Preliminary Results of Effect of Rotational Grazing of Farmed Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) on the Biochemical Status of Soil
, Katarzyna Tajchman 2,*, Żaneta Steiner-Bogdaszewska 3, Leszek Drozd 2 and Tomasz M. Gruszecki 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Agronomy 1146854
This research paper is interesting because it aims to monitor the trends of cervid grazing on biochemical parameters of the soil environment. Nevertheless, in my view I think these trends are difficult to conclude with one only season. And, this is exactly what authors conclude. Therefore, I think the design research is wrongly set from the very beginning-
Having said that, I would have rejected the paper, but from other point of view, I think it is well explained and research is correctly performed, with correct statistics etc. That is why I would recommend authors not to be to ambitus with the title of the paper and be a bit more humble saying for instance “preliminary results of…”.
Despite these thoughts, I have some other minor suggestions:
Line 55 It says that many studies confirm the positive effect of farmed animal grazing, but there are others that also confirm their negative impact. And they should be also referred.
Line 67. It is not only the abandonment of agricultural soil that makes increase biodiversity, there are some best agricultural practices, that increase soil organic matter, etc.. and are related to agriculture, to produce food.
Line 97. The coordinates are given, but according to which geodesic system?
Table 4. Why S and Spring are in bold?
Line 383. The word Introduction should not be in capitals, should it?
Author Response
Agronomy 1146854
Authors would like to thank reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which contributed very much to improve the manuscript.
All suggestions and recommendations have been adopted, and changes to the text are listed below (numbers of lines correspond to revised version).
Response to the Reviewer 1
This research paper is interesting because it aims to monitor the trends of cervid grazing on biochemical parameters of the soil environment. Nevertheless, in my view I think these trends are difficult to conclude with one only season. And, this is exactly what authors conclude. Therefore, I think the design research is wrongly set from the very beginning-
Having said that, I would have rejected the paper, but from other point of view, I think it is well explained and research is correctly performed, with correct statistics etc. That is why I would recommend authors not to be to ambitus with the title of the paper and be a bit more humble saying for instance “preliminary results of…”.
According to the Reviewer suggestion the title of the paper has been corrected and now is following: Preliminary results of effect of rotational grazing of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) on the biochemical status of soil.
Despite these thoughts, I have some other minor suggestions:
Line 55 It says that many studies confirm the positive effect of farmed animal grazing, but there are others that also confirm their negative impact. And they should be also referred.
The literature data on confirm negative impact of farmed animal grazing on biodiversity have been added (lines 57-59).
Line 67. It is not only the abandonment of agricultural soil that makes increase biodiversity, there are some best agricultural practices, that increase soil organic matter, etc.. and are related to agriculture, to produce food.
According to the reviewer suggestion lines 69-73 have been changed.
Line 97. The coordinates are given, but according to which geodesic system?
We use coordinate reference system EPSG:3857. The coordinates has been changed on 53°48'N 21°23'E (lines 100)
Table 4. Why S and Spring are in bold?
The Tables 3 and 4 have been corrected, this was an editorial error.
Line 383. The word Introduction should not be in capitals, should it?
The word has been corrected as recommended (line 398).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The document "Effect of rotational grazing of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) on the biochemical status of soil" presents an innovation.
Rarely do we see biological assessment of the soil after deer grazing.
The experiment has a very good structure and the presentation is complete. The authors provide the scientific information that the reader needs.
Some comments only.
- If the format (Simple Sumary & Abstract) is in accordance with the instructions of the journal.
- In Tables 3 & 5 the different letters refer to comparisons between the plots. What are the statistics between the seasons?
- Experiment design follow randomized block ? Please clarify.
- Abbreviations are missing.
- In Table 6. ni, What it means?
Author Response
Agronomy 1146854
Authors would like to thank reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which contributed very much to improve the manuscript.
All suggestions and recommendations have been adopted, and changes to the text are listed below (numbers of lines correspond to revised version).
Response to the Reviewer 2
The document "Effect of rotational grazing of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) on the biochemical status of soil" presents an innovation.
Rarely do we see biological assessment of the soil after deer grazing.
The experiment has a very good structure and the presentation is complete. The authors provide the scientific information that the reader needs.
Some comments only.
- If the format (Simple Sumary & Abstract) is in accordance with the instructions of the journal.
The format of paper is in accordance with the instructions of the journal.
In Tables 3 & 5 the different letters refer to comparisons between the plots. What are the statistics between the seasons?
The differences between the four pasture pens and the two seasons were assessed using parametric tests (the Student’s t-test and the ANOVA analysis of variance). In Tables 3 & 5 different letters indicate significant difference (at p ≤ 0.05) between the plots and seasons. Chapter 2.3. Statistical analysis has been corrected (line 180).
- Experiment design follow randomized block ? Please clarify
The experiment, set up in a randomized block design in three replicates, compared the effect of grazing of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) on the biochemical status of soil. Chapter 2.2. Sampling has been corrected (line 134-135).
Abbreviations are missing.
Abbreviations has been corrected accordingly (lines 155, 159, 207, 211, 212 and Table 3).
- In Table 6. ni, What it means?
In Table 6 “ni” has been changed on “ns”, which means “not significant at p > 0.05”.
Table 6 has been corrected (lines 272).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for taking into account alls the reviewers' suggestions. However, I would recomend to introduce and indicate the geodesic system (line 100).
Indeed, the paper has been much improved.
Author Response
Thank you for the suggestions, geodesic system has been added, see line 100.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Correted. Thank you
Author Response
Authors would like to thank Editor for their comments and suggestions, which contributed very much to improve the manuscript.
All suggestions and recommendations have been adopted, and changes to the text are listed (please see line 171-177 and reference no. 22).
