Climate Changes Challenges to the Management of Mediterranean Montado Ecosystem: Perspectives for Use of Precision Agriculture Technologies
, Shakib Shahidian 1, José Marques da Silva 1,2, LuÃs Paixão 2, Emanuel Carreira 1, Alfredo Pereira 1 and Mário Carvalho 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is quite an interesting study, elucidating processes of a montado agro-pastoral system. The authors have made a series of measurements in attempt to respond to the influence of grazing and trees on the herbaceous layer community. Several similar studies have been conducted previously on montado systems, particularly in Portugal and Spain; hence the work is not novel. The paper is well written, with minimum speculation, but it could still benefit from reduction in its current size. The authors did several measurements however; it became clear that not all the data presented have been exploited to drive their objectives and hypotheses home. Thus the paper ends up being unnecessarily too long. Obvious results such microclimate outside/under tree canopies need not to be presented in graphs, in their case. These results could be summarized in a table to reduce the number of graphs. I recommend that figures 7-15 be reconsidered. Align conclusions to the results in order to minimize speculation.
Author Response
“Climate changes challenges to the management of Mediterranean Montado ecosystem: perspectives for use of Precision Agriculture technologies”
“Special Issue "Selected Papers from 10th Iberian AgroEngineering Congress"
Manuscript ID –“agronomy-688441”
___________________________________________________
Reviewer 1- Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comment:
This is quite an interesting study, elucidating processes of a montado agro-pastoral system. The authors have made a series of measurements in attempt to respond to the influence of grazing and trees on the herbaceous layer community. Several similar studies have been conducted previously on montado systems, particularly in Portugal and Spain; hence the work is not novel. The paper is well written, with minimum speculation, but it could still benefit from reduction in its current size. The authors did several measurements however; it became clear that not all the data presented have been exploited to drive their objectives and hypotheses home.
R- The authors would like to thank the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
Comment 1: Thus the paper ends up being unnecessarily too long. Obvious results such microclimate outside/under tree canopies need not to be presented in graphs, in their case. These results could be summarized in a table to reduce the number of graphs. I recommend that figures 7-15 be reconsidered.
R- The authors think that the Figures that illustrate the differences in terms of microclimate under and outside tree canopies can help readers understand their impact on productivity and quality of pasture. However, we accept the reviewer's suggestion to summarize some figures in a table. Now Table 7 replaces Figures 7, 12-15.
Comment 2: Align conclusions to the results in order to minimize speculation.
R- Thank you. We have rephrased the sentence to be more aligned with the results of the work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors study the effect of the tree canopy on the spatial and temporal variability of the soil and productivity, quality and floristic composition of the pasture in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem. The topic is relevant to the Agronomy journal. The innovation of this study is clear. The Introduction section is well written and complete. The Material and Methods, and Results sections are fine. The Conclusions sections is clear and well discussed.
Line 23: The first letters of Precision agriculture (PA), or both with small letters or both with capital letters. All abbreviations have to be explained the first time they are used. As examples, CP in Line 61 or ECa in Line 80 or PS in Figure 1. The whole document should be reviewed. A nomenclature section should be included. Lines 48-49: It has to be mentioned in which conditions soil fertility and pasture productivity can be accentuated by the presence of trees and grazing animals. A comma “,” should be included after “SMC” in Line 93. If an abbreviation is defined, please used it all over the text. For example, precision agriculture in Line 99 should be PA. The whole document should be reviewed. The section “Experimental field” has to include the reference to the “Mitra” experimental field mentioned in Line 104. Please, review the tree density in Line 111. Line 122. Please, use a reference climate classification as Koppen-Geiger or other. Line 155: Indicate if the analysis methods were or not the same in 2015 and 2018. Figures should not have boxes around. Equation (1) and (2) should not have boxes around. Line 221: Explain how was processed the floristic information to be converted into percentage of sampling area coverage. Line 232: “Sasonality” should be “Seasonality”. Explain the meaning of the abbreviations UTC and OTC in each Table or Figure that using them. Figure 9, 10 and 11. Explain the meaning of the “*” in the figure footnote. Line 427: Remove “:” Line 428: Remove “:” Line 429: Remove both “:” Line 430: Replace “(a)” by “(b)” Why can you state: “The results of this study …. highlighted the importance of well-managed pasture and animal grazing for soil carbon (C) sequestration”?.
