Spatio-Temporal Variability and the Factors Influencing Soil-Available Heavy Metal Micronutrients in Different Agricultural Sub-Catchments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Weaknesses in the manuscript are in the absence of data on soil properties - there is nowhere to be found data on soil pH value, P, N, K concentrations and organic matter. Only correlations are given which cannot be verified. Details of the methods and statistical analysis were not sufficiently provided to evaluate the manuscript. The authors seemed to rush through the methods without providing the details needed to properly evaluate.
Specific comments
L98-100 Figure 1. - add a description for five sub-catchments for number 1,2,3,4 and 5 to the figure 1 legend
L104 in table 1 are different number of soil samples. The sample numbers in the table and the text do not match
L110-116 All applied methodology should be briefly described
L145 the tags in the formula no 5 are not properly explained (you explain Z instead Z*?)
L154-155 The authors cite the critical value of micronutrients available in soil according to the standard proposal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences without citing
L164 reference
L176 on which the conclusion was drawn?
L339 not only Fe and Mn. Soil pH has negative effect on available all microelements generally and in your manuscript.
L324-344 conclusions are incomplete or not supported by data. There are no data on the values of soil properties (content of organic matter in 2007 and in 2017, also content of AP, AK, TN and soil pH value) throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. The following is a revised explanation.
Comments 1: Weaknesses in the manuscript are in the absence of data on soil properties - there is nowhere to be found data on soil pH value, P, N, K concentrations and organic matter. Only correlations are given which cannot be verified. Details of the methods and statistical analysis were not sufficiently provided to evaluate the manuscript. The authors seemed to rush through the methods without providing the details needed to properly evaluate.
Response 1: data on soil pH value, P, N, K concentrations and organic matter was measured in 2007 and 2017. Related contents have been added in section 3.4.1 of the article. Details of the methods and statistical analysis have been added in the section of 2.3.1 of the manuscript, references about the test methods of soil available micronutrients have been cited.
Comments 2: L98-100 Figure 1. - add a description for five sub-catchments for number 1,2,3,4 and 5 to the figure 1 legend.
Response 2: the description for five sub-catchments for number 1,2,3,4 and 5 has added in figure 1.
Comments 3: L104 in table 1 are different number of soil samples. The sample numbers in the table and the text do not match.
Response 3: the sample numbers have corrected in abstract, data collect and table 1.
Comments 4: L110-116 All applied methodology should be briefly described.
Response 4: they were corrected, these methods have added references.
Comments 5: L145 the tags in the formula no 5 are not properly explained (you explain Z instead Z*?)
Response 5: it has corrected in the article.
Comments 6: L154-155 The authors cite the critical value of micronutrients available in soil according to the standard proposal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences without citing.
Response 6: It has corrected in the article, reference has cited here.
Comments 7: L164 reference
Response 7: The reference has added.
Comments 8: L176 on which the conclusion was drawn?
Response 8: this error has corrected in the article.
Comments 9: L339 not only Fe and Mn. Soil pH has negative effect on available all microelements generally and in your manuscript.
Response 9: this error has corrected, Soil pH has negative effect on available all microelements in this paper.
Comments 10: L324-344 conclusions are incomplete or not supported by data. There are no data on the values of soil properties (content of organic matter in 2007 and in 2017, also content of AP, AK, TN and soil pH value) throughout the manuscript.
Response 10: the conclusions has modified, and the values of soil properties (content of organic matter, AP, AK, TN and soil pH value in 2007 and in 2017, also content of ) have described in the content of 3.4.1.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is of great importance to monitor and obtain information on spatial variability of soil available micronutrients. In this study the authors assessed the temporal and spatial distribution characteristics of Cu, Zn, Fe and Mn in 2007 and 2017 and analysed the relationships of available micronutrients with soil nutrients in different sub-catchments. Generally, the research was organized well and the manuscript was written logically. The results could support the conclusion. And this study could enhance knowledge of related researchers. I suggest a moderate revision. The detailed comments are as follow:
For the title I suggest to change as Soil Available Heavy Metals Micronutrients. According to the information in the submit system, the name of the fourth author should be Yuanfang Huang in the line 5. Usually the author marked by the * is the corresponding author, here please checked the name and email of the corresponding author. And you should also carefully check the information of all authors. Line 16-Line 20, I suggest the authors to rewritten and combine this sentence to make it more clearly and concise. Line 22, Rewritten this sentence. Please provide more citations in the part of Introduction Line 42-44, Rewritten this sentence. Line 50-52, I suggest divide this sentence into two sentences. Line 58, Please provide more studies to support this conclusion Line 84-85 the coordinates were introduced by a wrong way, please correct it. Line 100, This figure is too coarse and it is very difficult to see, please replace it with a higher resolution. Line 104, Please provide regular citation information for this software of ArcGIS For Table 1, It's not necessary to present the 5, 7,9th columns, delete it. In the part of 2.3, The size of all formulas is too big compared with the word, please make it smaller. For Table 2, please provide more information or citations to clarify why you classified it as this. Line 160, Please rewritten this sentence. In the part of 3.1, You should make more describes beside of the CV value of the elements. Line 174-176, Please rewritten this sentence. Line 239-240, Please provide more introduction of this method in the part of materials and method. For figure 4, Please provide units of the variables. Line 271-273, Rewritten this sentence. Line 286-287, Please provide citations to support your conclusion. This article still has serious problem in terms of language. Please check and modify the language of through all the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. The following is a revised explanation.
Comments 1: For the title I suggest to change as Soil Available Heavy Metals Micronutrients. According to the information in the submit system, the name of the fourth author should be Yuanfang Huang in the line 5. Usually the author marked by the * is the corresponding author, here please checked the name and email of the corresponding author. And you should also carefully check the information of all authors.
Response 1: the title has changed to "Spatio-Temporal Variability and the Influencing Factors of Soil Available Heavy Metals Micronutrients in Different Agricultural Sub-Catchments"; the corresponding author is Yuanfang Huang, and the name and email have checked.
Comments 2: Line 16-Line 20, I suggest the authors to rewritten and combine this sentence to make it more clearly and concise.
Response 2: this sentence has rewritten in the article.
Comments 3: Line 22, Rewritten this sentence. Please provide more citations in the part of Introduction.
Response 3: this sentence has rewritten in the article, moreover, references have added.
Comments 4: Line 42-44, Rewritten this sentence. Line 50-52, I suggest divide this sentence into two sentences.
Response 4: the sentence in line 42-44 has rewritten,,and the sentence in line 50-52 has divided into two sentences in the article.
Comments 5: Line 58, Please provide more studies to support this conclusion Line 84-85 the coordinates were introduced by a wrong way, please correct it.
Response 5: The references have added here, and the introduction way of coordinates has corrected.
Comments 6: Line 100, This figure is too coarse and it is very difficult to see, please replace it with a higher resolution.
Response 6: Figure 1 was replaced, using a new map.
Comments 7: Line 104, Please provide regular citation information for this software of ArcGIS
Response 7: It has cited in the article.
Comments 8: For Table 1, It's not necessary to present the 5, 7,9th columns, delete it.
Response 8: The 5, 7,9th columns have deleted.
Comments 9: In the part of 2.3, The size of all formulas is too big compared with the word, please make it smaller.
Response 9: The size of the formulas have modifies in the article.
Comments 10: For Table 2, please provide more information or citations to clarify why you classified it as this.
Response 10: The reference has added here.
Comments 11: Line 160, Please rewritten this sentence.
Response 11: This sentence has rewritten in the article.
Comments 12: In the part of 3.1, You should make more describes beside of the CV value of the elements.
Response 12: the contents beside of the CV value of the elements have describes in the part of 3.1.
Comments 13: Line 174-176, Please rewritten this sentence.
Response 13: It has rewritten here.
Comments 14: For figure 4, Please provide units of the variables.
Response 14: The units have added in the figure 4.
Comments 15: Line 271-273, Rewritten this sentence.
Response 15: It has rewritten in the discussion.
Comments 16: Line 286-287, Please provide citations to support your conclusion.
Response 16: The reference was cited here, and the contents have corrected.
The language of the manuscript have checked and modified.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an interesting research about the spatial variability of micronutrients in a basin. It is important in terms of nutrients availability but also, risk of contamination.
Line 193: says distirbution, must say: distribution.
In my opinion it is necessary a table with results. The value of pH is not write anywhere. The reader do not know the pH value and can not say if there is a risk of contamination by adsorption of these elements.
Although in table 3 there are the mean of the micronutrients and if we compare with table 2 where it is the interpretation, the autyhors do not consider a high risk of contamination. Can they explain this?
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for their comments. The following is a revised explanation.
Comments 1: Line 193: says distirbution, must say: distribution.
Response 1: these contents have corrected in the article.
Comments 2: In my opinion it is necessary a table with results. The value of pH is not write anywhere. The reader do not know the pH value and can not say if there is a risk of contamination by adsorption of these elements.
Response 2: I very much agree with the reviewer's opinion, these contents were added in the part of 3.4.1. and supplied in the discussion.
Comments 3: Although in table 3 there are the mean of the micronutrients and if we compare with table 2 where it is the interpretation, the authors do not consider a high risk of contamination. Can they explain this?
Response 3: I very much agree with the reviewer's opinion, we only considered the average value of soil micronutrients, in some points, the value is very high. The risk of contamination of extremely high level concentration of soil heavy metal micronutrients has discussed in the article, and the contents have added in the part of discussion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After review the revised version I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and ready for publication in Sustainability.
