Multifunctional Use of Agricultural Land with Support for Selected Ecosystem Services in the Territory Protected Water Management Area Žitný Ostrov

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The model and selected indicators for measuring the value of ecological services in the article are not mentioned, and it is not very clear how to calculate the value of ecological services in the research area.

2. Although there is little discussion of other data, the data source gives a thorough introduction to the precipitation indicators in climate data. Why did we focus on selecting precipitation data from several regions with only three years of data? What are the other data points?

3.Why choose water resource protection areas as model areas for research? What are its main problems?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.Language expression can be refined.

2.The logic of language needs further optimization. For example, in the abstract, the agricultural ecosystem is the largest surface pollutant, but soil pollution and its impact are not discussed in the entire text. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Below please find our responses:

1. The soil classification system is based on the Updated Manual for the Use of Soil-Ecological Unit Maps by Džatko et al (2009). The structure of the VSEU code was added to the manuscript.

2. The provided data on precipitation ratios was supplied by the Slovak Hydro-Meteorological Institute and is costly to obtain. We have provided these only for an overview of recent years as an idea of the impacts of precipitation ratios in the context of global warming. There was also no intention to describe the climatic data in detail in this study; the emphasis was on a detailed description of the soil attributes, specifically the VSEU, where within the characteristics (soil depth, granularity, skeletonization, exposure, and slope) the climatic region is also given.

3. Žitný Ostrov island is not only the largest groundwater reservoir in Central Europe but also the largest river island in Europe. It is also the area where the most fertile soils in the Slovak Republic are located. Intensive agricultural use of these soils poses a high risk of contamination of the soils and, consequently, of the groundwater. Another risk is the contamination of soil and groundwater from industrial pollution due to the close proximity of the Slovak capital and its industrial plants.

Comments on the Quality of English Language recommendations: Some language expressions have been refined in the manuscript.

2B -

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work "Multifunctional use of agricultural land with support for selected ecosystem services in the territory of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov" presents a synthetic proposal for the use of the region of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov. The theme of the work is topical due to the need for environmental protection and rational farming. The great value of the work lies in the proposed solutions for the use of agricultural land in accordance with the agricultural potential of the soils and at the same time in such a way that they fulfil their environmental functions. The properties of soils are of the greatest importance in agricultural land use.
A weakness of the work is the lack of quantitative evaluation of the effects of implementing the proposed practices.
In addition, the study does not use information on precipitation as a factor that is important for agricultural production as well as being the most important element influencing the functioning of the analysed area.


- The "Introduction" has been developed comprehensively, presents in detail the essence of the problem analysed and specifies the objectives of the research.
- Chapter 2 no chapter

- Chapter 3 Methodology which consists of three subchapters:

In the first subsection "3.1. Model area" the study area is described in detail.

The next subchapter "3.2. Climate data for years 2020-2022" characterises the precipitation pattern in 3 years.
The title presented is not precise as the subsection only describes precipitation conditions and does not characterise other climate elements e.g. temperature.

I also have comments on the presentation of the results. According to the WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals (WMO-No. 1203), longer series, e.g. 30 years, should be used to describe climate elements. In my opinion, a three-year study is not a good basis for assessing the precipitation characteristics of the studied region, especially as precipitation is an element characterised by high spatial variability. Therefore, I suggest considering a study of precipitation using climate norms for the years 1991-2020. It would also be worthwhile to carry out an analysis of trends in precipitation changes over recent decades or using climate scenarios.


Chapter "4. Results and Discussion" needs to be tidied up.
E.g. should be added as a subsection title [4.1 Soil characterisation] or this section should be moved to Methodology (lines 216-237).
Soil characteristics together with Figure 6. Soil subtypes of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov, constitute the starting material for further analyses and should therefore be placed in Methodology.

Figure 7. should be improved. On the map provided (figure 7), the legend should be refined, as it is elaborated in Figure 8.

4.2 Proposal of spatial representation of multifunctional use of the model area
The individual subsections ( 4.2.1. and 4.2.2. ) describe in detail how soils can be managed according to their production potential with a view to protecting groundwater.
But in the proposals is missed an attempt to quantify the impact of the proposed practices on water status .
In subsection "4.2.3. Protection and revitalisation of the landscape and its component", where the environmental (non-productive) activities and functions of agriculture are described, it is worthwhile to include (develop) a map with marked areas of exceptional natural , e.g. the Žitný ostrov area.
At the same time, it suggests that an additional effect of the research carried out may be the designation of areas with the highest sensitivity to environmental changes.
The designation of areas of natural value and greatest sensitivity will facilitate the selection of adaptation measures aimed at, for example, restoring original environmental functions such as greater water retention or improved water purification . Therefore, it is proposed to describe landscaping measures which favour water retention and counteract the effects of excess and scarcity of water .e.g. filter strip in agriculture area.

5. Conclusions
The conclusions should be clarified because the study did not analyse climatic conditions, the basis for the decision of the proposed solutions were soil properties.

General comments:
• The work still needs to be refined.
• The descriptions and numbering of the chapters should be put in order.
• The numbering of the chapters should be corrected.
In my opinion, the presented work has an applied aspect and is a good basis for further environmental analyses in the field of the use of productive space. I believe that the corrected work can be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your review. Below, please find our answers:

First, simplify sentences to eliminate repetitive subjects such as „function“, „database“, „ecological“ or another. Methods must explain all procedures included in results and vice versa: results should to be composed only from information described in methods (more in specific comments).

The sentences have been simplified and a scheme of VSEU code was added in the methodology.

I recommend addition of localities mentioned in results to maps or to general map 2 such as Bratislava, Dunajska Streda etc. Unfortunately, texts in figure 2 are too small for reading.

Map 2 has been modified according to the opponent's proposal.

Specific comments:

Line 14: Please, eliminate „our“ and improve the sentence to „… most productive soils of the Slovak Republic“.

The text has been modified.

Lines 15-16: Please, simplify the sentence to „We based on information on system of…“.

The text has been modified

Line 21: Please, replace term „subtype“ by „unit“ in the whole text.

The term was replaced in some cases. However, the main soil unit has a specific name, the soil subtype is a more specified soil unit, it is not appropriate to rename the unit, which has general character.

Line 36: Not ecological intensification, but „Sustainable intensification is based on substitution of…“.

The text has been modified

Line 124: Do not specify your area of interest here. Inform only about general model area. Consequently, the working thesis is missing. – toto pozrieť, či je to v poriadku

The text has been modified

Lines 126-130: This part contains only specific objects of the study but any hypothesis. Please, what did you expect that you could investigate?

This study presents a proposal for sustainable management based on the identified Soil subtypes of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov and subsequently allocated Spatial representation of the provision of soil ecosystem services

Chapter 3.1: Specify production amount of the Žitný ostrov Island through percent  comparison with whole Slovakia or with comparable districts. Here would be good also specify geografic charactersitics of the investigated area in better detail. What about rivers, important settlements, dams? Also, the (zemepisné súradnice ) GPS range could be importat information for any reader out of Europe. Here, I recommend to integrate information about climate characteristics too.

The text has been modified according to recommendations. The GPS range was added into the map of the study area.

Chapter 3.2 could be all integratable to previous 3.1. Anyway, add numeric values of average temperatures and of annual precipitations. The related figures 3-5 should to be changed to figures with temperatures in red colours and precipitations in blue colours. Additionally, specify GPS and altitudes of climatic stations used in your study. Maybe, you can also add points of the stations used for your study to the general map in figure 2

Chapter 3.2 was integrated into previous chapter 3.1. The figures cover only precipitation, the information on temperature was added into the text. The GPS range was added into the map of the study area as well as the points of the stations.

Line 183. Please, specify VSEU here again. I believe that you can highlight readibility of the article.

The text has been modified, VSEU were described in more detail.

Lines 182-188: What soil classification system was used? In results, you have informed about many soil units named similarly according to WRB FAO, but clear citation is missing.

The soil classification system is based on the Updated Manual for the use of maps of soil-ecological units by Džatko et al. (2009), the scheme of VSEU was added into the text.

Lines 201-203: The evaluation process of landscape protection, revitalization, economic use as well as of ecosystem services is unclear. Specify clear methods of these procesures including references. How did you deliminate zones defined in results? The methods included only SW but any geographic procedure for zonation.

The sustainable system method is based on a detailed assessment of the VSEUs, which include all the necessary attributes to determine the degree of soil productivity. In the text, the method we have based on, is the synthetic-parametric method according to the authors mentioned above, which we have adapted based on the similarity of soil attributes into a 10-degree scale. Thus, 72 soil subtypes were reviewed, which we report in the text. In Tab. 1 is given an example of the evaluation of VSEU parameters of the selected supple (production) soil ecosystem services. For better understanding, the scheme of VSEU was added into the text.

Chapter 3.3 does not include any information about afforestation proposals for particular zones. What plant taxonomy did you used?

Highly productive soils were left for economic use. Less productive soils were proposed for planting  of fast-growing plants for biomass production, other non-productive uses were left to natural succession. We added scientific names of proposed crops into the manuscript.

Line 253: Why did you write about land consolidation so suprisingly? The methods did not include any mention about this assessment.

We did not propose any land consolidation, only based on the above methods and the similarity of soil attributes according to the selected ecosystem service (productivity), zones for productive and non-productive use were naturally set aside

Line 430: The island history belongs to area definition in materiál section, not to discussion!

The text has been modified according to recommendation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is important thanks to use of soil system classification in relation to ecosystem services and sustainable agriculture. However, the article is not acceptable in present form due to missing hypothesis, disconcordances between methods and results and too difficult sentences.

My general comments are focused to sentence simplification and correspondence between methodical description and results. First, simplify sentences to eliminate repetitive subjects such as „function“, „database“, „ecological“ or another. Methods must explain all procedures included in results and vice versa: results should to be composed only from information descripted in methods (more in specific comments).

I recommend addition of localities mentioned in results to maps or to general map 2 such as Bratislava, Dunajska streda etc. Unfortunately, texts in figure 2 are too small for reading.

 

Specific comments:

Line 14: Please, eliminate „our“ and improve the sentence to „… most productive soils of the Slovak Republic“.

Lines 15-16: Please, simplify the sentence to „We based on information on system of…“.

Line 21: Please, replace term „subtype“ by „unit“ in the whole text.

Line 36: Not ecological intensification, but „Sustainable intensification is based on substitution of…“.

Line 124: Do not specify your area of interest here. Inform only about general model area. Consequently, the working thesis is missing.

Lines 126-130: This part contains only specific objects of the study but any hypothesis. Please, what did you expect that you could investigate?

Chapter 3.1: Specify production amount of the Žitný ostrov Island through percent comparison with whole Slovakia or with comparable districts. Here would be good also specify geografic charactersitics of the investigated area in better detail. What about rivers, important settlements, dams? Also, the GPS range could be importat information for any reader out of Europe. Here, I recommend to integrate information about climate characteristics too.

Chapter 3.2 could be all integratable to previous 3.1. Anyway, add numeric values of average temperatures and of annual precipitations. The related figures 3-5 should to be changed to figures with temperatures in red colours and precipitations in blue colours. Additionally, specify GPS and altitudes of climatic stations used in your study. Maybe, you can also add points of the stations used for your study to the general map in figure 2.

Line 183. Please, specify VSEU here again. I believe that you can highlight readibility of the article.

Lines 182-188: What soil classification system was used? In results, you have informed about many soil units named similarly according to WRB FAO, but clear citation is missing.

Lines 201-203: The evaluation process of landscape protection, revitalization, economic use as well as of ecosystem services is unclear. Specify clear methods of these procesures including references. How did you deliminate zones defined in results? The methods included only SW but any geographic procedure for zonation.

Chapter 3.3 does not include any information about afforestation proposals for particular zones. What plant taxonomy did you used?

Line 253: Why did you write about land consolidation so suprisingly? The methods did not include any mention about this assessment.

Line 430: The island history belongs to area definition in materiál section, not to discussion!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The grammar of whole text is great, but many sentences are too long or difficulty structured to easy reading. Thus, I recommend significant shortening of sentences predominantly in result and discussion section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your review. Below, please find our answers to the comments:

The "Introduction" has been developed comprehensively, presents in detail the essence of the problem analysed and specifies the objectives of the research.
- Chapter 2 no chapter
The text has been modified

The next subchapter "3.2. Climate data for years 2020-2022" characterises the precipitation pattern in 3 years.
The title presented is not precise as the subsection only describes precipitation conditions and does not characterise other climate elements e.g. temperature.

The text has been modified for “precipitation  for years 2020-2022”

I also have comments on the presentation of the results. According to the WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals (WMO-No. 1203), longer series, e.g. 30 years, should be used to describe climate elements. In my opinion, a three-year study is not a good basis for assessing the precipitation characteristics of the studied region, especially as precipitation is an element characterised by high spatial variability. Therefore, I suggest considering a study of precipitation using climate norms for the years 1991-2020. It would also be worthwhile to carry out an analysis of trends in precipitation changes over recent decades or using climate scenarios.

The provided data on precipitation ratios was supplied by the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute and is costly to obtain. We have provided these only for an overview of recent years as an idea of the impacts of precipitation ratios in the context of global warming. There was also no intention to describe the climatic data in detail in this study; the emphasis was on a detailed description of the soil attributes, specifically the VSEU, where within the characteristics (soil depth, granularity, skeletonization, exposure, slope) the climatic region is also given.

Chapter "4. Results and Discussion" needs to be tidied up.
E.g. should be added as a subsection title [4.1 Soil characterisation] or this section should be moved to Methodology (lines 216-237).

The text has been modified according to recommendation.

Soil characteristics together with Figure 6. Soil subtypes of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov, constitute the starting material for further analyses and should therefore be placed in Methodology.

We consider Figure 6 to be the results of our work, since we started from 3000 soil subtypes that were repeated, and within EXCEL programme we have selected and excluded the repeating soil units, i.e. we have processed a wide range of data, which we consider to be the outputs of the study.

Figure 7. should be improved. On the map provided (figure 7), the legend should be refined, as it is elaborated in Figure 8.  

In the proposal, the heading in Figure 7 has been modified, which was the basis for Figure 8. The legend of Figure 8 lists the individual potentials from Figure 7.

4.2 Proposal of spatial representation of multifunctional use of the model area
The individual subsections ( 4.2.1. and 4.2.2. ) describe in detail how soils can be managed according to their production potential with a view to protecting groundwater.
But in the proposals is missed an attempt to quantify the impact of the proposed practices on water status.

Quantifying the impact of the proposed exclusion zones would require a separate study where crop yields would be monitored over a longer period of time due to changes in management which was not the intent of this study. In the future, we intend to focus on reaching out to selected farmers through a questionnaire survey to ascertain current management practices and crop yields.  Some farmers may have already converted to sustainable farming, some are still using conventional farming methods and there it would be possible to compare and quantify the different management methods.

In subsection "4.2.3. Protection and revitalisation of the landscape and its component", where the environmental (non-productive) activities and functions of agriculture are described, it is worthwhile to include (develop) a map with marked areas of exceptional natural , e.g. the Žitný ostrov area. At the same time, it suggests that an additional effect of the research carried out may be the designation of areas with the highest sensitivity to environmental changes.

Žitný ostrov is the name of the whole area of interest and in Fig. 9 we have marked Landscape protected area of the Dunajské Luhy. The second level of protection applies to the area (five levels of protection are provided for territorial protection in the Slovak Republic, with the extent of restrictions increasing with increasing level of protection). The whole area of Dunajské Luhy CHKO is included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention). This information is also added in the description of the area of interest.

The designation of areas of natural value and greatest sensitivity will facilitate the selection of adaptation measures aimed at, for example, restoring original environmental functions such as greater water retention or improved water purification . Therefore, it is proposed to describe landscaping measures which favour water retention and counteract the effects of excess and scarcity of water .e.g. filter strip in agriculture area.

Retention as one of the ecosystem services of soils is mainly determined by the soil grain size and depth. This would again require a separate study, which we intend to address in the future. It is the zoning that determines where, among other things, non-productive uses are needed, where we have proposed land uses that would retain water in the landscape, e.g. by selecting suitable plants or leaving them free for succession.

The conclusions should be clarified because the study did not analyse climatic conditions, the basis for the decision of the proposed solutions were soil properties.
The text has been modified according to recommendation

General comments:
• The descriptions and numbering of the chapters should be put in order.

The text has been modified according to recommendation
• The numbering of the chapters should be corrected.

The text has been modified according to recommendation

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. The methods are not clearly put forward in the paper. The methods used should be described clearly in this part.

 

2. There is no mention in this study of how to obtain the outcome, such as the figure of the result.

 

3. Moderate editing of the English language is required.

 

4. The expression of research results in the abstract is not sufficient and complete and can be further optimized

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

1. The methods are not clearly put forward in the paper. The methods used should be described clearly in this part.

 

2. There is no mention in this study of how to obtain the outcome, such as the figure of the result.

 

3. Moderate editing of the English language is required.

 

4. The expression of research results in the abstract is not sufficient and complete and can be further optimized

 

Author Response

We have adjusted our manuscript according to the comments and we also corrected the English in the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved according to the reviewer recommendations. Now, I can propose it for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the review of our manuscript.