Influence of Fly Ash on Soil Properties and Vegetation of Fresh Coniferous Forest during Long-Term Observation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title is ok and self-explanatory.

The abstract is well written.

The introduction is well written but the number of citations is very large and only relevant and needed papers be cited.

How does fly ash accumulate in the system and what is the impact on soil properties over 43 years?

Vegetation and topography, how do you relate?

How fly ash was mixed with other nutrients?

Table 1 is creating some confusion. Please check and remove unnecessary digits.

Tables should be self-explanatory and legends should be provided.

Tables 3 and 4 be revised in same manner.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

MInor editing is required

Author Response

The title is ok and self-explanatory.

The abstract is well written.

The introduction is well written but the number of citations is very large and only relevant and needed papers be cited.

The number of cited publication was limited in the work when proofreading the text.

How does fly ash accumulate in the system and what is the impact on soil properties over 43 years?

The fly ash introduced into the soil by plowing. The fly ash initially alkalized the environment after being introduced into the soil. At a later stage, the developing vegetation began the process of soil acidification.

Vegetation and topography, how do you relate?

The surface was selected for the experiment on flat terrain in order to

remove the possible influence of the topography on plants species.

How fly ash was mixed with other nutrients?

The fly ash was not intended to be mixed into the soil trough developing vegetation and the movement of soil organisms. Nutrient also move in the soil over time.

Table 1 is creating some confusion. Please check and remove unnecessary digits.

It is some kind of technical problem created when editing the text.

Tables should be self-explanatory and legends should be provided.

The tables have been redacted and supplemented with explanation.

Table 3 - the header was revised as follows:

Table 3. Abundance of species and some of their characteristics found on experimental plots treated with different doses of fly ash from burning coal after 43 years from the ash application. The abundance is expressed according to Braun-Blanquet’s cover-abundance scale: +-< 5 %, few individuals; 1-<5 %, numerous individuals; 2-5 – 25 %; 3-25 – 50 %; 4-50 -75 %; 5-75 – 100 %.

The tables have been redacted and supplemented with explanation.

Corrected data has been entered into Table 2.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.  What is the main question addressed by the research?

The paper “Influence of fly ash on soil properties and vegetation of fresh  coniferous forest during the long-term observation” by Adam Bogacz et.al. is devoted to the influence of coal ash on the condition and composition of the soil and changes in the species composition of vegetation as a result of saturation of the soil with fly ash. The object of study are podzols in forest habitat of Czułów, Katowice Forest district, Upper Silesia, Poland

 2.  Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field?

I consider the topic to be original and relevant to the field of studying the influence of anthropogenic impact on the state of forests.

Does it address a specific gap in the field?

An experiment was conducted to analyze the state of soils with various doses of ash introduced and to assess the impact of such changes in soils on the composition and amount of vegetation

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The analysis was carried out on the beneficial effects of ash on soils, leading to an increase in vegetation. The study is very useful for forestry, since the analysis of the chemical composition of soils can be used to determine the types of vegetation that will best take root on these soils and thus it is possible to design the forestation of territories

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

Despite the fact that some information is contained in Table 3, I would recommend  the authors to include in the discussion answers to the questions: why they believe that changes in the species composition of vegetation are the result of the influence of ash. Also, a little talk about biodiversity. And, if available, some information about changes in the species composition of animals.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

The conclusions are supported by results

6. Are the references appropriate?

There are enough relevant references in the rext

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

It is not entirely clear in what units the data in Table 3 is presented

The organization of Table 4 is not clear. Is it true that only one parameter was measured at each depth?

Author Response

What is the main question addressed by the research?

The paper “Influence of fly ash on soil properties and vegetation of fresh coniferous forest during the long-term observation” by Adam Bogacz et.al. is devoted to the influence of coal ash on the condition and composition of the soil and changes in the species composition of vegetation as a result of saturation of the soil with fly ash. The object of study are podzols in forest habitat of Czułów, Katowice Forest district, Upper Silesia, Poland

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field?

I consider the topic to be original and relevant to the field of studying the influence of anthropogenic impact on the state of forests.

Does it address a specific gap in the field?

An experiment was conducted to analyze the state of soils with various doses of ash introduced and to assess the impact of such changes in soils on the composition and amount of vegetation

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The analysis was carried out on the beneficial effects of ash on soils, leading to an increase in vegetation. The study is very useful for forestry, since the analysis of the chemical composition of soils can be used to determine the types of vegetation that will best take root on these soils and thus it is possible to design the forestation of territories

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

Despite the fact that some information is contained in Table 3, I would recommend the authors to include in the discussion answers to the questions: why they believe that changes in the species composition of vegetation are the result of the influence of ash. Also, a little talk about biodiversity. And, if available, some information about changes in the species composition of animals.

The study did not examine the effect of fly ash on animals

 

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

The conclusions are supported by results

6. Are the references appropriate?

There are enough relevant references in the text

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

It is not entirely clear in what units the data in Table 3 is presented

The table heading 3 was changed as follows:

Abundance of species and some of their characteristics found on experimental plots treated with different doses of fly ash from burning coal after 43 years from the ash application. The abundance is expressed according to Braun-Blanquet’s cover-abundance scale: +-< 5 %, few individuals; 1-<5 %, numerous individuals; 2-5 – 25 %; 3-25 – 50 %; 4-50 -75 %; 5-75 – 100 %.

The organization of Table 4 is not clear. Is it true that only one parameter was measured at each depth?

The organization of tables in this work has been improved to make them more readable.

The tables have been redacted and supplemented with explanations. Corrected data has been entered into Table 2. The organization Table 4 has been improved. Each tested feature was measured at different depths.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is based on such long-term observations, which collected so much data is very meaningful. The language and logic are well. I can hardly say no to this paper. I think the only shortcoming is the abstract, it is redundant. I suggest the authors refine this section.

Author Response

Thank You for Your valuable comments, opinion and questions. We decided to

leave the abstract unchanged. If there are any more detailed comments, we will be

happy to answer them.