Restoring a Degraded Riparian Forested Buffer While Balancing Phosphorus Remediation, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Land Access

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Restoring a Degraded Riparian Forested Buffer while Balancing Phosphorus Remediation, Biodiversity and Indigenous Land Access" submitted to Sustainability is of great interest to a wide range of researchers, contains all necessary sections and can be published in the Journal after correction of minor comments.

The authors should add references to Tables 2, 3 and 4 and Figures 1, 2 and 3 in the Results section or move them to the Discussion section, as the Journal rules require that tables and figures should be placed immediately after the first mention.

Authors should improve the quality of Table 2, in this version this table is poorly readable and uninformative.

In my opinion, the Discussion section could be more concise, but the version of the discussion proposed by the authors is interesting and informative.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article by Rubin et al., “Restoring a Degraded Riparian Forested Buffer While Balancing Phosphorus Remediation, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Land Access” is written well but some amendments is needed before formal acceptance.

Add a brief objective and methodology to the Abstract.

The Introduction section is disorganised……..Follow 3 paragraph strategy……..Provide background to Phytoremidiation and ecosystem restoration, The site description and history and identify the problem, then in third paragraph present your hypothesis and objectives of the study. Line 74 to 98 need to be revised.

Line 158….Sampling….This should be the part of section 2. Materials and Methods.

Discussion section provide many information but still needs to revise properly. Some lines are just repeat of the results. Justification for every results should be provided. Remove heading from the discussion section.

Connectivity among the paragraphs is missing…..this needs to revise to make a full story.

Conclusion needs revision…..address the question that how you have achieved your objectives.

Add future direction for this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English grammer correction is required.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The MS “Restoring a Degraded Riparian Forested Buffer While Balancing Phosphorus Remediation, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Land Access” (authors: Jessica Rubin, Carol McGranaghan, Luca Kolba and Josef Görres) is devoted to a rather interesting issue – the restoration of degraded riparian buffer by clearing of common buckthorn and planting native species of plants. The MS makes a favorable impression, although in order to improve readability and better understanding the text should be slightly shortened. Of the obvious disadvantages, it is important to note the need to replace the word ‘pollinator’ in the text with a ‘representative of the natural entomofauna’. Indeed, not all of those mentioned in Table 2 (Plant palette. Designed and installed for the two restored plots, indicating flowering time, pollinator species hosted) plant species are insect-pollinated, a certain part of them is pollinated by wind, for example, Alnus incana, Carya ovata, Ulmus americana. And actually, at present we have not only a situation where “pollinator species are at risk of extinction [1]” but the collapse of the entire entomofauna is fixed on the planet almost everywhere, especially in Europe and North America. You could find a lot of papers that describe this situation, for example from here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=insect+collapse+in+america+and+europe&btnG= And finally, although the MS provides the geographical coordinates of the field work site, nevertheless, a map of the area where the work was carried out would be very useful for the reader.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Rubin et al.

This paper, as I see it, is a rich tapestry of  great  ideas:   rfbs, respect for indigenous stakeholders reconciled with land restoration, P mitigation and monitoring,  species richness, pollinator diversity,  and more.   The tricky part is setting out to weave all those rich ingredients together into a crisp focused data-based scientific paper.     My opinion is that all of this is highly worthy and worth publishing, but I wonder if a single formal scientific paper is the best outlet.   Perhaps a shorter paper now restricted to the phosphorus dynamics now-ish, followed by a broader piece later in an outlet intended for a general audience for the more-generalized rest of the story.   The inconclusive mycorrhizae results could arguably be deferred to a separate paper after more work, including resolving the question of finding the “right” inoculum.     Beyond the actual P (and mycorrhizal, plant species diversity) results there is much in this manuscript falling into the realm of opinion.    What I’m saying is that the broad project may benefit from separating the data-driven science from a broader informed popular-audience synthesis later where all the threads can be interwoven for public consumption.  How about the Vermont Environmental Report, for instance?

A data-based paper on P per se could be shorter than the present 21 pages, and could provide more detail on the core of the matter…phosphorus.    Ther data could be developed could be on what it is all about, keeping P out of the water.   P in water is one of the stated research questions but then falls flat.   Given the authors’ access to the AETL, water data should be easy to obtain somehow.   Lysimeters were abandoned in favor of extracting soil P, but I think some measurement from water would be critical and feasible.    Even water entering from uphill and leaving downhill.  More patience with lysimeters?  A paper dedicated to P would allow a deeper dive into existing literature.  Fertilizer, manure, and septic system pollution is a huge issue in Florida along with buffer zones.  There are quantitative data to relate to your interests.  A paper focused on P would also allow a deeper look into the literature on P uptake with respect to different plant species/genera.   This may be true also of P uptake in relation to mycorrhizae although I have no personal knowledge.  

Further, a paper dedicated to P would make room for an explanation of the environmental significance of the different forms P measured.  Not all readers (present company included) know the fine points of P chemistry, in particular leachable/soil-adsorbed P runoff, and water pollution.  

Since (one of) the main data-based points of the work is that coppicing removes TP, it might help to give more detail on the biomass removals.   That removing plant material would remove P is clear enough.  But what would help future restoration projects might be is more detail on how much removal yields the reductions you found.   More quantification?   How much actual biomass removal per species results in how much P reduction.  Can you generate a clear quantified split path of P “in,” in what forms, and the significance of those forms, and P “out”? Might make a compelling graphic. 

There are several “little editorial things”:

Throughout: inconsistent capitalizations, including species epithets capitalized. (I suggest making all epithets lower case, although capitalization is allowed for those based on proper names, but why bother?)

Give common names once, then use botanical names to refer to species

Give authors and families the first time they appear, or put that info in  Table 2

Use just one name for the Lake Pitawbagok (lines 43), Champlain (106 and elsewhere)

Use just one name for Red Osier Dogwood (line 173 and elsewhere=Cornus, Table2 = Swida)

Give a source for plant taxonomy/nomenclature. FNA?  Website?   Plant Names Index?

Table 2 Cecropia misspelled, along with inconsistent capitalizations

Table 2. Onoclea does not have seeds

Line 213 give name in text

Line 279: dentatum misspelled

Line 332 Onoclea misspelled

Line 412 divaricata misspelled

So many abbreviations---they get a little confusing.

AD Viburnum dentatum

AETL testing lab

AMF arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

BFS small portions of plots, filter strip

BMP best management practices

BP large portions of plots

BT Rhamnus cathartica

EB=Sambucus canadensis

ECM ectomycorrhizal

GLM general linear model

MW Salix petiolaris

NPS nonpoint source pollution

OIV control plot

RFB riparian forest buffer

ROD Cornus sericea

RS Rubus leucodermis

RV plot planted with natives but no mycorrhizae

RVM plot planted with natives and inoculated with mycorrhizae

SRP soluble reactive phosphorus

TP total phosphorus

WEP-SRP water extractable soluble reactive P

 

Title (a lot of topics for one title):

Restoring riparian buffer

Balancing P remediation

Biodiversity

Indigenous Land Access – not sure this was addressed

 

Hypotheses:  Plot RVM with natives and mycorrhizae would:

               -be more diverse

               -be more effective at P removal [one restored plot had reduced TP relative to control]

 

Stated research questions:

Treatment effects on:

               Diversity

               Quantity

               Culturally relevant pant materials

               Soil P

               Soil water P

 

Results:

WEP-SRP and Mehlich no significant results.

Restored plots had reduced soil TP.

TP:    RVM<OIV<RV.

Species and their parts differ in ability to take up P.  But this does not appear in the hypotheses, goals, or stated research questions.

Plants treated with mycorrhizae tended to take up more P.

Species richness increased in restored plots relative to plot overrun with R. cathartica, although with no boost by mycorrhizae.

Mycorrhizal colonization was mixed.  Inoculation seems to have decreased plant robustness, or the shade from a tree did (or the greater number of surviving spp in RVM increased interspecific competition?)  What were plant densities in the plots at planting time and later?

 

My questions:

1. Where were the planted species procured? Planted at what spacing with what soil prep?   How were the mycorrhizal products applied?

2. Line 171.  What is ¼ of the population?  Removing ¼ of each clump?   Completely coppicing ¼ of the trees of each species and leaving the others?  Evenly throughout the plots? 

3. Was trampling during coppicing a factor?

4.  Were the weeds different in the different plots?

5. Literature on P accumulating species?  E.g., willows well known P suckers.

6. Line 321 and thereafter.  Pollinators appear as a concern, but despite prominence in discussion, vaguely with no context or specificity.  What pollinators?  To pollinate what?  Honeybees? They are not native.   Does that matter?  Line 325, how do you know the restored RFB is in fact resilient with respect to pollinators?

7. More context on Abenaki in the area. How many people?  How exactly do they use the plants in question?  For what?  In what volumes? 

8. Line 361/362 citation/evidence needed. 

9. Line 372. Although R. cathartica is a very pesky unwelcome invasive exotic  it is an overstatement that it lack pollinator offerings.  I believe it attracts quite a few insects.

10. Any data/comments on birds or other wildlife?

11. Line 396 citation/evidence needed.

12. Line 579 do you mean native, not “endemic”?

Please do not take my comments to be negative or discouraging, or grumpy.   Just the opposite, there is a ton of goodness here.   Just maybe too big a bundle.   To be annoyingly redundant,  how about splitting it up with different components published separately, each tailored to the disparate vectors running though the present submission:

1. A scientific paper on P removal in relation to coppicing, with more literature review, more quantified, and with actual water data.

