Suitability of Various Parameters for the Determination of the Condition of Soil Structure with Dependence to the Quantity and Quality of Soil Organic Matter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The attached pdf file contains my comments on your manuscript that should be taken into your consideration to revise the manuscript.

Good luck.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Extensive editing of the English language is needed.

 

Author Response

   

First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your valuable advices and suggestions, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the article. We tried to correct and adjust everything, or explained it. We attach an explanation to each comments and suggestion in your file.

1. 19: 7/seven

• Yes, of course, we adjusted it.

2. 21-22: Please rephrase the abstract, giving emphasis to the research problem addressed, the data utilized, the methods and materials employed, the primary findings, and ultimately the key conclusion.

• Yes, of course, the abstract was rewritten with addition of above requirements.

3. 34-37: Rewrite in a better way, and split it into two sentences.

• Yes, of course, the sentences were rewritten according requirement.

4. 51-53: The same previous comment.

• Yes, of course, the sentences were rewritten according requirement.

5. 70-80: Please refrain from writing lengthy sentences similar to this one as they can be challenging to follow. Instead, consider breaking them down into multiple sentences, each containing one action.

• Yes, of course, this part was rewritten according requirements.

6. 92: Please ensure that this heading is tailored to the study area by clearly indicating and describing the specific area under investigation. Additionally, include a location map of the study area. Furthermore, it is essential to provide a flowchart outlining the procedures, data inputs, and outputs of your study.

• Yes, of course, we adjusted heading and added the location map of the study area and table of data inputs and outputs of this study.

7. 106: (126x2) cm???

• This is the number of soil samples, without units. 126 sampling places x 2 depths (<0.1 m and <0.3 m)

8. 116-117: Please specify the data of soil sampling and include photographs of the soil sampling process as well as the sites where the soil samples were collected.

• Yes, of course, we added the diagram of soil sampling and better described the soil sampling process in the text. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to add the photographs from all localities because of their huge number, and the decision for some of them is very complicated. Moreover, we have not for each place the photographs of detail sampling process in each step. The reason is not only many places (the same in each case), but also the old process that we make the same way at least 20 years. We use to do it automatically and we did not suppose that this pictures can be interesting by something. But, thank you very much for this interesting reminder, we will do it in next sampling. May be this is suitable to have it.

9. 223: Statgraphics Plus statistical software – Which version?

• Yes, of course, we added it.

10. 226: Provide more details on this correlation analysis.

• Yes, of course, the correlation analysis was better specified.

11. 546: ASW/ALW – Kindly incorporate the complete name of this acronym within the caption of the figure.

• Yes, of course, this was corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been nicely drafted with systematic layout, collection of sample , their analysis and appropriate parameters have been chosen for drawing conclusion

My observation are as follows:

1. In Introduction, kindly add content related to tillage as one of the most important parameter affecting SOM taken in the study is tillage.

2. In materials and Method: In line 140 kindly clarify what is "resp." or it is inadvertently written.

3. Conclusion: Need to be rewritten as these seems to be output of individual small observations. Conclusion should have reflected the overall output of the study which other scientist can adopt from the efforts made by the authors in the study. 

English quality is adequate

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your valuable advices and suggestions, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the article. We tried to correct and adjust everything, or explained it. We attach an explanation to each comments and suggestion in your file.

The manuscript has been nicely drafted with systematic layout, collection of samples, their analysis and appropriate parameters have been chosen for drawing conclusion.

My observation are as follows:

1. In Introduction, kindly add content related to tillage as one of the most important parameter affecting SOM taken in the study is tillage.

• Yes, of course, the tillage in Introduction was added.

2. In Materials and method. In line 140 kindly clarify what is “resp.” or it is inadvertently written.

• Yes, of course, this was removed.

3. Need to be rewritten as these seems to be output of individual small observations. Conclusion should have reflected the overall output of the study which other scientist can adopt from the efforts made by the authors in the study.

• Yes, of course, the Conclusion was rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript effectively introduces the importance of soil structure in relation to climate change and states the aim of determining the responses of soil structure parameters to soil type and tillage systems, specifically about soil organic matter and soil texture. However, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Below are some constructive comments to guide the revisions:

1. Provide context for the study location: While you mention that the study was conducted in different parts of Slovakia, it would be helpful to briefly explain why this region was chosen. Is there something specific about the soil types or climatic conditions in Slovakia that make it an appropriate study area for investigating soil structure responses to tillage systems?

2. Clarify research objectives: The final paragraph of the introduction outlines your aims, but the sentence structure is a bit convoluted. Consider revising it for clarity and conciseness. For example: "The aims of this study were to: i) determine the response of selected parameters of soil structure to soil type and tillage system; ii) evaluate their sensitivity by analyzing different fractions of soil organic matter and soil texture; and iii) identify the most suitable parameter for assessing the influence of various factors on the condition of soil structure."

3. Clarify the number of soil samples: In line 104, it is mentioned that the study incorporated 252 soil samples. However, it would be helpful to explicitly state how the samples were distributed among the different factors. For example, you can mention the number of samples per soil type, per tillage system, and per depth. Providing this information will help readers understand the sample size and distribution across the study factors.

4. Specify the crop rotations: In line 105, You mentioned that each locality included three crop rotations, but you haven't provided any details about these rotations. It would be beneficial to briefly describe the specific crops and their sequence in each rotation. This information is important as crop rotations can influence soil properties and structure.

 

5. Add a subsection on statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods section: It would be beneficial to include a subsection describing the statistical analysis used in the study. Mention the specific statistical tests or models employed to analyze the data and evaluate the significance of the results. Additionally, if any software or programming language was used for the statistical analysis, provide that information as well.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your valuable advices and suggestions, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the article. We tried to correct and adjust everything, or explained it. We attach an explanation to each comments and suggestion in your file.

The manuscript effectively introduces the importance of soil structure in relation to climate change and states the aim of determining the responses of soil structure parameters to soil type and tillage systems, specifically about soil organic matter and soil texture. However, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Below are some constructive comments to guide the revisions:

1. Provide context for the study location: While you mention that the study was conducted in different parts of Slovakia, it would be helpful to briefly explain why this region was chosen. Is there something specific about the soil types or climatic conditions in Slovakia that make it an appropriate study area for investigating soil structure responses to tillage systems?

- Yes, of course, we better explain it. In our country – Slovakia, we have 22 soil types. In such relatively small area (49,000 m²), this a number of soil with different genesis. We decided to include to this study soils that are used in agriculture and with the largest proportion; in first stage, in the main agricultural areas – lowlands. We are convinced that in this so heterogeneous conditions there are the best possibilities for studying of various parameters, which influence the soil structure. There are not only many soil types, but also a great number of different tillage systems that farmers use. This study in not based on stationary experiment, but we work in a real production conditions on the real farms and we use also real data obtained from farmers.

2. Clarify research objectives: The final paragraph of the introduction outlines your aims, but the sentence structure is a bit convoluted. Consider revising it for clarity and conciseness. For example: "The aims of this study were to: i) determine the response of selected parameters of soil structure to soil type and tillage system; ii) evaluate their sensitivity by analyzing different fractions of soil organic matter and soil texture; and iii) identify the most suitable parameter for assessing the influence of various factors on the condition of soil structure."

• Yes, of course, thank you very much for your advice. It was adjusted.

3.Clarify the number of soil samples: In line 104, it is mentioned that the study incorporated 252 soil samples. However, it would be helpful to explicitly state how the samples were distributed among the different factors. For example, you can mention the number of samples per soil type, per tillage system, and per depth. Providing this information will help readers understand the sample size and distribution across the study factors.

• Yes, of course, the whole structure of this study was better specified in the diagram.

1. Specify the crop rotations: In line 105, You mentioned that each locality included three crop rotations, but you haven't provided any details about these rotations. It would be beneficial to briefly describe the specific crops and their sequence in each rotation. This information is important as crop rotations can influence soil properties and structure.

• Yes, of course, we know that the organic inputs are very important for the evaluation of these factors, but in this case, each crop rotation was specific in its real conditions. Due to this reason, we calculated organic carbon balance for each field. We have in our country for this purpose the model of organic carbon balance in arable land (Jurčová and Bielek, 1997). This model included primary (crop residues) and secondary (organic fertilizers) inputs and biological (mineralization) and physical (erosion) losses. We monitor these organic carbon balance on each fields in our country. These were the real farming conditions and unfortunately, it is not possible to put it all into the article. It was 126 crop rotations, so we calculated the carbon inputs in all of these fields for last 10 years. We added into the article at least dominant crops with the range of organic carbon inputs.

Included in text: “Organic inputs on all fields for the period of the last 10 years were calculated according to method [38] and varied approximately 8 – 20 tC/ha.”

• Jurčová, O. – Bielek, P. 1997. Method of soil organic method balance and the determination of necessity of organic fertilization. Bratislava: VÚPÚ, 154 p. ISBN 80-85361-26-4.

5. Add a subsection on statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods section: It would be beneficial to include a subsection describing the statistical analysis used in the study. Mention the specific statistical tests or models employed to analyze the data and evaluate the significance of the results. Additionally, if any software or programming language was used for the statistical analysis, provide that information as well.

- Yes, of course, we added the subsection “Statistical analysis used in the study” with more information.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled “Suitability of various parameters for the determination of the condition of soil structure with dependence to the quantity and quality of soil organic matter”, by E Tobiasova, J. Lemanowicz, B. Debska, M. Kunkelova & J. Sakac, presents an interesting work.

In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication but some serious problems must be repaired prior to publication. It needs some significant improvement. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. Could you use English spelling (English alphabet) for your names? I am sorry, but I cannot pronounce your names.
2. I suggest to separate the chapter “3. Results and Discussion”.
3. It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.
4. The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker. It is suggested to the authors to take the assistance of someone with English as mother tongue.
5. You could enrich the scientific literature.
6. Please justify convincingly why this manuscript (method, thematology etc) connected with sustainability’s content and scope. Perhaps the using of proper literature from this journal would be helpful.
7. The authors could take into account the following publication: Alexakis, D.E.; Bathrellos, G.D.; Skilodimou, H.D.; Gamvroula, D.E. Land suitability Mapping Using Geochemical and Spatial Analysis Methods. Appl Sci 2021, 11 (12): 5404

Moderate editing of English language is required

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your valuable advices and suggestions, which certainly contributed to the improvement of the article. We tried to correct and adjust everything, or explained it. We attach an explanation to each comments and suggestion in your file.

The manuscript entitled “Suitability of various parameters for the determination of the condition of soil structure with dependence to the quantity and quality of soil organic matter”, by E Tobiasova, J. Lemanowicz, B. Debska, M. Kunkelova & J. Sakac, presents an interesting work.

In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication but some serious problems must be repaired prior to publication. It needs some significant improvement. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. Could you use English spelling (English alphabet) for your names? I am sorry, but I cannot pronounce your names.

• I would like to apologize for this situation, but I would like to keep our names in this form. It is not only the question of language, but also publications. We not only published other articles under these names, but also we confirmed to this journal that these names are in real correct form. Yes, I agree, it is sometimes quit difficult to write the names of authors of publications. The authors have usually much more complicated names. If I want to cite them, I look for correct letter for a long time. Could you, please, accept our names in this form?

I suggest to separate the chapter “3. Results and Discussion”.

- Yes, of course, but in the previous article to the other journal that we written to mdpi, we had the requirement from a reviewer to unit these two chapters. In this case, we decided to write it such as one chapter. We afraid of disruption of original succession of idea. We have this experience just from the mentioned article, when we did it, but in opposite way.

2. It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.

- Yes, of course, the aim of the study was adjusted.

3. The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker. It is suggested to the authors to take the assistance of someone with English as mother tongue.

- Yes, of course, the language was checked by native speaker.

4. You could enrich the scientific literature.

- Yes, of course, the scientific literature was enriched.

Please justify convincingly why this manuscript (method, thematology etc) connected with sustainability’s content and scope. Perhaps the using of proper literature from this journal would be helpful. The authors could take into account the following publication: Alexakis, D.E.; Bathrellos, G.D.; Skilodimou, H.D.; Gamvroula, D.E. Land suitability Mapping Using Geochemical and Spatial Analysis Methods. Appl Sci 2021, 11 (12): 5404

• Yes, of course. The article deals with the consequence of agriculture to the quality of soil that is in a close relation to climate changes. In this time, different agricultural systems are used that influence on the soil in a various way. Securing of the sustainable soil quality is possible only in the case of right indicators. These are in this time applicate generally in all regions and for all soils. This does not solve the problems concerning to climate change. Human influence to organic carbon stock and thus global carbon cycle is just in a close relation to soil structure. Its stabilization in soil aggregates is primary, moreover mechanism of physical stabilization of carbon signifies a great potential for carbon sequestration. Better knowledge and using of soil structure parameters for the evaluation of the condition of soil structure is an important task for maintenance of the balance between ecology and agricultural in the area of soil environment. Moreover, to sustain a good soil structure condition is also very important task and it is one of the important solution for water uptake in urban areas. Water infiltration into the soil is one the basic solution of protection before floods.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please take into consideration my comments on your manuscript, which are outlined in the attached PDF file, as you make revisions.

Good luck.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your valuable advices and suggestions, which contributed to a better quality of this article. We tried to adjust everything and add the required information. We attach an explanation to each comments and suggestion.

 

Reviewer 1

 

1. Provide a hint about this factor, and the other factors focused on in the current study.

• Yes, of course, we adjusted it. Both important factors were highlighted and better specified.

2. For what that sampling?

• Yes, of course, “sampling” was removed.

3. I noticed a need for more consistency and logical flow in the abstract writing style. I tis crucial to highlight the research problem and its significance within the study area. The, the abstract should cover the data and methods used to accomplish the research objectives. Finally, the abstract should summarize the most significant findings, conclusions, and key challenges encountered during the research.

• Yes, of course, abstract was rewritten according to mentioned above.

4. To enhance readability and facilitate comprehension, i tis advisable to structure the page text into distinct paragraphs. This will ensure that the content is easy to follow and more accessible to readers.

• Yes, of course, it was adjusted.

5. It is not recommended to initiate a new paragraph with a sentence that is still closely connected to the preceding one.

• Yes, of course, it was adjusted.

6. “Parameters/parameters” – Please rephrase.

• Yes, of course, it was changed.

7. “On the one hand; However”

• Yes, of course, it was adjusted.

8. Articulate the study objectives in a concise and precise manner.

• Yes, of course, the aims were adjusted. First part of paragraph (“This study aimed to evaluate … Therefore,”) was rewritten. Second part (“the aims of this study were: i) determine … soil structure.”) was left, because it was written accurately according to one of the reviewers. We afraid of this change, because this reviewer approved it before.

9. Coordinates; lat. & long.?

• Yes, of course, this was added in the table 1.

10. Please arrange the manuscript in a more cohesive manner, minimizing the occurrence of empty or blank spaces.

• Yes, of course, this was adjusted.

11. Please increase the scale and the coordinate's font size.

• Yes, of course, this was adjusted.

12. The title should be more informative.

• Yes, of course, the title was improved.

13. “(7x3),(21x3),(63x2),(126x2)”

• Yes, of course, this was removed, because this information is included in diagram (Figure 2), and now it is not important to be presented also in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After careful revision by the author, the quality of the manuscript has significantly improved, meeting the requirements for publication in the journal. I recommend accepting it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time spent with this review, which contributed to improving our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled “Suitability of various parameters for the determination of the condition of soil structure with dependence to the quantity and quality of soil organic matter”, by E. Tobiasova, J. Lemanowicz, B. Debska, M. Kunkelova, & J. Sakac, presents an improved and good work.

The manuscript should be acceptable for publication in the present form.

Minor editing of English language is required

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time spent with this review, which contributed to improving our article. Yes, of course, the language was again checked by native speaker.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf