Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Under the hypotesis that although maps and land registers may document the presence of cultivated peatland that is suitable for peat inversión and that these data may not cover all regions of interest, the authors write about their experience in explores how an expert system and geostatistical modelling can be used to identify cultivated peatland suitable for peat inversion.

The work is relevant because it deals with Peatlands, that is, a globally significant carbon store. Also because there is a need to fully understand soils to ensure their sustainable use. The topic fits perfectly with the scope of Land J. The manuscript is well-written. The introduction provides sufficient background. The results match the objectives. However, I have key concerns about the work and provided some major comments that the authors must address to improve the manuscript.

Line 87. Map of the potential agricultural land (DMK; [10]);…. • Detailed soil map covering approximately 60 % of the current agricultural land [12]; What scales are we talking about?

Line 105. • exclude the presence of bedrock within 2 meters depth. This is important. Therefore, you should explain this aspect.

Line 108. Furthermore, a peat layer of 15-40 cm thickness over a hardpan is also suitable for peat inversion. Based on what? Please explain.

In table 1. Other soil types.  To the extent possible, could you indicate what type of soils they are?.

Unless there is a conceptual error, “haa” it should be “ha”.

It is unacceptable that there are hardly any bibliographic references in the discussion.

Please refine the conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The content of the Introduction is relatively limited, so it may be appropriate to add a review of relevant literature and a discussion of recent research progress. Meanwhile, the authors may consider further elaborating on the research background.

The number of references in the manuscript is insufficient to provide theoretical support for the study. The authors need to supplement more references to enhance the credibility and reliability of the research.

Please further reflect the future research prospects and scientific value of the study in the Conclusion Section.

After evaluation, I suggest a major revision.

 

Specific comments:

Line 120: The table does not display the nine land cover categories, which makes it difficult to understand. The authors need to provide a detailed explanation of the nine land cover categories and their inclusion or parallel relationships, and modify the table structure to avoid ambiguity.

Line 318: It is recommended to provide more evidence to prove that outdated soil data has led to inconsistencies between assumed suitability and observed suitability.

Line 321: Please reduce the use of uncertain words such as 'may' to improve the accuracy and scientificity of the study.

Line 328-333: To make the logic smoother, authors should increase the connections between sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

Dear authors,

I have read your text, which is an attempt to apply geostatistical methods for peat inversion for cultivated peatlands. This topic is important and becomes more and more relevant.

I highly appreciate the idea of ​​using the above-mentioned expert methods and the use of semivariograms and kriging tools.

However, I have the following comments for you:

• I believe that the text should undergo linguistic correction. I have included some unclear formulations in the comments to the text.
• The article does not include an explanation of the concept of "peat inversion" - what exactly is the purpose of the analyses carried out, why they were performed.
• The description of the study area is very unclear. In the Materials and methods section, the range is set between 58° and 71° N and between 6° and 31° E, and the area is 324,000 km² (larger than the area of ​​Poland, for example), while the final results analyse areas in four Norwegian municipalities. This part should be rewritten, also describing the reasons why these particular municipalities were chosen, how they differ from each other (this is partly included in the results and discussion section).
• Numerical notation of results: you write down your measurements / calculation results (hectares / percents / other units) as numbers with a comma (,) as a decimal separator, which is wrong – you should use a dot (.). Pay attention to the notation of 324,000 km² and 342,8 haa in your text (by the way, I think you don't need to write the units as "haa", "ha" is enough).
• It is not described why the four parameters with specific values ​​given on page 3, subsection 2.2 were chosen. Do they come from earlier publications, for example? There are no in-paragraph citations on this page.
• The Materials and Methods section does not describe the parameters that are then analyzed in the Results and Discussion, including how they were obtained (from what sources, using what tools) – for example, the analysis of the share of peatlands in areas below the tree line (table 8).

I have included further comments to the text below.

 

Comments to the text:

1. Page 1, line 13: This sentence is missing a comma, I think between “peatland” and “that is”.
2. Page 1, line 28-29: Add information about the percentage share of 28,778 km² of peatlands in the total area of Norway, for a better understanding of the significance of your research.
3. Page 1, line 33-36: Add sources of this information (citation).
4. Page 2, line 41: “Less than 10 % (or 704 km²)” → “704 km² (less than 10 %)”…
5. Page 2, line 51: “information on lad cover” → “information about land resources”…
6. Page 3, line 81: “The target of the study was the Norwegian mainland” → “The study area was located in the Norwegian mainland, N Europe”.
7. Page 3, line 101: There is a colon (:) missing at the end of the line.
8. Page 3, line 99-106: You should explain and document by literature / expertise, why these particular criteria should be adopted (e.g. why 2 m depth).
9. Page 4, line 120: The title doesn’t explain the table’s content. Maybe something like this: “Peatlands division on land cover map for study area”.
10. Page 4, line 153-156: So why are the 4 municipalities mentioned here not defined as the study area, but the area of the entire Norway mainland is given? There also be some brief justification for the selection of these 3 communes.
11. Page 5, figure 2: the map has no legend (borders, lines, polygons filled with red).
12. Page 5, line 162: Any opening sentence? Maybe “Geostatistical models used in the article are based on the kriging interpolation method.”
13. Page 5, line 184. QGIS, not qGIS.
14. Page 6, line 191-193: The description of the field works carried out should be more detailed.
15. Page 6, line 227: The decimal separator should be a point / period, not a comma here and throughout the rest of the results.
16. Page 9, figure 3: The map is difficult to read: the same colors were used to mark areas on the map (raster scale - I would like to add that the hypsometric color scale used should not be used for studies other than topographic elevation of the terrain) and training points.
17. Page 10, line 319: Typo: peat land (with space between).
18. Page 11, line 371: “not unlike Valer” is double negative. “Not like Valer” or “unlike Valer”, unless the intention was to emphasize the similarity.
19. Page 11, line 371-379: As I mentioned earlier, the reasons for selecting the locations and their characteristics were not provided in the description of the research area.
20. Page 12, line 396: “Percentage peatland” → “Share of peatlands”. Up to this point in the discussion, the topographic parameter of areas below the tree line has not been considered at all. It should be listed in the Materials and Methods section, along with any that have been analyzed in the Results and Discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have included my stylistic and linguistic comments in the descriptive section of my review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy with the improvements done from the Authors addressing my comments. The manuscript can be considered for pubblication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have responded my concerns. I think it is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have re-read your text and find it significantly improved and refined. Thank you for accepting my suggestions. I have no further comments and recommend your article to the editors for publication.

Best wishes.