2. A scientific paper on diversity and mycorrhizae  (and P if appropriate) when the data are more fleshed out.   This could expand to a broader physical area.

3. A synthetic article for a general audience where opinions, speculations, value judgements, and social implications are a good fit.

I very much enjoyed this article and the quick introduction to Shelburne Farms.  Adding to the knowledge of P and buffers is timely and valuable.   Merely having access to a testing lab is an enormous opportunity for your research.   The interface of that with mycorrhizae is fascinating, although you may have jumped the gun a little on that.

Please keep up the good work. This great stuff obviously was compiled with energy, dedication, and enthusiasm.  Do energy, enthusiasm, and inspiration sometimes lead to trying to do it all all at once?

 

 

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision addresses some but all editorial problems pointed out in the review but ignores structural problems.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. We try to focus our discussion to tell a more succinct story

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review 3^rd version of:

Rubin et al, Restoring a degraded…

April 1 2024

 

As a reviewer, I’ve wrangled with this manuscript through its prior versions.   Rather than repeat some prior thoughts, which remain on the table, I’m going to try to provide as fresh a perspective as I can.  The work is fascinating and worthy, and should be published, but I wonder if a “wholistic” vision extending from rematriation to pollinators to P pollution is the right match for a scientific journal, really more a question for editors, perhaps.

Also, it worries me that the data on P removal are based on wood and soil samples as opposed to water runoff.  It goes without saying that when plants take up P and are removed, P will be seen in the cut plant tissues, and removed from the soil.  It would be more useful to see data on “water in” and “water out.”   Given the lab access, checking runoff should be within reach.   In fact, a little discussion of P dynamics in soil would help.  How important are mycos in P uptake?   How soluble are the common forms?  To what extent is  clinging to soil particles a problem?  Does it leach into groundwater?  What happens to soil P in a storm or a big snowmelt?  Is P arriving at the buffer substantial to begin with?

Something else I wonder is, much of the paper is predicated on Abenaki removal of plant material, but can that be quantified?   How much, how often, by whom, by how many people, with what commitment,  for what purposes, for how long?    Where will it go?  What becomes of the P there? That’s a huge deal it seems.  Does it depend on actual rematriation? 

The mycorrhizal results are intriguing.  Seems to me it might help to consult an expert on that subject.   I resonate with your suspicion that the commercial mix is not a great match.  But here is a question, in a natural(istic) non-horti-agricultural habitat, are added mycorrhizae necessary?  The soil will be pre-loaded with native spores/hyphae and with pre-existing plants ith mycos,  so maybe myco establishment depends on plants and conditions much more than on added fungi.  That question might be worth research there if not already settled in the literature.

The species richness figures are interesting, but 4 years is not long enough in ecological time for community assembly.    Really in 4 years much of the result would be stochastic arrivals.   Good to know, but not major news re. long-term species richness.

On line 350 is the statement “our hypothesis was that mycorrhizae helped with P mitigation.”  Pretty sure they did (as shown in Fig. 4)----but seemingly the local stuff, not so much the imports.

Line 364, could there be root competition, or allelopathy, or leafdrop from the ash in addition to shade?

The discussion of pollinators is vague.  Which?    In a big world, a narrow buffer to keep P out of the lake in a specific place makes sense of course, but is that buffer zone critical to a pollinator species not restricted to the lakeside habitat?   Helping a pollinator that can go anywhere seems relatively low priority.

The paper remains heavy on typos, unmatched parens,  and problems with plant names.  Examples are on lines: 74, 99, 108, 109, 233,  408, Table 1 (two different botanical names for “Joe Pye Weed, “ and Cornus sericea should not have capital S).     

On 289 is “and RV” missing? 

Table 4---missing italics on petiolaris.

Does “arrowood” properly have just one w?   In a reference at my elbow it has double w.

There are multiple paces where species epithets appear with a capital letter, often “Petiolaris.”  I’m retired and have not consulted the Botanical Code of Nomenclature recently, but the long-standing rule was it is always ok (best) to use a lower case letter for epithets, and permitted if one insists to use a cap if the epithet is a proper name.  The authors can check the current Code, which is online. 

So, I think:  a. This paper well illustrated would be perfect for an ecological magazine.  B. There are the makings here for some great science, but think the scientific questions need separation (at least phasing before a reunification) and then more focused data, starting with “water in” and “water out,”   then an extension of your great beginning on mycorrhizae, complete with direct expert consult.   All the ingredients are here for a fantastic outcome, but I think the recipe still needs some attention.   

Author Response

Please see Revision 4 response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf