Variation of Physico-Chemical Properties among Different Soil Orders under Different Land Use Systems of the Majha Region in North-Western India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction

a)       What is the main innovation of the work? How does this publication contribute more broadly to science? What are the main gaps that the present work fills in the technical-scientific literature.

b)      Note that the literature cited in the introduction is still insufficient.

In addition to the specific importance for the study region, how the applications made contribute to the improvement of scientific knowledge regarding the variability of the physical-chemical properties of soils. ?

Material and methods

c)      In the Geographical area and location it would be interesting to include a map showing the study area.

Results and discussion

d)     The authors could further explore the results of descriptive statistics for the data in all result blocks. Could authors use the coefficient of variation to infer the degree of variability?

e)     The discussion of the results presented needs to be improved.

f)        What are the limitations of the results?

 

g) Pag 9, line 246. “The correlation studies between various physical-chemical parameters”

h)   Could the authors add the magnitude of the correlation?

conclusions

i) The conclusions are very general. I suggest that the authors reflect on the main conclusions of the work, based on the main results.

Author Response

Reviewers 1: The comments with attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract L18-25, authors summarized their data based on soil orders, what's the pattern for soil properties under 3 different land-uses and different depths?

L26 I didn't see any summary for soil properties under different land-use, how authors jump to the conclusion that "the distribution of soil chemical properties is significantly influenced by land use systems"

Introduction: Is there any prior research at Majha region relevant to the research topic? Authors didn't provide any existing knowledge. If there are no study carried out at study region, authors should cite some synthesis or meta-analysis. Any hypotheses?

Methods: A critical flaw for this study is that within each land-use system, particularly agriculture and horticulture, the management practice such as fertilization, plowing and straw removal/incorporation will cause substantial effects to soil properties that obscure the main effect of land-use/soil orders author wished to address. 

Results and discussions:

I saw authors made a very nice introduction (L60-70) on the formation and characteristics of these 3 soil orders, but I didn't see any attempt to link results with the information provided.

I suggest authors conduct variance partitioning analysis

Minor: 

L52 "SOM" first appearance

L56 changes to physical and chemical properties are not necessarily only influenced by changes in SOM, the plant litter input, anthropogenic activities such as input and management can also directly alter soil properties.

L176 any data to support the claim the forest systems in entisols receive more litter input than the other two soil orders?

 

Author Response

Reviewers 2: with Comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the manuscript by Gowthamchand et al. Variation of physico-chemical properties among different soil orders under different land use systems falling in Majha region of Punjab in North-western India. This research results will provide scientific basis for the rational use of land in Punjab in North-western India. Meanwhile, the manuscript is well structured and organized, there are also many problems in the manuscript. Therefore, this manuscript needs major revision:

 

1)The results and analysis of the abstract are not very logical and lack the final conclusion of the

manuscript.

2)The manuscript lacks discussion, and it is suggested to supplement discussion.

3)Because there was no information about replicates, I could not trust on data and some data had no error bar. The manuscript had no statistic analysis? Then, how can you conclude that was significant or not (for most figures and table).

4)To «conclusion», add perspectives. Try to provide some gaps for further research; this will enhance the novelty of the paper.

5）Figure 1.Unclear description, suggest to draw new drawings.

6)Figure 3 is of poor quality. It is recommended to draw new pictures。

7）Principal component analysis needs to be greatly modified

Author Response

Reviewers-3: with comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very clear, very-well written, and even better focused work describing the variation of crucial soil parameters throughout soil types and land uses. I found the paper easy to read. It follows a linear history and it is not dispersive. Sampling is balanced, statistics are well chosen based on the aims and it gives information which is relevant and useful for farmers and decision makers. I rarely find myself evaluating manuscripts with this high level of clarity and I appreciate it very much. My compliments to authors.

Some minor criticism: the study is somewhat not up-to-date. Soil biological analyses would improve the work, however I understand that this is a work that preceeds in-deep analysis, which if done, I await to read some day.

Some recomendations: I suggest to change tables in the results and discussion section by figures. See the following link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=representing+soil+organic+carbon+in+depth&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiw5PWhoJL7AhXFtqQKHWGqCskQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=representing+soil+organic+carbon+in+depth&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECCMQJzoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCABDoICAAQgAQQsQM6BAgAEEM6CggAELEDEIMBEEM6BwgAEIAEEBM6CAgAEAUQHhATOggIABAIEB4QE1CmBli7P2D7SWgAcAB4AYAB9wGIAfQskgEHMTkuMTcuNpgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=LNRjY7CeBMXtkgXh1KrIDA&bih=907&biw=1680&rlz=1C1GCEA_enES901ES901#imgrc=X_hEUwAXllmM5M.

In addition, it would be better to improve the quality of figure 2. I also would change the title of the section 3.8 "Principal component analsys" by another more representative of the performed analysis. Finally, I suggest to remove the numbers in figure 3 modifying them by hulls representing soil types or land uses. In this way, lines 288 to 292 can be removed or better articulated.

Overall, I found the manuscript very interesting and worth for publication under minor revisions. 

 

Author Response

Reviewers 4: with comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editors, it can be seen that the authors have done a great job of improving the document. In this context, I believe that the article is suitable for publication.

best regards

Author Response

Reviewer's reply is submitted

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has revised most of the comments, and it is recommended that the manuscript be accepted after being revised as follows：

1.The results of the abstract are too many words. It is recommended to refine.

2.The purpose and significance of the preface is not very clear, leading to less prominent innovation points.“Hence, the current study aims to characterize the soil properties.....Majha region of Punjab in northwest India”Need to be re written.

3.The lower part of Figure 1 is not very clear, and Figure 1 needs to be redrawn.

4.The full text lacks a discussion section, which needs to be added separately

5.The author's statement on land use mode and soil physical and chemical properties is not very clear, and it is recommended to refer to the following documents and add references.

1). Factors Influencing the Evolution of Human-driven Rocky Desertification in Karst Areas. Land Degradation & Development, 2020, 31:2506-2513.

2). Distribution and migration characteristics of microplastics in farmland soils, surface water and sediments in Caohai Lake, southwestern plateau of China.Journal of Cleaner Production 366 (2022) 132912.

3).Relationships between soil properties and the accumulation of heavy metals in different Brassica campestris L. growth stages in a Karst mountainous area. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2020,206:111150. 

Author Response

Reply of reviewer 3 is submitted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf