Soil Salinity Type Effects on the Relationship between the Electrical Conductivity and Salt Content for 1:5 Soil-to-Water Extract

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Amin et al. proposes to examine the relations between EC and TSS of soils in a dilute extract, as assesing soil salinity is a critical factor of economical nature, regarding Kur‒Araz basin located in Azerbaijan

 My first and most deeply concern is the statement at Line 64-66 "Sustainability of the agroecosystem in salt‒affected lands could be preserved by studying salinity related soil processes (e.g. the interactions between root‒zone environment and plant response to elevated osmotic pressure)" . From a microbiological point of view, rhizobacteria (that are root-associated bacteria that form symbiotic relationships with many plants) are a crucial aspect in the proper evaluation of the current status of soil. 

Also, there is no mentioning of either rhizobacteria nor salt-tolerant microbiota (Halobacterium) nor Nitrobacter in soil. A study assesing the current status of the soil must involve a microbiological point of view, atleast the very basis.

However, judging by the chemical analytical point of view of the nature of the study, the article seems suitable, although I need to keep my statement that one can not have a soil evaluation disregarding basic microbiota knowledge.

Another issue I can spot is at Line 129, a GPS location of the places the soil samples were taken would be preferred. 

Beside the issue stated above, the article is well written and well organized 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for the valuable comments and directions aimed at improving the manuscript. Our point to point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Line numbers in brackets refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Amin et al. proposes to examine the relations between EC and TSS of soils in a dilute extract, as assessing soil salinity is a critical factor of economical nature, regarding Kur‒Araz basin located in Azerbaijan

 

• My first and most deeply concern is the statement at Line 64-66 "Sustainability of the agroecosystem in salt‒affected lands could be preserved by studying salinity related soil processes (e.g. the interactions between root‒zone environment and plant response to elevated osmotic pressure)". From a microbiological point of view, rhizobacteria (that are root-associated bacteria that form symbiotic relationships with many plants) are a crucial aspect in the proper evaluation of the current status of soil. 

 

Also, there is no mentioning of either rhizobacteria nor salt-tolerant microbiota (Halobacterium) nor Nitrobacteria in soil. A study assesing the current status of the soil must involve a microbiological point of view, at least the very basis.

 

Response 1. Thanks. We agree with the reviewer that soil microbiology is a crucial component of the soil ecosystem and needs to be considered for evaluation of soil status. However, the main objective of our study is establishing the relation between EC and TSS for soils having eight salinity chemistry for 1: 5 soil to water extract, i.e. contribution of salinity chemistry on soil EC. It is important from point of consideration of salinity stress associated with ion composition, better irrigation and leaching fraction management and use of water resources, etc.

 

Thus, the issue of the impact of salinity on the soil ecosystem (including soil microbiology) may look outside the scope. However, following this comment of Reviewer 1 (e.g. considering microbial activity at least the very basis, salt-tolerant microbiota) and comment of Reviewer 2 (e.g. streaming introduction on salinity chemistry), we have combined our response to these two comments (somehow contradictory) and modified the text of Introduction and Discussion (LL.40-41, 44-45,50-54, 56, 74, 76-79, 298). We have noted that in the root zone both indices (salinity and biota) affect soil quality, and microbial activity and plant growth depend are also affected by the salinity characteristics (type and chemistry and specific ion effect). Thus EC and TSS relations in association with salinity type may provide us with improved knowledge on soil-plant interaction and may assist with better management linked to sustainable agriculture.

 

 

• However, judging by the chemical analytical point of view of the nature of the study, the article seems suitable, although I need to keep my statement that one can not have a soil evaluation disregarding basic microbiota knowledge.

Response 2: In continuation to our response to the former comment, we wish to emphasize again that the study does not directly focus on soil status under saline conditions, but on the EC1:5 and TSS relationships. However we have considered Reviewer comment and made relevant change in the text of the paper(LL.40-41, 44-45,50-54, 56, 74, 76-79, 298). Please see our previous response (Response # 1).

 

• Another issue I can spot is at Line 129, a GPS location of the places the soil samples were taken would be preferred. 

Response 5: GPS location of sampling area by five plains were added (LL.143-146, Figure 1).

 

• Beside the issue stated above, the article is well written and well organized. 

Response 6: We wish to thank the reviewer for the favorable comment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. No research hypothesis is presented in the introduction.

2. The introduction could be more concrete.

3. I recommend presenting the discussion in a separate chapter.

4. I recommend not to use old literature sources.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2   Comments

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for the valuable comments and directions aimed at improving the manuscript. Our point to point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Line numbers in brackets refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• No research hypothesis is presented in the introduction.

Response 1: Some modification have been made and a research hypothesis has been added to the paper, namely: "We hypothesize that for a 1:5 soil:water extract, the association between the EC and TSS will vary among soils differing in their salinity chemistry."  (LL.40,42,47,51,52,76-79, 104-105,107,125-126,131-132).

 

• The introduction could be more concrete.

Response 2: We have changed introduction and made it clearer. Taking into account that there were some kind of contradictory approach in reviewer’s comments (e.g. streaming the objective on salinity chemistry, and consideration soil microbial activity in general) we have tried to consider both of them and combined our response, where it is possible. Text of Introduction and Discussion was slightly modified (LL.40,42,47,51,52,76-79, 104-105,107,125-126,131-132, 289-290, 297-298). For instance, soil hydraulic characteristics, plant development and microbiological activity are also affected salinity degree and chemistry (EC, specific ion effect), which was necessary to develop of the hypothesis. See also our response to Reviewer 1.

 

• I recommend presenting the discussion in a separate chapter.

Response 3: We are aware that there are two schools of thoughts regarding structuring of scientific papers. One, advocates the presentation of the Results and the Discussion sections together, and the other favors presentation of the two sections separately. Meanwhile in the current revised version of the manuscript we separated Results (LL. 165-214) and Discussion sections (LL.215-312).

 

 

• I recommend not to use old literature sources.

Response 4: 5 of old literatures (3,6,7,34,40,41) was replaced with the new one. However another 5 old critical literature was kept, since we beg to differ with the reviewer regarding to these references.

 

We are of the opinion that due credit should be given to "old studies" in current research work. Citing only new literature sources may give the readers the impression that science at the given field has started only recently, which of course is not the case. Adopting the proposed approach will lead to ignoring old and pioneering studies leading to identification of   "apparent" new gaps in our knowledge  on one hand, and unnecessary repeat of studies that have already been conducted.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

The manuscript entitled: Soil salinity type effects on the relation between the electrical conductivity and salt content for 1:5 soil to water extract is an interesting article and up to date article.

The manuscript is very well written with only a few grammatical errors and the authors clearly explain the methods and results. Furthermore, the references are up to date and very informative

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3   Comments

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewer for the valuable comments and directions aimed at improving the manuscript. Our point to point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Line numbers in brackets refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear authors. The manuscript entitled: Soil salinity type effects on the relation between the electrical conductivity and salt content for 1:5 soil to water extract is an interesting article and up to date article.

 

• The manuscript is very well written with only a few grammatical errors and the authors clearly explain the methods and results. Furthermore, the references are up to date and very informative.

Response 1: We appreciate the support of the reviewer for our study. We read the manuscript carefully to weed out grammatical errors.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made the revisions they were asked, therefore I find the manuscript suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments.