A Comprehensive Review on Ecological Buffer Zone for Pollutants Removal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a literature review on the use of ecological buffer zones for pollutant removal. While the overall English of the manuscript is correct, the structure could be improved. The manuscript currently reads like lecture notes. Incorporating a meta-analysis with appropriate statistical tools is essential for this type of research. Additionally, the information provided lacks novelty, and some of the references are outdated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Adequate.

Author Response

General Comment: The paper is a literature review on the use of ecological buffer zones for pollutant removal. While the overall English of the manuscript is correct, the structure could be improved. The manuscript currently reads like lecture notes. Incorporating a meta-analysis with appropriate statistical tools is essential for this type of research. Additionally, the information provided lacks novelty, and some of the references are outdated.

Response: Thanks for your comments. The manuscript has been revised according to you suggestion and some references were updated, and some necessary references were remained.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following are the observations/comments on the paper:

1.       The abstract is missing methods used and overall findings of the paper.

2.       Line 33: according to reports [3]: please provide at least more references if it is "reports" or mention only "report".

3.       Line 40: I don't think to include herbicides and pesticides separately as herbicides are also pesticides.

4.       Line 42: "research reports": similar comment as of line 33.

5.       Statement of line 52-55 requires citation.

6.       Line 69, 122, 128 etc: please follow the guideline of journal for citation style, i.e., Liu et al.

7.       Line 109-110: "filtration" is used twice so delete one.

8.       Line 229: Please check the font between Figure 3 and Figure 4

9.       Line 248: Figure for phosphorus, like figure 3 of nitrogen, is suggested to include in this section, if possible.

10.    Line 360: Arundinaria gigantean is a scientific name so present accordingly. If we are using particular plant species, we might also mention specific tree species instead of forest or grass.

11.    Line 371 - : Scientific names should be written differently (please consider this suggestion throughout the paper).

12.    Line 600-601: line break not needed.

 

The paper should come up with a summary table on the parameters most important for the design or further research on ecological buffer zones for pollutant removal, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus. For example, the optimal range of buffer zone width, most suitable vegetation types, preferable slope angle, and runoff intensity, precautions for winter seasons, and highest efficiency in terms of soil composition and vegetation density (as per the recommended value from different researches).

 

The most important parameter could be the concentration of the effluents (amount of nitrogen or phosphorus in the discharged water), which is not discussed in the paper. It is better to mention the level of nitrogen or phosphorus in agricultural water that were studied at different conditions. Aren't there any paper stating the toxic effect to vegetation due to higher concentration of pollutants even in the buffer zone?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The abstract is missing methods used and overall findings of the paper.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the abstract section as you suggested. (Page 1, line 15-25)

Comment 2: Line 33: according to reports [3]: please provide at least more references if it is "reports" or mention only "report".

Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 1, line 42)

Comment 3: Line 40: I don't think to include herbicides and pesticides separately as herbicides are also pesticides.

Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 2, line 48)

Comment 4: Line 42: "research reports": similar comment as of line 33.

Response 4: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 2, line 50-52)

Comment 5: Statement of line 52-55 requires citation.

Response 5: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 2, line 62)

Comment 6: Line 69, 122, 128 etc: please follow the guideline of journal for citation style, i.e., Liu et al.

Response 6: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 3-4, line 78, 129, 135)

Comment 7: Line 109-110: "filtration" is used twice so delete one.

Response 7: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 4, line 117)

Comment 8: Line 229: Please check the font between Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Response 8: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 6, line 229)

Comment 9: Line 248: Figure for phosphorus, like figure 3 of nitrogen, is suggested to include in this section, if possible.

Response 9: Thanks for your comment. The graph of phosphorus transport and transformation was not found. However, trends in soil phosphorus under different soil compositions were added in Figure 9. (Page 14, line 501)

Comment 10: Line 360: Arundinaria gigantean is a scientific name so present accordingly. If we are using particular plant species, we might also mention specific tree species instead of forest or grass.

Response 10: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 11, line 360-362)

Comment 11: Line 371 - : Scientific names should be written differently (please consider this suggestion throughout the paper).

Response 11: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. We have carefully checked the whole text. (Page 11, line 370-373)

Comment 12: Line 600-601: line break not needed.

Response 12: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 17, line 610)

Comment 13: The paper should come up with a summary table on the parameters most important for the design or further research on ecological buffer zones for pollutant removal, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus. For example, the optimal range of buffer zone width, most suitable vegetation types, preferable slope angle, and runoff intensity, precautions for winter seasons, and highest efficiency in terms of soil composition and vegetation density (as per the recommended value from different researches).

Response 13: Thanks for your comment. A summary table of buffer zone width has been added as you suggested. (Page 10, line 345)

Comment 14: The most important parameter could be the concentration of the effluents (amount of nitrogen or phosphorus in the discharged water), which is not discussed in the paper. It is better to mention the level of nitrogen or phosphorus in agricultural water that were studied at different conditions. Aren't there any paper stating the toxic effect to vegetation due to higher concentration of pollutants even in the buffer zone?

Response 14: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. The related literature shows that the initial nitrogen and phosphorus concentration has an important effect on the purification effect of the buffer zone. (Page 16, line 582-587)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Buffer zone for avoiding pollution are cites constructed between two sides to improve water quality by capturing pollutants from surface water and shallow groundwater and absorbing excess pollutants. These serve as critical interfaces between surface water and groundwater. Present paper describes the scope of these zones. Paper is written well with latest review from published work. Quality of figures is good. However, needs revision before publication for:

-there are several mistakes in english language

-format of paper is not in justified form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Paper is written well, minor english errors found for spelling.

Author Response

General Comment: Buffer zone for avoiding pollution are cites constructed between two sides to improve water quality by capturing pollutants from surface water and shallow groundwater and absorbing excess pollutants. These serve as critical interfaces between surface water and groundwater. Present paper describes the scope of these zones. Paper is written well with latest review from published work. Quality of figures is good. However, needs revision before publication for.

Response: Thanks for your comments. Revisions were made according to specific comments from all reviewers (please see the following responses).

Comment 1: There are several mistakes in english language. Format of paper is not in justified form.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have carefully checked the whole text and format to clean up the remaining writing mistakes.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a comprehensive review of the current research on using buffer zones to remediate agricultural non-point source pollution. It is a very important issue due to reducing the negative, human influence on the environment.

The authors have comprehensively discussed aspects related to buffer zones. They presented various factors affecting their effectiveness in reducing pollutants entering watercourses and lakes such as e.g.  buffer zone width, vegetation type, slope, seasonal variation, soil variation, vegetation density…

They analyzed many scientific papers (100 items) by different authors dealing with different factors affecting buffer zones. Gathering this information in a single file will contribute to a broader understanding of the important issue of buffer zones.

The work is written in a careful way, systematizing knowledge about buffer zones in a scientific style. However, the authors did not avoid minor mistakes - mainly editorial ones.

The inclusion of figures reproduced from other works in the case of this manuscript affects the quality of the figures in which scanned descriptions are often difficult to read even when the figure is enlarged several times (e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10).

It is a good practice in scientific papers to describe (explain) the symbols and abbreviations used in the work. What is the meaning of the abbreviation GW used in Fig. 5,there is also no explanation of the symbols in the equations presented in the  Fig. 6, as well as no explanation of the symbols used in Fig. 10.

It is appropriate to write the Latin names of organisms in a uniform way, which in the work are sometimes written in italic and at other times in a plain font (lines: 241, 360, 371-374, 380, 403-404). In addition, it is necessary to give the full Latin name of organism first and only then use shortage of the part of the generic name (lines 370-374)

The author was quoted incorrectly (line 194).

In line 229, remove the Chinese character between the names of figures.

Line 369 - is LV should be Lv

Line 561 - the way the subsection is written should be corrected

Line 599 is the Buffer Zone should be the Buffer Zone

Line 601 remove the line break and connect the sentence into a whole one

Author Response

General Comment: This article provides a comprehensive review of the current research on using buffer zones to remediate agricultural non-point source pollution. It is a very important issue due to reducing the negative, human influence on the environment. The authors have comprehensively discussed aspects related to buffer zones. They presented various factors affecting their effectiveness in reducing pollutants entering watercourses and lakes such as e.g. buffer zone width, vegetation type, slope, seasonal variation, soil variation, vegetation density…. They analyzed many scientific papers (100 items) by different authors dealing with different factors affecting buffer zones. Gathering this information in a single file will contribute to a broader understanding of the important issue of buffer zones.

