All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
This revised version is suitable for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The English language of the article is clear and understandable. The relevance of the research is well-defined. The references to the literature are correct and sufficient. The article has a good logical structure of the research results. The figures and tables are presented at a high professional level.
The research results are original contributions from the authors of the article. The data from field studies are well systematized, including cartographic data on the elevation of the terrain and remote sensing of the Earth. The results of the research on the changes in the structure of the vegetation cover of the floodplain systems of Lake Khortytsia as a consequence of the Kakhovka disaster have been obtained for the first time, with no analogs available. The methods are well described and structured. The methods are clear and can be replicated in studies of other locations. The characteristics of the research area are well presented.
The authors have thoroughly justified the materials of their own research, which ensures that the presented material is easily understood by readers. The results presented are the authors' own contributions, original, reliably provided, and the statistical and cartographic material is well presented. The discussion and conclusions are logical, clear, and understandable.
The authors have revised the article in detail in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations. The article has been significantly improved and can be accepted in its current form.
The authors conducted a thorough revision of the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments.
No comments
The results obtained appear to be valid.
I believe that the manuscript can be published in its last version.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I appreaciate detailed and well prepared responses of the authors to all quesntions rised by the reviewers. I do not have additional comments and I can recommend this paper for publication.
The introduction identifies the research problem and outlines the target readership for whom the article is likely to be of interest. The article is of scientific interest and will appeal to various researchers and practitioners. However, major revision needs before publication in PeerJ.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The English language of the article is clear and understandable. The relevance of the research is well-defined. The references to the literature are correct and sufficient. The article has a good logical structure of the research results. The figures and tables are presented at a high professional level.
The research results are original contributions from the authors of the article. The data from field studies are well systematized, including cartographic data on the elevation of the terrain and remote sensing of the Earth. The results of the research on the changes in the structure of the vegetation cover of the floodplain systems of Lake Khortytsia as a consequence of the Kakhovka disaster have been obtained for the first time, with no analogs available. The methods are well described and structured. The methods are clear and can be replicated in studies of other locations. The characteristics of the research area are well presented.
The authors have thoroughly justified the materials of their own research, which ensures that the presented material is easily understood by readers. The results presented are the authors' own contributions, original, reliably provided, and the statistical and cartographic material is well presented. The discussion and conclusions are logical, clear, and understandable.
The article is timely and relevant, revealing the consequences of the ecocide caused by the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, the dehydration and drainage of the unique floodplain of Lake Khortytsia, which led to the destruction of the habitat of local steppe flora and fauna species and a significant depletion of biodiversity in the lake-floodplain systems. The authors appropriately suggest the application of the hemeroby concept, which allows for the assessment of the degree of changes in the flora and fauna of floodplain ecosystems. In this context, an important feature of applying the hemeroby index is the objective establishment of the consequences of the dam's destruction, the drainage of the Kakhovka Reservoir, and the adjacent territories by determining the spatial variability and comparing the changes in plant communities in the floodplain systems of Lake Khortytsia before and after the disaster. This allows for phytosociological assessment and the identification of further priorities and directions for the restoration of the environment in the affected systems.
Lines 228 and 229 repeat the sentence "The standard size of plots was 4 × 4 m." twice.
I recommend the article for publication.
The literature review is based on a sufficient number of up-to-date references and presents a coherent analysis of the current state of research on hemeroby and the phenomena of catastrophic anthropogenic transformation of ecosystems. The authors employ modern English and appropriate scientific terminology and concepts that are commonly used in contemporary English-language academic literature. The structure of the manuscript meets the journal’s requirements. The article is well illustrated with figures and tables. The figures are informative and clearly highlight the aspects discussed in the text. The literature review is comprehensive and addresses various aspects of ecological science, including the ecological characteristics of floodplain ecosystems, the problem of catastrophic anthropogenic disturbances to the natural environment, and the response of community functional structure to natural and anthropogenic factors. The introduction clearly identifies the research problem and outlines the target readership for whom the article is likely to be of interest. It should be noted that the topic of the article is of substantial scientific interest and will appeal to a broad range of researchers and practitioners.
It should be noted that the content of the article is fully aligned with the aims and scope of the journal, as well as with the declared type of submission. The research design is clearly and comprehensively presented, fulfilling the essential scientific criterion of reproducibility. The authors provide a historical overview of the construction of the Kakhovka Reservoir and the events that led to its destruction. This is particularly important, as these events are context-specific, and such background allows a wide readership to better understand the processes and phenomena under investigation. The authors have applied appropriate and contemporary approaches to the survey and analysis of plant communities. The article includes a substantive discussion of the phytoindication method developed by Didukh, which is traditionally applied to the flora of Eastern Europe. However, such approaches require further introduction to the broader scientific community, given that the Ellenberg indicator scales are more commonly used in other parts of Europe. Geomorphological analyses were performed using modern tools and techniques. All of the above confirms that the authors have conducted a thorough and well-designed study that adheres to high technical and ethical standards. The combination of methods employed ensures a comprehensive and unbiased resolution of the research questions addressed in the article.
The authors propose a novel application of the hemeroby concept. The Kakhovka disaster represents a large-scale unplanned experiment that is unique in its nature, and the study of vegetation dynamics in its aftermath carries considerable scientific value. Observing the initial stages of successional change is particularly important, as vegetation transformation processes are highly dynamic but play a decisive role in determining the future trajectory of plant cover development. Resolving the question of this territory’s future is critically important and presents two alternative pathways: either the reconstruction of the dam and restoration of the reservoir, or the preservation of the natural state of the Dnipro River and its floodplain ecosystems. Clearly, if the vegetation cover demonstrates the capacity for natural recovery, the second option appears to be the more desirable. The authors propose extending an existing assessment framework that would ensure comparability and scientific justification for future management decisions.
Recommendations for improving the quality of the manuscript
Line 47 hemerobial communities → hemerobic communities
Line 112 "mass mortality among aquatic fauna" is better than "The massive mortality of aquatic fauna"
Line 123 “Its destruction has led to regional desiccation and a marked deterioration in drinking water quality” is better than “Its destruction has led to dehydration in the region and a marked deterioration in drinking water quality”.
Line 128 “The disruption of natural ecological connections has made the restoration of these areas extremely challenging” is better than “The disruption of natural ecological connections has made restoring these areas exceedingly tricky”
Line 143 “It remains largely unknown which plant species will dominate under these conditions and how species composition will evolve over the long term” is better than “It is mainly unknown which plant species will dominate under these conditions and how their composition will evolve over the long term”.
Line 145 “Another key issue is the capacity of floodplain ecosystems to recover following a reduction in water levels” is better than “A separate issue is the ability of floodplain ecosystems to recover from reduced water levels”.
Lines 152–157: “Of equal concern is the impact of the altered hydrological regime on steppe ecosystems in surrounding areas. Declining groundwater levels may result in ecosystem degradation and aridification, altering both species composition and the functional organization of phytocoenoses”.
Line 212: “From a geological perspective, Khortytsia Island belongs to the Ukrainian crystalline shield, a Precambrian geological formation underlying much of central and southern Ukraine”
Line 373–374 “In the period preceding the disaster, the natural decline in water levels that occurred after the regular spring flood and continued into the summer led to a significant reduction in the area of floodplain water bodies on Khortytsia Island”.
Line 454 “During the growing season, it undergoes substantial fluctuations in water levels, typically ranging from 25 to 50 cm, and occasionally reaching up to 70 cm. These fluctuations are associated with bottom sediments composed of sandy-silt, silt, silty-peat, and peat”
Line 457 “It also exhibits dense plant cover and high species richness”
Line 471 “Other associations represent plant communities that tolerate drier conditions while experiencing greater variability in moisture availability”
Line 489 “Principal component analysis of variability in phytoindication-based assessments of environmental factors”
Line 491 “Principal component analysis identified four components with eigenvalues exceeding one, in accordance with Kaiser’s criterion”
Line 534 “The development of floodplain ecosystems is driven by alternating periods of flooding and drying, resulting in high moisture variability”
Line 632 “The species within this community play a crucial role in the initial stages of succession following disturbances to natural vegetation. However, due to their inherent dynamism, such communities are typically transient and highly susceptible to modification by external environmental factors”
Line 696 “A substantial part of the drained reservoir area is currently dominated by Salicetum albae and Salici-Populetum associations”
The paper adresses presently relevant and intersting topic of changes in plant communities composition induced by the Kakhovka reservoir destruction. The manuscript is in generall well written and has a clear structure. Field background and context of the study are well justified. The English is overall professional.
Figures and tables are well prepared, though I did not find raw data on composition of sampled plant communities. Presented results correspond to objectives of the study.
This is the original research article which corresponds to the scope of the journal.
Research questions need to be defined more clearly (I provide detailed comments below).
Methods in the present form miss some details related to conducted sampling campaign.
Statistical analysis and findings are sound. For the discussion part, I suggest to add more on why does the Principal Component explain relatively low percentage in variation.
Abstract: In the present form the abstract is repetitive with statements about the role of humidity and development of plant communities in the coastal areas mentioned several times.
Lines 103-105: Please, cite here the most recent publication that describes environmental impacts of the Kakhovka dam destruction in a concert: O. Shumilova et al. Environmental effects of the Kakhovka Dam destruction by warfare in Ukraine.Science387,1181-1186(2025).DOI:10.1126/science.adn8655. This citation is also relevant for the lines 116-118 where you write about amounts of washed sediments and heavy metals – you can check the exact values in that publication.
Line 133: “The destruction of the Kakhovka Reservoir and subsequent alterations to the hydrological regime have resulted in new habitats” – please, specify here what is meant exactly by new habitats;
Line 175: “Our study aimed to investigate the syntaxonomic diversity of plant cover in the floodplain
ecosystems of Khortytsia Island, which were severely impacted by the creation of the Kakhovka
Reservoir” – did you really mean “creation of the reservoir”? Or destruction?
Line 177: “Additionally, we sought to evaluate the effects of changes in ecological regimes on the
anthropogenic transformation of plant communities, which were assessed using the hemeroby
index” – specify what do you mean by “changes in ecological regimes” here.
Line 158: Please, mention also earlier works where the concept of hemeroby was introduced.
For the description of the study area, please, add also information about the area you studied. From the Fig. 2 I see that your research was based within the southern part of the island and not the whole island. What was the size of the area that you covered? How many sampling points did you have and how they were chosen? You mention that the sampling campaign was performed in summer 2024 – what was the exact period and is it important for the detection of plant communities? I am not a botanist and I wonder whether some plants can be present in the beginning of the summer, some in the end etc. Also, moisture content (one of your target variable) changes over the summer.
Line 368: “…morphological indicators of floodplain water bodies” – what is meant by “morphological indicators” here? In the Table 1 you also write “Morphometric parameters”. Also, very strange representation of % there. This sentence really needs to be reformulated, from how it is written now, it is not clear to which parameter the percentages are related.
Line 370: “…water volume in reservoirs” – it is misleading to use the term “reservoirs” here. Maybe better “water bodies”? The “reservoirs” for me associates with large reservoirs on the Dnipro river. The same comments for the line 552, 566.
Line 572: “The hemeroby index was proposed as a means to characterize the response to anthropogenic influences following dam destruction” – what exactly in meant by “anthropogenic influences following dam destruction”? Decrease in moisture content or also others? Later (line 576) you write “The eigenvalues of the corresponding principal components decrease in order of the sensitivity of the respective community property complexes to the impact of the catastrophic anthropogenic factor”. So what exactly you consider as anthropogenic influences/factor? Please, be consistent throughout the paper.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.