Soil Fauna and Ecosystem Services in Agroecological Cropping Systems: Focus on Experimental Open-Field Market Gardens
, Valérie Angeon 3, Jean-Louis Diman 4, Jean Vaillant 5 and Gladys Loranger-Merciris 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well written, however I would suggest to include more refences.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
The paper is well written, however I would suggest to include more references.
We added the reference suggested in the Introduction section in line 48 and in the References section in line 420-422.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study comprehensively explores the differences in soil fauna and ecosystem services under two ecological farming models, presenting experimental design details and results. It is a thorough manuscript with significant practical implications. However, for a scientific research paper, I suggest the following modifications:
1. The term "ecosystem services" in the title may not be entirely appropriate since the paper focuses on service provisioning. Consider revising accordingly.
2. The abstract should emphasize the strengths, weaknesses, and developmental scenarios of each ecological farming model.
3. In the Introduction, provide a brief overview of the local trends in ecological farming and the current state of relevant research.
4. In the Materials and Methods section, consider supplementing information on the spatial distribution of research plots. Was T0 also subjected to earthworm manure application?
5. In the Results section, address the unusually large SD value for AG at line 206, explaining the reasons behind it. Regarding line 214, clarify the rationale for collecting the same number of macrofauna species at T18 in AG and AGSPP. Explain the significance of terms like "non-aggregated soil," "physical aggregates," and "biogenic aggregates."
6. Improve the quality of the figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article in general terms is good. The work is novel and well written. However, some paragraphs of the introduction should be rewritten to accommodate the suggested changes. It presents the handicap that the experiment has only been repeated for one year except for the harvest factor, which had two. Therefore, the conclusions obtained regarding the ecosystem services provided by the increase in biodiversity must be reviewed. The comments are attached in the attached documents marked in yellow.
Title:
Line 2-3. The trials have been carried out for a limited period (between 2017 and 2018), and on relatively small plots, it would be coherent to add the word: “Preliminary” in the title. However, it’s just a suggestion.
Abstract:
Line 19 and 22: AG and AGSPP. What do these acronyms correspond to?
Line 24-25: Here you talk about changes in soil macrofauna communities in both experimental systems (AG and AGSPP) and compare it with bare soil. However, these are not seen in the supplementary material tables, nor are they discussed in the results. The different organisms captured in these three treatments, AG, AGSPP, and Control (bare soil) are not seen.
Keywords:
Line 30: "Ecosystem functioning", I think it is a bit risky to use it since it is not talked about. Rather, you speak of "management of agricultural ecosystems."
Introduction:
Line 45 and 46: In bracket e.g., What is the example?
Materials and Methods:
In global terms, this section needs a review and organization of the content to improve its understanding.
Line 89-92: This should be in the introduction section. In addition, references must be avoided in the material and methods section unless they are of great relevance to explain something or refer to the statistical packages used for the data analysis.
Line 109 and 112: (AG and AGSPP): What do these acronyms correspond to? Each methodology used here should be specified, and I see that it is explained in the summary. In the summary it is correct to comment on some methodology, the most relevant, but really, where it should be explained what has been done and how it has been done is in this section.
Line 123-125: If climates are not compared, this information is irrelevant.
Line 129: Also irrelevant or include in the following sentence. Phrase without any value on its own.
Line 131: This purpose is already discussed later, it can be ignored here.
Line 152: Microscope: Model?
Line 152: Species richness and Shannon index: Was help from a statistical program used, if so, list, if not, indicate how it was carried out.
Line 154: (Table S1): Was help from a statistical program used, if so, list, if not, indicate how it was carried out.
Line 161-162: Redundancies must be avoided, therefore, I would simplify the sampling procedures and unite them so that the information is not repeated: for example: "At the beginning (T0) and end of the experiment (T18), samples were taken of soil for chemical analysis (9x15 cm) and morphological evaluation of macro-aggregates (8x8.5 cm) in the center of each plot. For chemical analysis, N was studied...". In this way, all the information is clearer and simplified, without redundant information, which gives the sensation that the same thing is being repeated in each paragraph.
Line 168-169: This sentence would go in the introduction.
Line 181: From each plot or in total?
It leads to ambiguity when understanding each sentence if the methodology is not expressed in a simple and orderly way. It becomes clear to me later, but I should be clear from the beginning.
Line 184: Were all the fruits from both treatments weighed or were plants selected from each treatment and repetition? Please specify.
Line 185-186: And for what purpose, please, clearly organize what exactly was done? As expressed in this paragraph, I no longer know the number of plants to be analyzed.
Line 190: Has this test only been done in one year? It would be convenient to see if there is reproducibility in different years. Concluding from a single year is risky considering the variability that occurs in natural systems. The ideal would be 3 years, but the difficulty of resources and processing time of the material in this type of test is understood, and it could be a minimum of 2 years.
Line 191: Visually or using some alternative sampling method such as tapping or entomological vacuum cleaners?
Line 195: Table S2 are results, I don't know why it is mentioned in Materials and Methods.
Results
Line 2015: Was there any increase in arthropod biodiversity at the beginning and at the end of the experience? And between the treated areas with the greatest diversity of plant species (AG and AGSPP) and the bare soli area?
Line 216-217, “Compare to bare soil”: Where is the data on what was obtained in bare soil to compare?
Line 227-229: And the bare soil?
Line 270-271: Are these data also available based on the 2017 and 2018 harvests?
Line 278-281: Indicate the number of morphospecies, example: Aphrophora sp1, Aphrophora sp2, that is why they have been separated at the morphospecies level, right?, to see the species richness.
Discussion
Indicate the number of morphospecies, example: Aphrophora sp1, Aphrophora sp2, that is why they have been separated at the morphospecies level, right?, to see the species richness.
Line 311: The way of referencing authors must be unified. In lines 330-331 it is different.
Line 342-343: The way of referencing authors must be unified. In lines 330-331 it is different.
Line 345-346: Has the damage caused by phytophages been measured? Nothing is said in the material and methods, and results.
Line 355: Much is said in the discussion about the importance of virus transmission by phytophages present in the sampled plants, however, in the introduction nothing is said about it.
Conclusions
Line 368 “(Figure 4)”: Comment in the figure caption: This figure talks about ecosystem services that would benefit from an improvement in the physical properties of the soil as a consequence of the increase in biogenic aggregates, but the work does not measure the improvement in pollination or pest control. At no time are the results obtained compared with the presence or absence of arthropods in a bare soil tomato and lettuce production experience. How do you know there is an improvement?
Be careful because answers are assumed that cannot be justified with the work provided.
Line 371 “ecosystem services”: Specify which ecosystem services are being valued in this work.
The changes in Suplementary material:
Table S1: Change to: « agroecological » in text.
Delete a space between Theridiidae sp.
Delete Alpaida, it’s a genus of the family Araneidae.
Table S2: Indicate the number of morphospecies, example: Aphrophora sp1, Aphrophora sp2, that is why they have been separated at the morphospecies level, right?, to see the species richness.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the manuscript pdf of the manuscript and my comments are embedded in the manuscript pdf file.
The paper is very interesting for sustainable/ecological agriculture. It describes changes in soil invertebrates as well as in pest and beneficial insects with a change in pest management. The authors describe an interesting experiment in which small changes, albeit difficult to implement by farmers, can result in very positive changes in pest pressure, crop yield, and soil properties and soil fauna.
The lack of a larger scale experiment with higher spatial replication rates is acknowledged by the authors but the results are none-the-less interesting. Although the paper describes an experiment based on alternative IPM methodology, the authors are evaluating outcomes on soils and are interpreting some of the crop outcomes based on soil properties. The manuscript meets the scope of the journal.
I have made suggestions for alternative wording to improve the already pretty decent English and asked questions where the manuscript lacks clarity. However, I am asking for minor changes and clarifications.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English is great. I made comments for alternative wording in the manuscript as comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsExcellent research. However, there are a few points that I feel should be addressed as detailed below. You address the limitations of application of the research to agriculture.
Did the vermicompost potentially add diversity to the experiment? A statement on how this was controlled would be sufficient.
You report the macrofauna as individuals m-2. However, this is measured as m-3.
Section 3.3
The values for difference across treatments (W= 893; p = 0.013) do not appear to match the difference among the values (19.92 v l9.68 tons). Including the total ha used may allieviate this situation.
How was the corn introduced into the study. Corn is mentioned in the methods. However, due to the potential importance of the change in biodiversity, this should be explained in more detail at some point.
A couple of grammatical notes.
Lines 282 and 298: remove 'Besides'
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
