Influence of the Caiçaras on Soil Properties in the Savanna Region of Roraima, Northern Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally the manuscript is prepared correctly with the good introduction to the subject of the conducted experiment.

Some suggestions:

The title: please consider “caicaras management system” without “indigenous people management”.

Material and methods:

Line 144 – remove the blank

Line 153 – add “TP” abbreviation next to “total soil porosity”

Line 154  - add reference number next to Embrapa 2011

Results:

Lines 168-170 – please remove the sentence to the Discussion

Line 170 – “Levels of exchangeable….” - begin with a new paragraph

Line s180-181 – the last sentence better fit to the Discussion.

Figure 2 – Please add information on whether the graphs show means of n = 3. Please add the standard deviation.

Line 220 – please add „significantly”

Table 1 - Please add information on whether the graphs show means of n = 3. Please add the standard deviation. Technical note - dots instead of commas in the given values

Table 2 – as above; moreover delete % next to TP

Lines 248-249 – better fit to the Discussion

Figure 3 – please improve line quality and increase font size

Discussion:

Lines 274, 277, 290, 328, 348, 354 – lack of the reference number next to the author name

Line 327 – remove “e” from the subtitle

Line 367 – agroforestry instead of agroflorestry ?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate revisions made our manuscript. We inform you that all corrections and suggestions were made, according to the corrections and suggestions of the reviewers.

The revised manuscript is attached.

Best regards,

Sonia Alfaia

Some suggestions:

The title: please consider “caicaras management system” without “indigenous people management”. Suggestion accepted

Material and methods:

Line 144 – remove the blank - Okay

Line 153 – add “TP” abbreviation next to “total soil porosity” - Okay

Line 154 - add reference number next to Embrapa 2011 - Okay

Results:

Lines 168-170 – please remove the sentence to the Discussion - Okay

Line 170 – “Levels of exchangeable….” - begin with a new paragraph - Okay

Lines 180-181 – the last sentence better fit to the Discussion. Inserted in discussion (see line 365-367)

Figure 2 – Please add information on whether the graphs show means of n = 3. Please add the standard deviation. Okay

Line 220 – please add „significantly” Okay

Table 1 - Please add information on whether the graphs show means of n = 3. Please add the standard deviation. Technical note - dots instead of commas in the given values - Okay

Table 2 – as above; moreover delete % next to TP - Okay

Lines 248-249 – better fit to the Discussion - Inserted in discussion (see line 336-338)

Figure 3 – please improve line quality and increase font size - Okay

Discussion:

Lines 274, 277, 290, 328, 348, 354 – lack of the reference number next to the author name - Okay

Line 327 – remove “e” from the subtitle - Okay

Line 367 – agroforestry instead of agroflorestry? Okay

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a fascinating paper - well thought and executed. The issues arise in the discussion section from roughly line 316 to 325. From lines 327 to 392 there may be translation issues. 

This passage made no sense the first four times I read it: "Recently, some indigenous peoples have been experiencing planting fields in Lavrado grasslands (fields in Lavrado are called Lavouras by indigenous people), with the support of municipal and/or state government, that provides machinery and lime, and sometimes chemical soil fertilizers. Despite expansion of fields for Lavrado areas is important to enhance production of surplus to be sold and generate income, as well as to diminish pressure on forest areas where traditional fields are installed, this production must follow agroecological basis, in order to maintain the sustainability inherent to indigenous systems, the connection to traditional knowledge, besides environmental conservation. It´s possible to think about more sustainable systems for Lavrado areas, integrated with manure production by livestock in diverse systems such as agroforests."

It needs work (and much of the following sections until 'Conclusions'. Usually I spot Google Translate issues, but I don't think that is the issue here. It comes across that you are excited, and perhaps you need to look at what you have written.

Another example 384 to 386: "Al vector rotated with depth, from ~ 180 ° (0-10 cm) to ~ 90 ° (20-30 cm), and the direction of this vector went from pointing only to non-managed areas, to pointing to caiçara" may be fine in an oral presentation, but "went from pointing" is imprecise in English and needs to be be solidified. 

But overall, I like the work and the cultural sensitivity that was documented. Work with editors to ensure you communicate it properly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate revisions made our manuscript. We hope the wording is clearer after the review.

The revised manuscript is attached.

Best regards,

Sonia Alfaia

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled ‘Influence of the indigenous people's management caiçaras on soil properties in the savanna region of Roraima, northern Amazon’ investigates three caiçaras along with a non-managed and planted sites. The manuscript uses soil chemistry and physics data collected in 2016 to compare the effects of cattle manure on these sites.

The manuscript is well-written, it is easy to read and follow. The study is limited to the investigated region, as management practices are different in other parts of the world. The topic of the manuscript can be of interest for the Sustainability’s readership, as indigenous people’s soil management might be helping lowering pressure on deforestation

In general, there are some overall concerns about the manuscript that need to be addressed prior to publication. The chosen sites need to be better explained. Why these three sites were used in the study? How comparable are they (e.g. how large the herds are at these sites)? The novelty of the paper needs to be highlighted, as numerous previous research have done similar analyses. I suggest for the authors emphasizing the global importance of their findings.  

I have added some additional comments to the paper, collected below.

Specific comments:

General comments: the paper should be checked for typos, small grammatic errors, there are some in the pdf version (e.g. Lines 144, 219, 277, 324, 367).

Line 17. different species, such as?

Line 31. What is the area of this Lavrado?

Line 95. What is the hypothesis of the research?

Line 142. 0-20cm should be 10-20cm

Line 144. Misspelled - analyzed

Line 148. Reference should be noted by number.

Line 150. What do irregular-shaped samples mean when cylinders were used for samples?

Figure 2. Between depths significance could be also included in the graphs, denoted by capital letters.

Table 1. Numbers should have dots, not commas.

Table 2. It is easier to see if the soil textures are given as a % rather than g/kg, however, it is just a suggestion.

Discussion

The discussion section needs to be more focused on the perspective of the findings. Why this study is different compared to the others? Why this stands out? What is the novelty of this study?

Lines 362-363. This statement is not true. There are a huge amount of studies that prove the statement otherwise. Please provide reference(s) to back this or erase it.  

The entire section 4.4 is a Result than Discussion. I suggest enhancing this section with international references in similar studies or the underlying cause of these findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate revisions made our manuscript. We inform you that all corrections and suggestions were made, according to the corrections and suggestions of the reviewers

The revised manuscript is attached.

Best regards,

Sonia Alfaia

Specific comments:

General comments: the paper should be checked for typos, small grammatic errors, there are some in the pdf version (e.g. Lines 144, 219, 277, 324, 367). Okay

Line 17. different species, such as? Okay

Line 31. What is the area of this Lavrado? Okay

Line 95. What is the hypothesis of the research? Okay (see lines 92-95)

Line 142. 0-20cm should be 10-20cm - Okay

Line 144. Misspelled – analyzed - Okay

Line 148. Reference should be noted by number. - Okay

Line 150. What do irregular-shaped samples mean when cylinders were used for samples? Okay (see lines 157-158)

Figure 2. Between depths significance could be also included in the graphs, denoted by capital letters. The authors think not. This is normal soil behavior.

Table 1. Numbers should have dots, not commas. Okay

Table 2. It is easier to see if the soil textures are given as a % rather than g/kg, however, it is just a suggestion.

Discussion

The discussion section needs to be more focused on the perspective of the findings. Why this study is different compared to the others? Why this stands out? What is the novelty of this study?

• Discussion and conclusion have been revised according to the corrections and suggestions of the reviewers.

Lines 362-363. This statement is not true. There are a huge amount of studies that prove the statement otherwise. Please provide reference(s) to back this or erase it.

• Sentence removed

The entire section 4.4 is a Result than Discussion. I suggest enhancing this section with international references in similar studies or the underlying cause of these findings.

Section re-discussed. New references Added

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article demonstrates excellent work on indigenous management of caiçaras and their effects on soil fertility, land productivity and an ecological practice of agriculture. In this sense, the work presents a fundamental and interesting contribution to its field of knowledge.

However, I appreciate two important shortcomings in the article. First, I lack the presence of a sociological and anthropological explanation or contextualization of the role of indigenous people in relation to caiçaras. Although the management process is adequately explained, the context of the local communities is unknown by the local not versed in this matter. Secondly, the conclusions are rather short for the excellent work done. In this regard, it would be appropriate to complement the more scientific explanation with socio-ecological or anthropological contextualization. It should not be forgotten that this alternative management of the caiçaras is linked to the tradition of the local indigenous and this must be highlighted. Likewise, they themselves know the benefits of this type of management because of their traditions and customs.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate revisions made our manuscript. We hope the wording is clearer after the review. The revised manuscript is attached.

We inform you that the sociological and anthropological approach or the contextualization of the role of indigenous peoples in relation to the caiçaras, as suggested by you, was the subject of another article. This and other articles addressing this topic were cited in our manuscript (see lines 59-60). On the other hand, it was included in the conclusion the fact that the indigenous peoples of the Lavrado absorbed the cattle and adapted them to their reality, revealing a very peculiar way of these peoples to adjust their forms of organization of social life, based on interaction with non-Indians.

Best regards,

Sonia Alfaia

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After making changes, I accept the article for publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

-