Stakeholder Perspectives to Prevent Soil Organic Matter Decline in Northeastern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the manuscript is very well organized and presented, however there are 2 “critical issues” related to obtained results and discussion, namely results are based on i) very, or I would say too small (20, 17 and 15) and ii) very diverse (7 sectors, mostly farmers) questionnaire samples.

For instance, page 5 row 186, authors stated: The sampling process identified a total of 32 stakeholders who were invited to the workshops. After in row 196, they continue:

Only 20 stakeholders (60.6%) attended the first workshop, 17 (51.5%) took part in the second workshop (October 2015) and 15 (45.5%) in the third 197 (November 2017).

For such “huge” Italian region like is Veneto (e.g. see row 87: 18,400 km2, of which 55% is occupied by the Venetian plain. The plain, where most agricultural 87 production…….), the authors should have included much more stakeholders, i.e. to have bigger and more relevant (more farmers, scientist) stakeholder sample.

Also in the manuscript is plenty of acronyms what it makes quite confused and hard to follow.

Author Response

General comments

In general, the manuscript is very well organized and presented, however there are 2 “critical issues” related to obtained results and discussion, namely results are based on i) very, or I would say too small (20, 17 and 15) and ii) very diverse (7 sectors, mostly farmers) questionnaire samples. For instance, page 5 row 186, authors stated: The sampling process identified a total of 32 stakeholders who were invited to the workshops. After in row 196, they continue: Only 20 stakeholders (60.6%) attended the first workshop, 17 (51.5%) took part in the second workshop (October 2015) and 15 (45.5%) in the third 197 (November 2017). For such “huge” Italian region like is Veneto (e.g. see row 87: 18,400 km2, of which 55% is occupied by the Venetian plain. The plain, where most agricultural 87 production…….), the authors should have included much more stakeholders, i.e. to have bigger and more relevant (more farmers, scientist) stakeholder sample.

The stakeholder involvement in the Veneto region was only one part of many research activities, that were included in a larger European project (RECARE), where a trans-disciplinary approach coupled experiences of scientists and stakeholders across Europe. That’s why efforts were not only addressed to research about stakeholders involvement, where a larger number would have been necessary. Anyway, we agree with the reviewer that stakeholders involved in the Veneto region case study were not that many. In this context, additional comments and references were added in the final paragraph, with the aim of deepening the discussion around motivation for a low participation (L387-391). On the other hand, we also want to highlight that stakeholders who actively participated to the meetings were often representative of their constituents (e.g., members of trade associations) and capable of looking after collective interests as well as those of their own group (L391-394). In this sense, we think that stakeholders were enough to build a paper about perspectives on soil management measures.

Regarding the second major critical issue, i.e. the stakeholders diversity (despite being all part of the agricultural sector, research, agri-environmental monitoring, farmers, etc.), we think that it is one of the major strengths of our study, as also discussed in L377-387.  Indeed, we agree with the scientific literature, reported in this study, that a broad range of ideas and opinions, and different forms of knowledge, raise when different stakeholders with their own expertise discuss each other.

Also in the manuscript is plenty of acronyms what it makes quite confused and hard to follow.

Conservation agriculture was always reported instead of using the abbreviation  (CA), and also simplification has been done by only using SOM (soil organic matter) instead of alternating it with its indicator SOC (soil organic carbon).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The methodology should be presented more clearly, basic citation e.g. Saaty, Thomas, L. (1990): Multicriteria decision making - the analytic hierarchy process. or Saaty, Thomas, L. (2012): Decision Making for Leaders- the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a complex world and

literature regarding land use suitability and evaluation, e.g. Rossiter, D. G (1994) Lecture Notes: "Land Evaluation", Part 1: Basic concepts & procedures of land evaluation.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General comments

The methodology should be presented more clearly, basic citation e.g. Saaty, Thomas, L. (1990): Multicriteria decision making - the analytic hierarchy process. or Saaty, Thomas, L. (2012): Decision Making for Leaders- the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a complex world and literature regarding land use suitability and evaluation, e.g. Rossiter, D. G (1994) Lecture Notes: "Land Evaluation", Part 1: Basic concepts & procedures of land evaluation.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions of methodology improvement. We presented the methodology in the M&M section and included additional references as suggested  (L153-160), especially related to the analytic hierarchy process.

Specific comments to reviewer 2 (peer-review-5772021.v1.pdf )

L69

Done.

 

L99

Certainly, digestate can improve SOM content. However, digestate is produced from the biomass that is produced in the field, which is 1. removed from the field, 2. used to produce energy, and finally 3. redistributed in the field. However, the input of digestate in the same fields from where residues were removed is not obvious. In fact, fields from a wide agricultural area provide residues, that are centralized in a digestate plant, and then residues are distributed again, but dosage, type and location where it is distributed can be far from what expected. It follows that production of biomass and redistribution in the fields can be uncoupled. To clarify the concept, additional details have been reported in the manuscript (L101-L103).

 

L206

Thanks for the suggestion. Additional details have been provided in the manuscript (L246-249). Actually, biochar was suggested because it had been recently included (in Italy) in the list of potentially used amendments in agriculture.

 

Table 4, Criteria / Sub-criteria

corrected as suggested, and also wording in the manuscript corrected where required. Thanks.

 

Table 4, biodiversity

Soil management measures can be of great importance for biodiversity, especially soil biodiversity, because it can be related to soil disturbance, a change in biogeochemical cycles, as reported in plenty of studies  (e.g., Crossley et al., 1992, Biodiversity of microarthropods in agricultural soils: relations to processes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment; Beare et al., 1995, A hierarchical approach to evaluating the significance of soil biodiversity to biogeochemical cycling. In: The significance and regulation of soil biodiversity. Springer; Pal & Basak, 2019, Toward Conservation Agriculture for Improving Soil Biodiversity. Applied Agricultural Practices for Mitigating Climate Change;  https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/soil-biodiversity). Anyway, we understand that this was not clearly addressed, and improved the manuscript by specifying “Soil biodiversity” as sub-criterion (L316-317).

 

Table 4, ecosystem functions

A brief explanation on what was meant is provided (L32-323) (De Groot, 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff).

 

L280

Reference has been added.

 

L311

the sentence was modified to better address the meaning of bureaucratic costs (L325-329).

 

L316

Yes, you understand correctly. They didn’t like too innovative practices. This aspects has been highlighted in paragraph 3.5 (L395-411).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The manuscript ID 660048 “Stakeholder perspectives to prevent SOM decline in north-eastern Italy” examines differences in perspectives about soil management measures among researchers, farmers, practitioners and government officials involved in implementing and promoting more sustainable agricultural management practices to prevent soil organic matter decline. The authors clearly formulate the objectives and the results are well documented. However, some aspects should be addressed before publishing:

 

Line 11 from … to more sustainable

Line 21 Please refer to them (more innovative SMM)

Lines 35-40 the mixing use of SOM and SOC is confusing. I recommend to include that SOM contains approximately 58% C or use only SOM as the title

Line 68 the loss of SOM

Line 95 Please inlcude the values for low and high CEC

Lines 212, 235 Definition of CA and biochar could be move to Introduction and include the description of the four SMM considered in this study

Lines 243 and 245 Add references

Line 247 “inputs is still in its infancy” Please consider to reformulate this sentence. Similarly line 228 “bad field conditions” and in line 109 “right skateholders”, line 301 “dirty fields”

Line 253 The first one was carbon farming or First, carbon farming

Line 292 and 293 Reduced / low costs ad Reduced fertilizer as in line 266 and Table 4

Lines 295, 299, 302 soil quality (instead of landscape) or environmental quality (line 308)

Line 296 that cover crops o soils could be …

Line 314 continuous cover crops on soils and conservation …

Line 322 In this context,

Line 327 (0.097). In fact,

Line 333 Include a reference

Line 337 workshop in (year)

Lines 344 – 347 Divide into two sentences to improve the readability of the paragragh

Author Response

The manuscript ID 660048 “Stakeholder perspectives to prevent SOM decline in north-eastern Italy” examines differences in perspectives about soil management measures among researchers, farmers, practitioners and government officials involved in implementing and promoting more sustainable agricultural management practices to prevent soil organic matter decline. The authors clearly formulate the objectives and the results are well documented. However, some aspects should be addressed before publishing:

Line 11 from … to more sustainable

Done.

Line 21 Please refer to them (more innovative SMM)

Done.

Lines 35-40 the mixing use of SOM and SOC is confusing. I recommend to include that SOM contains approximately 58% C or use only SOM as the title

Thanks for the suggestion. In the introduction paragraph, explanation was provided as suggested. Moreover, changes in all the manuscript have been done to avoid the use of SOC.

Line 68 the loss of SOM

Done.

Line 95 Please inlcude the values for low and high CEC

Values have been reported as requested.

Lines 212, 235 Definition of CA and biochar could be move to Introduction and include the description of the four SMM considered in this study

We have carefully read the suggestion of the reviewer, and we understand the point. However, identification of these SMM is part of results because, among several others, stakeholders have identified these. In our opinion, by anticipating  its description would have the effect of anticipating part of the results. As a result, if not strictly necessary, we would like keeping the description here in order to not anticipate results in the introduction paragraph.

Lines 243 and 245 Add references

References have been added.

Line 247 “inputs is still in its infancy” Please consider to reformulate this sentence. Similarly line 228 “bad field conditions” and in line 109 “right skateholders”, line 301 “dirty fields”

Thanks for the suggestions. Sentences have been reformulated (L114; L258-259; L236; L313).

Line 253 The first one was carbon farming or First, carbon farming

The sentence was clarified, thanks.

Line 292 and 293 Reduced / low costs ad Reduced fertilizer as in line 266 and Table 4

Done.

Lines 295, 299, 302 soil quality (instead of landscape) or environmental quality (line 308)

“Landscape quality” was a sub-criterion that was different from “soil fertility”. Instead, environmental quality was changed to clarify the sentence (L321-322).

Line 296 that cover crops o soils could be …

Modified as suggested, thanks.

Line 314 continuous cover crops on soils and conservation …

Modified as suggested, thanks.

Line 322 In this context,

Done.

Line 327 (0.097). In fact,

Done.

Line 333 Include a reference

Done.

Line 337 workshop in (year)

Done.

Lines 344 – 347 Divide into two sentences to improve the readability of the paragragh

Improvement has been done as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not respond adequately on my previously defined 2 “critical issues”