The Impact of Crop Mix on Decreasing Soil Price and Soil Degradation: A Case Study of Selected Regions in Czechia (2002–2019)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read a very interesting research.

However, the authors should revise some points that are important for improving the paper.

The Abstract should be revised in order to present the following issues: Scope and objectives; Methods; Results; Originality; Implications. In the present form, the Abstract do not present the methods used for analysing the differences in the structure of crops. In Section 2, the authors need to revise the subtitle Procedure and methods, because the methods include methodological principles, procedures and working techniques. It is necessary to clarify the concepts of diversity vs. concentration. The authors use the homogeneity term in an inappropriate context. The authors should present the variables that are used in the analysis. A table with the list of variables, definition, units of measure time reference could be useful. The authors should specify how the diversity is quantified in their research. What are the The authors might consider the use of other indicators for measuring diversity or concentration (Herfindahl-Hirschman index, Onicescu’s Informational Energy), if appropriate). For categorical variables the diversity and concentration indexes are recommended. In Section 3, It is necessary to present the criterion for selecting the four countries compared in Table 1. What is the purpose of comparing these particular countries? The research questions presented under Table 1 should be formulated in line with the aim of the paper. What is the methodological approach that supports the answers to the research questions? The figures in Table 2 are impossible to read. The quality of  Table 2 should be improved. The authors might represent the differences in the structure by the 5 regions using a graph such as a map. The results of this research should be compared to previous papers. Are they consistent with other studies? Are the differences in crop structure significant? In the Conclusion, it is necessary to present the original contributions, the implications of the research. The title of the paper should be revised in order to ad information on space (and time). Is it a Comparative study? It is necessary to rephrase some sentences in order to improve the understanding in English.

Author Response

Dear Respected Editor-in-Chief:

This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief have been addressed, corrected and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions. Please find the following points have been addressed:

We have updated the data, as there were published current data to 31st of May 2019. Then we added better explanation regards the official land prices their relation to the soil quality and valuation process. We have added more international resources in the literature review part and in the discussion part. We have explained how the „normative“ structure is devoted and the abbreviation from „TCS“ to „VTS“ was changed to correspond with valuation type structure. Table No. 2 was replaced, so it should be visible now. We also updated the methodology and the structure of the paper. Regarding to that also the name of the paper was revised. We have added several tables and charts for better orientation in the text and variables. We have tested hypotheses about the statistically significant difference between the expected (share according to VTS) and observed (real share according to the Czech Statistical Office). We have calculated Herfindahl-Hirschman Index to demonstrate the decreasing diversity in the crop production and also figure of the crop production was added, to discuss the trends affecting the soil fertility. In discussion part we have mentioned the conflict of short-run interests (profit) and long-term (soil fertility) and the relation to some specifics of the Czech agricultural sector. On the other hand, the comparison with other countries has been removed as it was redundant. Instead of that we add the studies of the other authors in the discussion section which fulfil the same role. We have highlighted the originality of the study and its contribution in the conclusion. The abstract of the paper was updated to reflect the content and conclusion of the paper. The level of the language was improved and the manuscript has been totally revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is written in an unusual form. The issue is very specific and could be difficult for a non-expert reader to understand the work, so envision someone who knows very little about the topic, the task at hand is to write a paper that explains to others your works. Probably a conceptual graphic scheme could be useful. I think you have to explain better the “normative agronomic characteristics”. Normative aspect remains unclear in all the paper. Can you cite other works on relationship between “normative agronomic characteristics” and real use? May be that you need to insert in bibliography more articles in English. The second table (figure), page 7,  has a low resolution. It is not clear, but it is a key table. What are the limits of your work? The conclusion can be can be valid in other countries? Your work could be useful for researcher of other countries? The final part of the “abstract” and the “conclusions” should be similar. Cite recommendations in the abstract. Is providing recommendations the ultimate goal of the work? Why you don’t mention this in the introduction?

Author Response

Dear Respected Editor-in-Chief:

This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief have been addressed, corrected and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions. Please find the following points have been addressed:

We have updated the data, as there were published current data to 31st of May 2019. Then we added better explanation regards the official land prices their relation to the soil quality and valuation process. We have added more international resources in the literature review part and in the discussion part. We have explained how the „normative“ structure is devoted and the abbreviation from „TCS“ to „VTS“ was changed to correspond with valuation type structure. Table No. 2 was replaced, so it should be visible now. We also updated the methodology and the structure of the paper. Regarding to that also the name of the paper was revised. We have added several tables and charts for better orientation in the text and variables. We have tested hypotheses about the statistically significant difference between the expected (share according to VTS) and observed (real share according to the Czech Statistical Office). We have calculated Herfindahl-Hirschman Index to demonstrate the decreasing diversity in the crop production and also figure of the crop production was added, to discuss the trends affecting the soil fertility. In discussion part we have mentioned the conflict of short-run interests (profit) and long-term (soil fertility) and the relation to some specifics of the Czech agricultural sector. On the other hand, the comparison with other countries has been removed as it was redundant. Instead of that we add the studies of the other authors in the discussion section which fulfil the same role. We have highlighted the originality of the study and its contribution in the conclusion. The abstract of the paper was updated to reflect the content and conclusion of the paper. The level of the language was improved and the manuscript has been totally revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Topic very interesting. However:

The paper needs a better defined theoretical framework. Wich soil quality indicators are used? How are they included in a theoretical framework?

The authors state that the marketability of cultivated commodities influences farmers' behavior. How to combine the fact that profitability affects short-term choices, while soil quality is a long-term fact?

Is it possible to introduce some statistical tools to make the comparison between current crop structure and optimal crop composition more objective and statistically objective?

Author Response

Dear Respected Editor-in-Chief:

This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief have been addressed, corrected and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions. Please find the following points have been addressed:

We have updated the data, as there were published current data to 31st of May 2019. Then we added better explanation regards the official land prices their relation to the soil quality and valuation process. We have added more international resources in the literature review part and in the discussion part. We have explained how the „normative“ structure is devoted and the abbreviation from „TCS“ to „VTS“ was changed to correspond with valuation type structure. Table No. 2 was replaced, so it should be visible now. We also updated the methodology and the structure of the paper. Regarding to that also the name of the paper was revised. We have added several tables and charts for better orientation in the text and variables. We have tested hypotheses about the statistically significant difference between the expected (share according to VTS) and observed (real share according to the Czech Statistical Office). We have calculated Herfindahl-Hirschman Index to demonstrate the decreasing diversity in the crop production and also figure of the crop production was added, to discuss the trends affecting the soil fertility. In discussion part we have mentioned the conflict of short-run interests (profit) and long-term (soil fertility) and the relation to some specifics of the Czech agricultural sector. On the other hand, the comparison with other countries has been removed as it was redundant. Instead of that we add the studies of the other authors in the discussion section which fulfil the same role. We have highlighted the originality of the study and its contribution in the conclusion. The abstract of the paper was updated to reflect the content and conclusion of the paper. The level of the language was improved and the manuscript has been totally revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the presentation of the methodology and of the results.

There is still a question regarding the results presented in table 4 and table 5.

it is not necessary to present explicitly the alpha value in the table. In the presentation of the results on page 9 of 13, there is a confusion regarding the value of alpha, the assumed risk. It is specified several times that alpha is 0.95 instead od 0.05. Please check again.  The same for the results presented for table 5.

The title of Figure 2 may be changed to: The evolution of the HH index in selected regions between 2002-2019.

The inner title of the graph is not compulsory.  The legend could be displayed on the right

The Figure 3 could be transposed so that the years are on the horizontal, the same as in Figure 2.

The title of Figure 2 may be changed to The evolution of the crop structure....  The inner title is not necessary The legend could be placed on the right

 

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief have been addressed, corrected and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions. Please find the following points have been addressed:

We have updated the alpha value from 0.95 to 0.05 We have edited the titles of Figure 2 and 3 and the overall structure. The level of the language was improved, and the manuscript has been totally revised.

We thank you so much for your utmost review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

authors have responded to the comments and the paper has been deeply revised

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

This letter is to confirm that all final corrections and suggestions from the Editor-in-Chief have been addressed, corrected and implemented. In addition, the authors have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly for possible style and language changes or substitutions. Please find the following points have been addressed:

We have updated the alpha value from 0.95 to 0.05 We have edited the titles of Figure 2 and 3 and the overall structure. The level of the language was improved, and the manuscript has been totally revised.

We thank you so much for your utmost review.