Impacts of Land Use Changes on Soil Functions and Water Security: Insights from a Three-Year-Long Study in the Cantareira System, Southeast of Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper " Surface runoff and soil water storage in the Cantareira System, Brazil" investigated the surface runoff and soil water storage in different land use areas in the Cantareira System. The methods are reasonable, the figure is easy to follow, the struct is good, and the results are clear and can reflect the aim of this study. Overall, the research is good work and the manuscript is well written, but the author should be addressed a few questions in this manuscript, so I suggest a major revision before being accepted for publication.

 

The comments are listed below.

General comments：

1.        Abstract: You should expand the universal significance of the research, and should not be limited to the Cantareira System, due to the issues that have universal significance.

2.        Method: Should explain how sampled, for example, use a sampler or cutting ring? Furthermore, should explain how determined the contents of clay, silt and sand, BD, KS, PT, MAC, and MIP. Around sampling points the surface runoff (SR) tests should perform three replicates.

“8 seasons in the period of 2019, 2020, and 2021”—What season in 2019 to what season in 2021? It is necessary information should be given in the method, although you have shown in figures 5-7 and results.

3.        Results and Discussion: The discussion should be strengthened to highlight the issue of this study. Furthermore, I think the author should compare the difference between hapludult, dystrudept, and usthorent, i.e., the data in Figure 3 and Figures 5-7, and discuss why they are different to highlight the significance of this study.

4.        Introduction: the aims of this study have five points, in my opinion, can you simplify it? I think part of the aims is not necessary.

5.        Conclusion: You also should expand the universal significance of research.

 

Specific comments：

1.        Table 1: the unit of clay, silt and sand is g kg^-1, it is usually use %.

2.        Figures 5-7: what is the number (%) next to each graph? You should supply this information in the figure title. And why there is no E and EG data in November 2020?

3.        The “spatial-temporal dynamics” is not suitable, maybe “temporal dynamics” will be better. Because the results are base on reasons and soil types, which are difficult to reflect the spatial change in such a large area, i.e., the Cantareira system.

 

4.        Article title should be rewritten to expand the significance and characteristics.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

not bad.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper “Surface runoff and soil water storage in the Cantareira System, Brazil” have investigated the surface runoff and soil water storage in different land use area in the Cantareira System. The methods are reasonable, the figure is easy to follow, the struct is good, and the results are clear and can reflect the aim of this study. Overall, the research is good work and manuscript is well written, but the author should be addressed few questions of this manuscript, so I suggest a major revision before accepted for publication.

Thanks.

General comments:

1. Abstract: You should expand the universal significance of research, should not be limited to the Cantareira System, due to the issues have the universal significance. R.: We rewritten the abstract to make it more quantitative and have eliminated certain sentences that were not relevant.
2. Method: Should explain how sampled, for example, use sampler or cutting ring? Furthermore, should explain how determined the contents of clay, silt and sand, BD, KS, PT, MAC, and MIP. Around sampling points the surface runoff (SR) tests should performed three replicates. “8 seasons in the period of 2019, 2020, and 2021” – What season in 2019 to what season in 2021? It is necessary information should be given in method, although you have shown in figures 5-7 and results. R.: We added the explain in the text:

“Particle size distribution in disturbed samples was determined by the hydrometer method [32]. Undisturbed samples were collected using steel cylinders (2.5 cm in height x 6.3 cm diameter) for the determination of soil bulk density (BD), total porosity (TP), macroporosity (MAC) and microporosity (MIP) [33,34]. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (KS) was measured with a constant-charge permeameter [35]in steel cylinders (8.0 cm in height and 6.4 cm diameter). Additional soil characterization and land use management information for each site is available in Santana et al. [36].

And: “was carried out in the study areas in the period of 2019 (summer, fall, winter and spring), 2020 (winter and spring), and 2021 (summer and fall)”.

3. Results and Discussion: The discussion should be strengthened to highlight the issue of this study. Furthermore, I think the author should compare the difference between hapludult, Dystrudept, and Usthortent, i.e., the data in figure 3 and figures 5-7, and discuss why they different to highlight the significance of this study. R.: We enhanced the discussion by incorporating additional literature to support the observed inferences and conclusions.
4. Introduction: the aims of this study have five points, in my opinion, can you simplify it? I think part of the aims is not necessary. R.: We simplify the aims.
5. Conclusion: You also should expand the universal significance of research. R.: We rewritten the conclusion.

Specific comments:

1. Table 1: the unit of clay, silt and sand is g kg-1, it is usually use %. R.: The unit was changed to %.
2. Figures 5-7: what is number (%) next to each graph? You should supply this information in the figure title. And why there is no E and EG data in November 2020? R.: Due to the limitations of COVID-19, it was not possible to carry out the measurements in the summer and fall of 2021 and in the eucalyptus and extensive pasture areas in the spring of 2021 for the Typic Hapludult. Also, we added this information in the figure: “The absolute error is indicated by the percentages on the lower left side”.
3. The “spatial-temporal dynamics” is not suitable, maybe “temporal dynamics” will be better. Because the results base on reasons and soil types, which are difficult to reflect the spatial change in such large area, i.e., Cantareira system. R.: We have made the adjustment to use "temporal dynamics" instead of "spatial-temporal dynamics”.
4. Article title should be rewritten to expand the significance and characteristics. R.: We change the title: Impacts of land use changes on soil functions and water security: Insights from a three-year study in the Cantareira System, Southeast of Brazil.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the Authors

The research article entitled “Surface runoff and soil water storage in the Cantareira System, Brazil” is a good work, admirable good and latest. It has valuable results and findings that can contribute to the field well. All the models (Figures) are attractive and presented well. The results are presented well in the discussion section and these are compared with other studies as well. But still some improvements are needed for the betterment of the manuscript. Therefore, I accept the article for publication with major corrections. My comments are:

1.     The title is less descriptive. It should be descriptive type and put some introduction of the soil types like, Impacts of surface runoff and soil water storage in different soils of Cantareira System, Brazil. It can be further improved as well.  

2.     The overall matter in the manuscript is the use of 3^rd person. The authors used the word “we” in many places. That is “we conducted a three-year study…….” In the 4^th line of the abstract. Similarly, in other places this issue can be seen easily. This issue must be resolved throughout the manuscript. 

3.     The manuscript is full of grammatical mistakes. No focus has been given to use which form of a verb like, “For evaluated the erosion resistance the surface runoff was measured using the Cornell infiltrometer …....” Here consider the use of evaluated word. Similar mistakes have been repeated in the whole text. I recommend reviewing the manuscript from a native English language report writer.  

4.     The abstract should be quantitative type. Some results should be kept in the results section to understand the paper quality. Moreover, the general sentences should be removed/decreased from the abstract to make more concise.

5.     I recommend revision of the keywords also. Use the most appropriate keyword from the manuscript.

6.     In the last para of the introduction, I have observation on the hypotheses. A hypothesis must show a case of may or may not situation like, surface runoff may vary among different land uses and soil types with lower rates in the native forest. Similarly, read the instructions for a making hypothesis and design each hypothesis accordingly.

7.     In figure 2(a), I do not see the data of 2004 to 2021, although it is written in the caption of the figure. Similar is case of Fig. 2(b) for 2017 to 2021.

8.     In conclusion, it should be written that what you conclude from the study. While in its last we recommend a recommendation for the readers. I don’t see the conclusion like that. Please revise the conclusion.

 

******************* THE END*******************

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

As above

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The research article entitled “Surface runoff and soil water storage in the Cantareira System, Brazil” is good work, admirable good and latest. It has valuable results and findings that can contribute to the field well. All the models (Figures) are attractive and presented well. But still some improvements are needed for the betterment of manuscript. Therefore, I accept the article for publication with major corrections.

Thanks.

1. The title is less descriptive. It should be descriptive type and put some introduction of the soil types like, Impacts of surface runoff and soil water storage in different soils of Cantareira System, Brazil. It can be further improved as well. R.: We change the title: Impacts of land use changes on soil functions and water security: Insights from a three-year study in the Cantareira System, Southeast of Brazil.
2. The overall matter in the manuscript is the use of 3^rd person. The authors used the word “we” in many places. That is “we conducted a three-year study …” In the 4^th line of the abstract. Similarly, in order places this issue can be seen easily. This issue must be resolved throughout the manuscript. R.: We carefully reevaluated the entire manuscript, and rewrite all the topics.
3. The manuscript is full of grammatical mistakes. No focus has been given to use which form of a verb like, “For evaluated the erosion resistance the surface runoff was measured using the Cornell infiltrometer …” Here considers the use of evaluated word. Similar mistakes have been repeated in the whole text. I recommend reviewing the manuscript from a native English language report writer. R.: The overall language spelling was checked in the text manuscript and improved.
4. The abstract should be quantitative type. Some results should be kept in the results section to understand the paper quality. Moreover, the general sentences should be removed/decreased from the abstract to make more concise. R.: We rewritten the abstract to make it more quantitative and have eliminated certain sentences that were not relevant.
5. I recommend the revision of the keywords also. Use the most appropriate keyword from the manuscript. R.: The keywords were rewritten. In this new version, we include: ecosystem services, erosion resistance, groundwater recharge, soil security and land use.
6. In the last part of the introduction, I have observations on the hypotheses. A hypothesis must show a case of may or may not situation like, surface runoff may vary among different land uses and soil types with lower rates in the native forest. Similarly, read the instructions for a making hypothesis and design each hypothesis accordingly. R.: We simplify and rewritten the hypothesis.
7. In figure 2(a), do not see the data of 2004 to 2021, although it is written in the caption of the figure. Similar is case of Fig. 2(b) for 2017 to 2021. R.: The figure illustrates the weekly rainfall during the studied period and the monthly average rainfall based on the available dataset from 2004 to 2021 (Bragança Paulista) and 2017 to 2021 (Monte Verde). We have made the necessary correction in the figure caption to accurately describe the data presented.
8. In conclusion, it should be written that what you conclude from the study. While in its last we recommend a recommendation for the readers. I don’t see the conclusion like that. Please revise the conclusion. R.: We rewritten the conclusion.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This article adopts empirical methods of environmental monitoring to explore the correlation between soil, hydrology, forests, and climate conditions and analyzes the observed data over a three-year period. It is valuable research content that deserves attention and adoption. However, there are still several suggestions in the article that need to be taken seriously and revised by the author.

1.     To enhance the value of this article, the methodology of this study should be highlighted, and the methods used should be presented and described in a schema (model) to form the value of the research method. Therefore, it is recommended to present the methods in a separate section (Section 3).

2.     The description of research results and findings throughout the article is relatively scattered and cannot highlight the value of the research content. It is recommended to summarize and highlight the important findings and results in the conclusion section and emphasize the contribution of the research, which includes methodology and results.

3.     The format of the references is incorrect, and the listed content is also incomplete, such as 7/11/18/27/34/40/42/44/52, etc. Please refer to the description of the journal for the standard format.

4.     There is no relevant research or citation for the submitted journal in the papers, so there is no citation for the journal in the references. It is recommended to focus on the relevant research papers of the journal and increase the attention and citation of several papers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This article adopts empirical methods of environmental monitoring to explore the correlation between soil, hydrology, forests, and climate conditions and analyzes the observed data over a three-year period. It is valuable research content that deserves attention and adoption. However, there are still several suggestions in the article that need to be taken seriously and revised by author.

Thanks.

1. To enhance the value of this article, the methodology of this study should be highlighted, and the methods used should be present and described in a schema (model) to form the value of the research method. Therefore, it is recommended to present the methos in a separate section (Section 3). R.: We incorporated a dedicated section for methods, labeled as "Section 3: Methods," in the revised manuscript.
2. The description of research results and findings throughout the article is relatively scattered and cannot highlighted the value of the research content. It is recommended to summarize and highlighted the important findings and results in the conclusion section and emphasize the contributions of the research, which includes methodology and results. R.: We carefully reevaluated the conclusion.
3. The format of the references is incorrect, and the listed content is also incomplete, such as 7/11/18/27/34/40/42/44/52, etc. Please refer to the description of the journal for the standard format. R.: We have addressed the issue and corrected the references' format and content as per the standard guidelines outlined in the journal.
4. There is no relevant research or citation for the submitted journal in the papers, so there is no citation for the journal in the references. It is recommended to focus on the relevant research papers of the journal and increase the attention and citation of several papers. R.: We enhanced the discussion by incorporating additional literature to support the observed inferences and conclusions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author made a good revision, and I recommend that the manuscript be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

You have done all the comments in a good way and improved the manuscript well. Therefore, I accept the paper in this format and recommend it for publication in the journal. 

Regards