Application of Nematode Community Analyses-Based Models towards Identifying Sustainable Soil Health Management Outcomes: A Review of the Concepts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is difficult to ascertain the authors’ objective for this “review” beyond highlighting their own previous work. Data are reproduced directly from two previous publications with very little modification (and worse, sometimes out of context). For example, Table 1 and Figure 4 are reproduced from Melakeberhan et al. 2021, but only show the results for disturbed sites, masking the fact that the results for undisturbed sites were similar, often falling in the same quadrant – an observation that seems to undermine the value of the entire enterprise. To be clear, there is ample evidence in the literature that the SFW model does track various disturbances, the cited example to the contrary. As for the FUE model, Table 2 and Figure 6 are reproduced from Melakeberhan 2010, but in this case, the original inferences themselves are questionable. Reporting nematode counts as percent of control based on average control values is risky given the non-random distribution of nematodes in the field. Aggregated distributions will always produce more observations below the mean than above, which leads to bias when individual data are reported as percent of control means.
Beyond this, the categorization of continuous data is rarely optimal. This criticism applies to both the SFW and FUE models. Quoting from Melakeberhan 2010: “plotting the relationships based on the FUE model, one can elicit four distinct categories of responses and come to (a) different conclusion . . .”, but there is no meaningful difference between 95 and 105 (FUE scale) or between 49 and 51 (SFW scale), although both would result in separate categories. A similar criticism could be made for the overly simplistic dichotomy of “harmful” vs. “beneficial” nematodes.
As conceptual models, both the SFW and FUE models are undoubtedly useful. It is with their implementation in the decision-making process where problems arise. As the authors acknowledge, there are insufficient quantitative benchmarks “for any agricultural practice, soil type or cropping system.” Moreover, the variability in environments, agricultural practices, and ecosystem responses likely necessitates a location-specific approach, a conclusion also acknowledged by the authors. Ultimately, the authors’ proposal of an “integrated platform” for assessing “sustainable” soil health is poorly substantiated. A more complete synthesis of the proposed approach, including better examples and recommendations for appropriate benchmarks and monitoring is needed.
Author Response
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The manuscript is well written and is a good attempt to translate ecosystem processes into applied frameworks for managing soil systems. However, a have a few questions and comments that have to be addressed before final acceptance.
My main concern with the manuscript is that the authors discussed efficiency and sustainable practices using indicators at life-history and trophic group levels (abundance and biomass), however, they do not address potential effects of changes in species diversity or richness within those levels, and how this could be informative to define ecosystem resilience and recovery conditions.
Suppose you have two sites with similar environmental characteristics but with a different number of species. Which will be more sensitive to disturbances? Which of them would have a faster recovery? How this could affect soil health status? I would like to see a more detailed discussion about this issue. Additionally, you will see more detailed comments below.
Detail comments:
- Introduction
Lines 64-65: please give a few examples of selective management strategies that can be applied. Or remove “and 64 there are few selective management strategies” from the sentence.
- Conceptual understanding of the cycle of soil health degradation
This section would benefit from a better introduction to the conceptual model Fig.2. For instance, the whole purpose of this section become clear to me only at lines 134-137.
Lines 108-109: Confusing sentence, either remove or rephrase it.
Fig. 2 caption: Move the heading number 3 from the caption to the main text.
- Barriers to developing sustainable soil health and how to overcome the gaps using nematodes
In my view, this section would benefit from a table or diagram figure summarizing the barriers and gaps to overcoming them.
- How the SFW model uses nematodes to identify agroecosystem suitability of soil conditions
Lines 191-194: I think it would be easier for the readers if you add the equations as Microsoft Equation Editor or the MathType object and then describe them. Please see Soil Syst. 2020, 4(3), 53; https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4030053 as an example on how include equations in the main text of the MS.
Lines 212-214: confusing sentence or missing words, please rephrase.
Table 1 and fig. 4: There is a high degree of overlap information here, I suggest removing either one of them. In addition, the symbols in Fig. 4 are difficult to distinguish. Consider adding different colors for each symbol.
- The FUE model analysis to identify integrated efficiency outcomes
Lines 346-356: Names of the terms in equations are too long, consider replacing them with acronyms or abbreviations.
Author Response
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “ Application of nematode community analyses-based models towards identifying sustainable soil health management outcomes: a review of the concepts”provided a detailed literature of cycle of soil health degradation, along with nematode community analyses based on soil food web and fertilizer use efficiency data visualization models. This review clearly identified major achievements in the field in recent years, major research questions, or future research needs, which are key aspects. However, there are some concerns and points which must be improved. Authors must work on the following points:
-Abstract should be rewritten by detailing the aim and concept of the review with state-of-art in one sentence maybe..
-The abstract of a good journal paper always ends outlining the benefits of the literature findings and recommendations as a way forward. The manuscript is missing such 1-2 lines in the abstract.
-Provide significant words which are more relevant to the work in logical sequence as ‘keywords’.
-Introduction is very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy. Authors have done through literature survey and have presented the past works. But, what kind of innovation will be brought to the literature with this article? therefore, the state-of-art should be clearly specified in detail in the Introduction part. Hypothesis should be given. How this work is different from the available literature?
- What is the current level of understanding in relation to the models identifying sustainable soil health management? What are the knowledge gaps?. These should be included in the introduction section.
- The introduction of the paper must be extended and reformulated in order to provide a more comprehensive approach.
-It is also recommended to discuss and explain what should be the appropriate policies based on the findings of this review. Also, the literature should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications.
-It is strongly recommended to add a new subsection, `future perspectives’ outlining the challenges in the current research and recommendations, before the conclusion.
-Conclusion: pls. conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper.
Author Response
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
None
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the reviewer comments, therefore the manuscript may be accepted in the present form.