Author Response
“Climate changes challenges to the management of Mediterranean Montado ecosystem: perspectives for use of Precision Agriculture technologies”
“Special Issue "Selected Papers from 10th Iberian AgroEngineering Congress"
Manuscript ID –“agronomy-688441”
___________________________________________________
Reviewer 2- Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper, the authors study the effect of the tree canopy on the spatial and temporal variability of the soil and productivity, quality and floristic composition of the pasture in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem. The topic is relevant to the Agronomy journal. The innovation of this study is clear. The Introduction section is well written and complete. The Material and Methods, and Results sections are fine. The Conclusions section is clear and well discussed.
R- The authors would like to thank the reviewers' comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved the final version of the article.
Comment 1: Line 23: The first letters of Precision agriculture (PA), or both with small letters or both with capital letters.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 2: All abbreviations have to be explained the first time they are used. As examples, CP in Line 61 or ECa in Line 80 or PS in Figure 1. The whole document should be reviewed.
Comment 3: A nomenclature section should be included.
R-- Thank you. The document was reviewed and all abbreviations are now explained the first time they are used. Regarding the nomenclature section, this does not seem to be a general practice of the Agronomy Journal (“Instructions for authors”), however we can include one if the editor feels that it should be included.
Comment 4: Lines 48-49: It has to be mentioned in which conditions soil fertility and pasture productivity can be accentuated by the presence of trees and grazing animals.
R- Thank you for the comments. To avoid confusion the text was changed (what is accentuated is the variability and not necessarily the fertility and productivity).
Comment 5: A comma “,” should be included after “SMC” in Line 93.
R- The suggestion was accepted.
Comment 6: If an abbreviation is defined, please used it all over the text. For example, precision agriculture in Line 99 should be PA. The whole document should be reviewed.
R- The suggestion was accepted. The whole document was reviewed.
Comment 7: The section “Experimental field” has to include the reference to the “Mitra” experimental field mentioned in Line 104.
R- The suggestion was accepted (incorporated into the new version of the article).
Comment 8: Please, review the tree density in Line 111.
R- The suggestion was accepted. Tree density was reviewed and corrected accordingly.
Comment 9: Line 122. Please, use a reference climate classification as Koppen-Geiger or other.
R- The suggestion was accepted (incorporated into the new version of the article).
Comment 10: Line 155: Indicate if the analysis methods were or not the same in 2015 and 2018.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 11: Figures should not have boxes around.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 12: Equation (1) and (2) should not have boxes around.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 13: Line 221: Explain how was processed the floristic information to be converted into percentage of sampling area coverage.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 14: Line 232: “Sasonality” should be “Seasonality”.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 15: Explain the meaning of the abbreviations UTC and OTC in each Table or Figure that using them.
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 16: Figure 9, 10 and 11. Explain the meaning of the “*” in the figure footnote.
R- The suggestion was accepted (incorporated into the new version of the article).
Comment 17: Line 427: Remove “:”
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 18: Line 428: Remove “:”
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 19: Line 429: Remove both “:”
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 20: Line 430: Replace “(a)” by “(b)”
R- Reviewer's suggestion was incorporated into the new version of the article.
Comment 21: Why can you state: “The results of this study …. highlighted the importance of well-managed pasture and animal grazing for soil carbon (C) sequestration”?.
R- Thank you. We have rephrased the sentence to be more aligned with the results of the work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think it's a good job, well organized and with very good data. This article woult benefit with the correction of small spelling errors and highlight some results that can only be seen in the graphics. See comments below (archive).
The article is well organized and content all the components. The introduction is well-developed. the only inconvenience, in my opinion, is the lack of definition of some abbreviations that make it more difficult to understand, especially for neophyte readers. In my opinion the results would be better if some sentences did not repeat the same as the figures and tables, I think those sentences could be rewritten in a way that would describe the most important of them.
