Changes in Soil C, N, and P Concentrations and Stocks after Caatinga Natural Regeneration of Degraded Pasture Areas in the Brazilian Semiarid Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author have tried to improved the manuscript. However, as I mentioned before, the Figures 4,5,6 have the same content with Figure 7. That is duplicate content of figure!!! That means, with the content in Figure 4,5,6 I can make Figure 7. I suggest authors could move Figure 4,5,6 to suplimentary figures, and Figure 7 should be saparated into 3 figures for the C,N and P.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Reviewers 1, 2, and 3: Revisions attended (manuscript accepted)

Dear reviewers, once again, thank you so much for your cooperation. We are sure they contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors.

 

Reviewer 4

Author have tried to improved the manuscript. However, as I mentioned before, the Figures 4,5,6 have the same content with Figure 7. That is duplicate content of figure!!! That means, with the content in Figure 4,5,6 I can make Figure 7. I suggest authors could move Figure 4,5,6 to suplimentary figures, and Figure 7 should be saparated into 3 figures for the C,N and P.

Thank you so much for your cooperation. We have separated Figure 7 (now Figure 7 is split into Figures 4, 5, and 6). We have also inserted capital and lowercase letters, and we believe this will eliminate the need to insert supplementary files.

Please let us know if it meets your requirements.

Best regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In terms of experimental design, the article is well conceived, but an analysis of the characteristics of the different types of soil should be more extensive in order to evaluate what the authors have proposed. Careful analysis of soils is critical in order to monitor their properties. Key parameters for effective soil characterization include physical properties chemical and additionally, microbial analysis can provide insights into soil diversity.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Reviewers 1, 2, and 3: Revisions attended (manuscript accepted)

Dear reviewers, thank you so much for your cooperation. We are sure they contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors.

 

Reviewer 4

In terms of experimental design, the article is well conceived, but an analysis of the characteristics of the different types of soil should be more extensive in order to evaluate what the authors have proposed. Careful analysis of soils is critical in order to monitor their properties. Key parameters for effective soil characterization include physical properties chemical and additionally, microbial analysis can provide insights into soil diversity.

Dear reviewer,

Greetings!

We agree with your considerations. However, our study focused on the return of SOC, N, and P stocks and concentrations through the regeneration of caatinga vegetation. Similar studies have also taken similar approaches to ours. For example:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.011

We have included a discussion of what was requested (highlighted in red), relationships between physical and chemical attributes, and a brief discussion of soil biology.

We appreciate your cooperation.

Best regards,

The authors.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the improvement. I suggest to accept in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The work is interesting and innovative. Below my suggestions:

Lines 56-57: It needs a relevant reference. Please use this: https://doi.org/10.3390/w16040538

However, the introduction should give more information about the state of art and introduce better the main objective of this study.

 

Lines 81: Where is Pernambuco? Please specify.

Line 84: Luvissol with 1 s. And please cite the classification that you used.

Map: did you take the pics with drones or they’re just satellite images? Specify.

 

Section 2.5: How many replicates? How many samples in total?

 

Lines 248-251: as also reported by https://doi.org/10.3390/w16040538. Please cite.

 

Figures do not report the standard deviation or error. Please add and complete the figures and their captions.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

 

Lines 56-57: It needs a relevant reference. Please use this: https://doi.org/10.3390/w16040538

We agree that this information needs a relevant reference. We have inserted the suggested reference. Thanks for that!

However, the introduction should give more information about the state of art and introduce better the main objective of this study.

We have improved the sentences.

Lines 81: Where is Pernambuco? Please specify.

We have inserted the information.

Line 84: Luvissol with 1 s. And please cite the classification that you used.

We corrected Luvisol.

The classification was mentioned.

Map: did you take the pics with drones or they’re just satellite images? Specify.

Satellite images – it was specified in the text

Section 2.5: How many replicates? How many samples in total?

There were 36 sampling points at each depth, resulting in 144 soil samples for each area (432 soil samples in total). The information is inserted in the text.

Lines 248-251: as also reported by https://doi.org/10.3390/w16040538. Please cite.

We have inserted the citation. Many thanks.

Figures do not report the standard deviation or error. Please add and complete the figures and their captions.

We have inserted the required information. However, due to the graphic nature of figures 3, 4, and 5, we were unable to insert the error. We have inserted it in figures 6 and 7. Please consider this!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors and editor for reviewing this manuscript. I have a few suggestions to improve its quality. 

1. Add an image of the sampling process with the grids. 

2. Although the references are included in the methods and those are well known, it would be nice to see a short description of each of the SOC, N, and P analyses. 

3. Table 1 needs to be moved to the results, not the methods. 

The manuscript shows the importance of restoring and preserving the Caatinga, especially for C storage. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

 

1. Add an image of the sampling process with the grids. 

We have inserted the required figure.

2. Although the references are included in the methods and those are well known, it would be nice to see a short description of each of the SOC, N, and P analyses. 

It is essential. We have inserted the required information.

3. Table 1 needs to be moved to the results, not the methods. 

We have moved Table 1 to the results section. Also, we have inserted a short paragraph to introduce the table.

The manuscript shows the importance of restoring and preserving the Caatinga, especially for C storage. 

Many thanks for your valuable contributions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer

Manuscript title:  “Changes in soil C, N, and P concentrations and stocks after  caatinga natural regeneration over degraded pasture area from  Brazilian semiarid”

 

Very interesting article and clear description of the data. The article is easy to read. The authors cite very few publications (39), but the publications are new and complement the article very well.

I noticed a very serious flaw in this manuscript but correcting it would allow a very good representation of the study area.

The methodological part needs to be corrected:

Figures A, B and C are indicated but not described. What do you want to show in Figures 1 and 2? Not only the number of the figure, but also the letter should be clearly indicated. 

The methodological parts 'Study area' and Soil sampling' should be described more fully.

 

After some minor corrections, the article is ready for publication.

 

I wish you luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

 

Very interesting article and clear description of the data. The article is easy to read. The authors cite very few publications (39), but the publications are new and complement the article very well.

 

I noticed a very serious flaw in this manuscript but correcting it would allow a very good representation of the study area.

We have improved the description of the study area. We agree that it is more suitable for a better understanding of the readers.

The methodological part needs to be corrected:

Figures A, B and C are indicated but not described. What do you want to show in Figures 1 and 2? Not only the number of the figure, but also the letter should be clearly indicated. 

We have now indicated and described Figures A, B, and C. We have done this for both figures 1 and 2.

The methodological parts 'Study area' and Soil sampling' should be described more fully.

We have improved the sentences.

After some minor corrections, the article is ready for publication. I wish you luck

Thank you so much for your valuable contributions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting work, however, I feel that the structure of this manuscript is very confused. The title of section 3.1 is not suitable? What did author mean of "distribution"? If authors have data on GIS information, a heatmap on content of C,N, P should be made. The Figures 3,4,5 are totally identical in Figure 6. Therefore, major revise should be made. Author can combine section 3.1 and 3.2, or remove 3.1, or provide really "distribution map" instead of presented Figures. 

Other comments:

- Units of SOC should change to g kg-1

- error bars should be provided

- Figure 7: units of N and P should change to kg ha-1

- In Figure 6B why P content in 10-15 cm depth soil of regenerated caatinga was lower than caatinga in regeneration?

- in L233 what is "regenerating caatinga" presented for?

- Overall, figures in this manuscript should be revised in order to improve logicalty and quality. Some sub figures should be merged together.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

 

Interesting work, however, I feel that the structure of this manuscript is very confused. The title of section 3.1 is not suitable? What did author mean of "distribution"? If authors have data on GIS information, a heatmap on content of C,N, P should be made. The Figures 3,4,5 are totally identical in Figure 6. Therefore, major revise should be made. Author can combine section 3.1 and 3.2, or remove 3.1, or provide really "distribution map" instead of presented Figures. 

We agree. We did not use GIS information to evaluate nutrient concentrations' spatial distribution. Section 3.1 compares nutrient concentrations at different depths in all study areas. We have changed the section title.

Figures 3, 4, and 5 compare nutrient concentrations x depth. Figure 6 compares nutrient concentrations x areas for all studied depths.

We ask you to keep sections 3.1 and 3.2 separate because their approaches differ. Also, the other three reviewers have asked for changes in those sections. If we merge, they won't understand their requirements. Please consider this!

Other comments:

- Units of SOC should change to g kg-1

It was done. Also, we have updated the information in the results and discussion sections.

- error bars should be provided

We have inserted error bars. However, due to the graphic nature of figures 3, 4, and 5, we were unable to insert the error. We have inserted it in figures 6 and 7. Please consider this!

- Figure 7: units of N and P should change to kg ha-1

Okay. It was done. Figure 7 is now Figure 8 in the current manuscript! Another reviewer required us to insert an additional figure regarding the sampling grid.

- In Figure 6B why P content in 10-15 cm depth soil of regenerated caatinga was lower than caatinga in regeneration?

We were not expecting it, but we found it. In the manuscript, we attributed it to the very low P concentrations found in the studied soils. If we look at the P stocks at 20 cm, there is no difference between those areas. Due to the meager P contents, a short time of caatinga regeneration is enough to stabilize the nutrient concentration and stocks.

- in L233 what is "regenerating caatinga" presented for?

It was used to compare SOC, P, and N stocks versus a regenerated caatinga and degraded pasture. In other words, we compare the changes in SOC, P, and N stocks from a degraded pasture area to a regenerating caatinga (10 years in regeneration) and to a regenerated caatinga (35 years regenerated).

- Overall, figures in this manuscript should be revised in order to improve logicalty and quality. Some sub figures should be merged together.

We have improved the figures as the reviewers require, and we agree they are much better now.

Thank you so much for your valuable contributions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the manuscript is now improved. Kind regards 

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thank you so much for your cooperation. We are sure they contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

Best regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors did not fullfilled revised manuscript based on my comments.