The Effect of Using a Geopedological Approach in Determining Land Quality Indicators, Land Degradation, and Development (Case Study: Caspian Sea Coast)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy main issues with the manuscript are:
(1) What is the justification for a "geopedological approach"? It does not just suffice to say that it should be used because Zink (2013) used it. Show why this approach is interesting in its own right.
(2) The rather poor definition of what sea level is raises a strong concern. How was mean sea level defined for the study area? With reference to what datum? How has sea level varied in recent decades in the study area? What caused these variations? The Caspian Sea is a rather specific domain in terms of rapid modern sea-level changes and the reader would like to see more on this aspect, including a better literature survey on these recent Caspian sea-level oscillations. There is also strong confusion associated with the idea of sea-level variation embodied in the use of the ambiguous term 'pro/retro gradation of Caspian seawater'. Not at all clear what this means. Rather refer to shoreline mobility seaward or landward as a function of sea-level variation and show more clearly how this shoreline mobility was identified and mapped. You say somewhere in the text that sea water variation is due to climate change. How was this ascertained? What is meant by a major part of the area 'sank' in the 1970s. You need to get a tighter grip on terminology associating sea-level change with shoreline mobility.
(3) How was the DEM in figure 2 obtained? Please be more explicit on the methodology.
(4) It is not clear how Figure 4 depicts a 'soil quality index'. Please be more explicit about this.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor polishing of the English would be necessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Sincerest thanks for your response and comments on our manuscript. We have modified the paper in response to the extensive and insightful comments. We have worked on clarification to address them fully. We will respond to your comments and point-counterpoint.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of using a geopedological approach in determining land quality indicators, land degradation, and development. This study showed, the differentiation of landforms significantly improves the accuracy of classification, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted factors that govern land degradation. The results of this investigation highlight the crucial role of soluble salts in shaping soil quality, thereby influencing the dynamics of land degradation and development. Overall, this study delves into a highly pertinent subject for both theoretical and practical applications.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Sincerest thanks for your response and comments on our manuscript. We have modified the paper in response to the extensive and insightful comments. We have worked on clarification to address them fully. We will respond to your comments point counter point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear editor,
I've reviewed the paper, and unfortunately, I cannot recommend its publication in this journal. There are significant methodological issues, and the presentation of results is not up to the standards expected. The abstract suggests an improbable claim about classifying geomorphological forms with soil texture, and the introduction lacks focus on novelty, hypothesis, methods, and approaches.
The methods section is deficient in references and includes low-quality maps, such as Figure 1, which illustrates a non-feasible sample strategy in straight lines. The results section is characterized by large tables that span over two pages without proper interpretation, and notably, there is an absence of discussion.
Furthermore, the reference style deviates from the MDPI guidelines. Please refer to the attached document for more detailed comments.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Sincerest thanks for your response and comments on our manuscript. We have modified the paper in response to the extensive and insightful comments. We have worked on clarification to address them fully. We will respond to your comments point counter point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have successfully addressed the comments. However, there are still some comments that the authors should address.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Sincerest thanks for your response and comments on our manuscript for the second time. We have tried to address all of your invaluable comments.
- The authors should avoid using pronouns such as “we”, “our” and “us” in the whole text (e.g., line 28).
Done
- Page 2, line 78: The term of “land degradation” should be revised to “LD”. It should be adjusted in the rest of the manuscript as well.
Done
- Page 1, lines 41 and 42: This statement “LD substantially affects human health and community welfare, particularly developing nations, where it continues to spread.” Should be restructured.
Done
- The main aim of the study as well as the research questions should be added to the end of the Introduction section.
Done
- Page 3, lines 101-103: This sentence “Furthermore, the relevance of the Southeastern Caspian Sea region extends beyond its distinct geologic and geomorphic features” not clear. You should explain your idea more clarity.
Done
- The Results and Discussion sections should be separated.
Dear reviewer, the Results and Discussion sections were separated in initial format. One of reviewers asked us to merge them! We are really encountering with a dilemma to follow which comments! That was comment number 21 which we received entitled: [21- Revise the heading of this section to the “Results and Discussion”.]
- In the Discussion: a) state the main results of the study (do not repeat the inputs of the results section); b) compare and interpret these results in detail with the findings of recent studies; and c) at the end of this section, add the main limitations of the study.
Dear reviewer, please reach out to the previous answer. The first manuscript’s version was like this, but we spent a lot of time to merge these to sections. So, right now which approach should be followed?
- In the Conclusion, the focus should be on restating the main results and demonstrating how the research questions have been thoroughly examined and explained.
Done
- To enhance the section, it is important to enrich it with paragraphs discussing the international policy implications of the study's findings.
Done
- Additionally, it is crucial to discuss both the theoretical and practical implications of the study's findings.
Done
- How the study contributes to the existing theoretical framework and its potential applications in real-world settings.
Done
- The direction of future studies should be highlighted at the end of the Conclusion section.
Done
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I see an improvement of this paper. However, I have some concerns with the references in the introduction. The last paragraph does not include references about pedometrics (see e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124095489091636; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B0123485304000205; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978012822974300001X) or soil geography, land degradation neutrality and SDG and soils (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521730329X; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352009421000432; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006221000277), which are topics that you mention as new, but that they were referenced in the past by other authors. Also, Figure 1 must be better explained, it is difficult to believe how authors collected the samples in this way.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Thanks for your response and comments on our manuscript for the second time. We have tried to address all your invaluable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
