The Soil Environment of Abandoned Charcoal Kiln Platforms in a Low-Altitude Central European Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents soil property data from several historic charcoal kiln sites in a temperate forest ecosystem. The study investigated soil physical, chemical, and biochemical properties of several kiln sites and compared them to control sites. The research is interesting, well executed, and the manuscript is written well. The work will be a good contribution to the science of understanding how charcoal affects soil properties, particular forest soils, over long periods (kilns are 70-150 years old). Investigating long-term effects of charcoal on soil is important, and the data will be valuable for many sub-disciplines. I have a few critiques and suggestions to improve the study and manuscript that the authors should consider.

They have not cited a similar study done by Cheng et al. (Cheng, C.-H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E., and Burton, S. D. (2008), Stability of black carbon in soils across a climatic gradient, J. Geophys. Res., 113, G02027, doi:10.1029/2007JG000642) who investigated soil properties at historic blast furnaces.

While some of the data have been analyzed for significant differences, the vast majority are missing statistical tests of differences (Figure 3, Tables 2, 3 and Figure 4). There needs to be statistical difference tests for these soil properties to report if differences are significant, and the results description need to state that differences are significantly greater or less than each other, or not. Tests were done for data in Table 4 and 5 and Figures 6, 7, and 8. Why not the other soil data?

Line 265 This sentence does not make sense. What are “balanced soil chemical properties”? How can you generalize all the soil properties as “lower soil reaction values”. This description is not scientifically accurate. Please revise to be more specific and technically correct.

On line 379 it is stated that P availability is higher. On line 393 it states that available P is similar. First, there needs to be a stat test to support if differences are significant, and second, the results description needs to be corrected to be consistent.

Author Response

We agreed with almost all the points raised and, as such, have done our best to address all the objections; where we did not fully agree, we have provided our reasons for doing so. We hope that this meets with the reviewer’s expectations.

Whole the text has been again precisely checked by native British English speaker.

We hope that the manuscript now meets the requirements of the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Due to the review time is overdue, I take a very fast look throughout the manuscript. The presented ms is well prepared, one more small suggestion is that the number of references is a little bit more. Please check and cite the most relevant ones.

Author Response

We agreed with almost all the points raised and, as such, have done our best to address all the objections; where we did not fully agree, we have provided our reasons for doing so. We hope that this meets with the reviewer’s expectations.

Whole the text has been again precisely checked by native British English speaker.

We hope that the manuscript now meets the requirements of the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

We agreed with almost all the points raised and, as such, have done our best to address all the objections; where we did not fully agree, we have provided our reasons for doing so. We hope that this meets with the reviewer’s expectations.

Whole the text has been again precisely checked by native British English speaker.

We hope that the manuscript now meets the requirements of the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 I disagree that the 2008 Cheng et al. paper is not relevant, many of the sites included were in forest and the furnace charcoal comparison to surrounding soil is directly relevant. I also remain confused on lack of statistical tests for some properties, but will defer to the authors' expertise and detailed knowledge of experimental systems. The revised manuscript is in good condition and should be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

No