written. The topic is novel and totally related to the scope of the Land. I would like to recommend the acceptance after addressing minor comments and questions.
Comments:
- Why did not calculate the SOC stocks which can be a good indicator for showing the SOC in the soils.
- Accruing to Figure 7, it seems that the pollution has the highest score for the estimation of of ecosystem services and. What is the main reason, it is a bit confusing the to understand the major reason.
- I would ask to present a table for presenting a statistical summary of measured soil properties.
- Please improve the Figure 3.
- Line 279-284, it seems please check with tables and figures, it seems that it is not clear.
Author Response
Detailed comments from Reviewer #2
Why did not calculate the SOC stocks which can be a good indicator for showing the SOC in the soils ?
SOC stocks are calculated considering bulk density, horizon depth and rock fraction. Our study was focused on the materials before their implementation for the Technosols’ construction. The resulting SOC stocks would depend on the Technosols’ design and construction technology (the number and thickness of soil layers and their compaction). When analyzing materials, C content is the most relevant predictor for the potential SOC stocks in resulting Technosols.
Accruing to Figure 7, it seems that the pollution has the highest score for the estimation of of ecosystem services and. What is the main reason, it is a bit confusing the to understand the major reason
The scale for the services (0 is the minimal and 1 is the maximal) is opposite to the scale of the disservices (1 is the minimal and 0 is the maximal). In this regard the natural reference soil is assumed to have the maximal services and minimal disservices. The explanation was added to the figure caption and to the M&M part (L 201).
I would ask to present a table for presenting a statistical summary of measured soil properties
The requested information was added to the Fig. 4
Please improve the Figure 3.
The Fig. 3 was changed following the reviewers’ recommendation
Line 279-284, it seems please check with tables and figures, it seems that it is not clear
The paragraph was rephrased (L. 298-303).
Reviewer 3 Report
A research was carried out to investigate soil-like materials used for Technosols’ construction in Moscow and assess their quality based on chemical and microbial properties.
Overall, the research was quite interesting and well-written. Before its consideration for publication in "Land" the following reviews are suggested:
- Title: I suggest changing it to "Assessing soil-like materials for ecosystem services provided by constructed Technosols"
- Please add a graphical abstract;
- Abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Please reduce it;
- line 79: you are not reviewing soil-like materials, you are assessing them. Please be careful and consistent throughout the whole paper;
- line 129: pHw is not internationally recognized. Authors can use pH-H2O or simpler pH since they only measured soil pH in water solution. Be consistent throughout the whole paper;
- line 196: please change the title in "Statistical analysis"
- Results and discussion: the choice to separate the two-section strongly affect your paper readability. Indeed, several problems of redundancy made reading sometimes dull and not well-focused on your topic. I strongly invite the authors to combine the two sections in one single "Results and discussion."
- general comment: heavy metal is an odd term. Please refer to them as potentially toxic elements (PET);
- Conclusions are for main results only and future perspectives (if applicable). Please revise it accordingly.
Author Response
Detailed comments from Reviewer #3
Title: I suggest changing it to "Assessing soil-like materials for ecosystem services provided by constructed Technosols"
The title was changed considering the reviewers’ recommendation
Please add a graphical abstract
The graphical abstract was added
Abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. Please reduce it
The abstract was shortened to 199 words (L 19-34)
Line 79: you are not reviewing soil-like materials, you are assessing them. Please be careful and consistent throughout the whole paper
The sentence was rephrased, and the term was corrected throughout the manuscript
Line 129: pHw is not internationally recognized. Authors can use pH-H2O or simpler pH since they only measured soil pH in water solution. Be consistent throughout the whole paper
The recommended edits were made
Line 196: please change the title in "Statistical analysis"
The recommended edits were made
Results and discussion: the choice to separate the two-section strongly affect your paper readability. Indeed, several problems of redundancy made reading sometimes dull and not well-focused on your topic. I strongly invite the authors to combine the two sections in one single "Results and discussion
We considered the proposed reformatting, but decided to keep the separate sections, since they have different messages: i) comparison of the chemical and biological properties from the ecosystem services perspective (in the Results); and ii) discussing the perspectives of the approach based on the ecosystem services’ assessment and microbial indicators to assess the materials for soil construction (in the Discussion). In order to improve the readability and avoid the dull reading, we shortened and partly rephrased both sections.
General comment: heavy metal is an odd term. Please refer to them as potentially toxic elements (PET)
The term was changes to PTE throughout the text
Conclusions are for main results only and future perspectives (if applicable). Please revise it accordingly
The conclusion part was adjusted following the recommendations
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,I am satisfied by the corrections you made in the paper.
I have only minor remarks mainly directed to graphical abstract, that is a new element of your paper.
It is not sufficiently informative for me.
First, what is the basis of color differentiation of elements related to the individual materials? It looks like the surface layer (lighter color) was composed of mixed materials with low or high peat contents, and the subsoil layer (brown) was constructed with sediment, peat or urban cultural-derived materials.
Additionally I suggest to remove the explanation of MFD meaning from the graphical abstract and add the abbreviation in line 193 in parenthesis, after “Microbial functional diversity”. Otherwise, all abbreviations should be given on the graph.
What "portion decreasing" means? What does it refer to? It can be understood that the thickness of the surface layer should be reduced.
The names of fungi genera should be written in italic (l. 297, 298)
There are not the data on MBC:C in the Fig. 5 (l. 324)
Author Response
Reviewer 1
I am satisfied by the corrections you made in the paper.
I have only minor remarks mainly directed to graphical abstract, that is a new element of your paper.
It is not sufficiently informative for me.
First, what is the basis of color differentiation of elements related to the individual materials? It looks like the surface layer (lighter color) was composed of mixed materials with low or high peat contents, and the subsoil layer (brown) was constructed with sediment, peat or urban cultural-derived materials.
Additionally I suggest to remove the explanation of MFD meaning from the graphical abstract and add the abbreviation in line 193 in parenthesis, after “Microbial functional diversity”. Otherwise, all abbreviations should be given on the graph.
What "portion decreasing" means? What does it refer to? It can be understood that the thickness of the surface layer should be reduced.
The graphical abstract was edited following the reviewers’ recommendations. The abbreviations were excluded. Hope that the up-date version is more informative and clear compared to the previous one.
The names of fungi genera should be written in italic (l. 297, 298)
It was corrected.
There are not the data on MBC:C in the Fig. 5 (l. 324)
It was corrected. The ‘MBC:C’ was deleted from the sentence.
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be now accepted as it is.
Author Response
No comments yet. Thank you!
