Paludiculture in Latvia—Existing Knowledge and Challenges

Reviewer1

Response

The Latvian study is comprehensive, yet the article should make reference to existing studies on palediculture, e.g. Joosten et al., 2016, Lahtinen et al., 2022 and after use of peatlands in Estonia, Finland, Sweden Ireland, or Canada, e.g. Räsänen et al., 2023, Yli-Petäys et al., 2007, Kozlov et al., 2016, Renou et al., 2006. 

Thank you for your suggestion. We now added listed references to the text.

Abstract would require restructuring and part of the writing lacks coherence.

Abstract has been updated now.

Re-number the chapters so that there is first a methods chapter, which introduces the study in chapter 2 and results in chapter 3.

Chapters re-numbered.

Row 49: Latvia, located in North-Eastern Europe, benefits from superb climatic conditions… superb for what? Refer to temperate climatic conditions or boreal zone, which is good for peat growth.

Text changed: “hemiboreal zone”.

Row 88: Surrounding by is repeated.

Noted. Changed.

Rows 277-281. “Permanent grassland is…” Split this into 2 sentences. Mention first that Reed canary grass grassland is classified as permanent grassland and then provide definition of that.

Modified.

Row 288: “…is currently working on implementing…” is currently implementing.

Changed.

Row 208: “human food It…” Point is missing.

Sentence modified.

Rows 338-353. This is novel information and should be provided when introducing the Latvian study in chapter 2. 

Thank you for suggestion. In this case we would like to link this information with a particular paludiculture. In the results section, when listing each paludiculture taxa, information on implementation is provided with a subsequent additional relevant information.

Rows 380-382: Where is this information from and is it relevant for the focus of the discussion?

Thank you for comment. Discussion now has been modified.

Reviewer2

However, the presentation of costs is not the same for each example - it would be helpful if they were shown consistently as  €/ha and (if possible) broken down by category (e.g., as for Sphagnum).  If this is not possible, then we should say so (nothing is shown at all for wet meadows).  Similarly, it would be helpful to have some figures on revenues and profitability - presumably much depends on market prices for outputs? Indeed, some more could be said about the challenges of achieving profitable paludiculture and the role of government support (as with reed canary grass).

Thank you for this suggestion. It is pity though that there are no equal knowledge about the paludiculture field establishment in Latvia. This is mainly because there is unbalance towards Sphagnum farming, i.e., no other costs can be provided at similar depth. Further it is also a question of how good companies are recording exact prices for establishing paludiculture sites. Thus far only about the Sphagnum we have clear numbers. This situation most likely will change in near future, but at this time, we show what we have. This also includes information on revenues and profitability. As there is no enough material of paludiculture, there is no clear market for these products (except of Sphagnum which can be partially incorporated into substrates but not substitute them yet). That said, giving a revenues and profitability with exact numbers would be highly speculative. At this point, it is important to up-scale paludiculture practices that would provide in depth information on establishment and then we can estimate also revenues and profitability, i.e., as soon there is enough material that can be sold.

1) The article seeks to present an overview of the current status of paludiculture in Latvia. Its main strength is in collating and summarising available data and publications to usefully describe different forms of paludiculture and their potential, leading to some reasonable overall conclusions.

Thank you for encouragement.

2) Its main weakness is inconsistency in the level of detail offered for each form of paludiculture described, although this is likely to reflect differences in the availability of data (especially for costs).’

Indeed. While we were preparing this article, we found that there is uneven information and knowledge available regarding different paludicultures.

3) It would be helpful if Table 1 for sphagnum could be repeated for each of the other forms of paludiculture too, to show the same level of detail for costs in each case. Equally, it would be helpful to show estimated revenues (including subsidies) and profitability for each form. If these suggested additions are not possible because of data limitations, then this needs to be acknowledged explicitly. Separately, it would be helpful if an extra column could be added to Table 2 to summarise the combined net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) value of the three individual gases.

Thank you for the suggestion. We added net carbon dioxide equivalent in a separate column.

The paper would benefit from a final proof read by a native English speaker - although the text is easy enough to follow there are a few incorrect words and some odd grammar in places.

Additional proof reading has been done.