The Effect of Environmental Conditions on Pollution Deposition and Canopy Leaching in Two Pine Stands (West Pomerania and Świętokrzyskie Mountains, Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

forests-781953

Title: The effect of environmental conditions on pollution deposition and canopy leaching in two pine stands (West Pomerania and Świętokrzyskie Mountains, Poland)

 

General remarks

The manuscript deals with an interesting subject, the relation between pine stands and bulk precipitation and throughfall. The subject is in the scope of the journal. In the first place, the manuscript needs a language check, especially in respect to correct wording. In addition, there a several other topics. (i) The chapter methods need to give more details on the study sites. (ii) The aim of the statistical analysis should be stated clearly. (iii) The chapter Results is rather unfocused and not very clearly structure and needs to be reader-friendly restructuring. (iv) The discussion is rather general and not much focused on the results. (v) The conclusion is rather a summary.

In sum, the manuscript needs a major revision before publication.

 

Specific remarks

line

15           replace "manuscript" by "study"

35           replace "element" by "controlling factor"

35 f.       the whole chapter introduction needs a better structure, focus on the research context and an omitting of repetitions. Try to avoid in the introduction to present already results.

44           What is this area?

47           What is mineralization supposed to mean?

48           Northern Poland, what about Southern Poland

51           leach into? Rather are leached from needles?

55           What is atmospheric precipitation supposed to mean?

59           What is substance circulation supposed to mean? Element balances?

67           What is anthropopressure supposed to mean?

68 f.       This is not really a hypothesis!

79           If "can" is used you need to give the conditions.

85           What is the difference between a lime and cement plant?

94           In table 1, I miss the height and age of the other trees, stand density, soil texture, soil type after FAO WRB and the average annual temperature.

105         What is "exposed monthly" supposed to mean?

110f       what are the specified sampling dates?

117f       Is data obtained with different methods really easily to compare? What is the magnitude of the resulting error?

124         What is the aim of the statistical analysis

133         The ratio is based on netto loads

153         How can the ions of Na not play a role in the alkalinity of precipitation?

172         What is "open area" supposed to mean?

189         It would be good to see also the time depending course of the concentrations and deposition

203f       What is "white background" supposed to mean? What is rain supposed to mean?

245         Which months are refered to?

253         It the median is shown here, a standard deviation would be interesting

277 f     water samples? Samples of rainfall?

281         Where is shown, that the observed values are a pollution? How is pollution defined in your context?

284         Thinks about replacing the table by a graph?

304         The whole chapter results needs a thorough structuring and more concise highlighting in order to make the chapter reader-friendly

305 f     It is rather hard to make the link between the results and the discussion. In addition, I missed the reference to the huge number of published results on the topic from Central Europe.

334f       Why is the maximum of leaching in the given months?

347         gypsum formation was observed in the study?

355         36 is the only reference for the effects of agricultural activities? Refer to studies from Central Europe

403         The chapter conclusions is not a conclusion but a modified summary

 

I recommend major revision.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

the manuscript 781953 “The effect of environmental conditions on pollution deposition and canopy leaching in two pine stands (West Pomerania and Świętokrzyskie Mountains, Poland)” is well written and planned. However, in the present form it is descriptive and does not show implication on ecological point of view or silvicultural prescription. What is the importance of analyses the effect of atmospheric deposition on canopy leaching?

What is the main question addressed by the research? The effect of atmospheric deposition on canopy leaching processes in forest stands

Is it relevant and interesting? Yes

How original is the topic? Yes, but the relevance of the study must be improved, for instance with silvicultural presciption or ecological indication (I suggest these aspects in the comments to authors)

What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? Details for Scots pine

Is the paper well written? Yes

Is the text clear and easy to read? Yes

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Yes, but the relevance of the study must be improved, as above suggested.

Do they address the main question posed? as above, they can provide the relevance of the study, in this form, it is well written but too descriptive

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleague

I am fine with revised version of the script.

Author Response

Thank you very much for any comments contained in the reviews from anonymous reviewers in relation to our manuscript. The remarks contained in them were considered and accepted by the Authors, which undoubtedly increased the value of the work

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

the manuscript was improved. Some points remain to be checked:

• line 117 "In both the case of bulk precipitation and throughfall", some word is missing, it could be "In both cases the bulk precipitation and throughfall";
• in Figure 4, is it possible to add standard error of the mean values?
• line 439 "The presence of cement-lime dust, mainly calcium and magnesium emitted by industrial plants on Malik plot, affected conductivity, pH, and the chemical composition of precipitation and played a key role in the neutralization processes of acidogenic compounds"
• line 443 "Emissions from agricultural areas, mainly with ammonium ions, as well as chlorides and sodium, which are the source of marine aerosols, affected a low level of conductivity of atmospheric precipitation and the precipitation’s composition on Czarne plot and played a key role of neutralization processes of acidogenic compounds."
• line 448 "transformation" of what?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx