Nitrogen Dynamics in Wetland Systems and Its Impact on Biodiversity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a review of nitrogen cycle in all types of wetlands and is a good guide for researchers to find the research paper sources eventually any question that may arise from research projects in wetlands.

However, the second part of the title –i.e. the impact on biodiversity- is not adequately discussed in the manuscript. In particular, lines 551-558 discuss what has been researched [one study, 79] by research teams. Moreover, the authors use interchangeably the term ‘biodiversity’ with ‘plant diversity’. Admittedly, this is a common mistake of many studies on biodiversity.

With regards to organisms other than plants, bacteria are adequately discussed in many places, mainly because they are tightly connected to nitrogen cycle.

Invertebrates are very slightly touched and in line 174, usually negatively with regard the biodiversity as a whole. The authors seem to forget that mosquitoes is the main food of many wetland predators and according to some workers in the field they are the main shaping factor of wetland biodiversity. For example, many migrant bird species use wetlands as a refueling station or breeding substrate.

It is disappointing that the issue of having wetlands with zero plant endemism but remarkable insect or macroinvertebrate endemism is not touched in this review paper.

This type of review can be also presented in textbooks for advanced readers. Especially those having a strong technological background.

For life scientists, this review manuscript seems to be of low value.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The responses to your comments are given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study shows a vision on the dynamics of nitrogen in wetland systems and its impact on diversity, is a review of 80 articles published on the subject, and allows us to understand the dynamics of nitrogen in these complex systems and assess their contributions Regarding conservation and wastewater treatment, it is an interesting study and allows understanding the nitrogen dynamics in these systems more easily, however, before processing all comments must be addressed.
I find the introduction, I consider that it should indicate for whom this review study is important that allows us to highlight, although it is intuited we must be more friendly with the reader and make it explicit in the manuscript.
Adding an interesting methodology section after the introduction would be to indicate which were the selection criteria of the relevant literature for this study.
From page 129 to 139, I think it is important to highlight other ecosystem reviews provided by natural wetlands such as the cambroño sequestration, review some of the review articles on the topic of carbon sequestration in wetlands.
From page 196 212, I consider it pertinent to add information on partially saturated vertical wetlands that are important in the nitrification and denitrification process in these systems.
In the section on vegetation in constructed wetlands, the ornamental plants used in constructed wetlands should also be addressed. In the literature, there are studies that summarize this information that can be valuable.
IN Table 1, it would be important to add other studies with partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands, these have an important capacity to degrade nitrogen to retake.
In relation to section 11. Please locate before 10 and add other studies that are required for the compression of nitrogen dynamics in wetlands, such as bioaccumulation in tissues, pilot-scale studies, etc., to give a line of work more timely future for readers.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The responses to your comments are given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is yet another review of published information on wetlands and their role in purifying water from nitrogen compounds. As such, the text deserves to be published; however, according to the reviewer, it first requires some reconstruction and careful editing work.
The title does not reflect the content of the manuscript. There is almost no information in the text about "nitrogen dynamics in wetlands and its impact on biodiversity." Too much attention has been paid to "constructed wetlands," where, in principle, there is not much biodiversity, especially when intensively exploited. The authors very briefly described the impact of the nutrient load on the functions of natural wetland ecosystems. Unnecessarily large parts of the text are devoted to the presentation of textbook knowledge, e.g., in subsections 1.1 and 1.2.
Line 12 - nitrous oxides are not the greatest threat to water quality
Line 46 - Not only coastal waters and estuaries are prone to eutrophication.
Line 94 - Why does the classification of wetlands begin with the definition used in Nepal? It is not a country best known for its wetland ecosystems' diversity and research with all due respect.
Line 229 - should it be 20C?
The sentence on lines 381-384 is unclear.
Line 415 - expand the HTR abbreviation
I do not know why the Authors compare mesotrophic wetlands and natural wetlands (Line 560) - mesotrophic wetlands can be natural and vice versa.

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The responses to your comments are given in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The authors added important aspects of wetland role. More precisely the added lines 602-769 and 397-407 to describe the ‘impact of wetlands to biodiversity’ and the ‘role of faunal communities’ in wetlands.
2. However, the additions do not contain the necessary references. For instance, the ‘Ramsar convention’ in line 608 and the ‘reduction of wetlands’ in line 623 are not supported by a citation. Citation is an important component in review papers.
3. In line 468 instead of ‘Alilsma’ please write ‘Alisma’.
4. In line 678 instead ‘specie’ please write ‘species’.

Reviewer 3 Report

 The authors have made a reasonable edition of the manuscript following the reviewer's comments. I recommend the manuscript for publishing in its present form.