Study on Safe Usage of Agricultural Land in Typical Karst Areas Based on Cd in Soil and Maize: A Case Study of Northwestern Guizhou, China
Slobodanka Pajević
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review report
Manuscript title:
Study on safe usage of agricultural land in typical karst areas based on Cd in soil and maize: A case study of northwestern Guizhou, China
Liyu Yang, Pan Wu and Wentao Yang
Recommendation:
Minor modifications
Major comments:
The paper is well structured, of appropriate title. The aim of the paper is informative enough.
The methodology of work is appropriate in relation to the set goal.
The results of the experimental analyzes are clearly presented and described.
The hypothesis was confirmed through the analysis of numerous references.
The conclusions are clear and have practical significance.
The main suggestions:
- Insert a geographical map of the experimental area;
- A clear and full explanation of the HC95 and HC5 parameters is required as well as their significance explanation in health risk assessment;
- The applied statistical method is appropriate, but the levels of significance according to Duncan's tests are not visible on the graphs.
Text analyses with concrete comments:
The main comments and suggestions related to the text of the paper can be found in the attached file in the text itself.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Replies to Reviewer 1: 1) Please add a figure with the study area and area studied by Feng et al. (2020) and its location in China. Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have added a figure (Figure 1) with the study area and area studied by Feng et al. (2020) and its location in China. 2) You have shown in your research very large differences in the permissible Cd content in soil in relation to EQSs. Was the methodology used in your research the same as for establishing Chinese Soil Environmental Quality Standards? The extraction method (extraction solution) significantly affects the amount of metals extracted from the soil. Answer: Yes. The digestion method of the sample is the same as that listed in the EQSs, and this method is described in detail in GB/T 17141. In addition, the recoveries of Cd for the standards (GBW07404a (GSS-4a)) and Maize (GBW10012 (GSB-3)) during our experiments were 92.2%-106.3% and 90.5%-110.4%, respectively, which is sufficient to show that the experiment is reliable. 3) line 13: “vital” – change to: no essential, unnecessary, useless Answer: Done. 4) keywords: I propose to change “Environmental benchmark” on Soil environmental quality benchmark and “Adaptability evaluation” on “Prediction model” Answer: Done. 5) line 38, 352: “scholars” – change to: scientists, researchers Answer: Done. 6) line 69-76: a paragraph not related to the topic of the manuscript – delete; Zhou et al. (2014) – lack in References Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have removed the paragraph. 7) line 101-104: investigate change to investigation, evaluate – evaluation, propose – proposition, environmental benchmark – soil environmental quality benchmark Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have corrected these words. 8) line 117-118: 14 centigrade, 22 centigrade – centigrade replace with the symbol Answer: Done. 9) line 127-128: “…wooden shovel was used to collect the surface soil (0–220 cm) corresponding to the rhizosphere of the crop”. – 0-220 cm – are you sure 220 cm? Rhizosphere or root system?Line 211-213: 6.5 < pH – change to pH > 6.5; “…..ranging from 0.07–31.95 mg kg−1” - the scale on Figure 1b shows that the soil Cd content was from 0 to 10 mg, not to 31.95 mg kg-1 Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. The correct range should be 0-20 cm. We have corrected line 118 and highlighted this in yellow. We have changed “6.5 < pH” to “pH > 6.5” in line 202 and highlighted it in yellow. In addition, we have revised Figure 1b. The range of Figure 1b should be 0-35 mg kg-1. 10) Fig 1b - unit for OX axis is missing Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have revised Figure 1b. 11) Fig 2 - explain what the yellow and red lines mean Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. The meanings of the yellow and red lines have been explained in the caption of Figure 2 and are highlighted in yellow. 12) Line 359: delete “Lionel” Answer: Done. 13) Line 362: Samecka Cymerman change to Samecka-Cymerman Answer: Done. 14) Line 414-415: mg/kg change to mg kg-1 Answer: Done. 15) In many places, the superscript for mg kg-1 or the subscript for CaCO3 is missing. In the Discussion chapter, there is often no space in front of the parentheses. Answer: Done. 16) The manuscript must be formatted in accordance with the Instructions for Authors, e.g., in the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have revised the citation format of the references. 17) References must be completely reformatted; add DOI numbers Answer: We have revised the citation format of the references. The DOI numbers were added. 18) Manuscript should be checked by a native speaker Answer: Thank you for this comment. The manuscript has been checked by a native English-speaking editor at AJE.Reviewer 2 Report
I have gone through the paper and found to be interesting but some shortcoming are there in that and need to be addressed:
Please add a figure with the study area and area studied by Feng et al. (2020) and its location in China.
You have shown in your research very large differences in the permissible Cd content in soil in relation to EQSs. Was the methodology used in your research the same as for establishing Chinese Soil Environmental Quality Standards? The extraction method (extraction solution) significantly affects the amount of metals extracted from the soil.
line 13: “vital” – change to: no essential, unnecessary, useless
keywords: I propose to change “Environmental benchmark” on Soil environmental quality benchmark and “Adaptability evaluation” on “Prediction model”
line 38, 352: “scholars” – change to: scientists, researchers
line 69-76: a paragraph not related to the topic of the manuscript – delete; Zhou et al. (2014) – lack in References
line 101-104: investigate change to investigation, evaluate – evaluation, propose – proposition, environmental benchmark – soil environmental quality benchmark
line 117-118: 14 centigrade, 22 centigrade – centigrade replace with the symbol
line 127-128: “…wooden shovel was used to collect the surface soil (0–220 cm) corresponding to the rhizosphere of the crop”. – 0-220 cm – are you sure 220 cm? Rhizosphere or root system?Line 211-213: 6.5 < pH – change to pH > 6.5; “…..ranging from 0.07–31.95 mg kg−1” - the scale on Figure 1b shows that the soil Cd content was from 0 to 10 mg, not to 31.95 mg kg-1
1 Fig 1b - unit for OX axis is missing
1 Fig 2 - explain what the yellow and red lines mean
Line 359: delete “Lionel”
Line 362: Samecka Cymerman change to Samecka-Cymerman
Line 414-415: mg/kg change to mg kg-1
In many places, the superscript for mg kg-1 or the subscript for CaCO3 is missing. In the Discussion chapter, there is often no space in front of the parentheses.
The manuscript must be formatted in accordance with the Instructions for Authors, e.g. in the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].
References must be completely reformatted; add DOI numbers
Manuscript should be checked by a native speaker
Author Response
Replies to Reviewer 2:
Manuscript title:
Study on safe usage of agricultural land in typical karst areas based on Cd in soil and maize: A case study of northwestern Guizhou, China
Liyu Yang, Pan Wu and Wentao Yang
Recommendation:
Minor modifications
Major comments:
The paper is well structured, of appropriate title. The aim of the paper is informative enough.
The methodology of work is appropriate in relation to the set goal.
The results of the experimental analyzes are clearly presented and described.
The hypothesis was confirmed through the analysis of numerous references.
The conclusions are clear and have practical significance.
The main suggestions:
- Insert a geographical map of the experimental area;
Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have added a figure (Figure 1) with the study area and area studied by Feng et al. (2020) and its location in China.
- A clear and full explanation of the HC95 and HC5 parameters is required as well as their significance explanation in health risk assessment;
Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have added an explanation of the HC95 and HC5 parameters and highlighted in yellow in Lines 172-174: ‘HC95 and HC5 means that crops grown at this heavy metal concentration can guarantee that 95% and 5% of the edible parts of the crop contain heavy metals below the threshold value’. In addition, we have added sentences regarding the significance of HC95 and HC5 in health risk assessment in Lines 162-165. 'The SSD method uses probability distribution functions to extrapolate the toxicological level between different species to realize the risk assessment of pollutants at the levels of biological communities and ecosystems. It is considered to be more accurate in the baseline values used to assess the quality of the soil environment.
- The applied statistical method is appropriate, but the levels of significance according to Duncan's tests are not visible on the graphs.
Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. We have revised Figure 4 and added Duncan's test results.
Text analyses with concrete comments:
The main comments and suggestions related to the text of the paper can be found in the attached file in the text itself.
Answer: Thank you for your valuable advice and recommendation. All of the concrete comments are responded to and highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
