Assessing Spatial Variability of Soil Properties in Mediterranean Smallholder Farming Systems
, Anastasios Zotos 1, Antonios Pittaras 2, Varvara Kouneli 3, Stella Karydogianni 3, Antonios Mavroeidis 3, Ioanna Kakabouki 3, Dimitrios Beslemes 4, Evangelia L. Tigka 5, Ioannis Roussis 3 and Dimitrios Bilalis 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript no.: land-1646973
First author: Chariklia Kosma
Title of paper: Assessment of soil chemical and physical indicators as a decision support tool for sustainable agricultural practices in Mediterranean smallholder farming systems.
I found this study interesting. An attempt has been made in this study to (a) assess the current level of physical and 146 mainly chemical soil properties that affect crop performance and (b) to identify the most 147 reliable indicators that would support the development of a decision-making tool for sus-148 tainable management practices. The authors should state more clearly the reason for doing the work for the international scientific community. The manuscript requires modifications and explanations before it is suitable for publication (see specific comments).
Specific comments
Title
please rewrite a shorter title.
Abstract
I suggest the authors to write clear the nature of the hypothesis and aims, major findings and conclusions.
Keywords
Replace two or more appropriate key words
- Introduction
The Introduction should state more clearly the reason for doing the work with the nature of the hypothesis and the essential background. The text is long?
- Materials and Methods
Generally, the text in each subchapter is difficult understandable from the readers.
- Results
I am lost! The writing style of this section is insufficient and the text is long.
- Discussion???
I am lost! Please discuss only the main results!
- Conclusions
Write only the main conclusions.
Author Response
Main comments:
I found this study interesting. An attempt has been made in this study to (a) assess the current level of physical and 146 mainly chemical soil properties that affect crop performance and (b) to identify the most 147 reliable indicators that would support the development of a decision-making tool for sus-148 tainable management practices. The authors should state more clearly the reason for doing the work for the international scientific community. The manuscript requires modifications and explanations before it is suitable for publication (see specific comments).
Response: Thank you for your time and your constructive comments and suggestions. The manuscript was rewritten, modifications and explanations have been done according to your suggestions.
Specific comments
Title
please rewrite a shorter title.
Response: The title has been modified according to your suggestions.
Abstract
I suggest the authors to write clear the nature of the hypothesis and aims, major findings and conclusions.
Response: The abstract has been modified according to your suggestions
Keywords
Replace two or more appropriate key words
Response: Keywords have been modified according to your suggestions.
1. Introduction
The Introduction should state more clearly the reason for doing the work with the nature of the hypothesis and the essential background. The text is long?
Response: Introduction was corrected according to your suggestions.
2. Materials and Methods
Generally, the text in each subchapter is difficult understandable from the readers.
Response: Materials and Methods were corrected according to your suggestions
3. Results
I am lost! The writing style of this section is insufficient and the text is long.
Response: The results were corrected according to your suggestions
4. Discussion???
I am lost! Please discuss only the main results!
Response: The discussion was rewritten according to your suggestions
5. Conclusions
Write only the main conclusions.
Response: The conclusions were rewritten according to your suggestions
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describe a statistical analysis performed over 364 samples in agricultural fields. This is fine but the title suggests a connection between these statistical assessment and decision support tools but this last issue is completely lacking and it is not clear at all how the statistical findings can be translated in DSS tools...even more towards "sustainable practices".
I would completely reorganise the paper by additing the additional data provided in the suplementary material and building 2-3 case studies where these data can actually transform into DSS like outcomes.
In general terms, below I provide a checklist of main problems:
Introduction: (i) it is often rather vague (e.g. WRB in Greece), (ii) authors quote the importance of ecosystems services but then their paper is only on topsoil from which not much (apart from SOC) can be stated in terms of ecosystem services, (iii) reference to SQI without any further development, (iv) good the emphasis to minimum dataset but then please remind the spatial variability issue,
Methods: please explain better why focusing on the only topsoil ? Especially in view of supporting decisions ?
Results: It is very disputable the use of Spearmans correlation versus the standard use of Linear correlation. Please substantiate the why of this choice which maybe misleading. You describe results from supplementary material...why not inserting those table in the paper ?
In general terms the paper provides just a statistical overview of this interesting dataset. Authors must reorganise the paper producing a convincing case study
Author Response
The manuscript describe a statistical analysis performed over 364 samples in agricultural fields. This is fine but the title suggests a connection between these statistical assessment and decision support tools but this last issue is completely lacking and it is not clear at all how the statistical findings can be translated in DSS tools...even more towards "sustainable practices".
I would completely reorganise the paper by additing the additional data provided in the suplementary material and building 2-3 case studies where these data can actually transform into DSS like outcomes.
Response: Thank you for your time and your constructive comments and suggestions. The title was changed, the manuscript was reorganized and rewritten, tables were added; the supplementary text was incorporated into the main text and the requirements and explanations were modified according to your suggestions.
In general terms, below I provide a checklist of main problems:
Introduction: (i) it is often rather vague (e.g. WRB in Greece), (ii) authors quote the importance of ecosystems services but then their paper is only on topsoil from which not much (apart from SOC) can be stated in terms of ecosystem services, (iii) reference to SQI without any further development, (iv) good the emphasis to minimum dataset but then please remind the spatial variability issue,
Response: (i) Introduction was corrected according to your suggestions (ii) After your constructive comments and suggestions, the manuscript was corrected and rewritten. In order to investigate the spatial variability of physical and chemical properties as well as soil fertility status, samples were collected from a depth of 0 - 30 cm. However, it would be better to have more data from deeper depth, but this was not possible. (iii) these references were deleted from the text (iv) the spatial variability of soil properties was explained in the manuscript.
Methods: please explain better why focusing on the only topsoil ? Especially in view of supporting decisions ?
Response: After your constructive comments and suggestions, the manuscript was corrected and rewritten. In order to investigate the spatial variability of physical and chemical properties as well as soil fertility status, samples were collected from a depth of 0 -30 cm.
Results: It is very disputable the use of Spearmans correlation versus the standard use of Linear correlation. Please substantiate the why of this choice which may be misleading. You describe results from supplementary material...why not inserting those table in the paper ?
Response: After your constructive comments and suggestions, the results were corrected; Pearson correlation was used. The supplementary text was incorporated into the main text.
In general terms the paper provides just a statistical overview of this interesting dataset. Authors must reorganise the paper producing a convincing case study
Response: The manuscript was rewritten; modifications and explanations have been done according to your suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript no.: land-1646973
First author: Kosma Ch.
Title of paper: Assessing spatial variability of soil properties in Mediterranean smallholder farming systems.
I found this study interesting. In general, the manuscript now has improved.
It is suitable for publication after minor language corrections.
