Properties of Alluvial Soils of Taiga Forest under Anthropogenic Salinisation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, this paper is certainly interesting for international readers and meets the requirements of the FORESTS journal. The presented approach allows for extending the traditional approach to the salt-affected soils with mineralogical analyzes. In this way, it is possible to look at the genesis of the soils in a more comprehensive manner and to identify main environmental driving factors. Studies on soils affected by salinity originates from industry are still rare. Many researchers of anthropogenic saline and sodic soils focus primarily on threats to the environment, usually marginalizing the issues related to the "pure" genesis of soils.
The research problem was formulated correctly. The structure is clear and consistent. However, the text requires clarifying a few basic issues, as well as making some additions and corrections to the text of the manuscript. They mainly concern the methodical part of the work. Despite these shortcomings, the discussion of the results was carried out in a clear and logical manner with reference to contemporary literature. The conclusions are mostly correctly formulated and in line with the assumed research objective. The most important comments are presented below. Minor suggestions have been marked directly in the text of the manuscript.
- Please justify why only 2 profiles of alluvial soils were selected for testing? Are they representative of the area? Why was the soil sequence from waste storages to the valley floor not analyzed as shown in the cross-section (Fig. 6)?
- It is very important that the results are understandable to the international reader. Names of soil units; Gleyic Fluvisol (Salic), Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak suggest that the Authors used the WRB classification (last edition 2015) to describe their soils. Unfortunately, there is no proper citation in the text. However, I have some doubts about using this classification without having the appropriate dataset (e.g. electrical conductivity and pH of a saturated extract). Of course, this may be done approximately by giving some equivalents (correlation of the Russian classification and WRB system). However, I would like to point out that using WRB classification we should systematically go through the key. This means that it would be necessary, for example, to carefully check whether the first profile is indeed Fluvisol and not Gleysol (first we recognize Solonchaks, then Gleysols, and Fluvisols as young soils are only at the end of the key).
- Section 2.2 does not provide any detailed information on which soil samples were used for standard and mineralogical analyzes.
- Why is there no continuity in taking soil samples in the profiles? For example, we have a depth range from 20 to 30 cm, and then from 32 to 42 cm (profile 1). What about the interval 30-32 cm.
- Why were so many soil parameters not determined in soil samples taken from the first profile (especially organic carbon content) - Table 2? Why were no soil analyzes performed in the 0-3 cm layer in profile 1?
- I would like to point out that the Tiurin’s method, due to wet oxidation, is not effective in determining organic carbon in samples rich in iron and chloride (the results may be overestimated).
- Why did you omit the symbols of soil horizons/layers in the tables? To be consistent, the symbols using in the WRB system should be used according to the Guidelines for Soil Description (http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0541e.pdf).
- The studied soils have some features typical of acid sulphate soils. However, I suggest to be very careful in the interpretation of the results in this way, so that there is no relevant physico-chemical and chemical analysis (eg. pH measurements during sample incubation, total S content, etc.). Could low pH values result from oxidation of iron sulphides under the laboratory conditions?
- In the Results and Discussion section, the reference to the results of the measurements of the redox potential and the concentration of H2S is made. Why is this data not in Table 2? The Eh measurement method was also omitted in the description of the methods.
- The conclusion concerning the microbiological properties of soils is not referred to the result of your study (lines 374-375).
Finally, I recommend this paper for publication in the FORESTS journal after major revision. I believe that this article after some thorough corrections can be a valuable contribution to the study of salt-affected soils in the anthropized areas.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. Some recommendations and questions point out new more detailed researches. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer.
1. Please justify why only 2 profiles of alluvial soils were selected for testing? Are they representative of the area? Why was the soil sequence from waste storages to the valley floor not analyzed as shown in the cross-section (Fig. 6)?
Response: The study of soils from the slurry storage to the valley is not given in this work because we were interested in alluvial soil transformation; the study of other types of soils, in particular soddy-podzolic, was not included in the scope of this study, because they saved their natural properties. According to previous research we observed degradations of alluvial soils and found out two types of alluvial soils of the Lyonva River valley that represent different influence of saline groundwater.
Some comments were added: lines 125-128.
2. It is very important that the results are understandable to the international reader. Names of soil units; Gleyic Fluvisol (Salic), Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak suggest that the Authors used the WRB classification (last edition 2015) to describe their soils. Unfortunately, there is no proper citation in the text. However, I have some doubts about using this classification without having the appropriate dataset (e.g. electrical conductivity and pH of a saturated extract). Of course, this may be done approximately by giving some equivalents (correlation of the Russian classification and WRB system). However, I would like to point out that using WRB classification we should systematically go through the key. This means that it would be necessary, for example, to carefully check whether the first profile is indeed Fluvisol and not Gleysol (first we recognize Solonchaks, then Gleysols, and Fluvisols as young soils are only at the end of the key).
Response: Remark is accepted. In the text we used classification soils of Russia and WRB Classification (2015). To determine sodium soils we used the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) [van Reeuwijk L.P. 2002. Procedures for soil analysis. 7th Edition. Technical Report 9, ISRIC – World Soil Information, Wageningen, Netherlands].
3. Section 2.2 does not provide any detailed information on which soil samples were used for standard and mineralogical analyzes.
Response: Comparison of chemical properties of contaminated alluvial soils with background alluvial soils was presented in [15]. Our results of mineralogical analyze were compared with local background alluvial soils [33] and other researches [41 and 42].
4. Why is there no continuity in taking soil samples in the profiles? For example, we have a depth range from 20 to 30 cm, and then from 32 to 42 cm (profile 1). What about the interval 30-32 cm.
Response: Remark is understandable, but we took soil samples in depend on different horizons and horizon’s thickness. We tried to avoid horizons with transition properties.
5. Why were so many soil parameters not determined in soil samples taken from the first profile (especially organic carbon content) - Table 2? Why were no soil analyzes performed in the 0-3 cm layer in profile 1?
Response: We measured organic carbon in the root zone of the soil to assess its level of fertility. The 0-3 cm layer of profile 1 is represented by litter with densely intertwined roots of herbaceous plants; almost no soil material was presented.
6. I would like to point out that the Tiurin’s method, due to wet oxidation, is not effective in determining organic carbon in samples rich in iron and chloride (the results may be overestimated).
Response: Indeed, the chloride ions presented in the soil can be oxidized by the chromic mixture, which will show an overestimated organic carbon content. To prevent this, we washed off chlorides from the soils before ashing. Also, dichromate can interact with ferrous iron, but the effect will occur only when the analysis is carried out on undried soil samples. In our case, the determination of organic matter took place with an air-dry sample.
7. Why did you omit the symbols of soil horizons/layers in the tables? To be consistent, the symbols using in the WRB system should be used according to the Guidelines for Soil Description (http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0541e.pdf).
Response: Remark is accepted. Figures 6 and 9 were corrected. Symbols of soil horizons according to the Guidelines for Soil Description (2006) were added.
8. The studied soils have some features typical of acid sulphate soils. However, I suggest to be very careful in the interpretation of the results in this way, so that there is no relevant physico-chemical and chemical analysis (eg. pH measurements during sample incubation, total S content, etc.). Could low pH values result from oxidation of iron sulphides under the laboratory conditions?
Response: The natural Gleyic Fluvisols (Loamic) of the study area are characterized by an acidic reaction of the soil (pH <6). In the obtained samples with intensive salt load, the pH is more alkaline.
9. In the Results and Discussion section, the reference to the results of the measurements of the redox potential and the concentration of H2S is made. Why is this data not in Table 2? The Eh measurement method was also omitted in the description of the methods.
Response: Remark is accepted. Results of H2S measurements were added in Table 2.
10. The conclusion concerning the microbiological properties of soils is not referred to the result of your study (lines 374-375).
