Review Reports
by
- Željka Zgorelec 1,
- Nikica Šprem 2,* and
- Ivica Kisić 1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Héctor Iván Bedolla-Rivera Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Jakub Kostecki
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study analyzes the impact of the use of four soils for shooting practice on soil quality. ABSTRACT: The authors do not mention where the study was conducted and why it is important to conduct the study, lack clarification of a term and the conflation between soil health and soil quality. INTRODUCTION: There are problems with the references, as well as the affirmation of different phenomena but without placing the possible implications, the clarification of certain information on ecological services, human health implications, among others, is lacking. A good format should be given to the units presented and the use of established acronyms should be homogenized. METHODOLOGY: Acronyms used should be established. The way in which elements are presented, the way in which chemical compounds are presented, and the acronyms of the parameters analyzed should be homogenized. Details are presented in the establishment of experimental units and other questions that should be answered by the authors. RESULTS: The tables should be improved, information on the analyses and acronyms used in the figures should be included, as well as their statistical significance. The way in which reference is made to the results and their units should be homogenized. It is necessary that the authors place in the main body of the text, results that are currently found in the complementary material and of which I did not have access, because they were not available for downloading. DISCUSSION: The discussion is basic and should be expanded, especially by comparing with other results of similar studies in the same or similar regions. CONCLUSION: Minimal and basic, should be improved and related to national and international standards. Specific comments are shown below:
Abstract
- L26. The authors do not state the importance of doing this research, and the location.
- L32-37. It is not clear what the author means by contamination factors.
- L36. Ecosystem risk?
- L37. Ecosystem health is not the same as soil quality in the title.
Introduction
- L39. Specify which are the ecosystem services.
- L43. Which ones?
- L44. The references here should be modified.
- L46. What kind of risks to human health and the environment are the authors referring to here?
- L48. References should conform to the requirements of the journal.
- L54. Units should be formatted.
- L56. Authors should use a reference management program to correct the formatting of references. Check this issue throughout the text.
- L66. Symbols for these elements should be set here.
- L68. Mention the components.
- L69. The acronym pH must be stated here.lished first.
L91. References fot this.
Materials and methods
- L119-120. Species should be in italics.
- L145. in the same manner as what?
- L149-155. This paragraph and the preceding paragraph should be joined.
- L161. The acronyms of the parameters analyzed should be stated previously, this line contains errors.
- L160-174. The supplementary material was not available for download, the authors should fix this problem.
- L163. The pH parameter is not set as above.
- L169. The authors should provide a link to the information in this paragraph.
- L177. The acronym WEPAL is not set as above.
- L190. The Wich software version was used.
- L190. An error in this line.
- L198. I think this line should be at the end of the text.
Results
- Table 1. All tables in the text should be self-representative, people reading this text should be able to understand the tables without reading the entire text, therefore, authors should state all acronyms and element symbols in the table caption for all tables in the text.
- L214. An error in this line.
- L217-222. Use the acronyms set forth above.
- L222. The format of these references should state the acronyms used in.
- L227. Supplementary material is not available for download.
- L227. All pH parameters should be stated in the same way throughout the text.
- L228-229. A correlative relationship between 0.5 and 0.75 is considered a moderate correlation, not a strong one.
- L232-233. This information should appear in the main text, not in the supplementary material. The p-values should be formatted.
- L233. The authors used the acronyms of the parameters indiscriminately, sometimes they used the acronyms and sometimes they are only mentioned with words. The way of mentioning the parameters in the text should be homogenized.
- L236. Analysis of heavy metals.
- The format of tables 2 and 3 should be improved. Same comment as the previous table.
- What about the results for Cr and Ni, why are these two heavy metals not presented?
Discussion
- L251. This is not accurate, because the authors did not analyze any soil-related biological parameters, only physical and chemical parameters. Soil health and soil quality are different concepts. The authors only analyze heavy metals again the distant ones, even the other parameters were analyzed (Table 1) in contrast to the factor mentioned above.
- L253. This statement is not clear from Table 1.
- L259. What kind of correlation?
- L260. Heavy metals.
- L263. The distance factor is not stated in the same way as before in the text. homogenized.
- L264, 268-270, 275, 278, 287-291, 293-295, 297-299, 315-320, 326-330, 336.. Heavy metal units must be formatted. Check throughout the text.
- L265. When the authors fix the study sites they waste the opportunity to fix the magnitude of the concentrations. E.i. ZG < ZD < NG), that way, the authos show another end of information to the discussion.
- L270. This acronym was set earlier.
- L293-295. The results shown here are set differently than above. Homogenize the way the authors present the results.
- L311. Use the acronym OM.
- L315. The authors should present the results for Cr and Cu in the main text, not as supplementary material.
- L332. What about the contineltal region, which contains the concentrations of Cr and Ni?
- L333-334. The location of these regions is not clear, perhaps it should be clearer if the authors put it in Figure 1.
- L342. The authors do not establish a relationship between the concentrations of heavy metals found in the soils analyzed with fauna and human health.
Conclusions
- The conclusion was minimal, it should be impruve.
- Why the authors conclude on external regulations perhaps Croatian regulation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this article, the authors present the results of study concerning temporal and spatial changes in soil quality at shooting ranges: a case study in Croatia.
The results are interesting and indicate the need for long-term measures for sustainable soil management and ecosystem protection to be taken at the firing range to minimize risks to ecosystems, wildlife and human health.
The authors may refer to the following suggestions:
1. Line 225 - The section 3.2. pHKCl of studied soils can be included in section 3.1Soil characteristics. This section is not justified in the structure of the article with distinct numbering.
2. At Table 2 for Sb it is not clear why the values do not appear. Are they below the detection limit of the equipment (< LOD (Sb) = 3 mgkg-1)? This needs to be clarified.
3. At section 3. Results, for a more suggestive and easy-to-follow presentation, it would be better if the results were also presented through graphs. Was a statistical analysis performed? The results of the statistical analysis are not presented.
4. I recommend checking the text to eliminate spelling mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome minor corrections (e.g. mg kg-1 line 54) are needed.
63-70 Please edit this paragraph and include it in the discussion.
Introduction: please add information on the number of shooting ranges in Croatia
129-135 Please edit this paragraph as the description of the discipline is not important for this article.
147-148: "Using standard protocols [31]. A total of 144 soil samples were collected, 18 per range and 36 147
per site". Please explain. What was the total mass of the final sample?
163-164 Please rewrite this sentence
Figure 1 - Please mark the Coratian boundaries. Please mark those used for the Olympic disciplines of trap and/or skeet.
Tables 2 and 3 - please don't leave any spaces. Use '-' or 'no data'.
In 2.3 you said that Pb, Sb, Cr and Ni were analysed - why are there only Pb and Sb in the tables? Please move these tables according to the text.
Please add a description of the CF calculation in 2.6.
Please add correlation matrix.
219-220 "Table 1 shows the mean values of the soil physical and chemical parameters of the control samples", so where are the results from the sites?
Table 1: Why is there no ZGI/ZGII in this table?
Please edit the discussion section and try to systematise the information. Please avoid 1 sentence paragraphs. There is no word about clay pigeons in the discussion and according to the introduction they seem to be important...
Please rewrite the conclusion. Is Croatia using German or Dutch legislation? What is the quality of the soil? Is there a difference between the tested sites?
Based on read text, please redefine title as there is no temporal evaluation - you took samples for a few months. That's all.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, the article has been modified, only some comments that were not properly carried out are stated, as well as some new comments that arose in the second round of revision.. Specific comments are shown below:
Modifications made
Abstract
- L26. The authors do not state the importance of doing this research, and the location.
-The authors responded to the comment.
- L32-37. It is not clear what the author means by contamination factors.
-The authors responded to the comment
- L36. Ecosystem risk?
-The authors responded to the comment
- L37. Ecosystem health is not the same as soil quality in the title.
-Modification made L37.
Introduction
- L39. Specify which are the ecosystem services.
-Modification made L39.
- L43. Which ones?
-The authors responded to the comment
- L44. The references here should be modified.
-Modification made L44.
- L46. What kind of risks to human health and the environment are the authors referring to here?
-The authors responded to the comment
- L48. References should conform to the requirements of the journal.
-Modifications were made through the text.
- L54. Units should be formatted.
-Modification made L55.
- L56. Authors should use a reference management program to correct the formatting of references. Check this issue throughout the text.
-modifications were made through the text.
- L66. Symbols for these elements should be set here.
-Modification made L67.
- L68. Mention the components.
-Modification made L69-70.
- L69. The acronym pH must be stated here.lished first.
-Modification made L72.
L91. References fot this.
-Modification made L.94.
Materials and methods
- L119-120. Species should be in italics.
-Modification made L122-123.
- L145. in the same manner as what?
-Modification made L148.
- L149-155. This paragraph and the preceding paragraph should be joined.
-Modification made L151-157.
- L161. The acronyms of the parameters analyzed should be stated previously, this line contains errors.
-Modifications made L162-165.
- L160-174. The supplementary material was not available for download, the authors should fix this problem.
-Modifications done.
- L163. The pH parameter is not set as above.
-Modification made L162.
- L169. The authors should provide a link to the information in this paragraph.
-The authors responded to the comment
- L177. The acronym WEPAL is not set as above.
-Modification done L181.
- L190. The Wich software version was used.
-Modification done L194.
- L190. An error in this line.
-Modification done L194.
- L198. I think this line should be at the end of the text.
-Modification done L406-407.
Results
- Table 1. All tables in the text should be self-representative, people reading this text should be able to understand the tables without reading the entire text, therefore, authors should state all acronyms and element symbols in the table caption for all tables in the text.
-Modifications were made.
- L214. An error in this line.
-Modification made L219.
- L217-222. Use the acronyms set forth above.
-Modifications made L221-226.
- L222. The format of these references should state the acronyms used in.
-Modification made L226.
- L227. Supplementary material is not available for download.
-Modifications were made.
- L227. All pH parameters should be stated in the same way throughout the text.
-Modification made L231.
- L228-229. A correlative relationship between 0.5 and 0.75 is considered a moderate correlation, not a strong one.
-The authors responded to the comment
- L232-233. This information should appear in the main text, not in the supplementary material. The p-values should be formatted.
-Modification made Table 4.
- L233. The authors used the acronyms of the parameters indiscriminately, sometimes they used the acronyms and sometimes they are only mentioned with words. The way of mentioning the parameters in the text should be homogenized.
-modifications were made through the text.
- L236. Analysis of heavy metals.
-Modification was made L241.
- The format of tables 2 and 3 should be improved. Same comment as the previous table.
-Modofications were made.
- What about the results for Cr and Ni, why are these two heavy metals not presented?
-Modification was made L248-252.
Discussion
- L251. This is not accurate, because the authors did not analyze any soil-related biological parameters, only physical and chemical parameters. Soil health and soil quality are different concepts. The authors only analyze heavy metals again the distant ones, even the other parameters were analyzed (Table 1) in contrast to the factor mentioned above.
-Modification was made L272-276.
- L253. This statement is not clear from Table 1.
-Modification was made L272-276.
- L259. What kind of correlation?
-Modification was made L284.
- L260. Heavy metals.
-Modification was made L286.
- L263. The distance factor is not stated in the same way as before in the text. homogenized.
-Modification was made L289.
- L264, 268-270, 275, 278, 287-291, 293-295, 297-299, 315-320, 326-330, 336.. Heavy metal units must be formatted. Check throughout the text.
--modifications were made through the text.
- L265. When the authors fix the study sites they waste the opportunity to fix the magnitude of the concentrations. E.i. ZG < ZD < NG), that way, the authos show another end of information to the discussion.
-The authors responded to the comment
- L270. This acronym was set earlier.
-Modification was done L293
- L293-295. The results shown here are set differently than above. Homogenize the way the authors present the results.
-The authors responded to the comment
- L311. Use the acronym OM.
-Modification was done L331.
- L332. What about the contineltal region, which contains the concentrations of Cr and Ni?
-Modification was made L344, 355.
- L333-334. The location of these regions is not clear, perhaps it should be clearer if the authors put it in Figure 1.
--The authors responded to the comment
- L342. The authors do not establish a relationship between the concentrations of heavy metals found in the soils analyzed with fauna and human health.
--The authors responded to the comment
Conclusions
- The conclusion was minimal, it should be impruve.
-Modification was made L375-380.
- Why the authors conclude on external regulations perhaps Croatian regulation.
-MOdification was made L384-388.
Modification not made
- L315. The authors should present the results for Cr and Cu in the main text, not as supplementary material.
The authors' response was not satisfactory; there are no tables in the supplementary material provided.
New Comments
L166, 168-169. In the supplementary material there is no table, only figures.
Figure 4. The figure should be improved, neither the details nor the legend can be seen well.
L274. There are no tables in the supplementary material
Author Response
Round 2 – Second Response to Review 1 Comments
Manuscript land-3341848
Assigned Editor (AE) Jennifer Xu
Thank you very much for taking the time to re-review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below (marked red) and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments/Suggestions
- L315. The authors should present the results for Cr and Cu in the main text, not as supplementary material. The authors' response was not satisfactory; there are no tables in the supplementary material provided.
Cu was not the indicator of this study, you probably mean Ni.
We did it. In the table 2 we add data for Ni and Cr in the main text.
L166, 168-169. In the supplementary material there is no table, only figures. L274. There are no tables in the supplementary material
All tables and Figures in Suppl. material you can find in the main manuscript at the end after References from L559-L568. (We had some problems and struggle with the system, because there was not possibility for upload tables just Figures)
We will additionally upload word with just tables from Suppl. material.
Figure 4. The figure should be improved, neither the details nor the legend can be seen well.
Done
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIț's Ok.
Author Response
Thank you for your positiv response.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your corrections and responses.
I can accept most of them. Chart 4 needs to be improved due to its illegibility. Please enlarge the font and improve the quality.
"In control samples complete physico-chemical analysis were done (Table 1), in all other samples, just pH (Figure S1) and elemental analysis (Pb, Sb, Cr, Ni and S) were done (Table 2 and Figure S2)."
In my opinion, the control samples are for comparison with the test samples, so why give a full specification? In Table 1, limit yourself to the elements analysed in the test samples (pH+elemental analysis).
Author Response
Round 2 – Second Response to Review 3 Comments
Manuscript land-3341848
Assigned Editor (AE) Jennifer Xu
Thank you very much for taking the time to re-review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below (marked red) and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments/Suggestions
I can accept most of them. Chart 4 needs to be improved due to its illegibility. Please enlarge the font and improve the quality.
Done
"In control samples complete physico-chemical analysis were done (Table 1), in all other samples, just pH (Figure S1) and elemental analysis (Pb, Sb, Cr, Ni and S) were done (Table 2 and Figure S2)." In my opinion, the control samples are for comparison with the test samples, so why give a full specification? In Table 1, limit yourself to the elements analysed in the test samples (pH+elemental analysis).
We really need to keep it. Full specification of control samples is necessary because basic physicochemical soil characteristics are only indicator relevant for definition and interpretation of all values regarding the legislative (INT, MAC, MV). Without this data we are unable to define it.