The Importance of Environmental Factors for the Development of Water Erosion of Soil in Agricultural Land: The Southern Part of Hronská Pahorkatina Hill Land, Slovakia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editors of Agronomy,

Many thanks for the opportunity to review a nice manuscript for your journal. I carefully read the manuscript and my observations are summarized below:

- Is it please possible to narrow a bit the title so that it is clearer what is the paper about? More specifically, I think that the word “selected” should be rather explained so that the readers clearly know what to expect from the paper. Please check if the name of the mountains is in line with the requirements for the translation into English. Generally, I guess that the title should be rewritten to be more attractive and catchier, if possible.

- Abstract. In the abstract, please expand in the part where “selected” environmental factors are mentioned. I would suggest to make the abstract a bit shorter. Could you please more highlight the methods that were employed?

- The introduction is truly nicely written. I am a bit confused by a couple of references citing the student´s textbooks (1, 5, 17, etc.), these should be replaced by the peer-reviewed literature. Some of refs seems to be a bit outdated and doesn´t seem like touching the frontiers in the field. Please carefully check your refs. I would also suggest more supporting the strong statements in the Introduction by referencing. International literature should be generally more implemented, the focus on Slovak authors is too strong.

- Please check the usage of unexplained abbreviations (line 75).    

- Is it please possible to better structure the part from the line 70? Maybe even developing 2-3 topical subsections would make the orientation for the readers easier.

- The topic is very nice, however, to make it more accessible for the international readers, we should know more about the context. Why it is important to study the issue particularly in Slovakia, what makes the case so unique and important? Maybe one of subsections of the introduction could be focus on the context description.

- The aim of the research presented is stated (from the line 63).

- Section 2.1. Please check if English names of the mountain mentioned are correct and in line with international standards.

- I´m not sure if the usage of subtitles in the manuscript is correct, please consult the guide for authors. Shouldn´t these be numbered? There is a confusing potential in this.

- It seems to me that the methodology employed is not so in detail described and more can be done here. What would be good if a graphical scheme is developed where individual phases (and mutual interlinkages) are shown. I´m sure that this will help to better understandability what and how has been don.

- As I said before, I am very aware about the high quality of the environmental research conducted in Slovakia but definitely we should see more diversity when referencing to other studies.

- Let me express my admiration on the quality of graphics included. This is a very strong side of the paper. Well done.

- The results are indeed interesting, reasonable and publishable. However, I think that this part should have clearer inner structure. I would suggest developing individual subsections according to the themes presented.

- Please check if English style of numbers writing is applied as required.

- Please check of the figures if all the axis are properly described and units included (figure 10).

- Please focus in the discussion part on strengthening the arguments by taking into account more international studies?

- Could you please in the Conclusion strengthen the part where practical recommendations derived from the research are presented? I would also recommend to include a paragraph on the limitations that will surely affect any attempts to validate the study. Are there any limits that the authors are aware of included in their methods, data, and calculations?

After careful reading of the manuscript I think that the paper will be a nice fit for a journal both as for the topic and the quality of the paper. Some work still has to be done but I am quite sure that the authors are on the right track and their work will pay off as this is going to be a very nice paper.

The key issue that I feel the authors should primarily focus on is making a stronger international framing of the study.

I hope the authors will find at least some of my comments useful.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Many thanks for Your review, inspiring and useful comments.

Our comments are summarized below:

Is it please possible to narrow a bit the title so that it is clearer what is the paper about? More specifically ... we accepted the comment;

Abstract. In the abstract, please ... we accepted the comment;

The introduction is truly nicely written. I am ... we accepted the comment;

Please check the usage of unexplained abbreviations (line 75) ... we accepted the comment;

Is it please possible to better structure the part from the line 70? Maybe even developing ... we accepted the comment;

The topic is very nice, however ... we accepted the comment;

The aim of the research presented is stated (from the line 63) ... The aim is in a separate paragraph

Section 2.1. Please check if English names of the mountain mentioned are correct and in line with international standards ... we accepted the comment and made a correction;

I´m not sure if the usage of ... we accepted the comment and made a correction;

It seems to me that the methodology .... we have prepared a graphic abstract;

As I said before, I am very ... we accepted the comment;

Let me express my admiration on the quality ... Thank you for your recognition.

The results are indeed interesting, reasonable and publishable. However ... we accepted the comment and made a correction;

Please check if English style of numbers  ... we made a checking;

Please check of the figures if all the axis are properly described and units included (figure 10) ... Mean decrease in accuracy is the unitless ratio of correct classifications, mainly use to rank the usefulness of variables. Interpretation of the absolute values of variable importance isn't commonly used;

- Please focus in the discussion part ... we made a checking;

- Could you please in the Conclusion ... we made a checking;

Reviewer 2 Report

The content of the article is aimed at a quantitative assessment of the relief parameters for the development of soil erosion. The study was carried out at the local level of generalization. This kind of research has been carried out in different parts of the Earth many times. Relevant connections and patterns are obtained. It would seem: why do we need another such job? And to say a lot of criticism about this. However, I will refrain from doing this. And here is the reason. Soil erosion is a very multifactorial process. Depending on the combination of natural and anthropogenic factors, it goes with different strengths and speeds in different landscape conditions. This problem was solved by the authors in this territory. The authors on good factual material, using temporary changes, did the classic work on the quantitative assessment of relief factors for erosion. I believe that it has been done at a good level and can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, many thanks for review of manuscript, expression of Your opinion and recommended for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript identified the water erosion areas and then analyzed its influence environmental factors. The study area is the southern part of Hronská pahorkatina, Slovakiafits, which is an agricultural area. The topic fits the aims and scopes of Agronomy. Overall, the structure is clear. But the innovation is not clear. And revisions are needed before publication. In addition, all figures can be optimized in terms of self-explanatory. More specific comments are as follows.

--Title. Delete “: Study”

--Abstract. Too long.

--Introduction. In terms of the topic of this paper, the review for the study area can be enhanced. At present, the authors only introduced the importance of soil erosion for the study area, and environmental factors supporting the development of erosion (in second section of Introduction). But the research state of the topic for the study area, or the knowledge gap for the study area was not reviewed or identified clearly. Please enrich it.

--Study area. Figure 1. What was presented in the middle sub-Figure1? aerial photo of the study area? So, in the caption of figure 1, the explanation of each subfigure is needed to improve the self-explanatory. Left subfigure, the font size can be larger.

--Methods.

--Line 158-159, may change to “analyzes of identified areas endangered by water erosion and individual factors”.

--Line 188-213, why choose these factors? Why not other factors?

--Line 172-173, the years 1949, 1970, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2018. But in Line 219, the years are 1841, 1949 and 2018. They are inconsistent, which may lead to uncertainties in the results.

--Line 237-249, in my opinion, more details are needed. The authors should focus more on method/theory itself not software package. Software tool package is just code, but the readers want to know the method/theory it represented/expressed.

--Results. Subtitles are necessary in this section.

--Figure 2. Could you tell reader the accuracy of the distribution of erosion areas which is interpreted from aerial photos?

--Discussion. What knowledge gap does this study filled? In other words, what’s the innovation of this study?

--Conclusions. Can be simplified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Many thanks for Your review, inspiring and useful comments.

Our comments are summarized below:

-Title. Delete “: Study” ... we accepted the comment;

-Abstract. Too long. ... we accepted the comment;

-Introduction. In terms of the topic ... we accepted the comment. In the past, research focused on geology was carried out in the area. The works are from the years 1965 - 1997. Systematic research focused on soil erosion was not carried out in the area.

-Study area. Figure 1. ... we accepted the comment;

-Line 158-159, may change to “analyzes of identified areas endangered by water erosion and individual factors” ... we accepted the comment;

-Line 188-213, why choose these factors? Why not other factors? ... we added to the text;

-Line 172-173, the years 1949, 1970, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2018. But in Line 219, the years are 1841, 1949 and 2018. ...In section 2.2.1 Areas threatened by water erosion were used aerial photo from 1949, 1970, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2018 (only for identification of areas threatened by water erosion). By land use changes (section 2.2.3) were used map and aerial photos from 1841, 1949 and 2018. 
There are two different problems. One is identification of areas threatened by water erosion with aim to view of visual manifestation of erosion. Second is identification of landscape changes in three diferent times period. Changes evaluated in 6 time period would not be justified. For clearing, we have added section numbering.

-Line 237-249, in my opinion, more details are needed. The authors should focus more on method/theory itself not software package ... we tried to add some verbose information about modelling.

-Results. Subtitles are necessary in this section ... we accepted the comment;

-Figure 2. Could you tell reader the accuracy of the distribution of erosion areas which is interpreted from aerial photos? ... we added to the text;

-Discussion. What knowledge gap does this study filled? In other words, what’s the innovation of this study? ... we added to the text;

-Conclusions. Can be simplified ... we accepted the comment.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

First of all I would like to thank you for the work you have done. The work entitled "Importance of selected environmental factors for the development of water erosion of soil in agricultural land: Study of the southern part of Hronská pahorkatina, Slovakia" is interesting and many parts of it are well done. However, this work needs a detailed review in many respects. It is highly recommended to review the writing style of this manuscript. You must verify that the manuscript meets the journal's requirements. The numeric points that identify the different sections of the work do not appear. The titles of the figures, as well as their format should be reviewed, etc. In the attached file you will find all the comments.

Regards,

A reviewer.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Many thanks for Your review, inspiring and useful comments. Our comments are summarized in adjusted manuscript.

1. Add numerical data from the results obtained in the abstract. … We accepted the comment. We added data on the area of areas affected by erosion.
2. See Sustainable Development Goals … We accepted the comment.
3. We have added section numbering.
4. Rewrite this sentence (line 73-74), it is not well understood after the previous sentence… We accepted the comment.
5. The authors… We accepted the comment.
6. Check the writing style (The research shows) (line 107-109)… We accepted the comment.
7. These sentences (line 140-141) may appear in the introduction as justification for the study. We accepted the comment.
8. This assumption must be clarified. Colors can show… We accepted and the comment.
9. It is the same sentence, do not separate it. (line192-193) We accepted the comment.
10. Explain this part (line 205-212 better maybe you can make it more schematic. We accepted the comment.
11. This information should appear in the results section accompanied by the error statistics and the necessary graphics (line 247-248) Information of the error rate of the resulting model was moved to results.
12. Figure 2… We accepted and the comment.
13. Sentence (line 273-274) We accepted and the comment.
14. Figure 3… We accepted and the comment.
15. Figure 1-10… Adjusted according to the instructions of MDPI.
16. The conclusion has to be summarized. We accepted and the comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments on this paper as I think that it´s quality has been improved and is now fully internationally competitive and might be accepted for publication.

Please check the text for typos (line 41) and figures (title of figure 1) before the paper is published.

It was my pleasure to assist with the development of this paper. I think that the authors did a great job and their hard work paid off.

Let me wish the authors all the best for their future work.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is better than the old version. 

Best wishes.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for making the improvements proposed by the reviewers. Now the work has improved considerably and could be accepted for publication.

Congratulations,

A reviewer