Influence of Mining on Nutrient Cycling in the Tropical Rain Forests of the Colombian Pacific
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle:
ok.
Abstract:
It will be more attractive if a line about future prospects should be included at the end of the abstract.
Introduction
Line 62: Use alternate word against “Summary”
Line 94-105: It will be more suitable if objective should be given clear and remove the citations.
Materials and Methods
Include Sub headings number in this section.
Line 108: Study time period should be specified.
Line 105-106: If possible, include map of the study area.
Line 221: Add statistical software version /details.
Results
Presented Well.
Reconsider to re write the figures captions and the headings
Ensure all figures and tables referenced in the text are clearly labeled and cross-referenced correctly.
Discussion:
Clarify the mechanism by which open pit mining increases these specific soil nutrients. Consider mentioning specific processes involved in deforestation and soil disruption.
Explain the role of nitrogen-fixing plants and bacteria in maintaining total soil N. Provide examples of such plants and bacteria common in the region.
Conclusion: Future prospects lines should be included.
General comments
After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I must commend the author for their skillful writing and overall presentation. However, I have identified several areas where the manuscript could be improved. These suggestions will help the author further enhance the manuscript's readability, structure, and impact.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Evaluator 1
Abstract:
It would be more attractive if a line about future prospects were included at the end of the summary. (Done)
Introduction
Line 62: Use an alternative word in front of “Summary” (Done).
Line 94-105: It will be more appropriate to make the objective clear and remove the citations. (Done).
Materials and methods
Include the number of subtitles in this section. (Done).
Line 108: The time period of the study must be specified. (Done).
Line 105-106: If possible, include a map of the study area. (Not carried out because the study area can be evidenced in previous research such as Quinto et al., 2022)
Line 221: Add statistical software version/details. (Done).
Results
Well presented.
Reconsider rewriting figure titles and headings. (Done)
Ensure that all figures and tables referenced in the text are clearly labeled and properly cross-referenced. (Done)
Discussion:
Clarify the mechanism by which open pit mining increases these specific soil nutrients. Consider mentioning specific processes involved in deforestation and soil disturbance. (Done). On page 6. It is mentioned: These increases are due to the fact that the nutrients that were stored in the plant biomass (leaves, stems, branches and roots) become available in the soil solution after deforestation and decomposition of the material [10, eleven]. In summary, the greater availability of nutrients present in post-mining areas is due to the residues of deforested trees and the minerals released by the mechanical action of mining on the ground.
Explain the role of nitrogen-fixing plants and bacteria in maintaining total soil nitrogen. Provide examples of plants and bacteria common in the region. (Done). The species were included: Inga lopadadenia, Abarema barbouriana, Lonchocarpus monilis, Calliandra laxa, Diplotropis sp., Pentaclethra macroloba
Conclusion: Lines of future perspectives must be included. (Done) Paragraph was included: In general, it is noted that in the Colombian Pacific region, and in the Latin American basins in which open pit mining is carried out, the recycling of nutrients and the productivity of the ecosystem will continue to be altered. This affects the dynamics of the forest and the function of these ecosystems in mitigating global climate change.
General comments
After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I must congratulate the author for his skillful writing and overall presentation. However, I have identified several areas in which the manuscript could be improved. These suggestions will help the author further improve the readability, structure, and impact of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript analyses the impact of mining on nutrient cycling in tropical rainforests of the Colombian Pacific. A review of literature data and the author's results is presented. The manuscript is of scientific interest. Unfortunately, it can not be accepted for publication in its present form, as it requires technical revision. Suggestions for improving the manuscript are presented below.
Common notes for the manuscript.
It would be better do not use so often semicolons dividing the sentences into parts by dots. Could you make the sentences shorter?
“Likewise” is too often in the manuscript. Total – 18.
Detailed notes for the manuscript
Line 25. What is it “CICE”? This abbreviation did not describe above.
Line 59. “NH4N+” Is it mistake. May be so: “NH4+”?
Line 59. Available (?) P and K concentrations
Lines 119-120. “The forests are mostly mature and secondary…” Is it more correctly: The forests are mostly primary mature and secondary with different ages of recovery after mining impact?
Line 149. specific richness? May be correct so: species richness?
Line 149. Walkley and Black for OM? Walkley and Black method estimates not organic matter (OM) content but organic carbon content (Corg). If you like to show organic matter content you should to give the coefficient of recalculation Corg to OM or rename OM to Corg.
Lines 161-162. “…described in Osorio 161 (2014), and Quinto et al. [22].” Please give the uniform citation view.
Lines 166 and 168. “every fifteen days” and “biweekly” – Is it duplication of the same information?
Line 170. Too much “decomposition” is it?
Line 173. “The leaves that were taken were the recently fallen ones and…” Not so good construction of sentence.
Lines 179 and 182. Too long sentence.
Lines 185 and 195. Decomposed litter consists more ash in comparison with fresh litter. What is about X0/X1 mistake according ash accumulation in partly decomposed plant debris? May be ash contents of the litters in your experiments were small and permit to ignore these values?
Line 198. References by names?
Lines 162 and 206. The same information.
Line 207. Information duplicated.
Line 216. Is it correct abbreviation?
Line 236. Is it correct abbreviation?
Line 242. Nutrient soils – Is it correct? The listing of forest type would be better to do in the same order as in the figure as in the figure name.
Line 251. OM or C org?
Line 253. Figure 2. The same notes as to fig.1. And bad visualization. Too unreadable.
Lines 265, 267, 272. Figure 3, 4, 5. The same notes as to fig.2. And bad visualization. Too unreadable.
Line 277. Abbreviation? What does it mean?
Line 294. “forest deforestation” -?
Lines 351-355. Too long sentence.
Lines 360-361. “This mechanism occurs because with a long system of fine roots…” Long? May be better: large?
Lines 361-362. “The greater concentration of fine roots on the soil surface to acquire more nutrients”. May be better: The higher the concentration of fine roots in the surface soil horizon, the more nutrients are available.
Lines 368-369. …the aerial biomass = above ground; the soil surface = the soil surface horizon? What is the depth of that soil surface horizon?
Line 406. 2.08 and 6.71… It would be a good idea to accompany these average values with mathematical results, such as the standard deviations. And identical remarks to the next text
Lines 530, 532-533 (N/P ratio = 11.0%); while, in mature forests the N/P ratio was higher (N/P ratio = 46.0%)? N/P ratio can’t be in %.
Line 537. Percentage = content?
Author Response
Evaluator 2
The word “likewise” appears too frequently in the manuscript. Total: 18. (Done)
Detailed manuscript notes
Line 25. What is “CICE”? This abbreviation is not described above. (Correction made)
Line 59. “NH4N+” Is it an error? Could it be “NH4+”? (Correction made)
Line 59. Available P and K concentrations (?)(Correction made)
Lines 119-120. “Forests are mostly mature and secondary…” Is it more correct: Forests are mostly primary, mature and secondary with different ages of recovery after the impact of mining? (Correction made)
Line 149. Specific wealth? That may be right: species richness? (Correction made)
Line 149. Walkley and Black for OM? The Walkley and Black method does not estimate the organic matter (OM) content, but rather the organic carbon (Corg) content. If you want to display the organic matter content, you must assign the recalculation coefficient Corg to OM or rename OM to Corg. (Correction made)
Lines 161-162. “…described in Osorio 161 (2014), and Quinto et al. [22].” Please provide the uniform citation view. (Correction made)
Lines 166 and 168. “every fifteen days” and “biweekly” – Is this duplication of the same information? (Correction made)
Line 170. Too much “decomposition”? (Correction made)
Line 173. “The leaves that were taken away were the newly fallen ones and…” This is not a good sentence construction. (Correction made)
Line 179 and 182. Too long sentence. (We consider that the phrase used was well written)
Lines 185 and 195. Decomposed leaf litter contains more ash than fresh leaf litter. What is the reason for the X0/X1 error in relation to the accumulation of ash in partially decomposed plant remains? Is it possible that the ash content of the leaf litter in your experiments was small and allows these values to be ignored? (We consider that the phrase used was well written)
Line 198. References by names? (Correction made)
Lines 162 and 206. The same information. (Correction made)
Line 207. Duplicate information. (Correction made)
Line 216. Is the abbreviation correct? (Correction made)
Line 236. Is the abbreviation correct? (Correction made)
Line 242. Nutritious soils: is it correct? It would be best to list forest types in the same order as in the figure name. (Correction made)
Line 251. OM or C org? (Correction made)
Line 253. Figure 2. The same notes as in figure 1. And poor visualization. Too illegible. (Correction made)
Lines 265, 267, 272. Figures 3, 4, 5. The same notes as in figure 2. And bad visualization. Too illegible. (Correction made)
Line 277. Abbreviation? What does it mean? (Correction made)
Line 294. “forest deforestation” -? (Correction made)
Line 351-355. Too long sentence. (Correction made)
Line 360-361. “This mechanism occurs because with a long system of fine roots…” Long? Maybe it's better: big? (Correction made)
Lines 361-362. “Greater concentration of fine roots on the soil surface to acquire more nutrients.” It can be better: The higher the concentration of fine roots in the soil surface horizon, the more nutrients are available. (We consider that the phrase used was well written)
Lines 368-369. …aerial biomass = above ground; the soil surface = the surface horizon of the soil. What is the depth of that surface soil horizon? 20 cm (Correction made)
Line 406. 2.08 and 6.71… It would be a good idea to accompany these average values with mathematical results, such as standard deviations. And observations identical to the following text (Correction made)
Lines 530, 532-533 (N/P ratio = 11.0%); while in mature forests the N/P ratio was higher (N/P ratio = 46.0%)? The N/P ratio cannot be expressed in %. (Correction made)
Line 537. Percent = content ? (Correction made)
