Evaluation of Vegetation Restoration along an Expressway in a Cold, Arid, and Desertified Area of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I think that the article is basically OK, there are minor issues that are only the results of text formulation and some clarification of basic definitions solve the problematic part. This way it looks major problem but I think it is mostly text editing and rephrasing. Basically.
The abstract must be revised tremendously, I think. It should look like a small article, you need to tell the readers about your aims, methods, results and conclusions, a little bit of everything.
But, it is more problematic, that you list certain things and tell the readers only about part of it, while you tell results about nutrients that was not listed as something to investigate.Furthermore, water content was not described either. I would ecpectit as the article is about an arid area. This is what the title is suggesting.
I miss the slope steepness data among the inputs.
You most likely use SOM as nutrient status indicator but SOM itself is not covering all nutrients so it des not reflect the status of the nutrients so these parts must be rephrased!
This result some issues in the conslucion part as well.
I miss the evaluation of the soil water and wind erosion amounts. Are they big or small, or medium? This evaluation should place the differences between the study sites in context.
See my detailed comments in the attached pdf.
Regards, Reviewer No?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of vegetation restoration along an expressway in a cold, arid, and desertified area of China” (sustainability-483278). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording. Certification is attached. We also expended part of the experiment design and results providing details in the current version. Besides, our current manuscript followed the guideline of sustainability. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes (Manuscript_Marked version).docx.
Open Review 1#
1) I think that the article is basically OK, there are minor issues that are only the results of text formulation and some clarification of basic definitions solve the problematic part. This way it looks major problem but I think it is mostly text editing and rephrasing. Basically.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We revised it in terms of the comments as follows:
2) The abstract must be revised tremendously, I think. It should look like a small article, you need to tell the readers about your aims, methods, results and conclusions, a little bit of everything. But, it is more problematic, that you list certain things and tell the readers only about part of it, while you tell results about nutrients that was not listed as something to investigate. Furthermore, water content was not described either. I would ecpect it as the article is about an arid area. This is what the title is suggesting.
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We added more things, especially the soil water and soil erosion in the abstract of the in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 18-29)
3) I miss the slope steepness data among the inputs.
Response: Thanks for the comment. The slopes of highway are generally expressed by slope ratio, and the slope ratio was showing in the Table 1 in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 3, Line 109)
4) You most likely use SOM as nutrient status indicator but SOM itself is not covering all nutrients so it des not reflect the status of the nutrients so these parts must be rephrased!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. The nutrient status really can't be replaced by SOM alone, we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 23)
5) This result some issues in the conslucion part as well.
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the conclusion in latest version of the manuscript (Page 12, Line 340-355)
6) I miss the evaluation of the soil water and wind erosion amounts. Are they big or small, or medium? This evaluation should place the differences between the study sites in context.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. According to the classification of soil erosion intensity in China (SL190-2007), this area is moderately affected by soil erosion. We added this part in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 10, Line 300-301)
7) See my detailed comments in the attached pdf.
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the detailed comments in the attached pdf as following:
8) L14，“…volume weight of the soil (VWS), soil water content (SWC), 14 total porosity of soil (TP), soil organic matter (SOM), water erosion (WrE), and wind erosion (WdE) …” Not all is analysed in the abstract!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We added the details of SWC, WrE and WdE in the abstract of the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 19-20, Line 27-29)
9) L17, “…in S1, S5, S2, S6, S4, and S8…”, why listed randomly, why not in order?
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the order in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 19-20)
10) L20, “…Some soils had relatively low compactness, which is more suitable for plant growth…” Very vague this way. Relatively: compared to what? Relatively low compactness is a more suitable status for plant growth in general but without a certain figure, it is difficult to judge!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We deleted the sentence in the abstract of the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 19-20, Line 27-29)
11) L20, “…nutrient levels…” was not listed as to be investigated!!! please correct the list!
Response: Thanks for the comment. We revised it in the abstract of the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 24)
12) L33-34, “…Because of the challenging conditions on expressway slopes, the soil structure is largely destroyed, with low levels of available nutrients …”I do not understand! There are challanging conditions. OK. Soil structure is largely destroyed. OK, but are we talking about soil here? Because in the following sentence you are talking about the cutting slope! So there we do not expect an original soil, right? How the nutrients are coming into the picture? Is it caused by the construction or was it low level before?
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. In this place, we were major talking about soil, and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 37-39)
13) L39, “…due to the high wind…”, wind speed, I guess
Response: Thanks for the comment. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 54)
14) L82-83, “…The soil is mainly weathered rock soil, coarse silty soil, collapsible loess, and liquefaction soil of saline soil with sandy soil…”, according to which soil classification? please tell the readers!
Response: Thank you for the comment. The soil classification were referenced to China Soil Classification System and we added the details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 89)
15) L89, “… the developers such mitigating measures such as filling the slopes…” please rephrase!
Response: Thanks for the comment. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 3, Line 98-100)
16) L115, “…cleaned the water…”was it dirty? why did you clean it?
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 129)
17) L115, “…immediately…”you do not always have to state that "immediately". If you say you place it somewhere and weigh it, it means that right there. If you say you weigh after 12 or 24 hours, we know the timing again. No need for "immadietaley" - I think.
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 129)
18) L117 “…immediately after 12 h…”either immediately or after 12h - cannot be both!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 131)
19) L117, “Penetration”, Penetration might not be the best wording here!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. It is placed and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 131)
20) L120, “…immediately…”
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 134)
21) L136, “…sulfuric acid…” %?
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. The concentration of sulphuric acid is 95%. We added the details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 5, Line 150).
22) L194, “3.1. Basic meteorological characteristics”, all basic geomorphology and meteorology and pedology must go to materials and methods, as this was not the very purpose of the study, and as this is belongs to the description of the area! There is already basic meteo data in 2.1. chapter!!!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. The basic meteorological characteristics of study area in 2.1 chapter was the average meteorological conditions for many years. But this may be particularly special during the observation period. Thus, we also showed the meteorological characteristics during the study period.
23) L209, “…mechanical composition of the soil improves [27]…”please be more critical as this is not necesserily true! need more citation here, sand can be loose and can be compacted as well. Clay is not really known to have superial mechanical composition, rather vice versa!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We revised the sentence and added more references in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 223-224).
24) L210, “soil article” maybe is particle
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We replaced the“soil article” with “particle” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 225).
25) L210, “…2 mm-64 mm, it is called “gravel…”It is true from this approach that gravel is not a favorable mechanical composition but earthen part of the soil is below 2 mm, so when you analyse "soil", you must mean particles below 2 mm. Gravel is gravel and not soil! So, be careful with texting!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We replaced the“soil article” with “particle” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 226).
26) L211 instead of soil, here you can use sample
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We replaced the“soil” with “particle of a sample” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 226).
27) L216, “…S1, S2, S3, S7, and S8….” these are 5 treatments and we have only 4 figures!!!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We were sorry for the missing data, and we added it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 231).
28) L218, “…0.001-0.005 mm and of < 0.001 mm were 39.52 and 38.65%...” both categories contained the same % until the 2nd digit for both sites???? I do not believe it!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. It is truly as the manuscript showed that the proportions of particles with a diameter of < 0.005 mm were 39.52 and 38.65%, respectively, in the treatments S4 and S5. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 233-234).
29) L219, a previous study where?
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We added the references in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 233-234).
30) L220, “…this was not only the case for the surface area…”??? what do you mean "surface area"???
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. It means “soil layers”. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 237).
31) L221, “Generally” Generally they don't where I live. Please specify!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 237)
32) L223, “…facilitating surface runoff and, consequently, erosion…”It is not obvious as clayey soils are sticky, and thus it does not necesserily favor for soil water erosion!!!
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We deleted “and, consequently, erosion…” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 4, Line 134)
33) Line 224, “…reasonable…”, I would say favorable!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 240)
34) L226, “Generally” again, you must state that generally at the site of investigation
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 243)
35) Line 228, “soil” is sample?
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We replaced the“soil” with “particle of a sample” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 7, Line 245).
36) L231, “± SD” Normally there is a +/- but you do not have it. You have only the figures and one can calcuate the +/- if wanted. But, this figure is not the one you need if you wanted to ass SD values for each site!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We deleted “± SD” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 8, Line 248)
37) L231, “soil” is sample?
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We replaced the“soil” with “particle of a sample” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 8, Line 248).
38) L257, “…This might be explained with the high evaporation in the surface soil…”The previous sentence finished with SOM, now you explain the reason of its decrease with evaporation? Yo do not, I understand but it does look like, as you refer to your previous statement as "This"!!!! Separate the two, or state that you talk about SWC here!!!On the one hand. On the other hand, if you sample contains a lot of gravel and a lot of sand, it is obvious that water infiltrates quite easily, so you will not be able to measure higher amount close to the surface, it will more likely be in the deeper layers!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We explained the variation of soil water content and SOM more clearly in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 9, Line 275-278)
39) L265, “…57.5% lower than that of S8…”, Little is little, no matter the difference. If it does not reach the level of the lowest category of any related standard, there is no need for further analyses, I think....
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 9, Line 285)
40) L268, “rendering them unsuitable for plant growth” It is true that these conditions are not favorable for plant growth but plants, even trees and bushes are tend to grow in cracks of cement and limestone and basalt rocks equally. I would emphasize the impacts of othe conditions (low precipitation, long freezing period, water and wind erosion etc.), so not only the lack of nutrients and SOM is limiting. Limitation belongs to the fact that we are in a cold and dry desert. It explains a lot! I would search an explanation of why the original vegetation climay cannot be reached! Do they want more to reach than the original vegetation? What are the differences in the given conditions along the construction area that lead to unsuccess of this revegetation process?
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We added more details to explain the plant growth in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 9, Line 288-291)
41) L276, “t/km2”, normally in water and wind erosion studies it is given in t/ha which is easy as you only devide by 100 and you have the figure.
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We changed the “t/km2” to “t/ha” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 10, Line 299-300)
42) L276, “soil erosion”, you mean wind erosion, right?
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. It means wind erosion and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 10, Line 299)
43) L296, “treatments”, I would not say treatments as these were only sites with different properties of soil, geomorphology and meteorology etc.
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We changed the “treatments” to “conditions” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 11, Line 322)
44) L306, “ri and Wi”, What are these? No explanation is given in the table caption, nor in the text of this subchapter! Please explain!
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We added more details of“ri and Wi” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 11, Line 337-338)
45) L309, “…and plant species...” ???
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 12, Line 341)
46) L310, “with a” resulting in???
Response: Thanks for the valuable comment. We changed the “with a” to “resulting in” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 12, Line 342)
47) L311, “…fertilizer…”, we do not know anything about the amount of fertilizer used and lost so a conclusion can not be made, it is an assumption...
Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 12, Line 343)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article Evaluation of vegetation restoration along an expressway in a cold, arid, and desertified area of China (article ID 483278) presents a study regarding the vegetation restoration along an expressway in China and tries to explain different soil properties using the gray correlation method.
At this stage, I would recommend a major revision; the manuscript tackles an issue that is highly important and actual, as the infrastructure project become more and more “popular”. The article is well written, so is the English of the manuscript. However, I have some concerns that are addressed below:
L6-8: author details are to be filled in completely for all authors (department/faculty and institution); check the instructions for authors!!
Abstract
L16: I think you should write the method as “Gray Correlation Method” (GCM) and use the initial through all the manuscript
L17: S1….S8; from what does “S” stands for? Maybe “sample”?? please, specify
L25: you write all the keywords with caps lock or you don’t; I do not see a reason why did you wrote “Expressway” with caps lock
Introduction
The Introduction section needs a bit more attention, in the sense that the problem is not properly explained. Try to expand this section and to present the reader the global issue related to this approach. Also, the international part of the introduction has only 9 rows, then you immediately refer to China. I am sure there are many references related to this issue. Try expanding this section
L37: replace “forms” with “initiates”
L38-39: “due to the high wind” – I think this is redundant, as you already mentioned wind erosion; please, delete this part
L54: “esp.” – what does this mean?
L60: same as L54
L64: is it “Gray Correlation Method” or “Gray Relational Degree Method”? Please stick to one version and keep it for the whole manuscript
Section 2.1. Study sites should be a separate section; then section 2. Materials and Methods should be in Section 3. Please correct
L72: correct is “study area is located along the Dahu...”
All the information provided from L72-86 is good, but a map showing all of these elements is a must. Including a map with the geographical location of the study area, and main geomorphic units. Please add references for the description provided; from where did you took all those numbers? Also, some photos taken in the field would be highly indicated
L88-90: please correct this sentence, it does not sound right
L84, L93: some photos of those plant species would have a higher impact, so please do correct this
Table 1: column 1 in the table is redundant, as the numbers coincide with the second column
Section 2.3: also, some photos from the lab experiment are highly indicated
L134: the comma is not necessary
Section 2.4.4: please, provide some references for the soil erosion
L210: I think you mean “soil particle” and not “soil article”
Results and discussion section: will your results will be shared with the local authorities or not? You should discuss a bit your discoveries and how could they be applied in the future infrastructure projects in China/rest of the world. How can this study be sustainable for the economy, soil erosion prevention measures etc. For this, you should make a separate section with Discussions.
Author’s contribution was not approached; please, resolve this issue.
References: after the journal name, there is no full stop. Please adhere to the journal style. Also, at the end of each reference, you should add the word “doi”, not just write the “doi” number. Please, correct for all the references. Also, the issue number should be in italic.
Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Evaluation of vegetation restoration along an expressway in a cold, arid, and desertified area of China” (sustainability-483278). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We employed an English-language editing service Mogo Edit to polish our wording. Certification is attached. We also expended part of the experiment design and results providing details in the current version. Besides, our current manuscript followed the guideline of sustainability. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red throughout the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the Responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
NOTE: All the Page and Line numbers where revisions were made refer to the Manuscript with marked changes (Manuscript_Marked version).docx.
Open Review 2
1) At this stage, I would recommend a major revision; the manuscript tackles an issue that is highly important and actual, as the infrastructure project become more and more “popular”. The article is well written, so is the English of the manuscript. However, I have some concerns that are addressed below:
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions to revise the manuscript. We revised it in terms of the comments as follows:
2) L6-8: author details are to be filled in completely for all authors (department/faculty and institution); check the instructions for authors!!
Response: Thanks for your comments. We added the author details in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 1, Line 7)
3) L16: I think you should write the method as “Gray Correlation Method” (GCM) and use the initial through all the manuscript
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this in the latest version of the manuscript.
4) L17: S1….S8; from what does “S” stands for? Maybe “sample”?? please, specify
Response: Thanks for your comments. The “S” was “site”, and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 18)
5) L25: you write all the keywords with caps lock or you don’t; I do not see a reason why did you wrote “Expressway” with caps lock
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 30)
6) The Introduction section needs a bit more attention, in the sense that the problem is not properly explained. Try to expand this section and to present the reader the global issue related to this approach. Also, the international part of the introduction has only 9 rows, then you immediately refer to China. I am sure there are many references related to this issue. Try expanding this section
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 53-54)
7) L37: replace “forms” with “initiates”
Response: Thank you for your comments. We replace “forms” with “initiates” in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 1, Line 42)
8) L38-39: “due to the high wind” – I think this is redundant, as you already mentioned wind erosion; please, delete this part
Response: Thanks for your comments. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 44)
9) L54, L60: “esp.” – what does this mean?
Response: Thanks for your comments. The “esp.” was the “especially” in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 60)
10) L64: is it “Gray Correlation Method” or “Gray Relational Degree Method”? Please stick to one version and keep it for the whole manuscript
Response: Thank you for your comments. The “Gray Relational Degree Method” was “Gray Correlation Method”, and we revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 70)
11) Section 2.1. Study sites should be a separate section; then section 2. Materials and Methods should be in Section 3. Please correct
Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 76)
12) L72: correct is “study area is located along the Dahu...”
Response: Thank you for your comments. We correct it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 2, Line 78)
13) All the information provided from L72-86 is good, but a map showing all of these elements is a must. Including a map with the geographical location of the study area, and main geomorphic units. Please add references for the description provided; from where did you took all those numbers? Also, some photos taken in the field would be highly indicated
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a map of study area in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 95)
14) L88-90: please correct this sentence, it does not sound right
Response: Thank you for your comments. We correct it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 99-100)
15) L84, L93: some photos of those plant species would have a higher impact, so please do correct this
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a photo in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 110-113)
16) Table 1: column 1 in the table is redundant, as the numbers coincide with the second column
Response: Thank you for your comments. We deleted it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 3, Line 109)
17) Section 2.3: also, some photos from the lab experiment are highly indicated
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a photo in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 4, Line 110-113)
18) L134: the comma is not necessary
Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 148)
19) Section 2.4.4: please, provide some references for the soil erosion
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added more references in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 5, Line 160-161)
20) L210: I think you mean “soil particle” and not “soil article”
Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it to soil particle in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 7, Line 225)
21) Results and discussion section: will your results will be shared with the local authorities or not? You should discuss a bit your discoveries and how could they be applied in the future infrastructure projects in China/rest of the world. How can this study be sustainable for the economy, soil erosion prevention measures etc. For this, you should make a separate section with Discussions.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We refer to other articles published in this magazine, most of them combine results and discussion. Thus, we combine this and added more explanation in the latest version of the manuscript.
22) Author’s contribution was not approached; please, resolve this issue.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We added author’s contribution in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 12, Line 359-360)
23) References: after the journal name, there is no full stop. Please adhere to the journal style. Also, at the end of each reference, you should add the word “doi”, not just write the “doi” number. Please, correct for all the references. Also, the issue number should be in italic.
Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised these references in the latest version of the manuscript. (Page 7, Line 225)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I am fully satisfied with the corrections you have made. Now the manuscript looks and sounds much better.
