Effects of moss restoration on topsoil water  dynamics in a temperate vineyard

Oldenburg, Silvana; Nebel, Martin; Seitz, Steffen; Gall, Corinna

doi:10.5194/soil-12-1101-2026

Articles | Volume 12, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-12-1101-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-12-1101-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 2

Original research article

|

05 Nov 2026

Original research article |

| 05 Nov 2026

Effects of moss restoration on topsoil water dynamics in a temperate vineyard

Silvana Oldenburg, Martin Nebel, Steffen Seitz, and Corinna Gall

Download

Final revised paper (published on 05 Nov 2026)
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Mar 2026)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1159', Teresa Paço, 29 May 2026

Dear Authors,
Your manuscript addresses a quite interesting topic, still quite unexplored. Mosses have the ability to retain water and prevent soil evaporation, contributing also to prevent erosion, among other benefits, and they don't compete with plant roots for resources. Although the idea is appealing, some practical barriers might arise for implementation. Please see some further comments and suggestions.
l. 83: "Mosses have been successfully cultivated under controlled greenhouse conditions" - please provide some references for this. It's true that they can be cultivated but the the growth rate is slow (DOI: 10.3390/plants10112523). To increase the efficiency of the production process, mosses can also be screened for adequate physiology (DOI: 10.3390/w12061748) or selected using ecological criteria (DOI: 10.3390/urbansci3020057). Please discuss this in the paper addressing the viability of using mosses as ground cover in vineyards, which are large cultivated areas. How long would it take to cover the space inter rows with mosses?
l. 108: the treatments surface is small (40 cm x 40 cm); is it enough to ensure that lateral water movements in the sub-surface soil are absent and won't mask the results? The moss mats dimensions are also 40 cm x 40 cm? Could this be related to the non-significative difference in mean topsoil moisture among treatments?
l. 453-4: " it can also impede infiltration, and its root system plays an important role by increasing the soil porosity

and infiltration rates"; this seems contradictory, please rephrase.
Conclusions:
"Mean topsoil moisture did not differ significantly among treatments, with a tendency toward slightly higher moisture

in bare soil plots." - this can be explained by being driven by higher infiltration in bare soil, if analysed for short periods, or, if related to soil evaporation rates, it should be the opposite. Please clarify this better.
Please provide further emphasis on the advantages of moss cover over bare soil, as this is not very clear.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1159-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Silvana Oldenburg, 10 Jun 2026
  
  Dear Dr. Paço,
  
  Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments.
  
  We appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our
  
  manuscript, and the valuable points you have raised regarding moss
  
  cultivation, experimental design and data interpretation.
  
  We acknowledge the importance of the questions concerning the
  
  scalability and feasibility of moss establishment. In this context, we
  
  would like to note that the moss cultivation for this study was
  
  conducted successfully in collaboration with a private company. The
  
  cultivation has proven effective and does not require the multi-year
  
  timescales often associated with natural moss establishment. However,
  
  the underlying methodology has not yet been formally published. We will
  
  address this aspect, together with the other points raised, in detail in
  
  our revised manuscript and response document.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  the authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1159-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1159', Jesús Rodrigo-Comino, 30 May 2026

The manuscript contains useful information on soil moisture dynamics following the previously published study on runoff and erosion from the same experimental vineyard. However, the scientific independence and novelty of the present contribution are not sufficiently demonstrated.
Although the analysed variables differ (soil moisture response times, drying rates and soil moisture dynamics vs rainfall simulations), the study was carried out on the same experimental setup, treatments, site conditions and monitoring framework previously published by the authors. As a consequence, a substantial part of the scientific context, experimental rationale and interpretation overlaps with earlier work.
The manuscript would also benefit from a broader discussion regarding the transferability of the results beyond the specific experimental site. The study was conducted in a single vineyard under particular soil, climatic and management conditions, making it difficult to assess whether similar responses would be expected across the diversity of vineyard systems found in Germany and other European vine-growing regions.
The ecological suitability and establishment potential of the selected moss species across different vineyard environments remains unclear. The manuscript demonstrates successful establishment under the conditions of the study site, but provides little discussion regarding the geographical distribution, ecological tolerance and long-term persistence of these species under contrasting soil properties, climatic conditions and management practices. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate the practical applicability of the proposed restoration strategy at broader spatial scales.
Furthermore, the hydrological interpretation focuses primarily on surface soil moisture dynamics, while several important processes commonly reported in temperate vineyard systems are not considered. In many Central European vineyards, water redistribution is strongly influenced by preferential flow pathways, macropore flow, lateral subsurface flow and subsurface runoff processes (Hewlett runoff vs Hortonian one). These mechanisms may play a significant role in hillslope hydrological connectivity and water availability, particularly during prolonged wet periods or intense rainfall events. Since such processes were not investigated or compared (becasue most of the typical German vineyards are on steep slopes), the extent to which the observed moisture patterns can be extrapolated to vineyard-scale hydrological functioning remains uncertain.
The discussion should acknowledge that the reported effects describe near-surface soil moisture responses at the plot scale in Hortonian runoff type and may not necessarily translate into equivalent changes in water storage, hydrological connectivity or water availability at larger spatial scales.
Looking forward to reviewing this ms and happy to be selected by the editor to learn a lot from you.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1159-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Silvana Oldenburg, 10 Jun 2026
  
  Dear Dr. Rodrigo-Comino,
  
  Thank you for your careful review and constructive comments.
  
  We appreciate your observations regarding the distinction between the
  
  present manuscript and our previously published study. We agree that the
  
  scientific independence and novelty of the current contribution should
  
  be communicated more clearly and will revise the manuscript accordingly
  
  to better highlight the different research questions, analyses and
  
  implications addressed in this work.
  
  We also appreciate your comments concerning the transferability of the
  
  results, the ecological suitability of the moss species, and the
  
  limitations regarding hydrological processes and scale effects. These
  
  aspects will be addressed in detail in our revised manuscript and
  
  response.
  
  Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  the authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1159-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Submit a revised manuscript (04 Jul 2026) by David Dunkerley

AR by Silvana Oldenburg on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (11 Aug 2026) by David Dunkerley

I acknowledge that the authors have made minor changes to their manuscript in developing the revised version. However, in my view the changes made are quite minimal, and have failed to address adequately the comments and suggestions made by the two reviewers.

Comments supplied by the Topical Editor highlighted several important issues that required attention. These are highlighted in bold in the text (below) that was sent to the authors.

Dear authors,
The two reviewers of your manuscript have raised a series of issues that it would be useful to consider in a revised paper. I now invite you to prepare and submit such a revised manuscript. Several key issues include (a) considerations of scale: considering the extent to which small-plot (40 x 40 cm) data might support understanding hydrologic response at larger spatial scales, and how key surface and subsurface processes might differ among spatial scales and topographic conditions different to those at the study site; (b) a discussion of how undocumented sub-surface processes such as macropore or preferential flow pathways, or sub-surface flow and percolation in general, might bear on the interpretation of your results; (c) what can be said about the practical application of moss-based methods beyond the study site, in terms of persistence of the mosses and management within the vineyard environment.

It may not be possible at this stage to collect additional data to address some of the issues raised by the reviewers, but it would be valuable for readers to have your comments on and assessment of these issues. Issues of scale for instance are fundamental in studies of this kind, and warrant serious consideration. Likewise, some discussion of the extent to which the present results are likely to be transferable to other sites with different environmental conditions would strengthen the paper.

Comments on the authors revised ms.:

The treatment of the scale issue is weak. The authors have added a mere 3 lines (lines 129-131) and simply claim that the 40 x 40 cm plots correspond to a ‘standard’ size used in some rainfall simulations. This claim is unreferenced. The reference to prior plot sizes that might have been used in other studies provides no assurance that they are relevant to the work described in the current ms. The important question is whether all relevant processes of infiltration and percolation can adequately be captured in study plots of such small dimensions. I doubt for instance that the throughfall under vines would be uniform across such scales. A more thorough response is needed.

The treatment of possible sub-surface processes is also too brief. In line 131 the authors simply state that ‘unusual .. lateral water movements could not be observed’. In lines 141 – 143 the authors simply assert that they expected subsurface water movement to ‘ .. be within natural limits .. ‘. It is not made clear what ‘natural limits’ are, nor why they might be expected to apply to the experimental plots.

Finally, the consideration of what can be learned that might be applicable to the use of moss in the way that the authors proposed, but in other environments and vineyard conditions is also inadequate. The authors note that they deliberately chose a location with low slope gradient. Many vineyards are on steeper terrain – so the question remains how well the proposed use of moss might be transferable to other environments. The authors should discuss this, and present their views. Their conclusions (lines 629-631) suggest confidence that the moss restoration can help to improve conditions in areas of vine cultivation. I could see not words of caution that all the presented results are from a site of low topographic gradient, and might not be applicable at all to other untested terrains.

Hide

AR by Silvana Oldenburg on behalf of the Authors (16 Sep 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (26 Sep 2026) by David Dunkerley

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (30 Sep 2026) by Peter Fiener (Executive editor)

AR by Silvana Oldenburg on behalf of the Authors (07 Oct 2026) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Climate change is putting pressure on the water management of vineyards. We tested in a temperate vineyard in Germany, whether moss could serve as a ground cover underneath the vines, as an alternative to bare soil or grass. Over 22 months, we measured how quickly and how much the soil became wet after rainfall. Moss kept soil moisture similar to bare soil, without the slower water entry seen under grass. This suggests moss could offer a low-maintenance option for future vineyard management.