The Effect of Labor Migration on Farmers’ Cultivated Land Quality Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comment by line:
Line 15: deep tillage is a highly degrading and labour consuming practice; in this context it seems to out of place, since one would expect farmers in times of reduced labour availability to adopt strategies for labour reduction and sustainability, such as Conservation Agriculture (in China still often erroneously called conservation tillage); pls. check the logic of the argument; pls. explain, what is meant with deep tillage: the subsoiling when starting Conservation Agriculture to break the plough pans? This operation should not be necessary later on, or, in case the farmers do not manage their traffic and create new compactions, it should not become necessary sooner than after 5 years, since it is a time and energy consuming task, hence not for regular periodic application. Or do you mean real deep ploughing of the soil regularly every year?
42: pls. check, whether you refer to conservation tillage as defined internationally, or to Conservation Agriculture, as defined by FAO; in China the two terms are often used as synonym, but in an international publication they should be used according to their definitions.
53, 55: deep tillage is not only a very energy and time consuming activity, it is also the by far most soil degrading activity. It cannot have anything to do with the purpose of CLQP, since it destroys soil productivity, contrary to the other measures mentioned; should you mean the opposite of deep tillage, i.e. no-till, then pls. correct. Should you really refer to deep tillage, pls. explain.
56: pls. check the term “to retain fat” – this in context of soil does not make sense.
119: pls. check the term “deep tillage”; see above. It makes no agronomic sense in the context of CLQP.
175, 183, 187, 285, 310, 343, 347, 358, 379, 404, 416: check deep tillage; do you mean subsoiling?
359: what “sustainable agricultural technologies” do you refer to in this context; the entire paper does not mention any inclusion of sustainable agriculture technologies; the mentioned techniques for CLQP are nothing but investments into “good agricultural practice” to increase productivity, but have nothing to do with sustainable agriculture technologies reflected in the concept of Conservation Agriculture. Pls. review terminology.
General: although the paper mentioned in the beginning the shortcoming of many such statistical analysis for not considering the technical/agronomic concepts behind the investigated parameters and the importance of considering different complementary technologies together, the paper commits the same mistake. It makes reference to sustainable agriculture, but the study does not in any way refer to this, but only to very specific separate measures for improving productivity. All these measures can be beneficial for productivity, but come at a high investment of time, labor and money. They have nothing to do with “sustainable agriculture”, or with conservation tillage (or Conservation Agriculture). The results of the study are therefore not surprising and could have been predicted. At least in the conclusions, this should be elaborated, and perhaps suggested future research along the same lines (looking at migration), but considering the adoption of labour and investment saving sustainable agriculture concepts such as Conservation Agriculture, provided technical assistance and equipment availability. FAO had implemented Conservation Agriculture in Jiangsu province in 2004-2006 in a project to eliminate straw burning. There should be some basic knowledge on the subject still existing in Jiangsu.
Author Response
Thank you for your review of this manuscript. The comments that you offered is of great importance for me and my co-authors, and we have made some improvement based on your advice. Here are our replies for your suggestions, and it’s willing for us to make some further modifications if need.
Point 1: Line 15: deep tillage is a highly degrading and labour consuming practice; in this context it seems to out of place, since one would expect farmers in times of reduced labour availability to adopt strategies for labour reduction and sustainability, such as Conservation Agriculture (in China still often erroneously called conservation tillage); pls. check the logic of the argument; pls. explain, what is meant with deep tillage: the subsoiling when starting Conservation Agriculture to break the plough pans? This operation should not be necessary later on, or, in case the farmers do not manage their traffic and create new compactions, it should not become necessary sooner than after 5 years, since it is a time and energy consuming task, hence not for regular periodic application. Or do you mean real deep ploughing of the soil regularly every year?
Response 1: The term should be “subsoiling” rather than “deep tillage”. It has been corrected in this version of the manuscript. At intensive agricultural land use, soil compaction caused by wheel traffic, natural forces and the application of fertilizers and pesticides. In Jiangsu Province, double-crop rotation system is the most popular planting pattern, and the density of agricultural machinery and tools entering the cultivated land is large. According to Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs，subsoiling can be carried out after the previous crop is harvested and before the next crop is sown in Jiangsu Province. Due to the high cost of subsoiling, government departments will support machinery subsoiling of 140 million mu in 2019, and the government will provide subsidies twice a year. This means that the government is vigorously promoting the subsoiling, and also shows that subsoiling is necessary.
The government emphasized to “vigorously promote mechanized subsoiling” in 2014. By 2020, the government plans to have all of suitable farmland subsoiled, and then enter a virtuous cycle of suitable periods. Thus, the definition of variable subsoiling in the paper is “Whether mechanized subsoiling has been carried out in the last three years”.
Point 2: 42: pls. check, whether you refer to conservation tillage as defined internationally, or to Conservation Agriculture, as defined by FAO; in China the two terms are often used as synonym, but in an international publication they should be used according to their definitions.
Response 2: The paper refers to Conservation Agriculture as defined by FAO here. It has been corrected in this version of the manuscript (Line 48).
Point 3: 53, 55: deep tillage is not only a very energy and time consuming activity, it is also the by far most soil degrading activity. It cannot have anything to do with the purpose of CLQP, since it destroys soil productivity, contrary to the other measures mentioned; should you mean the opposite of deep tillage, i.e. no-till, then pls. correct. Should you really refer to deep tillage, pls. explain.
Response 3: The term should be “subsoiling” rather than “deep tillage”. It has been corrected in this version of the manuscript.
Point 4: 56: pls. check the term “to retain fat” – this in context of soil does not make sense.
Response 4: I am very sorry for incorrect writing. We revised the paragraph in Line 59-64: Measures of CLQP refer to all the methods that can maintain or improve the quality of cultivated land, including straw application, the complementary use of organic fertilizers, cover crop and green manure utilization, soil testing and formulated fertilization, crop rotation and other measures to improve the poor cultivated land. It also include the measures to improve the capacity of moisture and fertility conservation of soil, such as ditch renovation and subsoiling.
Point 5: 119: pls. check the term “deep tillage”; see above. It makes no agronomic sense in the context of CLQP.
Response 5: The term should be “subsoiling” rather than “deep tillage”. It has been corrected in this version of the manuscript.
Point 6: 175, 183, 187, 285, 310, 343, 347, 358, 379, 404, 416: check deep tillage; do you mean subsoiling?
Response 6: The term should be “subsoiling” rather than “deep tillage”. It has been corrected in this version of the manuscript.
Point 7: 359: what “sustainable agricultural technologies” do you refer to in this context; the entire paper does not mention any inclusion of sustainable agriculture technologies; the mentioned techniques for CLQP are nothing but investments into “good agricultural practice” to increase productivity, but have nothing to do with sustainable agriculture technologies reflected in the concept of Conservation Agriculture. Pls. review terminology.
Response 7: I’m sorry that I didn’t make it clear. The sentence is the conclusion of Li’ (reference 8) and Yang’ (reference 21) research. In the paper of Lee (reference 19), specific examples of sustainable agriculture technologies and practices are given. The mentioned techniques for CLQP are listed as sustainable agriculture technologies. The relationship between the mentioned techniques of CLQP and sustainable agricultural technologies has been added in Line 28-34, Line 64-67.
In Chinese agricultural production, there are long-term problems such as excessive application of fertilizers, insufficient circulation of organic matter and unreasonable farming methods, which caused the degradation of cultivated land quality. The traditional agricultural production mode also has a negative impact on the environment and ecosystem functions, and the contradiction with the ecological environment is increasingly prominent. The key to solve contradiction is to promote the coordinated development of intensive agriculture and sustainable agriculture technically.
The mentioned techniques for CLQP are resource conserving, environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, and economically and socially acceptable. These characteristics are consistent with the characteristics of sustainable agriculture proposed by FAO.
Point 8: General: although the paper mentioned in the beginning the shortcoming of many such statistical analysis for not considering the technical/agronomic concepts behind the investigated parameters and the importance of considering different complementary technologies together, the paper commits the same mistake. It makes reference to sustainable agriculture, but the study does not in any way refer to this, but only to very specific separate measures for improving productivity. All these measures can be beneficial for productivity, but come at a high investment of time, labor and money. They have nothing to do with “sustainable agriculture”, or with conservation tillage (or Conservation Agriculture). The results of the study are therefore not surprising and could have been predicted. At least in the conclusions, this should be elaborated, and perhaps suggested future research along the same lines (looking at migration), but considering the adoption of labour and investment saving sustainable agriculture concepts such as Conservation Agriculture, provided technical assistance and equipment availability. FAO had implemented Conservation Agriculture in Jiangsu province in 2004-2006 in a project to eliminate straw burning. There should be some basic knowledge on the subject still existing in Jiangsu.
Response 8: I’m sorry that I didn’t make it clear. Compared with the traditional model, the mentioned CLQP measures may lead to an increase in production costs at the beginning. However, the government subsidizes these measures and provide technical assistance and equipment availability to keep costs down. These measures are of great significance for increasing the output of land, improving the quality of agricultural products and promoting the income of farmers. At the same time, it is beneficial to protect the ecological environment and promote the sustainable development of agriculture.
In the paper of Lee (reference 19), specific examples of sustainable agriculture technologies and practices are given. The mentioned techniques for CLQP are listed as sustainable agriculture technologies. The relationship between the mentioned techniques of CLQP and sustainable agricultural technologies has been added in line 28-34. The reason why the mentioned techniques for CLQP belong to sustainable agriculture is added in line 64-67.
As you suggested, besides the mentioned CLQP measures, other sustainable agriculture concepts also worth consideration in future research. The modifications has been added in Line 419-421.
We revise the manuscript with revision mode, and the revisions in this manuscript have been marked as red. If the manuscript still leaves much to be desired, we will make a timely and comprehensive revision once you inform us.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
This manuscript is very well-structured and has great clarity to its content. The introduction is extensive and provides a great overview of the problem under investigation. The methodology is highly articulated and clear. The data collection and analysis is equally sound. Discussion and conclusion are well articulated with the research process and draws from the theory explored. However, very few considerations are given to the cultural and social aspects of land use and management. Perhaps, authors should either explain the non-relevance of these issues in the study or then address its importance in the discussion.
Congratulations for this magnificent piece of work.
Regards
Author Response
Thank you for your review of this manuscript. The comments that you offered is of great importance for me and my co-authors, and we have made some improvement based on your advice. Here are our replies for your suggestions, and it’s willing for us to make some further modifications if need.
Point: This manuscript is very well-structured and has great clarity to its content. The introduction is extensive and provides a great overview of the problem under investigation. The methodology is highly articulated and clear. The data collection and analysis is equally sound. Discussion and conclusion are well articulated with the research process and draws from the theory explored. However, very few considerations are given to the cultural and social aspects of land use and management. Perhaps, authors should either explain the non-relevance of these issues in the study or then address its importance in the discussion.
Response: As you suggested, Chinese society is a relational society, and farmers naturally form their own social networks and culture in the long-term relationship. Cultural and social aspects influence farmers' adoption decisions through interaction, reciprocity, learning, and trust. The modifications has been added in Line 411-415.
We revise the manuscript with revision mode, and the revisions in this manuscript have been marked as red. If the manuscript still leaves much to be desired, we will make a timely and comprehensive revision once you inform us.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