Response: Remark is accepted. In this manuscript active microbiological sulphate reduction is our hypothesis. The conclusion was corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Properties of Alluvial Soils of Taiga Forest under Anthropogenic Salinisation” (authors: Elena Khayrulina, Anna Bogush, Larisa Novoselova, Natalya Mitrakova) can be accepted for publication after major revisions. In general The methodology used to demonstrate the degree of salinization of alluvial soils caused by the dissolution of saline deposits was conducted correctly and the results are of particular interest. If we use the denominations “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic) or Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak”, we refer to soils with differente degrees of salinization formed by natural conditions. But this is not in this case study. In fact, the title of manuscript speacks of “Anthropogenic Salinisation”. It is advisable, at least during the discussion phase, to highlight this aspect and to use the WRB classification (IUSS, 2014). For example “Gleyic Fluvic Solonchack” finds the anthropic equivalent in “Anthrosols Fluvic Gleyic Salic or Sodic”. Furthermore, the morphological description of the profiles examined is missing and the name of the horizons does not appear to comply with international criteria. If you have used a particular classification then you need to insert a table with its description In particular 2.1 Site description Line 91. “……. salt-marly ….” To correct “…. Salt-marl ……” Line 98. “….slurry storage…..”. clarify that it is not organic waste Line 104-105. “The territory …….. seven potash mines (Figure 3)” Regarding the investigated territories, in particular figures 1 an 3, no geo-referenced location is provide, Provide geographic or UTM coordinates. 2.2 Sampling procedure Line 125 “ …. 2 soil profiles …….” . The morphological description of the two profiles (horizons, colors, strcture, consistence, etc,) does not appear in the manuscript to support the soil classification adopted. Line 131 “…… 4alinization …..” to correct “… salinization …..” 2.3 Analitycal procedures Line 165 “….. analysed by titration method with … [25].” To complete. Line 165 and Line 442 Check that the reference [25] corresponds to what is reported in the references. 3. Results and discussion Line 245 “Gleyic Fluvisoils (Salic)” to corrept “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic)”, Line 256. “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic) had a calcium-sodium chloride type ….” . In figures 6 and 9 the top of the profile is indicated with Ays, so if the suffixes of the horizon are correct there should be an accumulation of gypsum (y) and an illuvial sesquioxide and organic matter accumulation (s), but the latter possibility. it is unlikely because it refers to a horizon A therefore not affected by illuviation. Give an explanation. Line 286. “……. Iron minerals ….”. Explain if Fe minerals appear amorphous or crystallized and why it was not possible to define their mineralogy. Line 286-287 “…….. Fe-bearing plant residues (up to 20%) ….” In reality, in table 3 there are values of 86.8% and 30.0%. Give an explanation. Line 328-329 “…. Gypsum were identified in the soil profile of Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak.” So why not highlight it as “Gleyic Gypsic Fluvic Solonchak”? References Many citations do not carry the editorial reference (DOI, ISBN or !SSN). To integrate Figure 5. “….. Gleyic Fluvisoils ……” to correct “…. Gleyic Fluvisols ….” Figure 5. There are no references to the soil classification used. Provide Table 1. Column “The Lyonva River”: standardize numerical values with respect to other columns. Remove decimals after integer values with three or more digits. Table 2. “pHH2O” to correct “pH H2O” – “pHKCl” to correct “pH KCl” – “P2O5” to correct “P2O5” – “Gleyic Fluvisoils (Salic)” to correct “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic)”Table Table 2 – Figure 6 – Figure 9. Il Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak mostra in tabella 2 orizzonti con profondità 0-3, 3-15, 15-70 mentre in figura 9 le profondità sono 0-3 5.15, 34-45 a cui vengono fatti corrispondere rispettivamente gli orizzonti S, SS, Gs. In figura 6 invece vengono solo indicati gli orizzonti S ed SS.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. Some recommendations and questions point out new more detailed researches. Below we respond to the comments of each reviewer.
Reviewer 2
If we use the denominations “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic) or Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak”, we refer to soils with different degrees of salinization formed by natural conditions. But this is not in this case study. In fact, the title of manuscript speacks of “Anthropogenic Salinisation”. It is advisable, at least during the discussion phase, to highlight this aspect and to use the WRB classification (IUSS, 2014). For example “Gleyic Fluvic Solonchack” finds the anthropic equivalent in “Anthrosols Fluvic Gleyic Salic or Sodic”. Furthermore, the morphological description of the profiles examined is missing and the name of the horizons does not appear to comply with international criteria.
Response: Remark is accepted. Researced soils were identified as a Gleyic Fluvisols (Salic, Loamic, Technic) and Chloridic Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak (Hypersalic, Loamic, Technic).
If you have used a particular classification then you need to insert a table with its description In particular 2.1 Site description Line 91. “……. salt-marly ….” To correct “…. Salt-marl ……”
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
Line 98. “….slurry storage…..”. clarify that it is not organic waste
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
Line 104-105. “The territory …….. seven potash mines (Figure 3)” Regarding the investigated territories, in particular figures 1 an 3, no geo-referenced location is provide, Provide geographic or UTM coordinates.
Response: Remark is accepted. Figures were partly corrected.
2.2 Sampling procedure Line 125 “ …. 2 soil profiles …….” . The morphological description of the two profiles (horizons, colors, strcture, consistence, etc,) does not appear in the manuscript to support the soil classification adopted.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was added.
Line 131 “…… 4alinization …..” to correct “… salinization …..”
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
2.3 Analitycal procedures Line 165 “….. analysed by titration method with … [25].” To complete.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
Line 165 and Line 442 Check that the reference [25] corresponds to what is reported in the references.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
- Results and discussion
Line 245 “Gleyic Fluvisoils (Salic)” to corrept “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic)”,
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
Line 256. “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic) had a calcium-sodium chloride type ….” .
In figures 6 and 9 the top of the profile is indicated with Ays, so if the suffixes of the horizon are correct there should be an accumulation of gypsum (y) and an illuvial sesquioxide and organic matter accumulation (s), but the latter possibility. it is unlikely because it refers to a horizon A therefore not affected by illuviation. Give an explanation.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was added.
Line 286. “……. Iron minerals ….”. Explain if Fe minerals appear amorphous or crystallized and why it was not possible to define their mineralogy.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected. Actually, iron minerals of the uppermost horizon of Chloridic Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak (Hypersalic, Loamic, Technic) arepresented by amorphous forms.
Line 286-287 “…….. Fe-bearing plant residues (up to 20%) ….” In reality, in table 3 there are values of 86.8% and 30.0%. Give an explanation.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
Line 328-329 “…. Gypsum were identified in the soil profile of Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak.” So why not highlight it as “Gleyic Gypsic Fluvic Solonchak”?
References Many citations do not carry the editorial reference (DOI, ISBN or !SSN).
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
To integrate Figure 5. “….. Gleyic Fluvisoils ……” to correct “…. Gleyic Fluvisols ….”
Figure 5. There are no references to the soil classification used.
Provide Table 1. Column “The Lyonva River”: standardize numerical values with respect to other columns. Remove decimals after integer values with three or more digits.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text of Table 1 was corrected.
Table 2. “pHH2O” to correct “pH H2O” – “pHKCl” to correct “pH KCl” – “P2O5” to correct “P2O5” – “Gleyic Fluvisoils (Salic)” to correct “Gleyic Fluvisols (salic)”Table Table 2 – Figure 6 – Figure 9. Il Gleyic Fluvic Solonchak mostra in tabella 2 orizzonti con profondità 0-3, 3-15, 15-70 mentre in figura 9 le profondità sono 0-3 5.15, 34-45 a cui vengono fatti corrispondere rispettivamente gli orizzonti S, SS, Gs.
In figura 6 invece vengono solo indicati gli orizzonti S ed SS.
Response: Remark is accepted. The text was corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my previous review, I paid special attention to some basic methodical issues related to the analyzed problem, which, in my opinion, were omitted by the authors. They have clarified all of the questions I raised and the manuscript has been improved. In general, I'm satisfied with the authors corrections. However, finally, please check the text careffuly to avoid small typing errors and inconsistencies (as marked in the attachement).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded adequately to the requested reviews. Changes and additions to their manuscript are acceped.
