Field-Scale Evaluation of the Soil Quality Index as Influenced by Dairy Manure and Inorganic Fertilizers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the effect of dairy manure on soil quality and global warming potential based on long-term field experiments, and the manuscript was well prepared and provided detailed assessments on soil quality based on the soil property analysis and the relevant correlation and principal component analysis. The information might be of interest to the readers from the fields of soil science, environmental science, and ecology. The manuscript is suitable for publishing in the journal after minor revision. Some specific comments are provided as follows:
Abstract section, full names were not provided for some abbreviations, for instance, HM, which might impede the readability of the abstract.
Line 91, m is missing after 6, it seems that the area of each plot should be 128 m2 based on its width and length.
Line 113-114, the international unit should be adopted here.
Line 134, the bracket after SOC should be deleted.
Line 137, It seems that it is unnecessary to include so many (26) properties in the assessment methods since most of them are highly correlated with each other. For instance, as indicated in Figure 2, the cold and hot water extracted carbon and nitrogen showed significant correlations. Why did the author choose to extract carbon simultaneously using cold and hot water? What were the differences between the fractions from the extraction? It is suggested to provide a brief description to explain why the authors selected these soil properties.
Line 272, please check the correctness of the statements. Where are the underlined bold values?
Line 217 and Line 322, no Fig. 5 was found in the manuscript.
Line, 382, it seems that the sentence is incomplete
Line 384-385, compared to previous studies (e.g. Liu et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020), what is the originality of this study? Which should be introduced in the Introduction section.
Line 387, how did the author draw such a conclusion? More explanations are needed to support the statement.
Author Response
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don’t feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors investigated the effect of dairy manure on soil quality and global warming potential based on long-term field experiments, and the manuscript was well prepared and provided detailed assessments on soil quality based on the soil property analysis and the relevant correlation and principal component analysis. The information might be of interest to the readers from the fields of soil science, environmental science, and ecology. The manuscript is suitable for publishing in the journal after minor revision. Some specific Comments are provided as follows:
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s time and help to improve this paper. We appreciate your time.
Abstract section, full names were not provided for some abbreviations, for instance, HM, which might impede the readability of the abstract.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Please find corrections in the abstract.
Line 91, m is missing after 6, it seems that the area of each plot should be 128 m2 based on its width and length.
Response: Thanks for the comment. The correct area is 108 m2 and corrected on the paper.
Line 113-114, the international unit should be adopted here.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Please find corrected values in metric form.
Line 134, the bracket after SOC should be deleted.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Bracket is removed.
Line 137, It seems that it is unnecessary to include so many (26) properties in the assessment methods since most of them are highly correlated with each other. For instance, as indicated in Figure 2, the cold and hot water extracted carbon and nitrogen showed significant correlations. Why did the author choose to extract carbon simultaneously using cold and hot water? What were the differences between the fractions from the extraction? It is suggested to provide a brief description to explain why the authors selected these soil properties.
Response: In this study, we selected 26 indicators as the total data set to explain the high level of soil quality variability. This allowed us to explain about 85% of the variance in the dataset, which is already a good percentage. In PCA, indicators that are related to each other are eliminated and a minimum data set is created. In this study, we determined the soil quality with 8 indicators by eliminating most of indicators that show high correlation with each other under PCs. This shows even though we used such a large data set, only significant once was used to make sense for good soil quality indication. These itself is already a success for such studies. Soil organic matter has different way of degradation which give a different perspective to soil carbon quality. Even though SOC is highly correlated to other soil properties, to know what fraction is more correlated will give insight from how easy to lose this SOC. There are many studies shows the importance of these fractions to soil quality/health evaluations.
Line 272, please check the correctness of the statements. Where are the underlined bold values?
Response: Thanks for the comment. Underline and bold values are added.
Line 217 and Line 322, no Fig. 5 was found in the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Figure 5 is added to the paper.
Line, 382, it seems that the sentence is incomplete
Response: Thanks for the comment. This sentence is re-written.
Line 384-385, compared to previous studies (e.g. Liu et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2020), what is the originality of this study? Which should be introduced in the Introduction section.
Response: There is no such studies investigates SQI while involving this much big dataset and looking interactions with global warming potential and crop yield together. Neighter of Liu et al., 2017, Zhou et al., 2020, etc. does this evaluation. Similarly spatial distribution of this aspects are also missing. We have stated this importance in the paper.
Line 387, how did the author draw such a conclusion? More explanations are needed to support the statement.
We concluded such conclusions according to findings from statistical analysis. However, if reviewer can be more specific, we would be happy to justify more in detail.
Reviewer 2 Report
The soil quality index assessments and Principal Component Analysis is explained in a very descriptive and beautiful way. I must congratulate the authors.
However, there are four main drawbacks which need to be corrected:-
1. The crux of the manuscript is that manuring increase SQI values and higher crop yields but may lead greater GWP (Table 4). But, there is no supporting data to tell that how this GWP is increased. Is manuring enhanced emissions of nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide or both gases? This needs to be proved with the support of data. Further, manuring does increased the soil carbon stocks as proved by the data. GHG emissions from any given crop are dependent upon the carbon management practices (tillage, mulching, cover cropping, nutrient management, etc.) followed in the cropping system (corn-soybean). The methodology of data collection about gas emissions and package of practices followed in the study need to added under section 2.
2. It was pointed out in Section 2.2 that 'The soil and greenhouse gas emissions data used in this study was collected from existing publications from same experiment except AEC-6' in lines 118-119. Authors are pointing out towards some publications. It means this data is already published. Kindly clarify. Also, there is no citation of those publications.
3. Also, Ordinary kriging interpolation methods need to be discussed in detail in Section 2.5. Authors need to explain if three assumptions (the data follows a normal bell curve distribution; Data does not exhibit any overarching global trends and there is spatial autocorrelation) was fulfilled before employing this method.
4. I could not find Figure 5. Kindly add that. Spatial distribution maps are required. THIS WAS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.
There is a minor correction in Figure 2. It lacks Pearson Correlation matrix for G+ gram positive bacteria. Kindly add that.
Author Response
The soil quality index assessments and Principal Component Analysis is explained in a very descriptive and beautiful way. I must congratulate the authors.
However, there are four main drawbacks which need to be corrected:-
Response: Authors thank reviewer’s time and help.
- The crux of the manuscript is that manuring increase SQI values and higher crop yields but may lead greater GWP (Table 4). But, there is no supporting data to tell that how this GWP is increased. Is manuring enhanced emissions of nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide or both gases? This needs to be proved with the support of data. Further, manuring does increased the soil carbon stocks as proved by the data. GHG emissions from any given crop are dependent upon the carbon management practices (tillage, mulching, cover cropping, nutrient management, etc.) followed in the cropping system (corn-soybean). The methodology of data collection about gas emissions and package of practices followed in the study need to added under section 2.
Response: Thanks for the comment. We do understand clearly why and how the reviewers comes with such comment and we truly agree with reviwer that this information is important. However due to two concerns we can not add these details. One is the scope of the paper does not focus on the details where GWP comes from and second if we include such discussions the focus of this paper will be lost. We cited Ozlu and Kumar 2018 b for GHG references. Details can be found in that paper.
- It was pointed out in Section 2.2 that 'The soil and greenhouse gas emissions data used in this study was collected from existing publications from same experiment except AEC-6' in lines 118-119. Authors are pointing out towards some publications. It means this data is already published. Kindly clarify. Also, there is no citation of those publications.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Citations are added. Numerous papers involve raw data which contain a part of data we used here. However, none of those data involve 6AEC, crop yield, GWP, and SQI results. They also do not evaluate SQI, CY, and GWP together.
- Also, Ordinary kriging interpolation methods need to be discussed in detail in Section 2.5. Authors need to explain if three assumptions (the data follows a normal bell curve distribution; Data does not exhibit any overarching global trends and there is spatial autocorrelation) was fulfilled before employing this method.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Please find more details added in paper.
- I could not find Figure 5. Kindly add that. Spatial distribution maps are required. THIS WAS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Figure 5 is added to the paper.
There is a minor correction in Figure 2. It lacks Pearson Correlation matrix for G+ gram positive bacteria. Kindly add that.
Response: Thanks for the comment. We have complete correlations matrix below. We decided to not add such a big correlation figure with all 26 properties because some properties are not important in terms of their relations with others. So they have been excluded. Reviewers can find those values below. We appreciate your understandings.
|
Variable |
pH |
SOC |
TN |
SPR |
CWEC |
HWEC |
AEC-6 |
CWEN |
HWEN |
EUC |
FUN |
G- |
G+ |
UA |
|
SOC |
0,378 |
|||||||||||||
|
TN |
0,347 |
0,869 |
||||||||||||
|
SPR |
0,336 |
0,511 |
0,421 |
|||||||||||
|
CWEC |
0,288 |
0,923 |
0,762 |
0,414 |
||||||||||
|
HWEC |
0,392 |
0,865 |
0,733 |
0,362 |
0,868 |
|||||||||
|
AEC-6 |
0,266 |
0,912 |
0,811 |
0,275 |
0,869 |
0,859 |
||||||||
|
CWEN |
0,319 |
0,842 |
0,715 |
0,229 |
0,900 |
0,873 |
0,872 |
|||||||
|
HWEN |
0,483 |
0,922 |
0,793 |
0,514 |
0,927 |
0,936 |
0,857 |
0,836 |
||||||
|
EUC |
-0,016 |
-0,139 |
-0,060 |
-0,030 |
-0,170 |
-0,121 |
-0,242 |
-0,137 |
-0,142 |
|||||
|
FUN |
0,001 |
0,354 |
0,164 |
0,312 |
0,239 |
0,172 |
0,306 |
0,225 |
0,230 |
0,030 |
||||
|
G- |
0,238 |
-0,069 |
-0,158 |
-0,094 |
-0,068 |
-0,140 |
-0,055 |
-0,053 |
-0,086 |
-0,547 |
0,056 |
|||
|
G+ |
-0,163 |
0,141 |
0,259 |
-0,004 |
0,131 |
0,228 |
0,144 |
0,102 |
0,157 |
0,203 |
-0,239 |
-0,845 |
||
|
UA |
0,345 |
0,521 |
0,373 |
0,612 |
0,499 |
0,551 |
0,379 |
0,365 |
0,649 |
-0,061 |
0,266 |
-0,042 |
0,039 |
|
|
WFPS |
0,172 |
-0,413 |
-0,437 |
-0,139 |
-0,474 |
-0,336 |
-0,397 |
-0,397 |
-0,402 |
0,272 |
-0,190 |
-0,075 |
0,080 |
-0,280 |
Boldface correlation coefficients for the highly weighted soil variables under each PC
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a nice work, but the authors somehow failed to present its scientific beauty. Authors should put more effort on English language; especially sentence making. Please see the attached file for few more corrections.
Thank you
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is a nice work, but the authors somehow failed to present its scientific beauty. Authors should put more effort on English language; especially sentence making. Please see the attached file for few more corrections.
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s time and help to improve this paper. We appreciate your time. The language has been checked by a native speaker.
Line 28-29: Before use any abbreviation, it's better to define first.
Response: Thanks for the comment. Abbreviations were defined before their usage.
Line 34-41: Please check carefully the template of Sustainability.
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is a special issue, and it seems editor also agree that we can have highlights to give a short summary upfront. If it is fine for reviewer, we respectively want to keep them.
Line 49: Please check!
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 51-54: Too long sentence. Better to split
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 87: Please check the spelling
Response: Thanks for the comment. Spelling is corrected as suggested.
Line: 91-92: Rewrite the sentence
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 135: “)”
Response: Thanks for the comment. Extra “)” was removed.
Line 253: Better to write 84.8%
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Reviewer 4 Report
|
Line Number |
Reviewer comments |
|
21 |
Is this value correct? |
|
32 |
Keywords should arrange in alphabetical order |
|
91 |
This value should be corrected as 6 m |
|
92 |
Is this value correct? |
|
Figure: 01 |
Please mention the scale of the figure |
|
Figure: 01 |
Are these length and width values correct? The above mention is 6m in width and 18m in length. |
|
253 |
Should correct as 84.8% |
|
428 |
Please improve the conclusion |
|
567 |
Journal name should be italicized |
|
567 |
Volume number should be italicized |
|
578 |
Journal name should be italicized |
|
579 |
Volume number should be italicized |
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Response: Thanks for reviewer’s time and help to improve this paper. We appreciate your time. The language have been checked by a native speaker.
Line 21, Is this value correct?
Response: Thanks for the comment. The value is corrected.
Line 32, Keywords should arrange in alphabetical order
Response: Thanks for the comment. Keywords is arranged in alphabetical order.
Line 91, This value should be corrected as 6 m
Response: Thanks for the comment. This value is corrected as 6 m.
Line 92, Is this value correct?
Response: Thanks for the comment. The value is corrected.
Figure: 01, Please mention the scale of the figure
Response: Thanks for the comment. The scale of the figure is below the figure on the left. We also corrected values for each plots’ dimensions.
Figure: 01, Are these length and width values correct? The above mention is 6m in width and 18m in length.
Response: Thanks for the comment. We corrected values for each plots’ dimensions.
Line 253, Should correct as 84.8%
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 428, Please improve the conclusion
Response: Thanks for the comment. We revised the conclusion.
Line 567, Journal name should be italicized
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 567, Volume number should be italicized
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 578, Journal name should be italicized
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
Line 579, Volume number should be italicized
Response: Thanks for the comment. This is corrected as suggested.
