Impact of Deferred Versus Continuous Sheep Grazing on Soil Compaction in the Mediterranean Montado Ecosystem
, Emanuel Carreira 1, Shakib Shahidian 1, Mário de Carvalho 1, José Marques da Silva 1,2, LuÃs Lorenzo Paniagua 3, Francisco Moral 4 and Alfredo Pereira 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
This is an interesting manuscript that determines the “Impact of deferred versus continuous sheep grazing on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem”. The methods are not novel but are acceptable. It should be noted the correction of several items is necessary in this manuscript. Specially, English language of writing should be modified in the whole of manuscript. Please study the “Guide for Authors” of journal, carefully and correct the manuscript based on the guideline. Moreover literature review is not up to date. You should use appropriate papers for this section such as Principle of life cycle assessment and cumulative exergy demand for biodiesel production: Farm-to-Combustion approach; Artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in energy modeling of agricultural products; Applying novel eco-exergoenvironmental toxicity index to select the best irrigation system of sunflower production.
Accordingly, I recommend accepting it, with major revision.
Best Regards
Author Response
REVIEWER#1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors
This is an interesting manuscript that determines the “Impact of deferred versus continuous sheep grazing on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem”. The methods are not novel but are acceptable. It should be noted the correction of several items is necessary in this manuscript. Specially, English language of writing should be modified in the whole of manuscript. Please study the “Guide for Authors” of journal, carefully and correct the manuscript based on the guideline.
R- Thank you. The reviewer's suggestion was accepted: the manuscript was rewritten accordingly.
Moreover literature review is not up to date. You should use appropriate papers for this section such as Principle of life cycle assessment and cumulative exergy demand for biodiesel production: Farm-to-Combustion approach; Artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in energy modelling of agricultural products; Applying novel eco-exergo environmental toxicity index to select the best irrigation system of sunflower production.
Accordingly, I recommend accepting it, with major revision.
Best Regards
R- Thank you so much for reviewing the article and for recommending its publication. We studied the suggested articles; however it was felt that the topics addressed in these articles were tangential to the theme of this article. In any case thank you for your suggestions, which we will follow by introducing more recent papers as long as they are relevant to the topics developed. We will also discuss some of the results obtained with a broader approach, inferring some implications that may arise from the results obtained.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to revise the MS entitled “Impact of deferred versus continuous sheep grazing on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem” by João Serrano and his/her colleagues that was submitted to “agriengineering”. The MS assess the impact that two grazing management strategies (CG versus DG) have on soil compaction as result of animal trampling. I think the MS submitted is suitable for agriengineering, and some interesting results were showed. I suggest clarifying the innovation of this manuscript in the introduction section.
Best regards,
Author Response
REVIEWER#2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
R- The authors are grateful for all of the reviewers' suggestions, which contributed decisively to the improvement of the article.
Dear Editor:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to revise the MS entitled “Impact of deferred versus continuous sheep grazing on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem” by João Serrano and his/her colleagues that was submitted to “agriengineering”. The MS assess the impact that two grazing management strategies (CG versus DG) have on soil compaction as result of animal trampling. I think the MS submitted is suitable for agriengineering, and some interesting results were showed. I suggest clarifying the innovation of this manuscript in the introduction section.
Best regards,
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted: a sentence on this subject (the “innovation” of this manuscript) was incorporated in the introduction section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments:
Line 2-3: ‘Impact of deferred versus continuous sheep grazing on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem’, I suggest a change to ‘Impact of stockpiled versus continuous stocking on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem’.
Line 17: Deferred grazing (DG) to change stockpiled (SP) (Change all the manuscript).
Line 18: Continuous grazing (CG) to change continuous stocking (CS) (Change all the manuscript).
Line 20: Without the expression ‘case’, I would like to read just: study or research.
Line 21: Only pasture shows the ‘field of permanent pasture’.
Line 23: Change field per pasture. (All the manuscript).
Line 23-24: What type of forage grass was in these pastures? This information is required.
Line 34: Pasture ecosystems are better than pastoral ecosystems.
Line 41-42: ‘...continuous grazing systems’, is better ‘...continuous stocking systems’.
Line 43: I think it’s better to use unit animal (UA) than livestock unit (LU). The ‘unit animal (UA)’ is the most common.
Line 44: To use forage accumulation or forage production than pasture biomass.
Line 45: Do not start the sentence with an acronym. To start a sentence: Grazing stocking...
Line 46: What did you say about grazing intensity? Or should be grazing frequency?
Line 101: You are studying continuous stocking and you write: ‘pasture growth rates or post-grazing regrowth’. For me, this is without context in your manuscript, because post-graze is after defoliation in rotational stocking and not in continuous stocking (because it doesn’t exist). This sentence needs to be changed to reference continuous stocking.
Line 110: What was the month and day that the experiment started and ended in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021? Important information.
Line 141-142: Were these 7 sheep per ha the entire time in the continuous stocking? Didn’t you use a variable stocking rate? How was this controlled (a height of management)? This information is very important, please add it.
Line 149: Do not necessary to use 4 grazing parks. To determine the average canopy height in each pasture (four pastures).
Line 152: Add more information about Figure 3, these proportions, 46 and 85%, it’s not very clear to understand.
Line 422, 451, and 455: Rewrite without Table 1, Figure 9, and Figure 12 at the beginning of the sentence.
Line 587: ‘Recent studies [8-10] have sought to assess (...)’ is better than ‘Some recent works (e.g. Mayerfeld et al. [8] or Serrano et al. [10]) have sought to assess (...)’.
Line 588-590: “Nevertheless, (...) Montado ecosystem’. I think the sentence is not contributing to the Discussion section.
Line 600: I prefer to use pastures rather than fields (throughout the manuscript).
Line 608: I think that could write ‘forage-based livestock systems’ rather than ‘livestock production systems’.
Line 610: (...) the effect of several factors, mainly such as edaphic, climatic, and management [2], is better than (...) the effect of several factors, mainly edaphic, climatic and management factors [2].
Line 618-619: It is not necessary to use ‘m’ in all the numbers, you can use only the last one.
Line 631: At the end of the sentence there is the extra parenthesis ‘)’, please remove it.
Line 634: It is not necessary to say about Tukey again, this was said in the Statistical Analysis.
Line 636: You can remove the cm depth in the 10-20, you can use only the last one (10-20 or 20-30 cm depth).
Line 639: Use, e.g., 10-20 cm depth or 10-20 cm soil layer. Review the entire manuscript.
Line 652-654: Forage production was evaluated, it could help you explain the vegetative vigor, pasture perennial, and how the forage production would be in these systems.
Line 658: Do not begin the sentence ‘Figure 12 (...)’, use it at the end of the sentence.
Line 692: Use cm only the last number.
Questions:
About Figure 1 and experimental design. Pastures 1, 2, 3, and 4 were the experimental units and yellow points in all the pastures were the sampling units (replication of evaluated)?
Was the forage production of the pastures not evaluated? Why not?
Figures 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12. Why does the letter (b) come before the letter (a)? I suggest changing the order to letter (a), following letter (c), and following letter (c).
The stocking rate is very important for soil conservation and can negatively impact your health. Why not use variable stocking rate in your study? And how was this calculated?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER#3
R- The authors are grateful for all the reviewers' suggestions and comments, which contributed decisively to the improvement of the article.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Line 2-3: ‘Impact of deferred versus continuous sheep grazing on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem’, I suggest a change to ‘Impact of stockpiled versus continuous stocking on soil compaction in the Mediterranean Montado ecosystem’.
