Effects of Land-Use Types on Topsoil Physicochemical Properties in a Tropical Coastal Ecologically Fragile Zone of South China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

The manuscript titled “Changes in Topsoil Physicochemical Properties across Land use Types in Tropical Coastal Ecologically Fragile Zone, South China” has great potential and some enlightening significance on the impact of land use types on physicochemical properties of topsoil. The article could be accepted in the current form, but there are few points if addressed, could enhance the readability of the article. The specific comments are listed below:

Specific Comments:

Keywords:

Keywords are important to make your article more discoverable in online searches. Keywords should not overlap with the title. Please see the journals requirement and replace the overlapped ones i.e. “tropical coastal, ecologically fragile zone, and topsoil physicochemical” with other suitable words, if these words are really not important here.

Introduction:

There is a good transition connection and alignment among the sentences/paragraphs. But, Authors could not clearly discuss the research gap, and novelty of this paper for the scientific contribution. It is therefore recommended to incorporate these statements in the revised version of the manuscript.

Materials and Methods:

Methods must be complete enough to allow the work to be repeated, and authors effectively convey the methodology in simple and comprehensive way.

Conclusion:

Could authors use the conclusions to look at the broader implications for regions outside the specific area? Please also mention the research limitation, and research implications for regions outside this specific area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to authors:

 1.       Line no. 18:  Soil physicochemical property     to     Soil  physicochemical properties

2.       Line no. 20:   RL, AL, and EP, while bulk         to      RL, AL, and EP, while, bulk

3.       Line no. 36-37:  geological 36 history                to            geological 36 history,

4.       Line no. 42:         will help                            to            Vegetational changes

6.       Line no. 55          Ecologically                        to            Ecologically, the

7.       Line no. 99          typhoons, while a dry               to            typhoons, while, a dry

8.       In line no. 124-125, if subdivided 2m × 2 m each, then how four plots will be there. In my opinion, there should be five. Please check.

9.       In line no. 139- 148, Steps used to determine TN, TP, AN, AK, ECa, etc. should be given in brief.  As this is a research paper and researcher working in this field follow and read such publication to use them in their research work. Such limited information cannot be helpful for readers as well as researchers.  

10.    Line no. 153        change …. and calculate                to            and calculated

11.    Line no. 153        change.. The result of MRPP        to           The results of MRPP

12.    Line no. 171        PCA showed the   to    Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that

13.    Line no. 179        Principal component analysis      to            Principal component analysis (PCA)

14.    Line no. 187       MRPP demonstrated        to        Multi-Response Permutation Procedures

(MRPP) demonstrated that

15.    Line no. 211        At both soil depth                      to            At both soil depths,

16.    Line no. 238        At both soil depth                      to            At both soil depths,

17.    Line no. 253        in a certain situation                  to            in certain situations

18.    Line no. 270-271: Authors are requested to provide more description of these previous studies here based on availability of organic matter in the form of leaves and other facts to support these just opposite.

Thanks.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer's      comments:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2248469-peer-review-v1：“Changes in Topsoil Physicochemical Properties across Land-use Types in Tropical Coastal Ecologically Fragile Zone, South China”

Review            Summary:
I have read the above paper carefully and found that the presented work is very important but before considering for publication, some major modifications are needed to refine this manuscript for more meaningful outcomes.  Therefore, I suggest that major modifications have to be done before considering it for publication. According to my review, some MAJOR modifications are needed by the author(s).

Please find below my specific comments:

 

Review comments:

1.        The title seems to convey no logical meaning. I am unable to perceive that what is the purpose of conducting this study from reading the title. Please modify the title which clearly reflect the purpose of this study.

2.      Lines 14-15: What does authors mean by “Unreasonable land use” here in this statement. The reasonability of the land use depends on the purpose for which it is utilized, but here the purpose is very vague, and authors just indirectly pointed towards “ecologically fragile zone”. Please directly stick to the fragile zone rather than writing vague statement. 

3.      Why authors selected only three types of land use: “Abandoned land (AL), Eucalyptus plantation (EP), and Road lawn (RL)” in this study. Isn’t there any other vegetation types or tree species exist in the proposed study area? Is it logical to compare the Road lawn (RL) with Eucalyptus plantation (EP) despite of the fact of differences in basic physiology and types including roots system? Isn’t it known fact that Road lawn (RL) exhibit entire its roots in the upper portion of topsoil which offer more porosity and low bulk density as compared to Eucalyptus plantation (EP)—which comprise of deep roots. 

4.     Lines 20-21 and 23-24: Why there is contradictions in these two statements about the “Total porosity”?

5.      Have authors considered leaching factor in this study, because some nutrients are highly leachable through soils.

6.      Lines 26-27: What basis authors concluded about “Overuse of land (EP) without a rest in the ecologically fragile zone leads to soil erosion….”. I haven’t seen any simple nor sensitivity analysis about soil erosion in this study. What does authors mean by overuse of land here, do I guess that by refereeing in temporal or spatial context?  If temporal context, I haven’t seen any temporal analysis nor any spatial analysis to conclude about the overuse of land here in this study.

7.      Table 1: what does Elevation (m) means here? What reference context do they use here in this study?     

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer's      comments:

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2248469-peer-review-v2：“Effects of Land-use Types on Topsoil Physicochemical Properties in Tropical Coastal Ecologically Fragile Zone, South China”

Review            Summary:
I have read the above paper carefully and found that the presented work has been improved but at the same time, apart from review comments 1, 2, and 3 (partly considered), I have not seen any incorporation of replies in the main manuscript for the rest of other comments. The review comments are raised for the purpose to be incorporated or highlighted in order to improve the revised version of the main manuscript. For example, the authors reply to Review Comment 3, “The object of this study is the topsoil layer, and the average topsoil thickness of lateritic soil in Leizhou Peninsula is 15~25 cm. The experimental design of this study referred to the methods of Price et al. 2010- Journal of Hydrology and Tang et al. 2022- Catena.”, I could not find this statement in the main manuscript. Additionally, the authors need to correct the error “object” to “objectives”. Review Comment 4, please give logical reason for not considering the bulk density in statistical significance, and also incorporate in the main manuscript. Because it is the most important physical property of a soil, which is directly related to the soil erosion: the more compact soil—high bulk density— is less prone to feathering and vice versa. Review Comment 5, please describe this recommendation in the discussion or conclusion part—main manuscript, which will reflect a direction for further research on this topic or geographical area. Review Comment 6, please the same consideration as for the review comment 5. Review Comment 7, please add the reference point from which this “Average Elevation” has been measured. Scientifically, this phrase “Average Elevation” is incorrect, rather common practice is “Mean Elevation”. Normally, the above mean sea level (MSL) is considered as the reference line. So, rephrase this statement like “Elevation (msl)”, and explain the acronym in the description for “msl”. Line 14 (Revised Version): In my understandings, it should be soil texture rather soil structure. Since the land use alone does not have much effect on the soil structure rather greatly to the soil texture. Line 30 (Revised Version): I haven’t seen any usage of the keyword “laterite” either in the abstract or in title. Then what logic it has been described here. Please either remove, otherwise properly describe in the abstract or in title. Lines 326-327 (Revised Version): Please rephrase this statement “Since the physical properties of soil are intimately connected to the chemical properties,….. with “Since the chemical properties of soil are intimately connected to the physical properties,……….”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf