the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 26 Jan 2021
Data on the elemental composition (mobile fractions and total content) of soils in catena at the SE Valdai Hills, Russia
Abstract. This study presents a dataset on seasonal soils sampling from September 2016 to May 2018 in the southern part of the Central Forest Reserve (SE Valdai Hills) within a catena with Endocalcaric Albic Glossic Stagnic Profondic Retisols (Cutanic, Loamic) and Albic Gleyic Histic Retisols (Cutanic, Loamic) under coniferous-deciduous forest (Tília cordáta, Pícea ábies, Ácer platanoídes) on loess-like loams underlain by carbonate moraine deposits. 152 soil samples were taken to define total concentration of 67 chemical elements (ChEs), content of three mobile fractions (exchangeable, bound within organo-mineral complexes, bound with Fe and Mn hydroxides) of 69 ChEs and content of residual fraction, including macro elements (Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, P, Ti, S, Si), heavy metals (Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sr, Th, U, V, Zn), trace elements (Ag, As, B, Be, Bi, Br, Cd, Cs, Ge, Hf, Li, Mo, Nb, Pd, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Ta, Te, Tl,W, Zr) and rare earth elements (Ce, Er, Eu, Gd, La, Lu, Nd, Pr, Sm, Tb, Tm, Dy, Ho, Y, Yb). We measured pH-value, total organic carbon content (TOC), seven particle-size classes (< 1, 5–1, 10–5, 50–10, 250–50, 500–250, 1000–500 μm), and basicity from carbonates.
The dataset is available from Mendeley Data (http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/r29psg69z7.1, Enchilik et al., 2020) and will be further updated.
- Preprint
(883 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6529 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2020-309', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2021
The paper is potentially interesting for the readers. However, there are some details that may be somewhat annoying for our colleagues. First, scientific English language is below any standards in this paper. The authros should ask a native English speaker or a professional translator to revise the text. Second, there are some disappointing mistakes in soil classification.
Table 1, the first soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondic is a secondary qualifier, and thus should go after the name of the RG.
Table 1, the second soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondica is a secondary qualifies, and the soil should be either Ochric or Himic, but not both of them.
Table 1, the forth soil: Profondic is a secondary qualifier.
Table 1, the fifth column: please change all the commas to decimal points
Table 1, the sixth column: prism-like structure does not vexist in any international classification, though I can imagine what You mean. Please refer to FAO or USDA manuals for field soil description
Figures 2 and 3: please try to follow internationally accepted terminology. I do not understand the expression "upper slope". Do You mean shoulder or backslope position? May we regard "upper footslope" and "lower footslope" as footslope and toeslope accordingly?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-309-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2020-309/essd-2020-309-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
We thank Reviewer #1 for thoughtful and supportive comments.
We revised the manuscript. And we hope that the revised version of the manuscript became better.
Comment
Response
First, scientific English language is below any standards in this paper. The authors should ask a native English speaker or a professional translator to revise the text.
The revised version of the manuscript was corrected by a professional translator and by a native speaker.
Second, there are some disappointing mistakes in soil classification
Thank to Professor Gerasimova, the names of soils studied were corrected professionally.
Table 1, the first soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondic is a secondary qualifier, and thus should go after the name of the RG.
We have corrected the name of the first soil. The corrected name is Endocalcaric Albic Neocambic Stagnic Glossic Retisols (Geoabruptic, Chromic, Loamic).
Table 1, the second soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondica is a secondary qualifies, and the soil should be either Ochric or Himic, but not both of them.
We have corrected the name of the second soil. The corrected name is Endocalcaric Albic Neocambic Stagnic Glossic Retisols (Geoabruptic, Ochric, Lamellic).
Table 1, the forth soil: Profondic is a secondary qualifier.
We have corrected the name of the forth soil. The corrected name is Endocalcaric Glossic Albic Histic Stagnosols (Geoabruptic).
Table 1, the fifth column: please change all the commas to decimal points
We have changed all the commas to decimal points in fifth column.
Table 1, the sixth column: prism-like structure does not exist in any international classification, though I can imagine what You mean. Please refer to FAO or USDA manuals for field soil description
In sixth column, we have replaced prism-like structure with prismatic structure.
Figures 2 and 3: please try to follow internationally accepted terminology. I do not understand the expression "upper slope". Do You mean shoulder or backslope position?
We have replaced «upper slope» with «backslope» in figures 2 and 3 and throughout the text.
May we regard "upper footslope" and "lower footslope" as footslope and toeslope accordingly?
We have replaced «upper footslope» and "lower footslope" with «footslope» and «toeslope», respectively.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2020-309', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Feb 2021
General comments
The data set presents some statistical analysis of total and mobile concentrations of 67 chemical elements from four soil profiles of a toposequence from a taiga biosphere reserve. I have found considerable shortcomings at several points concerning the data set, methodology, and English. I do not suggest the data set be published in its present form.
Data set problems. One of the major problems with the data set is that the exact elemental concentration values in the analyzed geochemical fractions are not provided. Only the results of some descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, statistical differences, and concentration ratios are given. Information about such statistical analyses may be informative, but they do not replace the basic data set on elemental concentration values. Additionally, the data set provided is sometimes incomplete, or it should be revised. See suggestions in the specific comments. The other major problem with the data set is that its uniqueness is not demonstrated in the manuscript. Based on the supported information, the reader is convinced that there is any useful potential for the data set.
Methodological problems. The sampling strategy is not clear for me. The sampling was carried out on a toposequence instead of on a whole catena. What suspensions were used to study soil pH? How did you analyze the CaCO3 content? The selectivity of the extractants used is questionable for the target phases. At what pH were the extractions carried out? What organo-mineral complexes are expected to be dissolved using NH4Ac+EDTA? The selectivity of 1M HNO3 for hydrous Fe and Mn oxides must be very low. Such phases are generally extracted using a reductant and a complexing agent or a reductant together with slight acidification. But their selectivity is still very variable. The referred study (Vodyanitskii et al., 2020) also used such a method (the Tamm reagent) for hydrous Fe and Mn oxides and not 1M HNO3. Additionally, they did not use the other two extractions to study specific operationally defined elemental fractions. What digestion method was used for total element concentrations? What about the quality control and quality of the analyses? Did you use parallel analyses? What standard reference materials were analyzed?
The manuscript is hard to be understood. A thorough English revision is necessary.
Specific comments
Use “concentration” instead of “level” for chemical elements in the soil.
L8 (and other places) I would not say seasonal sampling after four sampling campaigns on different dates.
L10 (and other places) “Loams” is not a petrological term.
L13 Do no use the term “heavy metal” for Rb, Sr, etc. Better to use trace metal and metalloids or trace elements.
L16 Soil “basicity” or alkalinity is measured through pH analysis. You have analyzed (?) the carbonate content of the soils.
L23 What is the “geochemical structure of a landscape”?
L38-39 What “substances enter the ground” at the “summit” position? Why do they not also enter lower slope positions if they are expected to enter through wet or dry deposition?
L39 Use “deposition” instead of “precipitation”.
L78-79. What is the relevance of the parent material in Karelia for the study area?
L98 Table 2 does not present the descriptive statistics.
L102 Element concentrations are not proxies in this case.
L108 What differences do you mean?
Figures
Figure 1. A more detailed and informative location map is needed.
Tables
Table S1. Wrong mean pH values (G9, G1425, G2133, G2841, and in many other cells). “July” appears instead of “June” from B356 to B709 cells.
Table 3 and Table S2. Information is supported only for 3-10 elements in Table 3 and 14-17 elements in Table S2 for a chemical fraction. What about the other elements? The significance level is missing in several cases in Table 3. Different elements are presented in the two tables with minor overlapping.
Table S3. Coarse sand, density, and concentration values in several elemental fractions (e.g., Ag1, Al1, etc.) are not given here, although these values were presented in Table S1. Why?
Table S8 – Relative error for what? Are they calculated from the parallel analyses? 100% for Al% fraction seems to be very high. Very bad values are provided in many other cases. What are the reference solutions?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-309-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2020-309/essd-2020-309-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2020-309', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2021
The paper is potentially interesting for the readers. However, there are some details that may be somewhat annoying for our colleagues. First, scientific English language is below any standards in this paper. The authros should ask a native English speaker or a professional translator to revise the text. Second, there are some disappointing mistakes in soil classification.
Table 1, the first soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondic is a secondary qualifier, and thus should go after the name of the RG.
Table 1, the second soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondica is a secondary qualifies, and the soil should be either Ochric or Himic, but not both of them.
Table 1, the forth soil: Profondic is a secondary qualifier.
Table 1, the fifth column: please change all the commas to decimal points
Table 1, the sixth column: prism-like structure does not vexist in any international classification, though I can imagine what You mean. Please refer to FAO or USDA manuals for field soil description
Figures 2 and 3: please try to follow internationally accepted terminology. I do not understand the expression "upper slope". Do You mean shoulder or backslope position? May we regard "upper footslope" and "lower footslope" as footslope and toeslope accordingly?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-309-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2020-309/essd-2020-309-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
We thank Reviewer #1 for thoughtful and supportive comments.
We revised the manuscript. And we hope that the revised version of the manuscript became better.
Comment
Response
First, scientific English language is below any standards in this paper. The authors should ask a native English speaker or a professional translator to revise the text.
The revised version of the manuscript was corrected by a professional translator and by a native speaker.
Second, there are some disappointing mistakes in soil classification
Thank to Professor Gerasimova, the names of soils studied were corrected professionally.
Table 1, the first soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondic is a secondary qualifier, and thus should go after the name of the RG.
We have corrected the name of the first soil. The corrected name is Endocalcaric Albic Neocambic Stagnic Glossic Retisols (Geoabruptic, Chromic, Loamic).
Table 1, the second soil: Stagnic should go before Glossic, Profondica is a secondary qualifies, and the soil should be either Ochric or Himic, but not both of them.
We have corrected the name of the second soil. The corrected name is Endocalcaric Albic Neocambic Stagnic Glossic Retisols (Geoabruptic, Ochric, Lamellic).
Table 1, the forth soil: Profondic is a secondary qualifier.
We have corrected the name of the forth soil. The corrected name is Endocalcaric Glossic Albic Histic Stagnosols (Geoabruptic).
Table 1, the fifth column: please change all the commas to decimal points
We have changed all the commas to decimal points in fifth column.
Table 1, the sixth column: prism-like structure does not exist in any international classification, though I can imagine what You mean. Please refer to FAO or USDA manuals for field soil description
In sixth column, we have replaced prism-like structure with prismatic structure.
Figures 2 and 3: please try to follow internationally accepted terminology. I do not understand the expression "upper slope". Do You mean shoulder or backslope position?
We have replaced «upper slope» with «backslope» in figures 2 and 3 and throughout the text.
May we regard "upper footslope" and "lower footslope" as footslope and toeslope accordingly?
We have replaced «upper footslope» and "lower footslope" with «footslope» and «toeslope», respectively.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2020-309', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Feb 2021
General comments
The data set presents some statistical analysis of total and mobile concentrations of 67 chemical elements from four soil profiles of a toposequence from a taiga biosphere reserve. I have found considerable shortcomings at several points concerning the data set, methodology, and English. I do not suggest the data set be published in its present form.
Data set problems. One of the major problems with the data set is that the exact elemental concentration values in the analyzed geochemical fractions are not provided. Only the results of some descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, statistical differences, and concentration ratios are given. Information about such statistical analyses may be informative, but they do not replace the basic data set on elemental concentration values. Additionally, the data set provided is sometimes incomplete, or it should be revised. See suggestions in the specific comments. The other major problem with the data set is that its uniqueness is not demonstrated in the manuscript. Based on the supported information, the reader is convinced that there is any useful potential for the data set.
Methodological problems. The sampling strategy is not clear for me. The sampling was carried out on a toposequence instead of on a whole catena. What suspensions were used to study soil pH? How did you analyze the CaCO3 content? The selectivity of the extractants used is questionable for the target phases. At what pH were the extractions carried out? What organo-mineral complexes are expected to be dissolved using NH4Ac+EDTA? The selectivity of 1M HNO3 for hydrous Fe and Mn oxides must be very low. Such phases are generally extracted using a reductant and a complexing agent or a reductant together with slight acidification. But their selectivity is still very variable. The referred study (Vodyanitskii et al., 2020) also used such a method (the Tamm reagent) for hydrous Fe and Mn oxides and not 1M HNO3. Additionally, they did not use the other two extractions to study specific operationally defined elemental fractions. What digestion method was used for total element concentrations? What about the quality control and quality of the analyses? Did you use parallel analyses? What standard reference materials were analyzed?
The manuscript is hard to be understood. A thorough English revision is necessary.
Specific comments
Use “concentration” instead of “level” for chemical elements in the soil.
L8 (and other places) I would not say seasonal sampling after four sampling campaigns on different dates.
L10 (and other places) “Loams” is not a petrological term.
L13 Do no use the term “heavy metal” for Rb, Sr, etc. Better to use trace metal and metalloids or trace elements.
L16 Soil “basicity” or alkalinity is measured through pH analysis. You have analyzed (?) the carbonate content of the soils.
L23 What is the “geochemical structure of a landscape”?
L38-39 What “substances enter the ground” at the “summit” position? Why do they not also enter lower slope positions if they are expected to enter through wet or dry deposition?
L39 Use “deposition” instead of “precipitation”.
L78-79. What is the relevance of the parent material in Karelia for the study area?
L98 Table 2 does not present the descriptive statistics.
L102 Element concentrations are not proxies in this case.
L108 What differences do you mean?
Figures
Figure 1. A more detailed and informative location map is needed.
Tables
Table S1. Wrong mean pH values (G9, G1425, G2133, G2841, and in many other cells). “July” appears instead of “June” from B356 to B709 cells.
Table 3 and Table S2. Information is supported only for 3-10 elements in Table 3 and 14-17 elements in Table S2 for a chemical fraction. What about the other elements? The significance level is missing in several cases in Table 3. Different elements are presented in the two tables with minor overlapping.
Table S3. Coarse sand, density, and concentration values in several elemental fractions (e.g., Ag1, Al1, etc.) are not given here, although these values were presented in Table S1. Why?
Table S8 – Relative error for what? Are they calculated from the parallel analyses? 100% for Al% fraction seems to be very high. Very bad values are provided in many other cases. What are the reference solutions?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2020-309-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2020-309/essd-2020-309-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Polina Enchilik, 28 Apr 2021
Data sets
Descriptive statistics of soil properties, ChE total concentrations and mobile fractions (mg/kg) in Retisols Polina Enchilik and Ivan Semenkov https://doi.org/10.17632/r29psg69z7.1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,046 | 378 | 82 | 1,506 | 66 | 65 | 83 |
- HTML: 1,046
- PDF: 378
- XML: 82
- Total: 1,506
- Supplement: 66
- BibTeX: 65
- EndNote: 83
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1