Evaluation System Transformation of Multi-Scale Cultivated Land Quality and Analysis of Its Spatio-Temporal Variability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and the topic are challenging. But there are some minor remarks for author(s).

1.      In the chapter 2.3. Methods, a workflow schema would clarify the steps follows by the authors.
2.       Maybe the Discussions should be a little longer.
3.       A little more attention to the text to avoid repetitions (eg line 325)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The co-authors and I would like to thank you for the time and effort spent in reviewing the manuscript. For your questions and suggestions on the article, I have made detailed explanations in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work cultivated land quality and its spatial-temporal variability were analysed at multi-scale level in China. The issue is interesting and worth publishing. The language needs a deep revision. Nevertheless, critical issues about adopted methods were found. In particular, it is very unclear which dataset and their characteristics were used and how them were processed. The formulas and involved parameters were badly reported. Due to methods weaknesses, I found this manuscript lacking in precision and concision. All these issues make the paper difficult to read and to critically discuss. Specific comments are following reported.

1. Line 103-109. It is not clear how many points per strata were selected and which variables were exactly selected. You should deeply describe the variables involved. Moreover, nominal scale map of these data is not specified.
2. L109-111. Define IDW. Interpolation results are strictly affected by parameter adopted e.g. weight coefficient. Please report all parameter adopted and the geometrical resolution of final raster map. You have also to clearly define which data were collected and sorted to define your database.
3. L118-120. Better describe fuzzy statistics, Delphi and systematic clustering methods or, at least, cite some references about their use.
4. Note that many acronyms were not define. Please double check them.
5. L120-123. The IFI index was badly discussed. Why you adopted it? You have also to deeply explain the formula and parameters involved. Currently, IFI and its use are very unclear.
6. L126-147. Which spatial scales characteristics are you referring to? Which indexes, and related weights? what is a memberships functions?
7. These sections are totally unclear. Note that, currently, the method section is very difficult to read making the paper very unclear and weak. These section lack about precision and clarity about adopted method and parameters involved. Without precise information the reader, and also the reviewer, cannot fully evaluate and critically discuss the proposed methods.
8. L211-215. In figure 3 it is clear the presence of two groups. One well fits with the regression line, while the second one not. You should discuss about this issue.
9. L330-331. Note that cultivated land ordinary show a temporal autocorrelation. Changes could be related to previous managements choices. Please discuss about this issue.
   
   

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The co-authors and I would like to thank you for the time and effort spent in reviewing the manuscript. For your questions and suggestions on the article, I have made detailed explanations in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled “Evaluation System Transformation of Multi-scale Cultivated Land Quality and Its Spatial-temporal Variability Analysis” is quite interesting.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. Why did you choose to study the 3 areas?
2. Does the type of crop influence the quality of agricultural soils?
3. What were cultivated on these lands?
4. What happens to these lands?
5. Table 1 lacks some data, for example: no slope is shown for Qingdao city and Shandong province, respectively salinization for Laixi city and Qingdao city
6. What are the characteristics of the soil?
7. In conclusion, which is the most appropriate area? 

For a supplement to the literature on soil quality and environmental protection, the following quotations should be added: 

1.  Rogozan G.C,  Micle V,  Sur I.M, Maps of heavy metals in Cluj county soils developed through regression-kriging method, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol.15(5), pp. 1035 – 1039, 2016,
2. Micle V., Pop D., Sur I.M., Rogozan G.C., Damian G.E., Non-linear Model for Estimating the Residual Pollutant Concentration after Thermal Desorption of Crude Oil Polluted Soil, Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 2019, Vol. 20, No 3, p.1120–1131
3. Li, Y.; Shi, K.; Wang, Y.; Yang, Q. Quantifying and Evaluating the Cultivated Areas Suitable for Fallow in Chongqing of China Using Multisource Data. Land 2021, 10, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010074
4. Li, H.; Liu, X.; Hu, B.; Biswas, A.; Jiang, Q.; Liu, W.; Wang, N.; Peng, J. Field-Scale Characterization of Spatio-Temporal Variability of Soil Salinity in Three Dimensions. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 4043. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12244043

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The co-authors and I would like to thank you for the time and effort spent in reviewing the manuscript. For your questions and suggestions on the article, I have made detailed explanations in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have improved the manuscript as suggested. Therefore, i think that paper is now ready for publication.