Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks
, Filip Harabiš 1, Milič Solský 1, Jana Doležalová 2 and Jiří Vojar 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks" has been investigated by Budská et al. The topic addressed in the manuscript is interesting but unfortunately it has been prepared in a non-scientific way, also there are some major concerns regarding the reliability of reported results as well as they are not meaningful. Accordingly, because of lack of scientific results this work is not recommended for possible publications in Water.
Author Response
Response: We are sorry that you do not find our manuscript valuable and prepared in a non-scientific way. Whereas extensive editing of English language and style was required, the text has been re-edited (finally, there were very few corrections).
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presented for a “Exceptional quality of water habitats on unreclaimed Spoil Banks” (water-1737425) described results of water quantity and characteristic of water habitats estimation between post-mining sites and the surrounding landscapes. The manuscript is well structured and well written. I recommend this article to be published on MPDI Water after performing some minor revisions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
· In section 2.3, lines 110-115, the authors described the methodology for determining the aquatic vegetation proportion in the analysed reservoirs. However, in the Results and as well in Discussion sections, these results are very barely commented. I suggest considering modifications to the section devoted to the research methodology or commenting on the obtained results in more detail.
· Please consider changing the numbering of the Tables. In the manuscript text the Table 3 is refer earlier than Table 2. It is customary to number the Tables in the order in which they are cited.
· In my opinion, the description of Table 3 should be improved that the information on the percentage share of the selected groups of water bodies was clearer.
· The article would make the introduction of additional charts easier to analyse the presented data. This is a debatable remark.
· Add some lines in the conclusion section suggesting future studies in this area.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #2 Comments
The article presented for a “Exceptional quality of water habitats on unreclaimed Spoil Banks” (water-1737425) described results of water quantity and characteristic of water habitats estimation between post-mining sites and the surrounding landscapes. The manuscript is well structured and well written. I recommend this article to be published on MPDI Water after performing some minor revisions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Point 1: In section 2.3, lines 110-115, the authors described the methodology for determining the aquatic vegetation proportion in the analysed reservoirs. However, in the Results and as well in Discussion sections, these results are very barely commented. I suggest considering modifications to the section devoted to the research methodology or commenting on the obtained results in more detail.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. In the Results chapter, we focus on aquatic vegetation similarly to other assessed factors (pond area, depth, slope of embankments, insolation of water surface), see lines 202–205. Regarding the Discussion chapter, aquatic vegetation is discussed in the context of embankments slope factor as steep banks can limit the development of littoral vegetation (see lines 300–307). We concluded that “Water bodies with gently sloping embankments and partially developed aquatic vegetation prevailed in most of the assessed landscapes, excluding meadow and pasture and agriculture landscapes, and thus potentially providing suitable conditions for many freshwater taxa.“ Furthermore, based on your recommendations, these results have been commented on in more detail in the Discussion section (see lines 326–333).
Point 2: Please consider changing the numbering of the Tables. In the manuscript text the Table 3 is refer earlier than Table 2. It is customary to number the Tables in the order in which they are cited.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right. We removed the reference to Table 3 from the Methods section as it was unnecessary (see line 106). The order of links to tables should be OK now.
Point 3: In my opinion, the description of Table 3 should be improved that the information on the percentage share of the selected groups of water bodies was clearer.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added the explanation about percentages to the legend and also the percentage symbol to the corresponding values directly in table.
Point 4: The article would make the introduction of additional charts easier to analyse the presented data. This is a debatable remark.
Response 4: We added additional charts as it was proposed (see Figure 3). Thank you for that comment.
Point 5: Add some lines in the conclusion section suggesting future studies in this area.
Response 5: The suggestions for future studies have been included in the Conclusion (see lines 366–368).
Reviewer 3 Report
In general, this manuscript is very well prepared and fits the theme of this journal. The manuscript highlights the role of spoil banks in the restoration of post-mining landscapes, which are essential for the conservation of freshwater habitats.
The description in the introduction, methodology, results of the study, and discussion is also clear. The sample of the study was also adequate and well analysed. I would suggest that some minor improvements can be made as follows;
Figure 2 and Tables 2 & 3. A brief reference to AG = agricultural landscape, FR = forest landscape, MN, ST, TR, and TU should be added below the figure so that the reader does not have to keep referring to Figure 1.
In Table 3 further explanation should be given for [%], ( ) 'does it mean SD / SE or etc' and the values 9, 44, 38, 6, 0 and 51, etc and does it show 'mean'? Please check other Tables as well.
I would suggest that the Results and Discussion sections be merged (but this depends on the format of the journal). If the existing format is retained, the sub-topic needs to be aligned with the result.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #3 Comments
In general, this manuscript is very well prepared and fits the theme of this journal. The manuscript highlights the role of spoil banks in the restoration of post-mining landscapes, which are essential for the conservation of freshwater habitats. The description in the introduction, methodology, results of the study, and discussion is also clear. The sample of the study was also adequate and well analysed. I would suggest that some minor improvements can be made as follows:
Point 1: Figure 2 and Tables 2 & 3. A brief reference to AG = agricultural landscape, FR = forest landscape, MN, ST, TR, and TU should be added below the figure so that the reader does not have to keep referring to Figure 1.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added brief explanations below Figures and to both Tables.
Point 2: In Table 3 further explanation should be given for [%], ( ) 'does it mean SD / SE or etc' and the values 9, 44, 38, 6, 0 and 51, etc and does it show 'mean'? Please check other Tables as well.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We agree that the description in the legend of Table 3 was confusing. The numbers in brackets were percentages. We added the explanation about it to the legend and also the percentage symbol to the corresponding values directly in table.
Point 3: I would suggest that the Results and Discussion sections be merged (but this depends on the format of the journal). If the existing format is retained, the sub-topic needs to be aligned with the result.
Response 3: Regarding the merging of the Results and Discussion sections, we would like to keep them separate. However, we have consolidated the structure of these chapters and unified the titles of the subchapters. Thank you for your comment, the current structure of the text will be easier to understand for the readers.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled "Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks" has been revised by Budská et al. Unfortunately, there are still major concerns regarding this work. As already discussed, the draft has been prepared in a non-scientific way, also there are some major issues concerning the reliability of reported results as well as they are not meaningful. Accordingly, because of lack of scientific results this work is not recommended for possible publications in Water.
