Multi-Scale Integration and Distribution of Soil Organic Matter Spatial Variation in a Coal–Grain Compound Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction is too much and should be removed for coal resources, soil formation and so on. There are many repetitive contents and logical incompatibilities, as detailed in the markings of the manuscript.
Materials and Methods: The environmental impact of the coal mining method is mentioned in the introduction, why the mining method of the sampling site is not stated in the materials, and the current ecological summary.
Discussion: 4.1 and 4.2 in discussion belong to results and did not cite references, among which 4.1 mentions that it is easier to express the spatial variation of SOM when the sample size is between 150 and 180, while in Figure 7, the coefficient of variation of SOM decreases instead as the sample size increases, what is the mechanism of this phenomenon, and there is a contradiction with the description of the paragraph (line 430-431). 4.3 lacks references, as detailed in the markers in the text. Only 25% of the spatial variation in SOM exists, so how convincing are the results of this study? Sandy land itself has low organic matter content, which is caused by the nature of the soil; long-term tillage will reduce the content of organic matter which is widely recognized, the use of organic fertilizer, straw returned to the field, etc. will indeed improve the content of organic matter, but how to determine the farmers of the coal area all use this method of farming, the manuscript did not explain. Also there are repetitions in the discussion with the introduction, as detailed in the markings in the manuscript.
Conclusion: The conclusion lacks highlights and should highlight the problems to be solved or the specific strategies to be proposed by this study, while the results in the paper also lack novelty, which is related to the few measured indicators and can hardly reflect the specific guiding work made by this study on the future soil use patterns in the coal area.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We appreciate of very detailed comments and corrections raised by the reviewer. We have carefully revised and improved the manuscript. We have addressed all the comments below.
Point 1. The introduction is too much and should be removed for coal resources, soil formation and so on. There are many repetitive contents and logical incompatibilities, as detailed in the markings of the manuscript.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion. The parts of the manuscript marked in red are revisions.
Point 2. Materials and Methods: The environmental impact of the coal mining method is mentioned in the introduction, why the mining method of the sampling site is not stated in the materials, and the current ecological summary.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have added mining methods and ecological status to the manuscript.
The coal mining method in the study area is well mining, which is easy to cause a large area of surface subsidence above the goaf and produce a large number of cracks and fracture surfaces. Coal mining has destroyed vast amounts of land and vegetation, especially basic farmland. In the study area, the underground diving level is low, so coal mining causes a large amount of water in the subsidence area, forming a number of ponds. Due to the influence of coal mining, the ecological environment in the study area is relatively bad, resulting in village relocation and abandoned farmland.
Point 3. Discussion: 4.1 and 4.2 in discussion belong to results and did not cite references, among which 4.1 mentions that it is easier to express the spatial variation of SOM when the sample size is between 150 and 180, while in Figure 7, the coefficient of variation of SOM decreases instead as the sample size increases, what is the mechanism of this phenomenon, and there is a contradiction with the description of the paragraph (line 430-431). 4.3 lacks references, as detailed in the markers in the text. Only 25% of the spatial variation in SOM exists, so how convincing are the results of this study? Sandy land itself has low organic matter content, which is caused by the nature of the soil; long-term tillage will reduce the content of organic matter which is widely recognized, the use of organic fertilizer, straw returned to the field, etc. will indeed improve the content of organic matter, but how to determine the farmers of the coal area all use this method of farming, the manuscript did not explain. Also there are repetitions in the discussion with the introduction, as detailed in the markings in the manuscript.
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We have supplemented and improved the manuscript, see the marked part in the article for details.
The spatial variability of the soil sample size is relatively stable between 150 and 180. With the increase of sampling points, the spatial variation gradually decreases due to the dense sampling points. At the same time, human, financial and material resources are increased, resulting in waste of resources. We have added the level of management and fertilization by farmers to the cultivated land in the Discussion section.
Point 4. Conclusion: The conclusion lacks highlights and should highlight the problems to be solved or the specific strategies to be proposed by this study, while the results in the paper also lack novelty, which is related to the few measured indicators and can hardly reflect the specific guiding work made by this study on the future soil use patterns in the coal area.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the conclusion and hope to get your approval. Please refer to the section highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Hi Authors,
Thanks for the potential work. you did a good job.
you have to check the writing for Figures inside the text to be uniform because sometimes you write Figure and other times Fig.
The tables need to redesign.
References need double-check.
Best wishes
Author Response
General comments: Thanks for the potential work. you did a good job.
Response: Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation.
We appreciate of very detailed comments and corrections raised by the reviewer. We have addressed all the comments below.
Point 1. you have to check the writing for Figures inside the text to be uniform because sometimes you write Figure and other times Fig. The tables need to redesign. References need double-check.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have uniformly modified fig to figure. Also, check out the tables and references.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is very important for focusing on the scale effect of soil organic matter and its influencing factors, but the study area selected in this paper is too small. The scope of Zhaogu No. 2 Mine is small and belongs to a small scale; the feasibility to conduct scale effects research is not high.
The topic is not consistent with the research content. The scale effect of the influencing factors was not studied, only little analysis was done in the discussion part.
It is said that the SOM has highly variability, but the results do not show the relevant high variability.
Figure2 is not clear enough, and Figure3 lacks the key legend.
P 157, how to understand the sentence "grid nesting was implemented in the sample area, and 181 som samples were randomly obtained." I do not know how many samples were collected, how many samples of each type? How to set up the different scale?
P233, average values, mean values, what are the authors' scientific attitude?
Table1, The authors should verify each data item, especially the cv% values.
Figure5 and 6, should clear, distinct and unambiguous.
The names of soil type are wrong, and also the author should give the international name, for example WRB.
Author Response
Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We appreciate of very detailed comments and corrections raised by the reviewer. We have addressed all the comments below.
Point 1. It is very important for focusing on the scale effect of soil organic matter and its influencing factors, but the study area selected in this paper is too small. The scope of Zhaogu No. 2 Mine is small and belongs to a small scale; the feasibility to conduct scale effects research is not high.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. In this study, Zhaogu No. 2 mine is taken as the research area, which is representative. First of all, Zhaogu No. 2 mine belongs to the coal and grain complex area, the mining area destroyed the village, farmland and so on. Secondly, the underground water level of Zhaogu No. 2 mine is low and there is a large amount of water in the subsidence area, which has a certain impact on the ecological environment. Finally, due to the large area of farmland in the mining area, the research on soil quality of cultivated land in Zhaogu No. 2 mine can provide a reference for the construction of high-standard farmland.
Point 2. The topic is not consistent with the research content. The scale effect of the influencing factors was not studied, only little analysis was done in the discussion part.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We are so sorry for not expressing clearly the research purpose. We have refined the content of the article to present the content of the research more clearly. Our main research is the spatial distribution characteristics of soil organic matter under the single-scale and multi-scale nested models in the coal-grain complex area. The results show that the nested sampling method can better reflect the spatial distribution characteristics of soil organic matter.
Point 3. It is said that the SOM has highly variability, but the results do not show the relevant high variability.
Response 3: Thanks for your question. The variability in SOM was divided into three levels: low variability (CV < 15%), me-dium variability (15% ≤ CV ≤ 35%), and high variability (CV > 35%). In this study, the spatial variation of soil organic matter was moderate.
Point 4. Figure2 is not clear enough, and Figure3 lacks the key legend.
Response 4: Thanks for your comment. Some pictures in Figure 2 were taken by mobile phone, which may not be very good. I hope you can understand. We have refined the legend in Figure 3.
Point 5. P 157, how to understand the sentence "grid nesting was implemented in the sample area, and 181 som samples were randomly obtained." I do not know how many samples were collected, how many samples of each type? How to set up the different scale?
Response 5: Thanks for your question. Grid nesting refers to three different sampling scales. The maximum sampling interval was 1000 m, and there were 72 sampling points. The representative coal mining subsidence area was selected as the first-level intensified area, and the sampling interval was 500 m, and there were 76 sampling points. The same method was used as the interval of 250 m to generate a secondary sampling area with 79 samples. The scale division is mainly based on the area of the study area and previous sampling experience.
Point 6. P233, average values, mean values, what are the authors' scientific attitude?
Response 6: Thanks for your question. The average is the average of all sampling points. The mean value is the number in the middle (or the average of the two most middle figures) of all organic matter in descending order (or in descending order).
Point 7. Table1, The authors should verify each data item, especially the cv% values.
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. The data in Table 1 were obtained through classical statistical analysis of the data by SPSS 20.0 software. We have checked that the data conform to the positive distribution characteristics before the calculation.
Point 8. Figure5 and 6, should clear, distinct and unambiguous.
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. We apologize for the ambiguity of figures 4 and 5. Since these two pictures were completed by ArcGIS software and directly generated through geostatistical analysis and interpolation mapping, we cannot modify them on the original pictures. We hope to get your understanding.
Point 9. The names of soil type are wrong, and also the author should give the international name, for example WRB.
Response 9: Thanks for your comment. We are sorry that we did not use the international soil type, we have modified the soil type to cinnamon soil, moisture soil and paddy soil. Please refer to Table 6.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research manuscript "Scale effect and influencing factors of the spatial variation of oil organic matter in a coal-grain composite area" by Zhang et al. presents an investigation of soil organic matter (SOM) content at different scales in a coal-grain composite area. The authors took soil sample data, analyzed outliers, ran statistical tests, and looked at the spatial structure of SOM at different scales to see if it was isotropic or anisotropic. They did this by analyzing semivariogram functions and comparing the sizes of the principal and secondary variograms. Also, they notice that the mean and median SOM values tend to go down as the sampling scale gets smaller, suggesting that individual values have less of an effect. Overall, the manuscript has strong points, such as the use of geostatistical theory and mathematical /statistical methods to analyze the spatial variation of SOM and the discussion of the effect of sample size and soil type on SOM spatial distribution. Therefore, the results of their study are important for improving food security and the environment in the coal-grain complex, as well as making sure that agricultural lands are sustainable. However, the manuscript could be improved by providing more information about the research methods used, including details about the specific geostatistical and mathematical statistical methods employed and the sample size. Additionally, it could be improved by providing more information about the significance of the study's findings for improving food security and the environment in the coal-grain complex and ensuring sustainable agricultural lands. Finally, the conclusion does not give any information about the limitations of the study, how it could be improved or extended in the future, or directions for further research. Some specific problems in the paper that need major revision could include the following:
· Line 12–27: Abstract: The abstract is relatively short and does not give any information about the dataset that was used; it would be better if it provided some details about the dataset, such as the location, time, and size of the study area. Another weak point is that it does not provide much detail about the specific methods used in the study, such as the specific geostatistical and mathematical statistical methods employed and the sample size and location. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the generalizability of the study's results.
· Line 30–123: The introduction sets the stage for the research by highlighting the importance of studying SOM scale effects in coal-grain complexes and the need to improve soil quality in mining areas. Overall, it gives the readers a solid background, but it could be strengthened by providing a succinct and clearer summary of the main research question and objectives, omitting references that are less relevant to the study, and summarizing the main research question and objectives more directly. Additionally, introducing information about the methods used in the study would also be beneficial. Further, it could be more specific in terms of the research gap that the study aims to fill. I hope this will help better focus the introduction and make it more clear what the study is trying to accomplish.
· Line 155–174: The study does not appear to include a detailed description of the sampling design and methodology, which would be important to understand how representative the samples are of the overall study area.
· Line 218–224: The method used to identify and eliminate outliers (i.e., using three times the mean plus or minus the standard deviation) may not be robust enough and could potentially lead to the elimination of valid data points. Also, authors need to add more details in Section 2.3, “Research Methods,” not here.
· Line 225–229: The authors mention that the normal distribution test results reach a significant level (K-S > 0.05), but they do not specify what statistical test was used to determine normality. Also, it's not clear if the assumption of normality was checked for each of the three scales separately.
· Line 246–266: The study does not mention how the spatial structure characteristics of SOM were quantified, which would be important to understand how the results were obtained and how they relate to other studies.
· Line 365–373: The authors provide information on the potential sources of error in the analysis; however, they do not point out how they were controlled for.
· Line 402–501: The discussion included how the results relate to previous studies but lacked discussion about comparisons with what other investors found and also did not include the implications of the findings, which were not clearly explained. It also doesn't state how the results can be used in the real world or how they can help management make decisions.
· Line 503–521: Conclusions: While the conclusion section provides some basic information about the study's findings, its weakness is that it does not provide any clear recommendations for how to address soil organic matter scale effects in coal mining subsidence areas. It could be improved by providing detail about the methods used and the significance of the study's results, as well as by highlighting the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research. For example, while this study provides valuable insight into SOM and its impact on crop growth, the authors may state that more work needs to be done in order to develop practical solutions or strategies for farmers growing their crops there, and further studies should also explore other factors such as climate change, which may have an effect on SOM levels and thus affect food security within these regions.
Author Response
General comments: The research manuscript "Scale effect and influencing factors of the spatial variation of oil organic matter in a coal-grain composite area" by Zhang et al. presents an investigation of soil organic matter (SOM) content at different scales in a coal-grain composite area. The authors took soil sample data, analyzed outliers, ran statistical tests, and looked at the spatial structure of SOM at different scales to see if it was isotropic or anisotropic. They did this by analyzing semivariogram functions and comparing the sizes of the principal and secondary variograms. Also, they notice that the mean and median SOM values tend to go down as the sampling scale gets smaller, suggesting that individual values have less of an effect. Overall, the manuscript has strong points, such as the use of geostatistical theory and mathematical /statistical methods to analyze the spatial variation of SOM and the discussion of the effect of sample size and soil type on SOM spatial distribution. Therefore, the results of their study are important for improving food security and the environment in the coal-grain complex, as well as making sure that agricultural lands are sustainable. However, the manuscript could be improved by providing more information about the research methods used, including details about the specific geostatistical and mathematical statistical methods employed and the sample size. Additionally, it could be improved by providing more information about the significance of the study's findings for improving food security and the environment in the coal-grain complex and ensuring sustainable agricultural lands. Finally, the conclusion does not give any information about the limitations of the study, how it could be improved or extended in the future, or directions for further research. Some specific problems in the paper that need major revision could include the following:
Response: Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We appreciate of very detailed comments and corrections raised by the reviewer. We have addressed all the comments below.
Point 1. Line 12–27: Abstract: The abstract is relatively short and does not give any information about the dataset that was used; it would be better if it provided some details about the dataset, such as the location, time, and size of the study area. Another weak point is that it does not provide much detail about the specific methods used in the study, such as the specific geostatistical and mathematical statistical methods employed and the sample size and location. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the generalizability of the study's results.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We are so sorry to cause you trouble reading. Since the article has a limitation on the number of words in the abstract, we put the specific location of the research area, experimental time, sample data, and the size of the research area in the Materials and Methods section, and supplemented the research methods. Please refer to line 126-215, page 3-7.
Point 2. Line 30–123: The introduction sets the stage for the research by highlighting the importance of studying SOM scale effects in coal-grain complexes and the need to improve soil quality in mining areas. Overall, it gives the readers a solid background, but it could be strengthened by providing a succinct and clearer summary of the main research question and objectives, omitting references that are less relevant to the study, and summarizing the main research question and objectives more directly. Additionally, introducing information about the methods used in the study would also be beneficial. Further, it could be more specific in terms of the research gap that the study aims to fill. I hope this will help better focus the introduction and make it more clear what the study is trying to accomplish.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have simplified the introduction of the article and deleted redundant parts, hoping to get your approval. The details are marked in red in the article.
Point 3. Line 155–174: The study does not appear to include a detailed description of the sampling design and methodology, which would be important to understand how representative the samples are of the overall study area.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. We have described the sampling design and methods in detail. Please refer to line 155-180, page 5.
In this study, soil sampling was carried out in April 2022 in the coal-grain complex area of the Zhaogu No. 2 Mine, as shown in Figure 3. Grid nesting was implemented in the sample area, and 181 SOM samples were obtained. In order to obtain ideal experi-mental results, the principle of randomness and equivalence is followed during sam-pling. According to the sampling requirements, the design of sampling points con-forms to the principles of comprehensiveness, representativeness, objectivity, feasibil-ity and continuity. Each sample site was 10 m in diameter, and soil samples were col-lected from 8-12 drill holes at a depth of 0-20 cm within the center of the circle and its radius. The soil samples representing this point were mixed. To study the scale effect of spatial variation of soil characteristics and explore the effect of multiscale fitting methods and different models on improving the accuracy of spatially estimating SOM, SOM was the study object, the actual situation of the study area was observed, the maximum sampling interval was 1000 m, and there were 72 sampling points. The rep-resentative coal mining subsidence area was selected as the first-level intensified area, and the sampling interval was 500 m, and there were 76 sampling points. The same method was used as the interval of 250 m to generate a secondary sampling area with 79 samples. Geographic coordinates of sampling points were recorded with handheld GPS. The sampling distribution is shown in Figure 3-a. When collecting soil samples densely, the principles of randomness and fairness were used to uniformly select dense grids for soil sample collection, and sampling occurred using the quincunx shape. The SOM content was determined by the potassium diphosphate volumetric external heating method.
Point 4. Line 218–224: The method used to identify and eliminate outliers (i.e., using three times the mean plus or minus the standard deviation) may not be robust enough and could potentially lead to the elimination of valid data points. Also, authors need to add more details in Section 2.3, “Research Methods,” not here.
Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We have used the non-parametric test method (K-S test) to verify the normal distribution of the original sampling data. For the data that does not conform to the normal distribution, logarithmic transformation or square root transformation is used to make it obey or approximately obey the normal distribution requirements. In the meantime, we have added more details in Section 2.3 "Research Methods". Please refer to line 215-228, page 7.
The K-S test method is to compare the cumulative frequency distribution of sam-ple data with a specific theoretical distribution. If the difference between the two val-ues is small, the sample belongs to a specific distribution . The basic principle of the K-S test is as follows: Assume that represents that the sample obeys a specific distribution, represents that the sample does not obey a specific assumption, represents the theoretical distribution function, represents the cumula-tive frequency function of any set of random samples, and is the difference be-tween and The maximum value of is defined as , when the value ofis small, the hypothesis is accepted, otherwise the hypothesis is accepted.
Point 5. Line 225–229: The authors mention that the normal distribution test results reach a significant level (K-S > 0.05), but they do not specify what statistical test was used to determine normality. Also, it's not clear if the assumption of normality was checked for each of the three scales separately.
Response 5: Thanks for your question. We're so sorry we didn't make it clear. We verified the normal distribution of the soil data using nonparametric tests. We have added more details in Section 2.3 "Research Methods".
Point 6. Line 246–266: The study does not mention how the spatial structure characteristics of SOM were quantified, which would be important to understand how the results were obtained and how they relate to other studies.
Response 6: Thanks for your question. What we want to express is the spatial structure analysis of soil organic matter at different scales. We used GS+9.0 software to fit the spatial structure of soil organic matter, and the spatial structure analysis is shown in Table 3.
Point 7. Line 365–373: The authors provide information on the potential sources of error in the analysis; however, they do not point out how they were controlled for.
Response 7: Thanks for your comment. We have improved the article. Please refer to page 12.
From the standard error prediction graph, it can be seen that the farther away from the sampling point, the greater the interpolation error, and the smallest error around the sampling point. And at the boundary of the study area, the error is the largest. It shows that there is a marginal effect on the accuracy of spatial interpolation of soil organic matter, because the sampling points in the boundary area are relatively sparse, resulting in a decrease in the estimation accuracy at the boundary; while the sampling points in the non-boundary area are denser, the prediction error is smaller.
Point 8. Line 402–501: The discussion included how the results relate to previous studies but lacked discussion about comparisons with what other investors found and also did not include the implications of the findings, which were not clearly explained. It also doesn't state how the results can be used in the real world or how they can help management make decisions.
Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. We have supplemented the discussion section, mainly including the comparison with previous studies and the practical significance of this study to the coal-grain complex area. Please refer to line 501-519, page 15.
Yang Qiyong et al. used geostatistical methods to explore the spatial variation characteristics of farmland soil properties at the county and township scales. The re-sults showed that, except for total nitrogen, the spatial autocorrelation of soil proper-ties decreased as the sampling scale decreased for other soil indicators. decreased and the coefficient of variation increased. Qin Jingtao et al. took the sandy loam area in northern Henan as the research area to study the spatial variation of farmland soil moisture content at different scales, and found that the larger the sampling scale, the lower the confidence level of the normal distribution of soil moisture content; There was a large difference in the mean value of , and the overall performance was that the standard deviation and coefficient of variation of soil moisture content gradually in-crease with the increase of sampling scale. The larger the sampling scale, the stronger the spatial variability of moisture content. However, it should be pointed out that most of the previous studies focused on the spatial distribution characteristics of soil prop-erties at different scales, and there were few reports on using scale nesting model to study soil properties. Therefore, the multi-scale integration method was used in this study to study the spatial distribution characteristics of SOM in the coal-grain compo-site area. It can not only improve the accuracy of interpolation, but also save manpow-er, material and financial resources. At the same time, the results can provide reference for farmers to apply fertilizer.
Point 9. Line 503–521: Conclusions: While the conclusion section provides some basic information about the study's findings, its weakness is that it does not provide any clear recommendations for how to address soil organic matter scale effects in coal mining subsidence areas. It could be improved by providing detail about the methods used and the significance of the study's results, as well as by highlighting the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research. For example, while this study provides valuable insight into SOM and its impact on crop growth, the authors may state that more work needs to be done in order to develop practical solutions or strategies for farmers growing their crops there, and further studies should also explore other factors such as climate change, which may have an effect on SOM levels and thus affect food security within these regions.
Response 9: Thanks for your comment. We have supplemented the significance of the research methods and results in the conclusion, while highlighting the limitations of the study and potential directions for future research to improve. Please refer to line 517-522, page 15.
In this study, a multi-scale integrated model of soil organic matter was established to optimize the soil sampling scheme and improve the prediction accuracy of the spatial distribution of soil organic matter in the coal-grain composite area. However, this study only discusses the multi-scale nested model method based on the small scale area of mining area, and its application on the large regional scale needs to be further verified. In addition, the results of this study provide a theoretical basis for ecological protection and agricultural sustainable development in coal-grain complex areas.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The article, in my opinion, is exploratory, not research, in character, and serves to establish the need for density sampling to increase the relevance of the research. It is local in character, given the large differences in the pedogenesis patterns of different environments. Nevertheless, the authors deserve credit for handling a large amount of data. In addition to the comments I have inserted in the text, I have additional comments:
- I miss the connection with the management method, which, as the authors also state in the conclusion, has a major influence on the distribution of SOM,
- Has the land been reclaimed in any way, generally lacking a more comprehensive description of what the soils are, how they have evolved, etc?
- In particular, the methodology, apart from the description of the calculation models, is in my opinion very "poor" and should be more detailed.
It is not enough to just take samples according to some formula/density, without any relation to the structure of the environment and put them into formulas.
However, after additions and corrections, the paper can be published
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We appreciate of very detailed comments and corrections raised by the reviewer. We have addressed all the comments below. We have also improved the annotated part of the article.
Point 1. Has the land been reclaimed in any way, generally lacking a more comprehensive description of what the soils are, how they have evolved, etc?
Response 1: Thanks for your question. The land in the study area has not been reclaimed, because the underground water level in the mining area is low, the ground collapses due to coal mining, and there is a large amount of water, forming a number of ponds.
Point 2. In particular, the methodology, apart from the description of the calculation models, is in my opinion very "poor" and should be more detailed.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have supplemented the research methods and verification methods, which are marked in red in the article, hoping to get your approval.
Point 3. It is not enough to just take samples according to some formula/density, without any relation to the structure of the environment and put them into formulas. However, after additions and corrections, the paper can be published
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We have perfected the sampling methods, research methods, discussion and conclusion sections, and marked them in red in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Compared with the previous version, the article quality has been improved, however, the following shortcomings still exist.
1. The full article is too long and should be simplified with section of introduction and conclusion
2. 4.1 and 4.2 belongs to results, if it belongs to the discussion, please add explanation of the mechanism and the references.
3.Details are shown in the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
General comments: Compared with the previous version, the article quality has been improved, however, the following shortcomings still exist.
Point 1. The full article is too long and should be simplified with section of introduction and conclusion
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestion. The parts of the manuscript marked in red are revisions. We hope to get your approval.
Point 2. 4.1 and 4.2 belongs to results, if it belongs to the discussion, please add explanation of the mechanism and the references.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. We have adjusted the title of the paper slightly according to the content of the paper, and the adjusted title is “Multi-scale integration and distribution of soil organic matter spatial variation in a coal-grain compound area”. We think that after the adjustment of the topic, we can include the influencing factors as part of the discussion. There are similar articles written in this way, such as: Effects of land use types and environmental factors on spatial distribution of soil total nitrogen in a coalfield on the Loess Plateau, China and Three-Dimensional Spatial Distribution and Influential Factors of Soil Total Nitrogen in a Coal Mining Subsidence Area. We hope the modification can be approved by you.
Point 3. Details are shown in the attachment
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Some experts have suggested adding a second reference to the discussion section. So we refer to Yang Qiyong's article in the last part of the discussion. Hope to get your approval. Meanwhile, We have simplified the conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic should be revised to consistent with the research content
Author Response
Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We appreciate of very detailed comments and corrections raised by the reviewer. We have adjusted the title of the paper slightly according to the content of the paper.
Point 1. The topic should be revised to consistent with the research content.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. We have adjusted the title of the paper slightly according to the content of the paper, and the adjusted title is “Multi-scale integration and distribution of soil organic matter spatial variation in a coal-grain compound area”. We hope to get your approval.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that your revisions to the manuscript have significantly improved its quality and clarity.
Your thoughtful and in-depth approach to addressing the comments and concerns I raised in my previous review has resulted in a well-revised manuscript. I am impressed by your efforts to enhance the manuscript's overall quality and would like to commend you on a job well done.
I am confident that the study findings will make a valuable contribution to the field and recommend its acceptance for publication.
Thank you again for your hard work and dedication to this work. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
Author Response
General comments: Dear Authors, I am pleased to inform you that your revisions to the manuscript have significantly improved its quality and clarity. Your thoughtful and in-depth approach to addressing the comments and concerns I raised in my previous review has resulted in a well-revised manuscript. I am impressed by your efforts to enhance the manuscript's overall quality and would like to commend you on a job well done. I am confident that the study findings will make a valuable contribution to the field and recommend its acceptance for publication. Thank you again for your hard work and dedication to this work. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
Response: Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We have improved the article and hope it can still be recognized by you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
I think the authors have edited the article appropriately, or clarified some of the unclear parts. I recommend it for publication.
Author Response
General comments: I think the authors have edited the article appropriately, or clarified some of the unclear parts. I recommend it for publication.
Response: Thanks so much for the general comments and the appreciation. We have improved the article and hope it can still be recognized by you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been greatly improved.