Comparative Analysis of Soil Quality Assessment and Its Perception by Rice Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript text is written very carelessly.

Because the lines are not numbered so step by step comments were impossible.

Generally, there are a lot of typographical and stylistic errors in the text, as well as many places where you need to insert spaces, periods, commas, etc.

1.       on page 3, it's not clear what the "..blanket recommendations..". This is not common term, so you have to use another word or explain it better.

2.       The titles of subsections 2.3 and 2.4 are repeated.

3.       on page 5, at the first mention, the abbreviation MDS is not deciphered

4.       Section 3.1:

You wrote “However, the lower pH values were found to be associated with the fields of Dalwash village which is due to higher precipitation and lower mean temperature associated with higher topographic locations that results in slow decomposition of organic matter that releases acids (De Hann .1977)”.

Comments:

a.       The lower pH values in the plots at higher altitudes with higher precipitation may also be associated with leaching of cations and clay fraction as it seen from the less values of clay and CEC (Table 2). Higher precipitation may contribute to higher plant biomass thus might contribute to the overall organic substrate input in this soil. Probably therefore the organic carbon and mineral nitrogen content was higher in this sites.

b.       (De Hann .1977)-Why this citation is not presented as a number?

 

5.       The discussion on the soil quality characteristics must be better presented.

6.       For the table 4, all the abbreviations must be explained at the bottom of the table, since the BC, FC, AC are not standard abbreviations

7.       Table 5. Under the table you should explain what does mean the digits within one column and one rank: there are three digits in each column for each rank. Also the Table 5 should be fit without indent

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are highly obliged for your valuable suggestion and broad knowledge on the subject. All the corrections/changes were dully addressed in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please read the text carefully and correct any editing errors: uppercase / lowercase letters, commas, full stops, spaces between words (double spaces or no spaces), brackets.

2. Repetitions of content: 1. Introduction (at the bottom of page 2 - Lately…) and 2.1 Outline of the study area (page 3 - However…)

3. When entering the analyzed properties in the text for the first time, provide an abbreviation that will appear in the table - e.g. bulk density (BD). Or you can include the full name in the reference under the table where the abbreviation of the property is first given.

 4. Table 2. What units are used for the EC and MWHC? MWHC or WHC? The SI unit of kilogram per cubic metre (kg m^-3) and the CGS unit of gram per cubic centimetre (g cm³) are usually used for density.

5. In Table 5, it would be clearer to repeat the ranks by experts for Chadoor and Narkur.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are highly obliged for your valuable suggestion and broad knowledge on the subject. All the corrections/changes were dully addressed in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The wisdom sharing for assessment of soil health through assessment by farmers is very good. and the traditional and modern technologies complement each other. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are highly obliged for your valuable suggestion and broad knowledge on the subject. All the corrections/changes were dully addressed in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

you have considered the bulk of the suggestions of the reviewers and improved the manuscript. I recommend the manuscript for publication.