R- Thank you for your suggestion. However, the term stockpiling does not fully represent what happens in Mediterranean climates and the conditions of the Montado. The concept of stockpiling includes cutting, drying, and storing hay to feed over the winter; existing pastures are allowed to grow and accumulate forage in the field to be grazed by livestock in a later season. Under this management strategy, grazing animals are removed from pastures in late summer, and forages are allowed to accumulate growth through the late summer and fall. In Mediterranean conditions, it doesn’t happen where pastures stop growing during the dry, hot summer. It only starts germinating again in the autumn when rainfall levels are high enough. The cool, late-season temperatures make it possible to accumulate high-quality forage even after an extended period of growth. This accumulated forage is then available for grazing throughout the fall and winter, reducing the costs associated with feeding stored feeds. Again, this is not the case because if animals are removed from the pasture during the summer, this does not influence pasture growth. In contrast, the excess dry biomass accumulated due to the removal of animals contributes negatively to the germination and growth rate after the first rains in autumn.
Line 17: Deferred grazing (DG) to change stockpiled (SP) (Change all the manuscript).
R- Thank you for the suggestion. However, the terminology used is more in line with the specific conditions that occur with Mediterranean pastures (see detailed explanation above).
Line 18: Continuous grazing (CG) to change continuous stocking (CS) (Change all the manuscript).
R- Thank you for the suggestion. Continuous grazing and continuous stocking are similar designations when the number of animals per hectare is the same. However, given that the number of animals differs between treatments and the number of days the animals remain in each treatment are also different, continuous grazing and deferred grazing seem the best nomenclatures to use under these conditions.
Line 20: Without the expression ‘case’, I would like to read just: study or research.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 21: Only pasture shows the ‘field of permanent pasture’.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 23: Change field per pasture. (All the manuscript).
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 23-24: What type of forage grass was in these pastures? This information is required.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted. Forage type, “native natural grassland” (a dryland biodiverse pasture, mixture of grasses, legumes and composite species) was incorporated. This information, namely the botanical species present and their relative preponderance has been described in other paper of this team cited in this article (Carreira et al., 2022).
Line 34: Pasture ecosystems are better than pastoral ecosystems.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 41-42: ‘...continuous grazing systems’, is better ‘...continuous stocking systems’.
R- As explained above, continuous grazing seems more appropriate because the number of animals and the length of stay vary between treatments.
Line 43: I think it’s better to use unit animal (UA) than livestock unit (LU). The ‘unit animal (UA)’ is the most common.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted. Modification will be provided according to the suggestion.
Line 44: To use forage accumulation or forage production than pasture biomass.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 45: Do not start the sentence with an acronym. To start a sentence: Grazing stocking...
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 46: What did you say about grazing intensity? Or should be grazing frequency?
R- Grazing intensity refers not only to the frequency with which animals use the pasture but to the combination of more animals being present for a variable time, which depends on the instantaneous growth rate of the pasture. This description was added to the manuscript. Thank you.
Line 101: You are studying continuous stocking and you write: ‘pasture growth rates or post-grazing regrowth’. For me, this is without context in your manuscript, because post-graze is after defoliation in rotational stocking and not in continuous stocking (because it doesn’t exist). This sentence needs to be changed to reference continuous stocking.
R- This study compares continuous and deferred grazing, which is why the mention is made of pasture regrowth’ after animals have been removed from the deferred grazing treatment. This statement was added to the manuscript. Thank you.
Line 110: What was the month and day that the experiment started and ended in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021? Important information.
R- The reviewer is right. The study started in September 2019 and ended in June 2021. This information was added to the manuscript. Thank you.
The reasons for these dates are related to the beginning and the end of the phenological cycle of natural Mediterranean grasslands. These pastures start germinating after the first autumn rains and stop their growth in June after the rains cease in early summer.
Line 141-142: Were these 7 sheep per ha the entire time in the continuous stocking? Didn’t you use a variable stocking rate? How was this controlled (a height of management)? This information is very important, please add it.
R- In the continuous grazing (CG) treatment the same number of sheep remains, corresponding to 1 Animal Unit (AU). In deferred grazing (DG), the number of sheep present is 2 AU, but the permanence in the pastures is variable. The sheep start grazing the pasture when it has an average height of more than 10 cm and are removed when it has an average height of less than 5 cm. This important and detailed information is described in the manuscript.
Line 149: Do not necessary to use 4 grazing parks. To determine the average canopy height in each pasture (four pastures).
R- We agree, but simultaneous measurements in all fences allow us to assess better the relationship between the growth rates of all pastures in all treatments and the intake rates of animals in each treatment.
Line 152: Add more information about Figure 3, these proportions, 46 and 85%, it’s not very clear to understand.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted and additional information was added. The information “-46” and “-85” is the difference between CG and DG in 2019/2020 (212 days – 166 days) and 2020/2021 (240 days – 155 days), respectively.
Line 422, 451, and 455: Rewrite without Table 1, Figure 9, and Figure 12 at the beginning of the sentence.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 587: ‘Recent studies [8-10] have sought to assess (...)’ is better than ‘Some recent works (e.g. Mayerfeld et al. [8] or Serrano et al. [10]) have sought to assess (...)’.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 588-590: “Nevertheless, (...) Montado ecosystem’. I think the sentence is not contributing to the Discussion section.
R- The reviewer is right. As suggested, this sentence was removed.
Line 600: I prefer to use pastures rather than fields (throughout the manuscript).
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 608: I think that could write ‘forage-based livestock systems’ rather than ‘livestock production systems’.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 610: (...) the effect of several factors, mainly such as edaphic, climatic, and management [2], is better than (...) the effect of several factors, mainly edaphic, climatic and management factors [2].
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 618-619: It is not necessary to use ‘m’ in all the numbers, you can use only the last one.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 631: At the end of the sentence there is the extra parenthesis ‘)’, please remove it.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 634: It is not necessary to say about Tukey again, this was said in the Statistical Analysis.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 636: You can remove the cm depth in the 10-20, you can use only the last one (10-20 or 20-30 cm depth).
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 639: Use, e.g., 10-20 cm depth or 10-20 cm soil layer. Review the entire manuscript.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 652-654: Forage production was evaluated, it could help you explain the vegetative vigor, pasture perennial, and how the forage production would be in these systems.
R- We understand the reviewer's suggestion, however, forage production data are being treated geostatistically for another paper that will be published soon. In this paper we have only tried to complement the main issue of soil compaction (Cone Index), raising some clues about the pasture development and vegetative vigour from an expedite methodology (remote sensing and vegetation indices). The information relative the botanical species present and their relative preponderance has been described in other published paper of this team cited in this article (Carreira et al., 2022).
Line 658: Do not begin the sentence ‘Figure 12 (...)’, use it at the end of the sentence.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Line 692: Use cm only the last number.
R- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted.
Questions:
About Figure 1 and experimental design. Pastures 1, 2, 3, and 4 were the experimental units and yellow points in all the pastures were the sampling units (replication of evaluated)?
R- Yes.
Was the forage production of the pastures not evaluated? Why not?
R- We understand the reviewer's suggestion, however, forage production data are being treated geostatistically for another paper that will be published soon. This study aims to assess the issues related to the impact of trampling by different instantaneous animal loads per area (measured by the Cone Index), raising some clues about the pasture development and vegetative vigour from an expedite methodology (remote sensing and vegetation indices). The information relative the botanical species present and their relative preponderance has been described in other published paper of this team cited in this article (Carreira et al., 2022).
Figures 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12. Why does the letter (b) come before the letter (a)? I suggest changing the order to letter (a), following letter (c), and following letter (c).
R- The reviewer is right. The suggestion was incorporated in the manuscript. Thank you.
The stocking rate is very important for soil conservation and can negatively impact your health. Why not use variable stocking rate in your study? And how was this calculated?
R-The effects of the stocking rate were evaluated, considering that in two treatments, the traditional stocking rates (1 AU per hectare) were used. Higher stocking rates (corresponding to 2 AU per hectare) were used in two other treatments. We think this is made clear in the new version of the article. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accpet
