Peat Formation in Rewetted Fens as Reflected by Saturated n-Alkyl Acid Concentrations and Patterns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Method should be written clearly and the year take sampling and the date should be the same not different
please refer to the attached report to make a further revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript,to shed light on the complex processes of peat degradation or new formation under dry or rewetting conditions,the authors investigated and quantified saturated n-alkyl acids as an indicator compound class of peatlands response to the contrasting management pratices.The concentrations of saturated n-alkyl acids from two soil layers of the drained and rewetted were determined in two soil layers of drained and rewetted Alder Carr forest,coastal peatland and percolation mire with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.The manuscript is well-organized and clearly stated.I would suggest accepting it after the following minor concerns are addressed.

1 I think you should express the research significance of this article more clearly.

2 The authors seem to disregard or neglect some important results that have been recently achieved in this specific field.

Author Response

1 I think you should express the research significance of this article more clearly.

Reply: We have explained the novelty and meaning of the research explicitely; see end of Discussion, lines 307-309. Also see Conclusion (2), lines 320-324. More explicite statements are not possible from our point of view, because these are sample pairs from three sites only (limited experimental base for a wider generalization). Thus, even if we are convinced about the novelty of our findings, we explain these with caution as we cannot exclude that other sites may yield other findings on the role of fatty acids.

2 The authors seem to disregard or neglect some important results that have been recently achieved in this specific field.

Reply: We did wide literature searches using SCOPUS and tried to involve all relevant publications. Without more specific advide we cannot adequately respond to the rather vague comment of reviewer ("seem to have neglected ..."). If we get a hint with publications the reviewer has in mind, then we are more than willing to include these in our discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the study under consideration, the authors explored and measured saturated n-alkyl acids as a representative group of compounds to assess how peatlands respond to different management practices. They used gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine the concentrations of saturated n-alkyl acids in two soil layers of both drained and rewetted areas in the Alder Carr forest, coastal peatland, and percolation mire. Although the paper holds potential interest for the journal's readers, there are certain concerns that need to be addressed before further consideration of the manuscript:

·       I recommend that the authors refrain from employing abbreviations within the abstract.

·       The authors should consider rephrasing L14 to L16 starting from “The concentration”….., to …… “spectrometry (GC/MS)”.

·       Why are there two introductions and lists of keywords? The authors should check and revise accordingly.

·       In order to assist the reader, it is recommended to divide the materials and methods section into subsections based on the specific activities performed. For example, these subsections may include the case study description, experimental setup, analytical methods, and so forth.

·       The sample collection description is insufficient. How did you store the samples? What were the quality assurance procedures followed? How did you prepare the samples before analysis?

·       Were the pH measurements in-situ or the samples were transported to the lab? In case of transporting the samples to the lab, could there be any other chemical reactions during the transportation and storage time to affect the original state of the samples?

·       How did you take care of potential contamination or bias during the sampling process?

·       The conclusion section needs to be structured as a single paragraph, focusing on the objective, approach, merits of the results, novelty of the work, and potential future applications.

 

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Author´s rebuttal: We deleted abbreviations in the abstract.

• The authors should consider rephrasing L14 to L16 starting from “The concentration”….., to …… “spectrometry (GC/MS)”.

Author´s rebuttal: We rephrased to improve readability (2 sentences)

• Why are there two introductions and lists of keywords? The authors should check and revise accordingly.

Author´s rebuttal: Indeed 2 times Intro and Keywords. Each one deleted.

• In order to assist the reader, it is recommended to divide the materials and methods section into subsections based on the specific activities performed. For example, these subsections may include the case study description, experimental setup, analytical methods, and so forth.

Author´s rebuttal: We divided into two subchapters.

• The sample collection description is insufficient. How did you store the samples? What were the quality assurance procedures followed? How did you prepare the samples before analysis?
• Were the pH measurements in-situ or the samples were transported to the lab? In case of transporting the samples to the lab, could there be any other chemical reactions during the transportation and storage time to affect the original state of the samples?

Author´s rebuttal: We explained in methods section that we undertook measures to minimize any undesired alterations in soil properties. lns 129-133

• How did you take care of potential contamination or bias during the sampling process?

Author´s rebuttal: We added some text on these issues. In fact, we used plastic bags that are inert in terms of our analytical approach and we tried to maintain moisture and redox status until sample processing in the lab. lns 129-133

•      The conclusion section needs to be structured as a single paragraph, focusing on the objective, approach, merits of the results, novelty of the work, and potential future applications.

Author´s rebuttal: This is the reviewers view. The corresponding author PL has served as editor of an international journal for some years and he is author and co-author of more than 300 international publications. Based on this wealth of expertise in publishing, we prefer the structuring of conclusions in the way we did it. This issue is a matter of individual preferences and not of scientific dispute.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author´s rebuttal: We did some amendments of language.

Reviewer 4 Report

The overall quality of the paper is very good; besides a few details, the paper is clear and well-supported. I see no reason not to accept the manuscript for publication in Land, subject to a few minor corrections (Section by section)

Abstract:

- In the abstract, you mentioned that alterations in the quality of soil organic matter are not well known. Could you elaborate on how the findings of your study contribute to a better understanding of these alterations, particularly under different management practices?

- It would be helpful to understand the rationale behind choosing Alder Carr forest, coastal peatland, and percolation mire as the specific study sites. What aspects of these sites make them suitable for investigating the effects of different management practices on peatlands?

 

Introduction:

- Authors should explain the specific research hypotheses.

- L 113: "...Except for the few cited studies...". Add related references again.

 

Results:

- Table 2: Add standard error of each parameter to the table.

- Table 3 and Figure 3: Authors can use ANOVA statistical test to determine significant differences among treatments.

 

Discussion:

- What are the research limitations and future directions? Please add a paragraph to address them. 

 

Author Response

Abstract:

- In the abstract, you mentioned that alterations in the quality of soil organic matter are not well known. Could you elaborate on how the findings of your study contribute to a better understanding of these alterations, particularly under different management practices?

Author´s rebuttal: We added the phrase “… input … necromass to soil organic matter in the rewetted …, irrespective of fenland type.”, which is the main new finding (l 24, l 26). This should be sufficient for Abstract; more is explained in the Conclusions section.

- It would be helpful to understand the rationale behind choosing Alder Carr forest, coastal peatland, and percolation mire as the specific study sites. What aspects of these sites make them suitable for investigating the effects of different management practices on peatlands?

Author´s rebuttal: We added some text, explaining the rationale (l 107-111).

“These study sites were chosen because they represent the most important fenland types in Northeastern Germany, and because large areas of these fenland types have been systematically rewetted since the late 1990ies. This situation enabled us to select nearby pairs of sampling sites that are either drained or rewetted, thus showing great similarity in almost all other site characteristics.”

 

Introduction:

- Authors should explain the specific research hypotheses.

Author´s rebuttal: Hypotheses are explained at l 97-100.

- L 113: "...Except for the few cited studies...". Add related references again.

Author´s rebuttal: We added the relevant references. l. 93

 

Results:

- Table 2: Add standard error of each parameter to the table.

Author´s rebuttal:

- Table 3 and Figure 3: Authors can use ANOVA statistical test to determine significant differences among treatments.

Author´s rebuttal: ANOVA is not possible for our complete data set. However, we added this: “For statistical analysis an ANOVA was calculated using R 4.3.0.” (in Methods), and “A two-way ANOVA of the ratio long to short chain alkyl acids with the factors “site” and “rewetting” showed an influence of rewetting at p = 0.0554”. (in Results, lns 216-216)

 

Discussion:

- What are the research limitations and future directions? Please add a paragraph to address them. 

Author´s rebuttal: We added a relevant paragraph, l 290-297.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors, I have carefully read your manuscript, and I think that it needs major revisions in terms of the structure of the text and the presentation of the results, etc., while I also have concerns about the logic on which the study was set up. In particular, the fact that only a few soil properties have been identified, with many of the properties not identified or presented being expected to interpret the results presented differently, leads me to the opinion that the paper in its current form should be rejected.

Author Response

Author´s rebuttal: Dear reviewer 5, dear journal editors: The corresponding author, past Vice President of the German Soil Science Society and researching in soil sciences for more than 30 years, is aware of not a single published study in soil sciences that reported more than a few of the hundreds if not thousands of soil properties that potentially can be investigated. Measuring and publishing only a few soil properties is the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, we reject this criticism as not substantiated.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Author´s rebuttal: Dear reviewer 5, dear journal editors: The corresponding author, past Vice President of the German Soil Science Society and researching in soil sciences for more than 30 years, is aware of not a single published study in soil sciences that reported more than a few of the hundreds if not thousands of soil properties that potentially can be investigated. Measuring and publishing only a few soil properties is the rule rather than the exception. Therefore, we reject this criticism as not substantiated.

Response: Dear Authors, in my opinion, the characterization of basic soil properties is essential to giving interpretations concerning soil chemistry. It's my opinion, and it's not criticism. I am not reviewing Authors CV and working experience. As far as I know, soil also has inorganic components besides C, N, and organic matter contents. In any case, from my side, I think that the manuscript should be accepted in its current form.