In section 3.7 in the paragraph (lines 427-430) I think a small description of the most important meaning of those figures is missing instead of writing the same as in the foot of the figures, I suggest that the authors would improve their compression a great deal.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
“Climate changes challenges to the management of Mediterranean Montado ecosystem: perspectives for use of Precision Agriculture technologies”
“Special Issue "Selected Papers from 10th Iberian AgroEngineering Congress"
Manuscript ID –“agronomy-688441”
___________________________________________________
Reviewer 3- Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comment:
In my opinion this is a good article, a lot of work and good design. They evaluate climatic and soil variations, pasture quality and productivity, floristic composition, sensor related parameters (electrical conductivity, photosynthesis and active radiation, surface temperature, soil moisture, content and cone index. They propose corrective soil measures for that particular ecosystem, how the trees affect the quality of the grass and describe the changes in the floristic composition as a consequence of the changes resulting from the presence of the trees. The ability of sensors to detect these changes and relate them to bio-indicators can help in the implementation of precision agriculture in these poor and sensitive ecosystems. Small changes in the text are needed to correct errors and improve the reading of the article.
R- The authors would like to thank the reviewers' comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved the final version of the article.
Broads comments
1- Introduction: The introduction is well-developed. the only inconvenience, in my opinion, is the lack of definition of some abbreviations that make it more difficult to understand, especially for neophyte readers.
R-- Thank you. The document was reviewed and all abbreviations are now explained the first time they are used.
2- Materials and Methods: Also is well-developed, except the literature of methods that are missing. Although the method is named, the citation is not indicated and many of them are used with modifications and in this article it is not specified which one has been used.
R- The article is already very extensive and, therefore, the authors chose to place only the essentials of the laboratory methodology used, having referenced the methods for pasture analysis (AOAC, 2005) and now adding the reference to the methods of soil analysis (Egner et al., 1960).
3- Results: In my opinion the results would be better if some sentences did not repeat the same as the figures and tables, I think those sentences could be rewritten in a way that would describe the most important of them.
R-- Thank you. The document was reviewed and rewritten accordingly.
In section 3.7 in the paragraph (lines 427-430) I think a small description of the most important meaning of those figures is missing instead of putting the same as in the foot of the figures, I think they would improve their compression a great deal.
R- These Figures were removed, at the request of one of the other reviewers.
4- Discussion: It's well developed except for a few minor spelling errors.
R- Thank you. This section was verified according to the reviewer's comments.
5- References: Correct except for a few minor spelling errors.
R- Thank you. This section was verified according to the reviewer's comments.
Specific comments:
R- Thank you. All specific comments shaded in green were accepted and included in the new version of the manuscript.
Line 61, In my opinion the abbreviation CP should be defined. R- Corrected.
Line 80, In my opinion the abbreviation ECa should be defined. It is true that it is defined below, but it is easier to follow the text if you define it the first time you read. R- Corrected.
Line 183, please, could add a space between the numbers and the abbreviations: 10am vs 10 a.m. Line 187, please, could add a space between the number and the abbreviation 9am: 9 a.m. R- Corrected.
Line 352, please correct the missing “e” in the title (seasonality). R- Corrected.
Line 352, ECC is used instead of CEC, I think this is a mistake. The same abbreviation should always be used so as not to confuse the reader. R- Corrected.
Line 359-360, Table 5, could explain the meaning of the shaded values, either in the table header or in the text. R- Accepted, the purpose of shading was included in the text.
Line 374, could add a space between the number and the unit 0-0.30 m. R- Corrected.
Line 408-410, please could summarize the title. R- Corrected.
lines 427-430, I suggest a small description of the most important meaning of those figures. R- These Figures were removed, at the request of one of the other reviewers.
Line 540, please correct the left over “i” in cambisols. R- Corrected.
Line 567, please correct the left over (, or add the missing. R- Corrected.
Line 666, please correct the citation to the correct bibliography format. R- Corrected.
Line 786, please change commas to semicolons. R- Corrected.
Line 837, please add a space in the title of the journal. R-The journal title is written without space (“AgriEngineering”).
Line 843, please remove (2015). . R- Corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
