The Influence of the Transition to Ecological Farming on the Quality of Runoff Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript analyzed the impacts of greening of agriculture production on the quality of runoff water. The authors compared the parameters of runoff water between 1986–1994 and 2009–2022. However, the sampling in the experimental method is not scientific and rigorous enough, which may lead to a decrease in the credibility of the results. (1) The sampling time for the water samples collected is discontinuous, and some time is missing, including the long period of 1994–2009 (15 years) (Line 116–117). (2) In table 1, the number of samples sampled each year is not fixed. The number of samples in several years, such as 1992, 2019, and 2022, was too small, only 1 to 2 samples. The confidence in statistical analyses from this uneven data was probably reduced. Most importantly, as a long-term experiment, there is no control treatment group, and there are many other factors that may lead to the change of runoff water quality. Surface runoff was significantly affected by the climate. It should consider the factors of climate, especially rainfall and temperate. If there are other human living or production activities nearby, it is also likely to affect the quality of runoff water. In addition, this experiment only sampled at one point, which reduced the credibility of the data. Sampling should be done at multiple points to avoid data bias due to sampling points.
Total nitrogen and total phosphorus are important indicators to measure runoff water, and these important data are lacking in this experiment. Nitrites and nitrates cannot represent the total nitrogen content in water. Likewise, phosphates do not represent the total phosphorus content in the water due to the presence of a large amount of particular phosphorus.
In addition, in this long-term location experiment, the mode of greening of agriculture production, was changing during 1986–2022. What modes or ways in the years 1986–1994 and 2009-2012 (Line 56–57)? What about the mode in the long period of 1994–2009. The change in mode of greening of agriculture production probably led to a loss of confidence in the data. We think in the long-term localization experiments, the treatment or the main factor should be fixed to test the long-term effect of the main factor.
The authors defined the “greening of agriculture production” as support of farmers who adopt or maintain farming practices that help meet environmental and climate goals in lines 53–54. This definition is too broad or controversial. What kind of farming practice is good for the environment and climate? The authors should specify the agricultural method used in the manuscript.
Line 81, total nitrogen supply is 6.0 to 6.5 t ha-1. Please state what the number means? The total N supply was only from agriculture or from all inputs?
Author Response
The manuscript analyzed the impacts of greening of agriculture production on the quality of runoff water. The authors compared the parameters of runoff water between 1986–1994 and 2009–2022. However, the sampling in the experimental method is not scientific and rigorous enough, which may lead to a decrease in the credibility of the results. (1) The sampling time for the water samples collected is discontinuous, and some time is missing, including the long period of 1994–2009 (15 years) (Line 116–117). (2) In table 1, the number of samples sampled each year is not fixed. The number of samples in several years, such as 1992, 2019, and 2022, was too small, only 1 to 2 samples.
We agree that the number of samples is not ideal from a methodological point of view. In the first period (1986-1994), samples were taken by other authors Stachera, J.; Lalković M (Reference 23). In the period 1994-2009 sampling and analyses were not carried out. In 2009, we started taking water samples at the same sampling points. Our intention was to compare the first period (1986-1994) with different agricultural management with the second period (2009-2022), when the catchment was managed ecologically without the useing artificial fertilizers and chemicals. Time gaps in sampling within one period are caused due to the fact that sampling was fixed to ongoing research projects at that time. Despite the omitted time period, the results show a significant change (fig. 2) between the compared periods caused by the change in the watershed management.
The confidence in statistical analyses from this uneven data was probably reduced. Most importantly, as a long-term experiment, there is no control treatment group, and there are many other factors that may lead to the change of runoff water quality.
All analyzes were in accordance with methodological procedures defined in reputable book Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Vol. 49, Elsevier. 1992; 529 p. We consider all statistical analyzes to be correct. Precisely because the data are not continuous, we considered analyzes for continuous measurement, but we used the Mann-Kendall trend test.
Surface runoff was significantly affected by the climate. It should consider the factors of climate, especially rainfall and temperate.
Our main aim was to assess the change in management on selected quality parameters of runoff water. We agree that climate parameters, especially precipitation, affect water quality. However, in this case climatic parameters cause variability in individual parameters. A multiple decrease in nitrates and chlorides and a change in trend was caused by a change in agricultural management. In the case of nitrites and iron, in the discussion section we justify the higher variability by climatic factors. Unfortunately, there are no climate data for the entire analysed period for this location.
If there are other human living or production activities nearby, it is also likely to affect the quality of runoff water.
Except agriculture, there is a minimum human activities in the catchment. There are no businesses or buildings for permanent housing. There are approximately 5 small cottages used for individual recreation. In the discussion section, we consider that the recreation season can cause variability of the coliform bacteria parameter through fecal pollution.
In addition, this experiment only sampled at one point, which reduced the credibility of the data. Sampling should be done at multiple points to avoid data bias due to sampling points.
In 2020, in the case of 4 samplings, control samples were taken from another sampling point. Due to the small differences, the absence of control samples in the previous period and the financial difficulty of analysing water samples, we subsequently did not implement control samples.
Total nitrogen and total phosphorus are important indicators to measure runoff water, and these important data are lacking in this experiment. Nitrites and nitrates cannot represent the total nitrogen content in water. Likewise, phosphates do not represent the total phosphorus content in the water due to the presence of a large amount of particular phosphorus.
We agree with the above statements. Due to the fact that information on total nitrogen and phosphorus was absent in the first period, we had to adapt our sampling to the parameters that were analyzed in the first period. Despite the fact that the parameters do not represent the total amount of nitrogen and phosphorus, the selected indicators significantly affect the quality of drinking water.
In addition, in this long-term location experiment, the mode of greening of agriculture production, was changing during 1986–2022. What modes or ways in the years 1986–1994 and 2009-2012 (Line 56–57)? What about the mode in the long period of 1994–2009. The change in mode of greening of agriculture production probably led to a loss of confidence in the data. We think in the long-term localization experiments, the treatment or the main factor should be fixed to test the long-term effect of the main factor.
Our goal was to compare the impact of change in catchment management on water quality parameters. The change occurred in 2006. At that time, a water reservoir for drinking water was completed near the catchment and the catchment was included in the protection zone of the water resource. This classification meant the prohibition of the use of artificial fertilizers and chemical preservatives. For this reason, we divided and compared the period when the catchment was managed in a conventional way (1986-1994) and the period of ecological management (2009-2022). In the period of missing analyses (1994-2009), the catchment was managed conventionally in the period 1994-2006 and ecologically in the period 2006-2009.
The authors defined the “greening of agriculture production” as support of farmers who adopt or maintain farming practices that help meet environmental and climate goals in lines 53–54. This definition is too broad or controversial. What kind of farming practice is good for the environment and climate? The authors should specify the agricultural method used in the manuscript.
We agree with the reviewer that the term "greening of agricultural production" is too broad and does not adequately express what we wanted to interpret in the manuscript. Therefore, in the entire text, we have replaced "greening of agricultural production" with the more appropriate term "transition to ecological farming". At the same time, we added an explanation of the term "ecological farming" within the Introduction section, that specified the agricultural method used in the manuscript.
Line 81, total nitrogen supply is 6.0 to 6.5 t ha-1. Please state what the number means? The total N supply was only from agriculture or from all inputs?
Total nitrogen supply was determined based on the analysis of the upper soil horizon. This is the stock of total nitrogen in soil. All nitrogen from all inputs is included. We added an explanation in the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting paper. I like your approach to the analysis of data with time gaps. However, I think that it could be better to split the data into more periods, especially data sets 2009-2012 and 2019-2022. In such a case of course could be a question about limited data for statistical analysis. This is just a suggestion and I do not insist.
Fig 1. Please give references or indicate that it is your own study.
Row 139 You are writing about Mann-Whitney U test but in the table the decryption is Mann-Kendall ? You do not have any information about Mann Kendell in chapter 2.3? I think that in row 141 you have the wrong references to a table
- it should be tables 2 and 3.
Row 270. Part of the last sentence of the conclusions is about air quality? You do not analyze air quality so why this conclusion?
Author Response
It is an interesting paper. I like your approach to the analysis of data with time gaps. However, I think that it could be better to split the data into more periods, especially data sets 2009-2012 and 2019-2022. In such a case of course could be a question about limited data for statistical analysis. This is just a suggestion and I do not insist.
We divided the data into two periods, as we wanted to compare the period before and after the transition to ecological farming. Another reason was the abundance of data entering statistical analyses.
Fig 1. Please give references or indicate that it is your own study.
Added to the manuscript
Row 139 You are writing about Mann-Whitney U test but in the table the decryption is Mann-Kendall ? You do not have any information about Mann Kendell in chapter 2.3? I think that in row 141 you have the wrong references to a table .
Through of Mann-Whitney U, we tested the differences between two periods (before the practise of ecological method and after the practise of ecological method). Using the Mann Kendall trend test, we tested the trend of the development of chemical elements over time. This fact was added in methodology of the manuscript.
Row 270. Part of the last sentence of the conclusions is about air quality? You do not analyze air quality so why this conclusion?
A change in parameters: sulphate and pH indicates a change in air quality. We deal with it for these parameters in the discussion section. Hovewer, the main goal is to compare and assess the change in the management of the catchment. With this in mind, we decided to remove this part of the last sentence in the conclusion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Your topic is interesting, manuscript is well structured. However, article has following serious issues that must be addressed prior to further processing of the article.
1. Refer to whole article: Similarity of the article is 34% i.e. very high. 21% similarity is with a single internet source.
2. Refer to section 1: Authors have stated that “The work follows the long-term research carried out in the years 1986 - 1994 [23] and in the years 2009 - 2012 [24]”. Did authors find no relevant research data during 1995 – 2008 or they ignored this period? Justify it.
3. Refer to section 1: “Until 2006, the catchment was intensively managed by using artificial fertilizers and chemical preservatives”. Mention reference at every fact/claim?
4. Refer to section 1: “Since 2006, the catchment has been managed exclusively in an ecological way without the use of fertilizers and chemicals”. Reference missing.
5. Refer to section 1: Did authors analyze the effect of greening agriculture production on quantitative use of water?
6. Refer to section 1: Last paragraph of the Introduction section must describe the structure of the article i.e. missing in this article. It should be included.
7. Refer to section 1: Greening of agriculture production is the key point in the study however; authors have not elaborated greening of agriculture production to a sufficient level. Further, discussion about greening of agriculture production should be included in Introduction section at an appropriate place.
8. Refer to sub-section 2.1: Do the authors believe that their study is equally beneficial and effective for other sites of Central Slovakia. Runoff water is a serious issue, is the study helpful for industrial economies, as well?
9. Refer to sub-section 2.1: At the beginning of the experiment, in 1986 this catchment was used for intensive animal and crop production, with the use of fertilizers and chemical preservatives. At that time, the cooperative managed twice as much area (approximately 3,000 ha) as it does nowadays. In the 1990s, there was a gradual decrease in agricultural production. The number of farmed animals decreased (sheep from 3 000 to 1 800, cattle from 3 000 to 150), and some unused arable land was turned into meadows, and some parts became overgrown with shrub species. Reference missing.
10. Refer to sub-section 2.1: In our case, in the 1980s, an agricultural land manager used an average of 500 tons of fertilizer per year, which is almost 0.2 tons per ha. Reference missing. This is a common issue so author should review their whole article for this comment.
11. Refer to sub-section 2.2: Author state that 58 samples were collected during 2009-2022 whereas; table 1 show 59 samples were collected during this period. Check and resolve this contradiction.
12. Refer to whole article: Authors have compiled and analyzed the results of a long period research. Is it first research article on the topic or any other small part of it has already been reported / published? If it is the first research article then what is contribution of this group except compilation and analysis of already available data?
Good luck.
Author Response
Dear Authors,Your topic is interesting, manuscript is well structured. However, article has following serious issues that must be addressed prior to further processing of the article.
Refer to whole article: Similarity of the article is 34% i.e. very high. 21% similarity is with a single internet source.
Based on the iThenticate report, the overall similarity score/index is 24 % and there is a match with 11 sources. In the most of cases, the match is at the level of 1 % or less than 1 % and concerns properly referenced sources, especially in the introduction and discussion parts of the paper. In addition, the overall percentage match is increased by two of the sources (number 2 and 6), which refer to the overlap in the header and footer of individual pages(!), which we consider irrelevant.
There is a 18 % overlap with the paper of the same author's collective published in Bioresources. The overlap is mainly in the methodology part, because authors used the same research methods in the mentioned paper to compare the impacts of forest cover on surface runoff quality in two small neighbour catchments.
We tried to check all similarity and reduce the overlaps as much as possible within the whole paper. However, it is not possible to completely reduce the overlap in the methodology part, since the samples were taken in the same way.
Refer to section 1: Authors have stated that “The work follows the long-term research carried out in the years 1986 - 1994 [23] and in the years 2009 - 2012 [24]”. Did authors find no relevant research data during 1995 – 2008 or they ignored this period? Justify it.
In the first period (1986-1994), samples were taken by other authors Stachera, J.; Lalković M (Reference 23). In the period 1994-2009 sampling and analyses were not carried out. Considering the fact that we knew about the change in the management of the catchment (2006), we decided to follow up on the long-term previous research. In 2009, we started taking water samples at the same sampling points. Our intention was to compare the first period (1986-1994) with different agricultural management with the second period (2009-2022), when the catchment was managed in an ecological way without the using artificial fertilizers and chemicals.
Refer to section 1: “Until 2006, the catchment was intensively managed by using artificial fertilizers and chemical preservatives”. Mention reference at every fact/claim?
Refer to section 1: “Since 2006, the catchment has been managed exclusively in an ecological way without the use of fertilizers and chemicals”. Reference missing.
The claims were processed based on the data form Internal materials of the “Látky” agricultural farm, - annual reports of used fertilizers, annual reports of used chemical agents, annual indicators of plant and animal production - add in the text.
Refer to section 1: Did authors analyze the effect of greening agriculture production on quantitative use of water?
We investigated the quality parameters of the water, which were quantified.
Refer to section 1: Last paragraph of the Introduction section must describe the structure of the article i.e. missing in this article. It should be included.
The last paragraph that describes the structure of the paper was added in the Introduction section.
Refer to section 1: Greening of agriculture production is the key point in the study however; authors have not elaborated greening of agriculture production to a sufficient level. Further, discussion about greening of agriculture production should be included in Introduction section at an appropriate place.
Within the entire text, we have replaced "greening of agricultural production" with the more appropriate term "transition to ecological farming" that more adequately express what we wanted to interpret through the manuscript (the influence of the transition of agriculture production to ecological farming on the quality of runoff water). At the same time, we added discussion about "ecological farming" in the Introduction section, to elaborate the key point of the study in a sufficient level.
Refer to sub-section 2.1: Do the authors believe that their study is equally beneficial and effective for other sites of Central Slovakia. Runoff water is a serious issue, is the study helpful for industrial economies, as well?
We believe that the study is beneficial in assessing the quality of water resources in the potential transition of conventional agricultural farms to ecological farming. The study can represent benefit water management companies, agricultural farms, and nature conservation in rural regions. Using the study for industrial economies is limited, because other ways of polluting water resources occur in these economies.
Refer to sub-section 2.1: At the beginning of the experiment, in 1986 this catchment was used for intensive animal and crop production, with the use of fertilizers and chemical preservatives. At that time, the cooperative managed twice as much area (approximately 3,000 ha) as it does nowadays. In the 1990s, there was a gradual decrease in agricultural production. The number of farmed animals decreased (sheep from 3 000 to 1 800, cattle from 3 000 to 150), and some unused arable land was turned into meadows, and some parts became overgrown with shrub species. Reference missing.
Refer to sub-section 2.1: In our case, in the 1980s, an agricultural land manager used an average of 500 tons of fertilizer per year, which is almost 0.2 tons per ha. Reference missing. This is a common issue so author should review their whole article for this comment.
The claims were processed based on the data from Internal materials of the “Látky” agricultural farm, - annual reports of used fertilizers, annual reports of used chemical agents, annual indicators of plant and animal production - add in the text.
Refer to sub-section 2.2: Author state that 58 samples were collected during 2009-2022 whereas; table 1 show 59 samples were collected during this period. Check and resolve this contradiction.
We made a mistake in the text. In the second period, we collected 59 samples. A total of 112 samples were collected.
Refer to whole article: Authors have compiled and analyzed the results of a long period research. Is it first research article on the topic or any other small part of it has already been reported / published? If it is the first research article then what is contribution of this group except compilation and analysis of already available data?
It is the first research article on this issue. In the past, one part of the data from sample analyses was used to assess the impact of the forest on water quality. It was a comparison of an agricultural and neighbouring forested catchment, while the influence of the forest on water quality was analysed (Reference 24).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author answered all the questions carefully, and the article has made great progress.
