Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the review report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 12: The authors should explain deeply the importance of their study to the agricultural sector, the novelty, and why this study is important to the agricultural sector.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction (line 96-100) and the Conclusion (line 408) to better highlight the novelty of our research. The study offers rare on-farm, long-term data from adjacent land uses with over a century of consistent management, contributing essential insights into sustainable practices for maintaining soil health in Red Ferrosols. These findings are directly relevant to the agricultural sector’s efforts to enhance productivity while minimizing degradation.

Comment 13: How is this study different from the previous studies?

Response: We appreciate this important question. The novelty of our study lies in its focus on real-world, long-term land use on a commercial farm rather than controlled experiments at research stations. Our study uniquely examines multiple land uses (remnant vegetation, pasture, cultivated area, and loafing area) on the same property, with a uniform soil type (Red Ferrosol) and over a century of consistent management. This design minimizes confounding factors such as soil type, climate, and management differences, allowing for a more robust assessment of land-use impacts. Unlike many previous studies that rely on non-adjacent comparisons or short-term data, ours provides on-farm evidence of long-term soil property changes under actual agricultural conditions.

Comment 14: In the abstract should be rewritten as (introduction - material and methods- the most important results).

Response: Thank you. The abstract has been rewritten to follow a structured format: background and objective, methodology, main findings, and implications for sustainable agriculture. (See Abstract, page 1).

Comment 15: What is the paragraph (48- 54), it was written without any references.

Response: Thank you. We have revised this paragraph (page 3) to include appropriate references.

Comment 16: In scientific work, we cannot write any phrases without references.

Response: We agree and thank the reviewer. The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and updated to ensure that all scientific claims are supported by references.

Comment 17: The same matter with a paragraph (63-71).

Response: Thank you. References have been added to this paragraph.

Comment 18: In the discussion section, what are these paragraphs (265-270), (271-279), (280-286).

Response: We understand the concern. These paragraphs have been revised for clarity and to emphasize interpretation of results rather than writing the results. They now highlight how our results compare to previous studies and what they imply for land management. (See Discussion section)

Comment 19: The same matter with paragraphs of 293-299; 300-307.

Response: We revised these sections to reduce redundancy and ensure they provide critical insights based on our findings, supported by literature references.

Comment 20: The same with paragraphs (309-320).

Response: These paragraphs were rewritten to integrate interpretation and scientific discussion.

Comment 21: In the discussion sections, the authors should discuss their findings and give explanations for their results.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have revised the discussion thoroughly to include more explanation and scientific reasoning for our results.

Comment 22: Also, the authors can exhibit the previous findings of other authors to confirm their findings (if possible).

Response: We have now added several comparisons with findings from previous studies, these can be found throughout the discussion section.

Comment 23: In the current study, unfortunately, the authors did not write any discussion; they just repeated their results (I do not understand why).

Response: We appreciate this critical feedback. The discussion section was restructured to distinguish clearly between interpretation and repetition. We have removed redundant statements and replaced them with analysis and contextualization supported by the literature.

Comment 24: This section should be revised carefully and rewritten.

Response: The entire discussion section has been revised as per your recommendation.

Comment 25: The conclusion section is so long, and it should be revised. The authors should write the most obtained results and show the importance of their study to the agricultural sector.

Response: Thank you. The conclusion section has been shortened and rewritten to focus on the most significant findings and practical implications.

Comment 26: The abbreviations should be inserted in the manuscript for the first time for each word, and then the authors can use the abbreviations. This is a manuscript, not a thesis

Response: We appreciate this note. The manuscript was revised to introduce each abbreviation at its first mention and use the short form thereafter.

Comment 27: The reference section needs major revision and should be completely improved.

Response: We have revised the reference list to follow MDPI formatting standards, correcting punctuation, journal names, and DOI inclusion where applicable.

Comment 28: The old references should be updated and replaced with the most recent ones (it is preferable to use those from the last five years).

Response: We reviewed the reference list and replaced outdated references where possible.

Comment 29:The authors should follow the instructions of MDPI journals.

Response: We have now revised the manuscript structure, formatting, references, figure captions, and section headings to fully align with the Land journal’s author guidelines.

Comment 30: 31 references are a scarce number for a research article.

Response: We agree and have expanded the reference list, incorporating recent studies that strengthen the discussion and contextualize our findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors write about their experience in conducted a research aimed to examines the effects of four land uses, such as remnant vegetation, pasture, cultivated areas, and loafing areas (zones of concentrated livestock activity), on the physical properties of Red Ferrosols in the Toowoomba region, Queensland, Australia. Overall, the topic is of interest to Land readers. After carefully reading the paper, I have a few modest comments:

The main problem with this article is that it lacks clear objectives. For example, on line 95, it mention "properties of the soil in a 100-year period.". Do they provide data from 100 years ago?.

I don't think it's necessary to add the following in the middle of the text: 1.1. Land-Use Change and Soil Physical Properties. I'm not proposing to delete the content, but rather to indicate it.

Throughout the text, it is sometimes mentioned that only physical concerns are addressed, and at other times, physical and chemical properties of the soil. Please clarify.

Figure 1 is really very poor. I suggest improving it.

Improve your methodology section with details and experimental design. The phrase that appears between lines 192 and 201 is very cumbersome. The function of hexametaphosphate is well known, but the concept of particulate organic matter (POM) is less so. Therefore, it is important to clarify this entire phrase.

Figure 3 is practically illegible.

The discussion is controversial. For example, subsections 4.3. Impact of Land Use Change on Soil Properties, 4.2. Soil Chemical Properties, and 4.1. Soil Physical Properties are about the same or different.

For future research, I would strongly recommend you to study the quality of carbon.

The authors do not follow the journal's guidelines in the references section.

Finally, limitations of study should be highlighted.

As consequence of all the comments detailed above, the general assessment is that the current version of the manuscript needs review.

Author Response

Comment 1: The main problem with this article is that it lacks clear objectives. For example, on line 95, it mentions “properties of the soil in a 100-year period.” Do they provide data from 100 years ago?

Response: Thank you for this important observation. We have clarified the objective in the final paragraph of the introduction. The reference to “100 years” refers to the continuous land use history of the sites, not to the existence of historical soil data from 100 years ago. The study is based on current measurements from areas with well-documented long-term land use, all managed by the same landholder over a century. This clarification has been added to page 3, lines 93-97.

 

Comment 2: I don’t think it’s necessary to add the following in the middle of the text: 1.1. Land-Use Change and Soil Physical Properties. I’m not proposing to delete the content, but rather to indicate it.

Response: We agree with the reviewer. The subheading “1.1. Land-Use Change and Soil Physical Properties” has been removed to improve the narrative flow, and the content was merged into the final part of the introduction.

 

Comment 3: Throughout the text, it is sometimes mentioned that only physical concerns are addressed, and at other times, physical and chemical properties of the soil. Please clarify.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We revised the text throughout the manuscript to consistently refer to “physical and chemical properties” when appropriate. This clarification has been made.

 

Comment 4: Figure 1 is really very poor. I suggest improving it.

Response: We appreciate this comment. Figure 1 has been redesigned to include a clearer map of Australia, a zoomed-in view of Queensland, and a pinpointed location of the study area. The new version improves readability and relevance.

 

Comment 5: Improve your methodology section with details and experimental design.

Response: We have expanded the methodology section (page 3) to provide additional details on experimental design, including sampling depth. Clarifications were also added regarding slope positions and spatial arrangement of treatments.

 

Comment 6: The phrase that appears between lines 192 and 201 is very cumbersome. The function of hexametaphosphate is well known, but the concept of particulate organic matter (POM) is less so. Therefore, it is important to clarify this entire phrase.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The section describing POM measurement was revised to simplify language, clarify the concept of POM, and reduce redundancy. The updated text now better explains the relevance of POM and the methodology used (line 228-236).

 

Comment 7: Figure 3 is practically illegible.

Response: We agree and have revised Figure 3 to improve its legibility. Axis labels, font size, and colors were enhanced to ensure clarity. Each subfigure is now presented in higher resolution with consistent formatting.

 

Comment 8: The discussion is controversial. For example, subsections 4.3, 4.2, and 4.1 are about the same or different.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have restructured the discussion section to clarify the distinction between each subsection. Section 4.1 now focuses exclusively on physical properties, 4.2 on chemical properties, and 4.3 synthesizes the integrated effects of land-use change. Transitions between sections were improved to avoid redundancy.

 

Comment 9: For future research, I would strongly recommend you to study the quality of carbon.

Response: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. We have added a brief statement in the conclusions (page 11) indicating that future studies should investigate the qualitative aspects of carbon, such as its stability and biological relevance.

 

Comment 10: The authors do not follow the journal’s guidelines in the references section.

Response: Thank you for noticing. We have reviewed and reformatted the entire reference list to conform with the MDPI guidelines for Land. This includes proper use of journal names, italics, punctuation, and DOI links.

 

Comment 11: Finally, limitations of the study should be highlighted.

Response: We agree and added a paragraph at the end of the discussion (page 11) acknowledging limitations, including the single-property case study design, lack of baseline and temporal monitoring data, and potential site-specific effects. We also suggested future directions to address these limitations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached review report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors should explain deeply the importance of their study to the agricultural sector, the novelty, and why this study is important to the agricultural sector.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We have expanded the final paragraph of the Introduction (line 98-107) and the Conclusion (359-363) to clearly state the novelty of our study and its relevance to the agricultural sector. Our study offers rare, on-farm data on the long-term impacts of land use on Red Ferrosols, providing practical guidance for sustainable soil management and productivity improvement in key agricultural soils of Queensland.

Comment 2: The novelty should be explained in more detail in the introduction section.

Response: We agree and have revised the Introduction to explicitly highlight the novelty of our case study design: examining adjacent, long-term land uses under real-world farming conditions on the same soil type and under the same climate, over more than 100 years of management.

Comment 3: Please add some phrases on the material and methods.

Response: We have revised the Materials and Methods section to provide additional clarification on the case study (line 165-167), (line 224-226), (line 194-196).

Comment 4: The authors transferred some parts from the results section to the discussion section.

Response: Thank you for noting this. We have revised the structure of the Results and Discussion sections to ensure that results are presented clearly in the Results section, and interpretations and comparisons with literature are contained in the Discussion section.

Comment 5: The discussion section is short, and it should be increased. It needs to be increased. In the discussion sections, the authors should discuss their findings and give explanations for their results. Also, the authors can exhibit the previous findings of other authors to confirm their findings (if possible).

Response: We appreciate this recommendation. The Discussion section has been expanded substantially to provide deeper interpretation of our findings, including explanations of observed patterns and comparisons with previous studies that support or contrast our results.

Comment 6: The paragraph (335–340) should be transferred to the conclusion section.

Response: We agree, and this paragraph has been moved to the Conclusion section as suggested.

Comment 7: In the conclusion section, please give your advice to the farmers to benefit from your study and show the importance of their study to the agricultural sector.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The Conclusion now includes practical advice for farmers on land-use practices that help maintain soil structure and fertility in Red Ferrosols, emphasizing the importance of sustainable management for long-term productivity.

Comment 8: The abbreviations should be inserted in the manuscript for the first time for each word, and then the authors can use the abbreviations. Please insert all these abbreviations inside the manuscript.

Response: We have revised the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations are defined at first use, following the journal’s guidelines.

Comment 9: The reference section needs major revision and should be completely improved. The old references should be updated and replaced with the most recent ones (it is preferable to use those from the last five years).

Response: We have added more recent and relevant literature wherever possible.

Comment 10: The authors should follow the instructions of MDPI journals.

Response: We confirm that the manuscript has been revised to follow all MDPI Land formatting and style requirements, including references, figures, units, and abbreviations.

Comment 11: CM3 in figures should be changed into cm³.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. All instances of “CM3” in the figures have been corrected to “cm³” as per MDPI style.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript meets with my approval.

Author Response

Thank you so much, The revised manuscript meets with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf