Ecological Restoration in Eastern Canada Using Four Early-Successional Species on Severely Degraded Sites Using a Factorial of Site-Preparation Treatments: Growth and Biomass over Two Years

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I will reserve judgment on acceptance or rejection until the following additions and improvements are made. The critical issue of ALL sample sizes must be clearly addressed, ensuring clarity rather than ambiguity. Before conducting a variance analysis using an ANOVA model, it is necessary to perform a normality test to determine the suitability of applying content analysis and establish the prerequisite conditions. Additionally, there should be supplementary information regarding soil sample sizes, testing methods, and sampling techniques. Furthermore, this research spans only a few years, we can’t term it with ecological restoration. Last but not least, numerous grammatical errors require further revision. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Numerous English usage and grammatical errors require further revision. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. Revegetating barren landscapes is a valuable ecological restoration tool, so the topic is timely. The manuscript is complete and covers all of the phases of the project.

page 3 "bails" should be "bales"

species is the most influential of the variables, so I am not surprised that the interaction terms including species are also often influential.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on manuscript:

Title: Kindy clarify numbering 2, there is no number 1.

The abstract should be improved. You should state the main points of findings clearly. The current abstract includes many specific results, such as number, values, and locations. You should conclude your findings and potential implications in a broader view.

There long sentences in the abstract, please rephrase it and make compact sentence to be more understandable.

The sentence “There is very little literature on combined treatments results” what do you convey this sentence to readers?

The authors should highlight the manuscript's innovation and contribution.

Could you tell me the limitations of the proposed method? How will you solve them? Please add this part to the manuscript.

The discussion part did not describe the future research plan, and did not describe where the next research of this article is directed.

There are some typos, grammar errors and writing problems in the manuscript. Please polish the manuscript carefully

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the manuscript is very good. Work is also good. Field data were taken by the author, authentic well explained.

2. My strong advice is this- The unit should be the same data taken by the author as in Table, Phosphorus is given in ppm and potassium in the other unit. The unit should be the same.

3. Please check carefully if P, K, is total or  available or exchangeable.

4. Two genera used for restoration and data defined high altitude plant species and survive in a very small amount of P, K,. Both the Genera are Ecologically primary successional tree species. All these data are explained very well.

5. Please check the grammatical errors in the entire manuscript.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. How many samples are there of each of the four species? It needs to be clarified, not the total sample size.

2. The scientific names and significant numbers need to be unified.

3. There are still some problems with the language, terminology, and language specifications, especially the newly revised text, e.g., line 102, which should be three sites.

4. Some figures can be selected, and there is no need to put all of them on.

5. What do you mean by the “Source Year”? Maybe not all sites have been abandoned for 25 years, according to Table 1. Where is the heading of Table 1?

6. The abstract should be supplemented by the investigation time. The new one seems to be too long and does not highlight the key points.

7. Some critical information is missing in the Methods section of this paper. It is still hard for me to follow “2.1. Site Preparation Treatments” and “2.2. Plant Materials”. The starting state and the final state and how to deal with the sites, blocks, and treatments seem unclear. I encourage authors to describe the Material and Methods section more clearly. Is it possible to list the precise processing of sites, repetitions, experiments, etc. in a table? Since the Methods section doesn’t cite the kinds of literature. Site 1, site 2, and site 3 are not shown in the Method section, but they directly appear in the result. Lines 111-113, “Three site preparation treatments (and their absence) were MC, S and CWD factorial 111 which resulted in eight site preparation treatments on three sites at CFB Gagetown, NB, 112 (45.68108, -66.50179)". According to this sentence, is it six sites? Line 113 what does “this” refer to?

8. The first year of growth is measured on November 2, 2022, and September 6 (should not have stopped height growth entirely). The two measurement times are not in the same period. Maybe it is incomparable. Are the original trees of the same age and size? How did seedlings cultivate? What are the planting methods? Where to plant it? The initial state of seedlings should be clearly introduced. Give pictures or attachments to the Appendix to clarify this matter. Of course, we can have a story one: “Ecological restoration using four early-successional species on severely degraded sites using a factorial of three site preparation treatments: 1. Summer, winter, and spring frost heave mortality. Fredericton, NB, Canada. 2023". This paper has not been published; citing it as supporting literature is not recommended.

9. “Each experimental plot (32 plots 128 x 3 sites = 96 plots) had four replicates of each species randomly planted in each plot May 129 7-8, 2021”. How did you plant trees in a plot randomly?

10. The annotation of references is not uniform, e.g., in lines 233-234, “Fall 2020, there were little to no differences in soil texture or nutrients content between 233 MC or NMC plots, so they were aggregated together (Galea et al. 2020)”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some problems with the scientific English writing, terminology, and language specifications, especially the newly revised texts, e.g., line 102, which should be three sites.

Author Response

please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript much improved than previous one, the authors addressed my comments and suggestions. I recommend to accept this revised manuscript

Author Response

Thank you

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors cited the unpublished paper "Ecological restoration using four early-successional species on severely degraded sites using a factorial of three site preparation treatments," which may still be inappropriate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf