Next Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Changes in Vegetation Cover in the Three North Protection Forest Project Area Supported by GEE Cloud Platform
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Trace Elements in Tree Rings of Pines Growing Nearby Steelwork in Southern Poland during the Industrial and Post-Industrial Periods
Previous Article in Journal
Further Test of Pneumatic Method in Constructing Vulnerability Curves Using Six Tree Species with Contrasting Xylem Anatomy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Litter Decomposition of Qinghai Spruce (Picea crassifolia) Is Dependent on Mn Concentration in the Qilian Mountains, Northwest China
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Biogenic Elements of Atmospheric Fallout and Impact of Sub-Mediterranean Forest Communities of Downy Oaks on Changes in the Chemical Composition of Atmospheric Precipitation

Forests 2023, 14(2), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020294
by Cam Nhung Pham 1,*, Roman Gorbunov 1, Vladimir Lapchenko 2, Tatiana Gorbunova 1,3 and Vladimir Tabunshchik 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Forests 2023, 14(2), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020294
Submission received: 6 January 2023 / Revised: 30 January 2023 / Accepted: 1 February 2023 / Published: 3 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Trace Elements Biogeochemical Cycling in Forests Ecosystem)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled, "Biogenic elements of atmospheric fallout and the impact of sub-Mediterranean forest communities of downy oaks on changes in the chemical composition of atmospheric precipitation" is a good piece of work. But I have a few suggestions which I believe will improve the manuscript.

 

Abstract

The abstract should illuminate the main findings of the paper that can serve as a stand-alone document. However, authors have represented abstract in more generalized form. Authors should emphasize the levels of increment of different parameters assessed in % age values. I suggest revising abstract and incorporate significant results in the abstract for comparative framework.

Introduction

1. “Atmospheric precipitation not only contributes to the removal of impurities from the atmosphere, but also leads to the entry of various chemical elements into the surface waters of land and the World Ocean. The high efficiency of forest functioning is achieved due to the intensive and constant exchange of matter in the system atmosphere - forest canopy - soil. The chemical composition transformation of atmospheric water occurs after interaction with aboveground phytomass of forest stands. Precipitation is included in the biogeocenosis and actively affects the biological cycle. At the same time, the atmosphere is a significant source of biogenic elements, such as, for example, nitrogen, phosphorus, and silicon, which most often limit the development of the productivity of aquatic ecosystems” You have written a paragraph and give one citation, please add more citations.

 

2. Line 45, “This leads to an increase in the c content for most components of the under-the-forest canopy rainfall, in comparison with atmospheric precipitation, including biogenic elements”. This sentence is not clear what is c contents?

 

Results:

 

The results are not well written, improve them as well.

 

Figures:

Line 129: In figure 4, please write NH4 as NH4+, and same for others. You do not discuss H2PO4.

General comments:

If you abbreviate any word, then use abbreviation throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,
Include the following suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript further:
1. Abstract- Do not use abbreviations in the abstract directly instead use the first full form followed by abbreviations.
2. Introduction- Several grammatical and punctuation errors are present in the entire introduction and need corrections. Add some more information linking to your study that can attract the worldwide reader.
3. Results-Improve your table endnote and add significance levels. Figure axis is not properly given.
4. Conclusion-Concise conclusion
Overall improve your manuscript.
Regards,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Some comments are presented here.

A crucial questions concern penetration of the water and migration of contaminants and the sources of contaminants in research area

 

It is evident that there is no linearity on Fig 9. So why authors use linera trends?

 

Description of the axis ( fig 6) is not clear, there is a lack of description y axis, also x axis ischard to read

 

Change the coma to dots in numbers, plots, tables

 

Each tables need more information why some values are bold?

Each correlation need information about number of data, level of confidence, 

Table 3 and vey high correlation are surprising- could you add plots to correlations to confirm it please

 

What about migration of the elements?

What about impact of wet and dry depositon?

 

Other question are more general- please add information about source of contaminants in the research area, what are their sources and if it is connect with human activity- what is the level of emission during a year?

 

Is there any other species in this region then oaks?

 

How forests impact on amount of rain? Line 42

The source of water is a water taken by roots- it is not clear how water from precipitations penetrate frow crown to wood (line 42 etc...)

 

Check also the references format, it is not corrected

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English should improve by a native person. The paper suffers from a poor English structure throughout and cannot be published or appropriately reviewed in the current format. The manuscript requires thorough proofreading by a native person whose first language is English. The problem instances are numerous and this manuscript cannot individually mention them. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to present their work in an acceptable format. Unless the paper is in a reasonable format, it should not have been submitted.

 Figures: If possible, please improve the figure presentation.

Add error standard bars and their significant values.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: English should improve by a native person. The paper suffers from a poor English structure throughout and cannot be published or appropriately reviewed in the current format. The manuscript requires thorough proofreading by a native person whose first language is English. The problem instances are numerous and this manuscript cannot individually mention them. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to present their work in an acceptable format. Unless the paper is in a reasonable format, it should not have been submitted.

Response 1: The manuscript was proofread by a native person. Necessary corrections have been made.

 

Point 2: Figures: If possible, please improve the figure presentation.

Response 2: Done

 

Point 3: Add error standard bars and their significant values

Response 3: Done

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Crucial question and comment is 

1. please add the figures with correlation (linear)

2. more detail infomation based on literature about cycle of the selected particles should be added

3. could you add more details how trees change initial chemical composition of precipitation- in which process? water is taken by root to photosynthesis?

4. please add the error bars to the plots, check the labels, captions etc

5. Coudl you add some references about line 175, 176 how selected elements impact on precipitation, wind, RH?

In my opinion this thesis is not true

6. I asked about additional plot which will present the relation between selected  elements, especially where a high significant correlation was observed. I have filling that there is an efffect of grouping of the results.

It htis efect is there - than there is no real relationship

7. The format of references is not according to journal guides for author-check dots, comma.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1. more detail infomation based on literature about cycle of the selected particles should be added

Response  1 - was added

 

Point 2. could you add more details how trees change initial chemical composition of precipitation- in which process? water is taken by root to photosynthesis?

Response  2 - examples how trees change initial chemical composition of precipitation were added

 

Point 3. please add the error bars to the plots, check the labels, captions etc

Response  3 - The error bars to the plots were added. The labels, captions etc were checked. Edids done

 

Point 4. Coudl you add some references about line 175, 176 how selected elements impact on precipitation, wind, RH –

Response  4- some references about line 175, 176 how selected elements impact on precipitation, wind, RH were added

 

Point 5. I asked about additional plot which will present the relation between selected  elements, especially where a high significant correlation was observed. I have filling that there is an efffect of grouping of the results. It htis efect is there - than there is no real relationship

Response  5 - plot which will present the relation between selected elements was added.

NO2- and NH4+ in rainwater in open area and in rainwater in forest are not denpend on each other. This may be due to the abnormal value of their concentration. 

 

Point 6. The format of references is not according to journal guides for author-check dots, comma.

Response   6. format of references is according to journal guides now

 

Point 7. could you add more details how trees change initial chemical composition of precipitation- in which process? water is taken by root to photosynthesis?

Response  7. the same with the Response  3

 

Point 8. In table 3 – 0.09 is high correlation?

Response  8. 0.09 is not high correlation. It was made in bold because it correlation coefficient between contents NO2- in rainwater in open area and contents NO2- in rainwater in forest.

 

Point 9. Figure 9. There is no relationship if r= -0.18 and r= 0.08

Response  9. In work we noted that “pH – H2PO4- rainwater in an open area is almost independent of each other (r = 0.08)”. We don’t agree that there is no relationship if r= -0.18. This relationship is weak. We made an edit here.

 

Point 10. Figure 9. Could you change a relution? It is hard to read data.

Response  10. Done

 

Point 11. Figure 3 and etc. 21 is a day? a year? not clear

Response  11. 21 and 22 are 2021 and 2022 years.

 

Point 12. Figure 4. Could you add error bars of SD?

Response  12. An error bars of SD is added

 

Point 13. Figure 6. Please check the fonts

Response  13. The fonts were checked. Done

 

Point 14. Figure 7. Add an error bars. It is not clear what 21,22 means.

Response  14. An error bars was added. 21 and 22 are 2021 and 2022 years.

 

Point 15. please add the figures with correlation (linear)

Response  15 - figures with correlation (linear) was added

 

Point 16. Figure 1. It is hard to guess where is point and where is square

Response  16. Unfortunately, when adding a map to word, its quality deteriorated and it became impossible to distinguish between a green circle and a square. Although the image is high resolution. We have changed the color of the circle and the color of the square. This will help the reader navigate the map better.

 

Point 17. Could you add a plot.

Response  17. Figure about relationship between the concentration of inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus on the amount of precipitation, on the relative humidity of the air and on the wind speed were shown in figure 8. The linear dependence of inorganic nitrogen on inorganic phosphorus was added.

 

    

Back to TopTop