Effects of Restoration Years on Vegetation and Soil Characteristics under Different Artificial Measures in Alpine Mining Areas, West China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Effects of restoration years on vegetation and soil characteritics under different artificial measures in alpine mining area
By Jin et al.
General comments:
The study evaluated the influence of different artificial vegetation restoration measures on the vegetation and soil characteristics at a slag mound in the alpine mining area during a 5-year consecutive field study. The research topic is important and interesting and has the potential to optimize vegetation restoration in the alpine mining area. The experimental setup is generally good and the data is of good significance. However, several major questions limit the readability of the manuscript. I would suggest a major revision of the current version of the manuscript before further consideration by the journal Sustainability.
Major questions:
(1) The usage of the English language needs to be improved a lot. This made it very hard to read because the reader constantly stumbles over grammar errors and non-standard expressions.
(2) The Introduction section needs to be improved. The current version didn’t provide a clear introduction to the scientific question addressed by this study. It should include more detailed information on current restoration methods and their performance.
(3) The results section needs to be improved. The interpretation of results is too tedious. The authors don’t need to interpret each point of the results. They should be more precise and condensed.
Specific comments:
L13, the Muli coalfield in Qinghai province, China.
L22, please define N and p, and introduce TR1-3 in the M&M part of Abstract.
L25, again, please define N and p.
L27, what artificial measures? Please introduce them in the M&M part of Abstract.
L46, all of which
L49, which was also supported by conjecture. Please rephrase.
L66, thickness of soil covering appears first time here, please introduce in detail why this parameter is important.
L68, in which region?
L78-79, ‘Due to the strong solar radiation, precipitation is only a small 78 fraction of the annual evaporation of 1049.9 mm’. Please rephrase.
L92, please mark the site on the map.
L93, hm2? Please use standard units, check throughout the manuscript.
L96, 1.5kg per plot? Or per m2? Or per ha?
L101, grass species, sowing quantity, and soil covering are actually not three measures, they are three parameters of the artificial vegetation restoration method. Please find a better way to interpret them.
L103, what is the sowing quantity of this part?
L121-126, why only 5 grass here? What is the Stargrass?
L136, again, why only 5 grass here? Why their names changed again?
L151, in self-sealing bags
L168, grass species. Be consistent with section 3.4.
L171-172, Bingrass, Kentucky blue grass, wheat temples??? Please unify all the grass names throughout the manuscript.
L186, suggest to merge tables 2-4, tables 5-7, and tables 8-10.
L224, in Table 6, at 2020, 30.4/4 are not significantly different with 19.6/3.6? Please check.
L257, there are no physical properties analyzed in the present study!
L268, Fig.2.1b?
L295, where are those data for TP, TN, and TK? The resolution of Fig. 5 is too low to read. Suggest to show the data in the same way at Section 3.1-3.3, in tables!
L297, organic matter content
L300, replace dosage with species?
L383, why parameters changed? Where are available K?
L396, define these species.
L398, higher than what?
L483, not supported by the data, can only say so for the studied site.
L485, how can characteristics increase?
L488, prevent the degradation of artificial vegetation and soil.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The results of the study could be simplified because the redundant explanations of the results burden the text. Everything can be seen from the figures and graphs.
All other comments are in the file of the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The following section (2.1) describes the geography. It’s not a part of the Materials & Methods section. Please adjust the headings accordingly.
The study site is located in the Jiangcang mining area on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau 75 (99°27 ′ 05 ′′ -99°27 ′ 38 ′′ E, 38°01 ′ 22 ′′ -38°02 ′ 54 ′′ N; Fig. 1), with an elevation of 3,917 m 76 and an annual average temperature of − 2.8 °C. The region is semi-arid with an annual 77 precipitation of 477.1 mm. Due to the strong solar radiation, precipitation is only a small 78 fraction of the annual evaporation of 1049.9 mm. The wind in this area is very strong, and 79 the number of days with annual wind greater than 10 m·s-1 is 162 days. The vegetation 80 types surrounding the experimental sites are mainly swamp and alpine meadow. Due to 81 the fertile soil, the vegetation of Kobresia tibetensis and Carex trifolia are the two domi- 82 nate species. There is a layer of permafrost beneath the coal gangue residue hill, and its 83 thickness varies spatially. Base permafrost is easy to melt in summer, resulting in land- 84 slides and other geological disasters. The treatment measures of slag hill stability in this 85 study area include slope cutting and unloading, with a slope of less than 25°, and building 86 cofferdams along the bottom edge of the mound, which can increase slope stability and 87 facilitate recovery
Figure 1. The figure legend of the Geographical location of the study area. (The figure 1 a), b), c) needs separate details only in the legend.
Results Section
Histograms labels are not clearly visible due to overcrowding, especially in figures on Page 11.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no further questions about the revised manuscript.
