Phytotoxic Effects of Kerosene on Plants of Forest and Bog Phytocenoses of Southern Taiga
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors studied effects of kerosine to plants species in taiga (central Russia). Generally, the topic of article is current and sound. Statistical analysis should be visible graphically. The discussion should be better connected with the results as well as conclusion. This manuscript required major revision. However, I gave some remarks, comments and suggestions in the Annotated Manuscript (pdf version), so that the authors can improve this paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Rewiever,
We would like to thank you for very useful notes for our manuscript. We tried to accept them everywhere we found it possible. Please see the attached file for comprehensive answer.
Sincerely,
Sergey Lednev (on behalf of all authors)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The review concerned an article entitled: Phytotoxic effects of kerosene on plants of forest and bog phytocenoses of southern taiga.
The study focuses on the impact of volatile hydrocarbons, specifically kerosene, on plant communities in forest and bog ecosystems in Central Russia. The study conducted a field experiment using TS-1 kerosene, which is commonly used for commercial aviation in Russia. The pollutant was applied in doses ranging from 1 to 100 g/kg, and the impact on plant communities was monitored. The results showed that even at minimum doses, kerosene had a significant impact on plant communities, leading to the death of some individuals. However, the recovery processes of plant communities were clearly pronounced as early as two years after the application of the pollutant.
The study found that shrubs of the bog community and mosses of both communities were more resistant to the hydrocarbon. The level of kerosene threshold exposure, which significantly affects the dominants of herb-shrub layer, was found to be 1-5 g/kg for the forest community and 5-10 g/kg for the bog community.
Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the impact of kerosene on plant communities in forest and bog ecosystems in Central Russia. The findings highlight the importance of monitoring and regulating the use of hydrocarbons to ensure the sustainable functioning of affected ecosystems.
As I am not a native English speaker, I would like to check the manuscript's language, but I have noticed some mistakes. I recommend that a native speaker checks the manuscript.
Line 25-56. Introduction should be corrected and extended.
The text provides valuable information on the impact of kerosene on plants in natural ecosystems. However, the author fails to acknowledge some critical issues in the article. Firstly, the article mentions that hydrocarbon fuels are known to be phytotoxic, but the author does not explain how and why it happens. It would be helpful to provide more information on the mechanisms of oxidative stress and depressed metabolism in plants exposed to hydrocarbons. Secondly, the author acknowledges that laboratory experiments on hydrocarbon exposure have limitations, but the author does not provide any solutions to overcome these limitations. Thirdly, the article mentions that field studies on the effects of petroleum products on vegetation are relatively rare, but the author does not explain why this is the case. It would be helpful to provide more information on the challenges of conducting field experiments and the reasons for the scarcity of such studies. Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into the impact of kerosene on plants in natural ecosystems, the author could have addressed some critical issues to enhance the article's quality.
Line 64. The are of experiment is good described but there is lack of map of the region. In my opinion it should be added.
Line 135. The statistical design of experiment is poorly described. It should be corrected and extended.
Line 145-149. The language used to describe the effects of kerosene on the plants is somewhat imprecise. Phrases such as "chemical burns" and "wilting and twisting" are not well-defined scientific terms, and do not provide clear information about the specific physiological effects of kerosene on the plants. Similarly, the phrase "lightened" is not a precise term to describe changes in plant coloration. The text does not provide any quantitative data to support the observations made. For example, there is no information about the extent or severity of the curling in the moss leaves, or the degree to which the Sphagnum shoots lightened. Without this data, it is difficult to assess the magnitude of the effects of kerosene on the plants.
Line 241. The text could benefit from a clearer discussion of the practical implications of the results. For example, the text briefly mentions the potential use of ferns as bioindicators of hydrocarbon pollution, but does not elaborate on how this information could be used in practice.
Author Response
Dear Rewiever,
We would like to thank you for useful corrections for our manuscript. We tried to accept them everywhere we found it possible. Please see the attached file for comprehensive answer.
Sincerely,
Sergey Lednev (on behalf of all authors)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article “Phytotoxic effects of kerosene on plants of forest and bog phytocenoses of southern taiga” focuses on the effects of kerosene on plant species typical of communities in the southern taiga sub-zone of European Russia (Central Russia), and their ability to recover from exposure. I have some suggestions to improve the article.
1. Keywords should be reduced to 5-6
2. Introduction is not adequate, 300-400 words needed more
3. Discussion is very very poor, just 4-5 citations included. For example, 241-268, no citations, no elaborations, no explanations, please revise all the discussion section
4. Conclusion. It should not be repetition of the abstract please
Author Response
Dear Rewiever,
We would like to thank you for useful corrections for our manuscript. We tried to accept them everywhere we found it possible. Please see the attached file for comprehensive answer.
Sincerely,
Sergey Lednev (on behalf of all authors)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am approoving corrections.