Response: Thanks for your comments. Revisions were made according to specific comments from all reviewers (please see the following responses).

Comment 1: The work is written in a careful way, systematizing knowledge about buffer zones in a scientific style. However, the authors did not avoid minor mistakes mainly editorial ones.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have carefully checked the whole text to clean up remaining grammar errors.

Comment 2: The inclusion of figures reproduced from other works in the case of this manuscript affects the quality of the figures in which scanned descriptions are often difficult to read even when the figure is enlarged several times (e.g. Figs. 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10).

Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have increased the resolution of all figures as you suggested.

Comment 3: It is a good practice in scientific papers to describe (explain) the symbols and abbreviations used in the work. What is the meaning of the abbreviation GW used in Fig. 5,there is also no explanation of the symbols in the equations presented in the Fig. 6, as well as no explanation of the symbols used in Fig. 10.

Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We have added an abbreviation list and provided the explanation of the symbols in the figures as you suggested. (Page 1, line ; page 9-10, line 330-331, 333-339; page 14, line 502-506; page 17, line 589-590)

Comment 4: It is appropriate to write the Latin names of organisms in a uniform way, which in the work are sometimes written in italic and at other times in a plain font (lines: 241, 360, 371-374, 380, 403-404). In addition, it is necessary to give the full Latin name of organism first and only then use shortage of the part of the generic name (lines 370-374).

Response 4: Thanks for your comment. We have revised all the Latin names as you suggested.

Comment 5: The author was quoted incorrectly (line 194).

Response 5: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 5, line 197-198)

Comment 6: In line 229, remove the Chinese character between the names of figures.

Response 6: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 6, line 229)

Comment 7: Line 369 - is LV should be Lv.

Response 7: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 11, line 369)

Comment 8: Line 561 - the way the subsection is written should be corrected.

Response 8: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 16, line 564)

Comment 9: Line 601 remove the line break and connect the sentence into a whole one.

Response 9: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 17, line 610)

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I proposed some recommendations.

P. 180 - Then their roots secrete oxygen - wrong expression.

P 234 - Denitrification and microbial assimilation are important mechanisms for nitrogen- wrong translation.

P 235 - Gu et al. argue that microbial nitrogen removal (30%) exceeds plant uptake (20%) [46], ............the nitrogen used by bacteria far exceeds it

P 360 - Arundinaria gigantea is better at...- it is written in italics Arundinaria gigantea.

P 371 - The genus and species of the plant are written in italics.

P 380 - (Salix spp) - it is written in italics Salix spp.

Author Response

General Comment: I proposed some recommendations.

Response: Thanks for your comments. Recommendations were made according to specific comments from all reviewers (please see the following responses).

Comment 1: P 180 - Then their roots secrete oxygen - wrong expression.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 5, line 184)

Comment 2: P 234 - Denitrification and microbial assimilation are important mechanisms for nitrogen.....wrong translation.

Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 6, line 233)

Comment 3: P 235 - Gu et al. argue that microbial nitrogen removal (30%) exceeds plant uptake (20%) [46], ....the nitrogen used by bacteria far exceeds it.

Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 6, line 234-235)

Comment 4: P 360 - Arundinaria gigantea is better at...- it is written in italics Arundinaria gigantea.

Response 4: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 11, line 362)

Comment 5: P 371 - The genus and species of the plant are written in italics.

Response 5: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 11, line 370-373)

Comment 6: P 380 - (Salix spp) - it is written in italics Salix spp.

Response 6: Thanks for your comment. We have revised them as you suggested. (Page 11, line 379)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Apart from some English language corrections, the authors did not add much to the manuscript. The meta-analysis, as well as the statistical tools and effort to synthesize literature results, are missing, which are necessary to give the manuscript a more scientific aspect.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Adequate

Author Response

Comment 1: Apart from some English language corrections, the authors did not add much to the manuscript. The meta-analysis, as well as the statistical tools and effort to synthesize literature results, are missing, which are necessary to give the manuscript a more scientific aspect.

Respond 1: Thanks for your comments. The manuscript has been revised as you and the editor suggested. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments made in previous review are incorporated.

Author Response

Comments 1: Comments made in previous review are incorporated.

Respond 1: Thank you very much for your help to improve our manuscript.