Biodiagnostics of Resistance to the Copper (Cu) Pollution of Forest Soils at the Dry and Humid Subtropics in the Greater Caucasus Region
, Tigran Ter-Misyakyants, Elena Nevedomaya, Yulia Akimenko, Dmitry Trufanov, Kamil Kazeev, Marina Burachevskaya, Tatiana Minkina, Sudhir S. Shende * and Anatoly Barakhov
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The results and discussions are based on laboratory experiments. A detailed study of the actual field site in natural environmental conditions would provide more emphasized results to recommend MPC of the copper content in the soil.
Author Response
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Answer to the Comments |
|
The results and discussions are based on laboratory experiments. A detailed study of the actual field site in natural environmental conditions would provide more emphasized results to recommend MPC of the copper content in the soil. |
The team of authors thanks the referee for the recommendation, which we will consider in our future studies.
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.
Contamination of soils with heavy metals is always a topical problem, considering the impact of contamination on the environment and organisms. Determining the impact of heavy metals on microorganisms can be highlighted by enzymatic methods and quantitative determinations of different groups of bacteria. The authors identified and correctly used the study methods, the paper presents the results of their own research.
I recommend this paper be accepted and published in this journal.
Author Response
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Answer to the Comments |
|
Contamination of soils with heavy metals is always a topical problem, considering the impact of contamination on the environment and organisms. Determining the impact of heavy metals on microorganisms can be highlighted by enzymatic methods and quantitative determinations of different groups of bacteria. The authors identified and correctly used the study methods, the paper presents the results of their own research. I recommend this paper be accepted and published in this journal. |
Thank you very much for the positive review and appreciation of our article.
|
Reviewer 3 Report
This work has tested couple of biological parameters in different soils responded to the heavy metal pollution states. The results showed that this parameters can be a diagnosis of the soil health and ecological functions. That was scientifically interesting point. While there is still couple of issues which should be carefully revised in the manuscripts.
1. Line 26-28 Page 1, Abstract: There is not find any safe standards numbers suggested in the manuscript. So it cannot give that conclusion sentences there.
2. The key words were replicated to a certain extent and was too many for the readers.
3. Line 105-113 Page 4: The most sensitive and informative biological indicators（total bacterial count, catalase activity, dehydrogenase activity, cellulolytic activity, phytotoxicity) Why choose these indicators? And what the relationship between these index and the health of the soil environment? These point should be mentioned in advance at the introduction part of the manuscript.
4. Figure 1. There 9 kinds of typical soils listed in the table 1, but the figures only have 8 in the left of Fig. 1. Lack of No.6 (Brown forest soils slightly unsaturated).
5. Figure 2-6, the error bars should be added and background gridlines should be removed in every column of the results data. And the significance differences between groups should also be annotated on the figures.
6. Line 324 Page 11: What the concentration in the soils? Unclear statement. Please be clear. I think this sentence should be expressed like this ”It is noted that the change in the biological state of soils directly depended on the nature of soil itself, the concentration of pollutants in soil and the nature of pollutants”.
7. Line 376-381 Page 12: There were no any experiment data about the remediation of metal contaminated soils in this research program. So it can not draw any conclusion about the pollution remediation strategies.
8. In the results part, it should be calculating the correlation coefficient between the bio-index and the physiochemical prosperities in the 9 kinds of soils in addition with the metal Cu's concentration.
9. Line 394-396 Page 12: The total number of bacteria, enzyme activity, root length of a plant and other indicators have been measured in present study. No environmental toxicology study has been conducted. The regional norms of copper in this area cannot be obtained only by the current test data.
Author Response
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Answer to the Comments |
|
1. Line 26-28 Page 1, Abstract: There is not find any safe standards numbers suggested in the manuscript. So it cannot give that conclusion sentences there. |
Abstract has been corrected as per reviewers suggestion. |
|
2. The key words were replicated to a certain extent and was too many for the readers. |
As per reviewers suggestion we have modified and improved the keywords. |
|
3. Line 105-113 Page 4: The most sensitive and informative biological indicators (total bacterial count, catalase activity, dehydrogenase activity, cellulolytic activity, phytotoxicity) Why choose these indicators? And what the relationship between these index and the health of the soil environment? These point should be mentioned in advance at the introduction part of the manuscript. |
The text has been corrected accordingly as per suggestions |
|
4. Figure 1. There 9 kinds of typical soils listed in the table 1, but the figures only have 8 in the left of Fig. 1. Lack of No.6 (Brown forest soils slightly unsaturated). |
Figure 1 has been corrected. |
|
5. Figure 2-6, the error bars should be added and background gridlines should be removed in every column of the results data. And the significance differences between groups should also be annotated on the figures. |
Significance was assessed by LSD. When using it, error bars should not be used. |
|
6. Line 324 Page 11: What the concentration in the soils? Unclear statement. Please be clear. I think this sentence should be expressed like this ”It is noted that the change in the biological state of soils directly depended on the nature of soil itself, the concentration of pollutants in soil and the nature of pollutants”. |
Text has been corrected. |
|
7. Line 376-381 Page 12: There were no any experiment data about the remediation of metal contaminated soils in this research program. So it cannot draw any conclusion about the pollution remediation strategies. |
This recommendation is based on previous studies by Kolesnikov et al. (2019). Text have been corrected. |
|
8. In the results part, it should be calculating the correlation coefficient between the bio-index and the physiochemical prosperities in the 9 kinds of soils in addition with the metal Cu's concentration. |
The values of humus content and pH were determined only in control soils without copper (Cu) contamination. The correlation coefficients between the Cu content in the soil and the response of biological indicators expressed through the integral index of the biological state (IIBS) are presented in the text. |
|
9. Line 394-396 Page 12: The total number of bacteria, enzyme activity, root length of a plant and other indicators have been measured in present study. No environmental toxicology study has been conducted. The regional norms of copper in this area cannot be obtained only by the current test data. |
We believe that the indicators of the state of bacteria, plants and enzyme activity used in the study can be considered ecotoxicological parameters. Based on them, it is possible to determine regional standards for the environmentally safe content of pollutants in the soil. |
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the manuscript has carefully revised, cited and explained the nine questions raised by the reviewer. The second revised manuscript has been greatly improved in general, but as for Figure 2 -- Figure 6, it still needs to be redrawn and improved.
1. Figure 2 - Figure 6 only removed the background grid lines, error bars should be added to Figure 2 - Figure 6, and significant differences between groups are not marked. LSD was an tested method, it didn’t related to the error bars for the data accuracy evaluation.
2. It is strongly recommended that the five processed histograms be identified by legends with different shading patterns. Even though the electronic version is color, if color printing is not available, it is difficult to distinguish the identification between each treatment.
Author Response
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
Answer to the Comments |
|
1. Figure 2 - Figure 6 only removed the background grid lines, error bars should be added to Figure 2 - Figure 6, and significant differences between groups are not marked. LSD was an tested method, it didn’t related to the error bars for the data accuracy evaluation. |
Thank you for your comments. The text of the article has been improved thanks to your comments. The Errors bars are added to the figures and modified as per suggestions.
|
|
2. It is strongly recommended that the five processed histograms be identified by legends with different shading patterns. Even though the electronic version is color, if color printing is not available, it is difficult to distinguish the identification between each treatment. |
Figures 2-6 have been reformatted as per suggestions.
|
