Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in Ecuador’s Jun Jun Micro-Watershed
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The title is not concise, and should be re-written, you did not use one “Bioindicators” in this research.
2- In line 16, you have repeated “soil organic carbon (OC)” twice. Please delete one of them.
3- Line 20 “with altitude” I think should be written as “with high altitude”.
4- In the abstract, the authors should mention which index was used in this study.
5- In line 28, the dot should be added after “(Zhang et al., 2022)”.
6- Line 37, replace “infer” with another word.
7- Line 38, “These indicators” which indicators.
8- Lines 62-65 should comprise the names of indicators that have been used in this study.
9- The copyright number (permission grant) should be mentioned in the capture of Fig.1. Also, a citation should be added.
10- The unit of “earthworm density (WD)” in Table 1 is “ind/m2”. What do you mean by “ind”? Do you think m2 is the right expression for density? Please check, I think it should be m3. Please check it also, in Table 2.
11- Table 1, “SD: standard deviation” You wrote the wrong character inside the Table “DS” please check.
12- More information should be added in the materials and methods section about “the Simple Additive Index (SQI)”.
13- Line 95, “where Si is the value” I did not find any information in the equations about the Si, please check.
14- Line 93, the citation was written in the wrong way Mukherjee y Lal, (2014). It should be written as numbers [34], please check the whole manuscript.
15- Lines 99 and 100, please add the relevant citations.
16- What is the meaning of SQIMAX, SQIMIN, SQIA, in line 105? Please add details interpretation.
17- What is the meaning of the normalization (0-1)? Line 102, please clarify. How could authors conclude the 5 classes? Please clarify in context.
18- In Table 2, what does the “Range of soil indictors” mean?
19- Line 117, please write the equation in English.
20- Line 118, “SQIMÁX y SQIMIN”, please check.
21- Line 122, “collected in” OR “collected from”.
22- Check the reference in line 136.
23- Lines 152-153, “The OC in soils with and without vegetation cover showed no significant differences regardless of the altitude variable”, this is not logical, please add clarification.
24- Line 155 “treatments with” should be replaced with “samples collected from”.
25- Section 3.2. Total Nitrogen (TN), line 167-168, it seems that the authors copied the same writing template from section “3.1. Organic Carbon (OC)” and forgot to replace “organic carbon”!!!!!!!!
27- The Organic Matter (OM) and Organic Carbon (OC) should be merged in the results and discussion section. They are denoting to same factor.
28- “species richness monotonously” line 200 should be re-written.
29- “no significant differences” in section 3.3. pH Analysis, “however, the pH decreased with increasing altitude”, there are contradictions in the same sentence.
30- Line 179 should be ended with a dot.
31- Line 182, “soil pH decreases up to 3000” should be re-written.
32- Line 192, please check the following writing “(Hou et al., 2021) (Figure 1).
33- In figure 3a, the OC% and OM% are not identical, please explain in text.
34- The unit of WD in Figure 3c is not right, please check the previous comments.
35- Figure 3 should be numbered (e.g., a, b, and c).
36- How could authors conclude the values of Table 3 “Soil quality classes for the Jun Jun watershed”.
37- Line 232, “It is observed that soils with vegetation cover, on average, have an index of 0.58”, how could the author “calculated 0.58 index values”? Please mention it in detail in the materials and methods.
38- Line 241, what do you mean by “reference soils” line 241. Explain in context.
39- I did not understand the following “The indicator with the lowest value was Organic Carbon (OC)”. The same tendency with lines (239-244) and (253-266). Why did the authors re-discuss this information again?
40- It was difficult for me to understand Figure 4. May you present it in another form?
41- Figures 2 and 6 did not mention in context !!!!!!!!!
42- Line 289 and 290, please check the values of soil quality indices, lines 289-290.
43- Please check “moderate to high quality” lines 290-291.
44- Line 197, “soil depth” Please check since authors have collected samples from one depth. "at a depth of 20 cm".
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of the English language required
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Comment 1. The title is not concise, and should be re-written, you did not use one “Bioindicators” in this research.
Answer
The title was modified according to the suggestion made by reviewer number 2. “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in Ecuador’s Jun Jun Micro-water Shed”.
Comment 2. In line 16, you have repeated “soil organic carbon (OC)” twice. Please delete one of them.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 3. Line 20 “with altitude” I think should be written as “with high altitude”.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 4. In the abstract, the authors should mention which index was used in this study.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 5. In line 28, the dot should be added after “(Zhang et al., 2022)”.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 6. Line 37, replace “infer” with another word.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 7. Line 38, “These indicators” which indicators.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 8. Lines 62-65 should comprise the names of indicators that have been used in this study.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 9. The copyright number (permission grant) should be mentioned in the capture of Fig.1. Also, a citation should be added.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 10. The unit of “earthworm density (WD)” in Table 1 is “ind/m2”. What do you mean by “ind”? Do you think m2 is the right expression for density? Please check, I think it should be m3. Please check it also, in Table 2.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 11. Table 1, “SD: standard deviation” You wrote the wrong character inside the Table “DS” please check.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 12. More information should be added in the materials and methods section about “the Simple Additive Index (SQI)”.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 13. Line 95, “where Si is the value” I did not find any information in the equations about the Si, please check.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 14. Line 93, the citation was written in the wrong way Mukherjee y Lal, (2014). It should be written as numbers [34], please check the whole manuscript.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to the suggested.
Comment 15. Lines 99 and 100, please add the relevant citations.
Answer:
In this section, no relevant citations had been added, since it is simply the continuation of the methodology proposed by Mukherjee and Lal, (2014). However, emphasis will be placed on the discussion later.
Comment 16. What is the meaning of SQIMAX, SQIMIN, SQIA, in line 105? Please add details interpretation.
Answer:
The manuscript has explained what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 17. What is the meaning of the normalization (0-1)? Line 102, please clarify. How could authors conclude the 5 classes? Please clarify in context.
Answer:
The manuscript has explained what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 18. In Table 2, what does the “Range of soil indictors” mean?
Answer:
The manuscript has explained what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 19. Line 117, please write the equation in English.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 20. Line 118, “SQIMÁX y SQIMIN”, please check.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 21. Line 122, “collected in” OR “collected from”.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 22. Check the reference in line 136.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 23. Lines 152-153, “The OC in soils with and without vegetation cover showed no significant differences regardless of the altitude variable”, this is not logical, please add clarification.
Answer:
The OC in the soils with vegetation cover and without vegetation cover presented significant differences regardless of the altitude variable.
Comment 24. Line 155 “treatments with” should be replaced with “samples collected from”.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 25. Section 3.2. Total Nitrogen (TN), line 167-168, it seems that the authors copied the same writing template from section “3.1. Organic Carbon (OC)” and forgot to replace “organic carbon”!!!!!!!!
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 27. The Organic Matter (OM) and Organic Carbon (OC) should be merged in the results and discussion section. They are denoting to same factor.
Answer:
In this case, the two parameters were carried out separately, since soil organic carbon is a component of soil organic matter. Organic matter is composed mainly of carbon (58%), and the remaining mass is made up of water and other nutrients such as nitrogen and potassium.
Comment 28. “species richness monotonously” line 200 should be re-written.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 29. “no significant differences” in section 3.3. pH Analysis, “however, the pH decreased with increasing altitude”, there are contradictions in the same sentence.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 30. Line 179 should be ended with a dot.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 31. Line 182, “soil pH decreases up to 3000” should be re-written.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 32. Line 192, please check the following writing “(Hou et al., 2021) (Figure 1).
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 33. In figure 3a, the OC% and OM% are not identical, please explain in text.
Answer:
Soil organic carbon is a component of soil organic matter. Organic matter is composed mainly of carbon (58%), and the remaining mass is made up of water and other nutrients such as nitrogen and potassium.
Comment 34. The unit of WD in Figure 3c is not right, please check the previous comments.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 35. Figure 3 should be numbered (e.g., a, b, and c).
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 36. How could authors conclude the values of Table 3 “Soil quality classes for the Jun Jun watershed”.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 37. Line 232, “It is observed that soils with vegetation cover, on average, have an index of 0.58”, how could the author “calculated 0.58 index values”? Please mention it in detail in the materials and methods.
Answer:
Los resultados obtenidos derivan del cálculo de las siguientes formulas:
Comment 38. Line 241, what do you mean by “reference soils” line 241. Explain in context.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 39. I did not understand the following “The indicator with the lowest value was Organic Carbon (OC)”. The same tendency with lines (239-244) and (253-266). Why did the authors re-discuss this information again?
Answer:
Apparently, it is discussed again, since in this section it is justified because soils with or without vegetation cover obtain the value of the index that has been assigned to them. The total soil index is estimated by calculating each of the individual indicators of each type of soil.
Comment 40. It was difficult for me to understand Figure 4. May you present it in another form?
Answer:
Figure 4 shows the behavior of each of the indicators and their influence on the estimation of the total soil quality index. For greater understanding it was done separately.
Comment 41. Figures 2 and 6 did not mention in context !!!!!!!!!
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 42. Line 289 and 290, please check the values of soil quality indices, lines 289-290.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 43. Please check “moderate to high quality” lines 290-291.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 44. Line 197, “soil depth” Please check since authors have collected samples from one depth. "at a depth of 20 cm".
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comments
It is good to know about your study on “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in the Jun Jun Micro-Watershed”. However, there are major corrections to be made. Below are some specific comments.
Specific comments
Title: Your title “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in the Jun Jun Micro-Watershed” is not so clear/easy to comprehend. I suggest you change your title to “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in Ecuador’s Jun Jun Micro-water Shed”
Abstract: First, your abstract is more than 200 words. Please reduce the length of your abstract to about 200 words. The materials and methods in your abstract are very confusing. For example;
Pg1, Line 14; … both areas with and without vegetative cover.” I do not know which area you are talking about. Do you mean the altitudinal gradients selected consisted of two sub-areas which include the vegetative and non-vegetative areas respectively?
In your abstract, you stated that three altitudinal gradients were selected and then you used 24 samples for each gradient or you divided the samples?
You also mentioned using 6 indicators which include soil organic carbon, earthworm density, earthworm biomass, organic matter (4 biological indicators?), PH, total nitrogen, and organic carbon (3 chemical indicators?). I do not know which are the biological or chemical indicators.
Pg 1, Line 18; “… vegetated areas of what or where?
Pg 1, Line 19; “… indicating a deterioration in soil quality.” Why? What are the possible reasons for this negative impact on the soil?
Pg 2, lines 69-70;
1. Why was this kind of area chosen for your study?
2. Are there limited farmlands in Ecuador of Jun Jun in Ecuador?
3. Is there something special about using this kind of area for your study on its usefulness for farming purposes?
4. Does Ecuador have enough land mass for farming purposes?
Pg6, Line 181; “…related to the soil parental material such as? You need to include an example of the parental material.
Pg 7, Line 196; The order of WB and WD here is different from that of the order in your abstract. I suggest you use one order (WD and WB or WB and WD) in the whole of your manuscript so that it can be easy to follow your findings.
Overall, you need to do a major revision to your manuscript. There are questions your manuscript needs to answer. Questions like;
1. What is the main or strong reason for your study?
2. Is your study only applicable to Tungurahua region in Ecuador? If yes, why? And if it is a No, why?
3. What is new about your study? I could not find the novelty in your work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English is good but needs some corrections in terms of the flow of explanations.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
General Comments
It is good to know about your study on “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in the Jun Jun Micro-Watershed”. However, there are major corrections to be made. Below are some specific comments.
Answer:
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript. Below we provide our responses to your comments.
Specific comments
Comment 1, Title: Your title “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in the Jun Jun Micro-Watershed” is not so clear/easy to comprehend. I suggest you change your title to “Bioindicators for Assessing Soil Quality in Ecuador’s Jun Jun Micro-water Shed”
Answer:
The title was modified as suggested.
Comment 2, Abstract: First, your abstract is more than 200 words. Please reduce the length of your abstract to about 200 words. The materials and methods in your abstract are very confusing. For example.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 3, Pg1, Line 14; … both areas with and without vegetative cover.” I do not know which area you are talking about. Do you mean the altitudinal gradients selected consisted of two sub-areas which include the vegetative and non-vegetative areas respectively?
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 4: In your abstract, you stated that three altitudinal gradients were selected and then you used 24 samples for each gradient or you divided the samples?
Answer:
The samples were divided. In total 24 samples were taken, but in all altitudinal gradients.
Comment 5: You also mentioned using 6 indicators which include soil organic carbon, earthworm density, earthworm biomass, organic matter (4 biological indicators?), PH, total nitrogen, and organic carbon (3 chemical indicators?). I do not know which are the biological or chemical indicators.
Answer:
Biological indicators: earthworm density (WD), earthworm biomass (WB)
Chemical indicators: organic matter (OM), pH, and total nitrogen (TN), organic carbon (OC)
Comment 6: Pg 1, Line 18; “… vegetated areas of what or where?
Answer:
This study employs the Simple Additive Index (SQI) method to evaluate soil quality in Ecuador's Jun Jun micro-watershed, Tungurahua region.
Comment 7. Pg 1, Line 19; “… indicating a deterioration in soil quality.” Why? What are the possible reasons for this negative impact on the soil?
Answer:
These phrases were deleted with the reduction of the number of words in the summary.
Comment 8: Pg 2, lines 69-70;
- Why was this kind of area chosen for your study?
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
- Are there limited farmlands in Ecuador of Jun Jun in Ecuador?
Answer:
There are various areas in Ecuador with these characteristics since it is a very irregular Andean country in its altitudinal gradients, which causes its vegetation coverage to vary.
- Is there something special about using this kind of area for your study on its usefulness for farming purposes?
Answer:
Soil quality is crucial for agricultural productivity. Studying how vegetative cover affects soil quality can provide valuable information to improve agricultural practices and maximize crop yields. Understanding how vegetation cover influences soil quality can help prevent soil degradation and increase its ability to resist the impacts of climate change.
- Does Ecuador have enough land mass for farming purposes?
Answer:
In Ecuador, 60% of the population is dedicated to agriculture, which shows an enormous need to find alternatives to improve their soil and optimize agricultural production.
Comment 9: Pg6, Line 181; “…related to the soil parental material such as? You need to include an example of the parental material.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 10: Pg 7, Line 196; The order of WB and WD here is different from that of the order in your abstract. I suggest you use one order (WD and WB or WB and WD) in the whole of your manuscript so that it can be easy to follow your findings.
Answer:
The manuscript has been modified according to what was suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 11: Overall, you need to do a major revision to your manuscript. There are questions your manuscript needs to answer. Questions like;
- What is the main or strong reason for your study?
- Is your study only applicable to Tungurahua region in Ecuador? If yes, why? And if it is a No, why?
- What is new about your study? I could not find the novelty in your work.
Answer:
The ongoing degradation of micro-watersheds poses continuous environmental and social problems (Hubanks et al., 2018). Soil degradation contributes to the reduction of bi-ological, chemical, and physical properties in extensive areas with agricultural potential, whose vulnerability increases with the intensification of land use in agricultural activities and other purposes (Magalhães et al., 2023). The evaluation of the soil quality index through indicators such as earthworm density and biomass, organic matter content, hy-drogen potential, total nitrogen and organic carbon, becomes crucial to promote sustaina-ble agricultural production by addressing the complex interaction between soil character-istics and crop yields (Isong et al., 2022). This study adopts a comprehensive approach, analyzing multiple altitudinal gradients of the soil and the influence of vegetation cover on crop yield in the Jun Jun micro-watershed in the Ecuadorian region. By considering variability across different soil layers, the aim is to capture the inherent complexity of soil processes in this specific region.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors.
You have done a significant revision to your manuscript.
However, the "Reference Section" of your manuscript is missing.
Please, include it.
Author Response
References have been numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table titles and figure legends) and have been listed individually at the end of the manuscript in the references section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
