Economic Evaluation of Ecological Restoration of Degraded Lands through Protective Afforestation in the South of the Russian Plain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the paper titled ‘Economic Evaluation of Ecological Restoration of Degraded Lands through Protective Afforestation in the South of the Russian Plain’’.

The paper is interesting however it requires a lots of revisions. Accordingly, the  comments that I am suggesting to be improved are presented as follows:

General comment:

Abstract: the abstract part should be improved. The Authors presented in this section of the paper, more on the methodological part which is also important. They have to include, the major findings of their study results. The conclusion in this section is not also clear and it requires improvement. 

 

Introduction:

• The introduction part lacks a coherent flow and try to improve it
• Clear justification why this study is important relative to other similar studies is lacking and it has to be presented. What is the research gap?, it has to be clearly presented
• Similar study results that shows the economic evaluation of ecological restoration in Russia and in other parts of the world are not presented. What makes your research paper different from other similar published studies in the world or in other parts of Russia?. Try to include a comparative similar study results
• The objective of the study at the end of the paragraph has to be included. I see there is a scenario but better to have a specific objective

Materials and Methods:  

• Line 96… humus from 6.0 to 7.5%... if it is not the result of the current study paper a reference has to be included
• Line 97…. After 45 – 60 cm a reference is required
• Include map of the study area that shows the geographical coordinates. If possible also try to include the rainfall, temperature graphs

2.2. Data collection

         It is stated that from line 141 to 143, quantitative data in the field obtained. However, it is not clear from how many sample plots were collected from each variant of the placement of the system of forest plantations. Clearly present the sampling methodologies for the data collection and also nutrient analysis methodologies. Generally, this section is poorly described and try to improve it. Your methodologies should be replicable, clear and concise.

3. Results

- This section requires a lot of improvements. The results are not clearly presented.

-  Focus only to present the findings of your current study results in a comparative way. In this section there is no need to include a reference like…you did such as.. line   274,   (26), line 284…..speeds by 20 – 35 % (28).

- Table 2. Write the full scientific names of the species (Petiolate oak….and also Hanging brich. Hanging brich is, Betula pendula.

-  Some of the results presented in Table 3, could be due to the differences between the forest reclamation species such as Petiolate oak and Hanging brich?. This has to be clearly described in the results section

 

4. Discussion

This section is very poor and requires a re-write up. The results of the current study has to be compared with similar other studies and the reasons of the differences of the current study findings or its differences has to be clearly justified. Please improve it

 

5. Conclusion

- The conclusion part is not also in line with your study results. If you see on page 11,  line 440 to line 449, is not important. The conclusion part has to be re-written.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Modifications in the pdf file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx