Exploring the Influence of Diverse Viticultural Systems on Soil Health Metrics in the Northern Black Sea Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Impact of Diverse Viticulture Systems on Comprehensive Soil Health Metrics in the Northern Black Sea Region Context" by Gabechaya et al. aims to compare the microbial functional-ecological state of vineyard soils cultivated using traditional and organic farming systems in the Northern Black Sea region.

The authors need to include more background information in the introduction regarding the effect of vineyard farming systems studied elsewhere. Consequently, the authors could expose a rational hypothesis for their study. Briefly describe the regional climate changes (L36).

 

Specific environmental conditions of the farms are needed to understand the potential effect of these abiotic factors on the microbial community functioning. At least these variables should be provided in the site description in the material and methods section. Ideally, these factors should be included in the statistical analyses. 

 

The authors need to include the soil sample size collected, the criteria for selection of sample points, specify if they are using individual sample points or mixed samples, soil type, and subtype at each farm. Specify the method to determine the texture soil used. Describe the statistical analyses performed and if the variables had a normal distribution. 

 

Many results are discussed in the results section (e.g., L186-188, 192-194, L224-225, L241-242 – also remove the references here-, L257-266, 275-283, 289-293, 298-303, 308-312, 316-318). Please remove all these parts and only describe the results. 

 

In the results, a description is mentioned: A significant correlation (p = 0.003) was observed between SIR in soils of organic farms and those of farms with traditional land use and fallow soils (Fig. 5). However, figure 5 is a box plot, not a correlation analysis. Please change the redaction in this part. This confusion between statistical methods is repeated lines below. 

 

The discussion section needs to incorporate entirely the comparisons and interpretations of the results. Thus, the text removed from the results must be prudently pleased in this section. 

 

In the conclusions section, how the authors define “critical violations of soil stability”. This is mentioned for the first time in the conclusions; non-scale or criteria were previously defined within the text. Remove bullet points in this section. 

 

Fig. 1 Please add coordinates and layer information to the map. Improve the resolution of the layer.

Fig. 2 to 6 – significant differences among farm systems can be assessed with a post-hoc mean comparison and must be indicated by letters.  

 

The text needs to be carefully reviewed; many mistakes are included, among others: missing spaces, double dots, missing subscripts, superscripts as subscripts, inconclusive ideas (e.g., L183), etc. 

Grammar needs to be improved in the entire document. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Authors are grateful  for your thoughtfull reading and insightful comments on this paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided.

Comment 1: The authors need to include more background information in the introduction regarding the effect of vineyard farming systems studied elsewhere. Consequently, the authors could expose a rational hypothesis for their study. Briefly describe the regional climate changes (L36).

Response: The introduction part was rewritten according to your recommendation. Climate part was added after L39

Comment 2: Specific environmental conditions of the farms are needed to understand the potential effect of these abiotic factors on the microbial community functioning. At least these variables should be provided in the site description in the material and methods section. Ideally, these factors should be included in the statistical analyses.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we totally agree that such enhancing of study would be interesting. Unfortunately, such parameters were out of our scope, and we can’t find such data quick enough to incorporate in this paper during review period. But we will be very grateful if you can point out such parameters more precisely

Comment 3: The authors need to include the soil sample size collected, the criteria for selection of sample points, specify if they are using individual sample points or mixed samples, soil type, and subtype at each farm. Specify the method to determine the texture soil used. Describe the statistical analyses performed and if the variables had a normal distribution.

Response: We agree with your commentary and have incorporated next answer to your suggestion in “materials and methods part”:

Soil samples were collected using a soil auger at depths of 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm. The most typical areas in terms of landscape conditions were chosen as soil sampling sites. The so-called "envelope" method was used to obtain a generalized picture of soil property distribution for each farm. This method involves taking five samples from a 5 m by 5 m plot (at the corners of the plot and in the middle of the plot). Sample of 0.5 kg weight was taken from each point. The five individual samples are then combined, mixed and one combined sample weighing 1.0 kg is retained from the total mass. All operations were done separately for samples from depth 0-10 and 10-20 cm. Mixed samples were collected from 5 cites for each farm, and those mixed samples was mixed according to abovementioned procedure and analyzed. Soils on all farms were identified as Haplic KASTANOZEMS / Haplic CALCISOLS according to WRB.

Comment 4: Many results are discussed in the results section (e.g., L186-188, 192-194, L224-225, L241-242 – also remove the references here-, L257-266, 275-283, 289-293, 298-303, 308-312, 316-318). Please remove all these parts and only describe the results.

Comment 5: In the results, a description is mentioned: A significant correlation (p = 0.003) was observed between SIR in soils of organic farms and those of farms with traditional land use and fallow soils (Fig. 5). However, figure 5 is a box plot, not a correlation analysis. Please change the redaction in this part. This confusion between statistical methods is repeated lines below.

Response: Agree. Description to statistical plots was revised according to your comments. Distribution of variables from comment 4 mentioned.

Comment 6: The discussion section needs to incorporate entirely the comparisons and interpretations of the results. Thus, the text removed from the results must be prudently pleased in this section.

Response: Blocks from results were added, discussion section was reorganized

 

Comment 7: In the conclusions section, how the authors define “critical violations of soil stability”. This is mentioned for the first time in the conclusions; non-scale or criteria were previously defined within the text. Remove bullet points in this section.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Term “critical violations of soil stability” was removed. “Soil health” term, widely described in introduction, was used instead. Bullet points removed

Comment 7: Fig. 1 Please add coordinates and layer information to the map. Improve the resolution of the layer.

Response: Authors tried to enhance the quality of the map, but still not sure what is the best way to represent coordinates for all farms.

 

Comment 8: Fig. 2 to 6 – significant differences among farm systems can be assessed with a post-hoc mean comparison and must be indicated by letters. 

Response: We totally agree, statistical part was reorganized

Reviewer 2 Report

This research examined the “Impact of Diverse Viticulture Systems on Comprehensive Soil Health Metrics in the Northern Black Sea Region Context”. The authors also used different land use system to assess the functional- ecological state of vineyards cultivated soil. This current study is interesting. The manuscript has shown the progress to the current scientific research and qualified enough for publishing in “Soil Systems”. However, some comments need to be addressed with minor revision and then it can be considered for publication.

 

1.       Authors should concise the title of the manuscript.

2.       The authors need to emphasize the novelty in the introduction part (Line 116-127).

3.       Author should modify the location map of the sampling points.

4.       At some parts of the manuscript, the English language is hard to follow. Please check the English by native speakers.

5.       In conclusion section, line 391-392 and 393-394, sentences are repeated, and also authors should concise the conclusion part.

1.       At some parts of the manuscript, the English language is hard to follow. Please check the English by native speakers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 Authors are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtfull reading and insightful comments on this paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided.

 

Comment 1: Authors should concise the title of the manuscript.

Response: Part of authors are totaly agree with ypur suggestion, but some authors unfortunately disagree and we can't find new proper name for paper. Your suggestions are very welcome, and we will be very happy if you will point out in which direction we should think of.

Comment 2: The authors need to emphasize the novelty in the introduction part (Line 116-127).

Response: Introduction part was rewriten.

Comment 3: Author should modify the location map of the sampling points.

Response: Map is updated

Comment 4: At some parts of the manuscript, the English language is hard to follow. Please check the English by native speakers.

Response: Unfortunately authors couldn't find in given time native speaker for help in editing, but several parts of paper was deeply changed and many akward looking sentences was rewriten.

Comment 5: In conclusion section, line 391-392 and 393-394, sentences are repeated, and also authors should concise the conclusion part.

Response: Errors in conclusion part fixed.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well written however somethings need to be revised.

 

Materials and Methods 

The authors produce data for Sand, Clay, Silt % , they need to describe if the use all the 0-20cm soil core 

Line 130-131 : the authors need to indicate the temperature of the incubation.

 

Line 135:  What was the wavelength  ?

 

 

Results

  The authors present data farm systems in a very simple manner Fallow/Organic/Traditional against BR/SIR/qCO2 

The authors should extend the analysis in relation to the soil parameters such as Sand , Clay Silt %  against BR/SIR/qCO2 

The authors need to explain why the N soil content was not included in the analysis.

In addition, there are increased number of publications of similar topic where similar data include the P/N ratio in relation to soil health parameters. 

The authors should include more advance statistical analysis such as multi variable. They should examine all the relations among the different soil parameters and the soil health indicators. 

 

Overall 

The reader of the article has the impression that something is missing when goes through the data. 

The article is well written however somethings need to be revised.there are increased number of publications of similar topic where similar data include the P/N ratio in relation to soil health parameters. 

The authors should include more advance statistical analysis such as multi variable. They should examine all the relations among the different soil parameters and the soil health indicators. 

 

Overall 

The reader of the article has the impression that something is missing when goes through the data. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 Authors are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtfull reading and insightful comments on this paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided

Comment 1: The authors produce data for Sand, Clay, Silt % , they need to describe if the use all the 0-20cm soil core

Response: Samples from both 0-10 and 10-20 cm depths was analyzed, but since difference between them was negligible united data presented

Comment 2: Line 130-131 : the authors need to indicate the temperature of the incubation.

Response: Substrate-induced respiration (SIR) was determined in a similar manner, but the soil was moistened with an aqueous glucose solution instead of distilled water and incubated for 3.5 hours at 22±0.5°C. Relevant information has been added to the line 240

Comment 3: Line 135:  What was the wavelength ?

Response: Wavelength was 600nm.Relevant information has been added to the line 225

 

 Comment 4: The authors present data farm systems in a very simple manner Fallow/Organic/Traditional against BR/SIR/qCO2 The authors should extend the analysis in relation to the soil parameters such as Sand , Clay Silt %  against BR/SIR/qCO2. The authors should include more advance statistical analysis such as multi variable. They should examine all the relations among the different soil parameters and the soil health indicators

Response: According to your recommendations statistical part of the paper was redesigned. PCA analysis was added, where soil particles parameters were assessed as parameter.

 

Comment 5: The authors need to explain why the N soil content was not included in the analysis. In addition, there are increased number of publications of similar topic where similar data include the P/N ratio in relation to soil health parameters.

Response: In this study, we did not determine the content of total nitrogen in the soil for two reasons. Firstly, surveys conducted by the local agrochemical service showed that the nitrogen content was at the level of 0.1 - 0.2% for all farms and there was no significant difference between farms. Also, all farms did not use mineral nitrogen fertilizers. Secondly, the content of total nitrogen in viticulture is not given as much attention as phosphorus and potassium. For example, in France the ratio between nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium is accepted at the level of 1:2:4, in Italy - 1:2:1.7. This is explained by the fact that potassium and phosphorus contribute to better oviposition, higher sugar in berries and better vine ripening, while excess nitrogen worsens the quality of grapes and delays the ripening of berries and shoots.

 

Comment 6: The reader of the article has the impression that something is missing when goes through the data

Response: Authors redesigned statistical part of paper, changed results and discussion parts and thus hope that it made paper clearer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Impact of Diverse Viticulture Systems on Comprehensive Soil Health Metrics in the Northern Black Sea Region Context" by Gabechaya et al. aims to compare the microbial functional-ecological state of vineyard soils cultivated using traditional and organic farming systems in the Northern Black Sea region.

 

 

The authors have incorporated some of the suggestions from the first review. The scientific part of the article has been improved (with some exceptions that I detail below); however, the manuscript still requires extensive editing of the English language. Grammatical errors present throughout the document can confuse readers, low-quality English can convey a message incorrectly, so it is imperative that expert English editors review it.

 

The authors clarified the sample number, but they need to specify if the determinations were done once for each composite sample (each farm), by triplicate, or five times (as was only indicated for BR).

 

The packages used for PCA must be mentioned in the methods section along with the other statistical analyses (L252), not in the results section. 

 

Results: It is unnecessary to repeat in the text the values that are shown in the graphs. It is almost impossible to follow a text that is full of numbers. The text is used to summarize what it is shown in the graphs, to give an idea of how the graph can be interpreted.

 

No citations should be included in the description of results. These are included and discussed in the discussion. 

 

Results of the PCA are not further discussed. 

 

Conclusions – which criteria indicate a violation of soil health?

 

Table 1 – Homogenize how the units are presented. In this case, mg/kg should be mg kg-1

Fig. 2 - Reduce the number of decimals presented (also in the tables).

Table 2 – Complete missing units. Is it "soil-h-1" equal to "soil h-1"? Homogenize terms used.

Fig. 3 Explain the meaning of gray arrows/vectors.

 

 

Again, the text needs to be carefully reviewed; many mistakes are included, among others: missing spaces, double dots, missing subscripts, superscripts as subscripts, and missing final dots.

For example, in L267 uses commas to separate decimals instead of dots (used in the rest of the document).

 

Grammar error examples (the whole document must be carefully reviewed):

11 – delete located.

11 - replace "inclusive of" with "including"

14 - replace "carbon of the microbial biomass" with "microbial biomass carbon"

L190 - replace "as well as" with "and"

L191 – delete "which were"

L190 "In this scenario, the microbial respiratory the soil, the activity, the microbial biomass, and the changes in ecophysiological status may serve as indicators of unfavorable processes induced by a combination of agrogenic factors." Should be: "In this scenario, the soil microbial respiration, the microbial activity and biomass, and the changes in ecophysiological status may indicate unfavorable processes induced by a combination of agrogenic factors".

L206 – Should be rephrased to avoid redundancy: "However, the conditions of the agroclimatic and soil conditions in the region are favorable…"

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors are grateful for careful reading of our edits and very accurate and helpful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided

Reviewer: The authors clarified the sample number, but they need to specify if the determinations were done once for each composite sample (each farm), by triplicate, or five times (as was only indicated for BR).

Author response: All analyses were performed in triplicate (L221). 

Reviewer: The packages used for PCA must be mentioned in the methods section along with the other statistical analyses (L252), not in the results section. 

Author response: Links and description of R package used for PCA were moved from Results to Methods section

Reviewer: Results: It is unnecessary to repeat in the text the values that are shown in the graphs. It is almost impossible to follow a text that is full of numbers. The text is used to summarize what it is shown in the graphs, to give an idea of how the graph can be interpreted.

Author response: We tried to minimize amount of values in Results sections and focused on meaning of this numbers

Reviewer: No citations should be included in the description of results. These are included and discussed in the discussion. 

Author response: Citations have been moved from the Results to Discussion section.

Reviewer: Conclusions – which criteria indicate a violation of soil health?

Author response: After some discussion, the authors decided to rewrite the conclusions and thus the term soil health violation was removed from the text

Reviewer: Table 1 – Homogenize how the units are presented. In this case, mg/kg should be mg kg-1

Table 2 – Complete missing units. Is it "soil-h-1" equal to "soil h-1"? Homogenize terms used.

Author response: Units were harmonized all over the text.

Reviewer: Fig. 2 - Reduce the number of decimals presented (also in the tables).

Author response:  Number of decimals in tables and figures was fixed

Reviewer: Fig. 3 Explain the meaning of gray arrows/vectors.

Author response: All arrows represent variables which where used in PCA analysis, the labeled (which are also black) variables are those the best shown on the plane, unlabeled (grey ones) have the smallest contribution to the total variance.

Reviewer: Again, the text needs to be carefully reviewed; many mistakes are included, among others: missing spaces, double dots, missing subscripts, superscripts as subscripts, and missing final dots.

For example, in L267 uses commas to separate decimals instead of dots (used in the rest of the document).

Author response: Grammatical and technical errors present in the text have been corrected. Incorrect wording has also been corrected and rephrased.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the questions and incorporated the suggestions into the revised version of the manuscript.