Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has conducted a comprehensive review of soil erosion and their estimation methods in the Republic of Serbia, in my opinion, this topic was interesting for the readers to get a general overview of the soil erosion situation, thus was worthy to be published. However, in my opinion, due to the shortage of novelty, logic and scientific quality, this manuscript can’t be accepted in its current form and the major revision is required.

 

 

Page 1-2      In the Introduction section, the authors focused too much on the adverse effects on soil erosion (Line 27 to Line 41), the area and area proportion on the global scale (Line 46 to Line 50) and in the Serbia (Line 50-52), which were all simple descriptions. The literature review was insufficient, and no scientific problems or knowledge gaps were presented, which made the introduction section too simple. Please kindly improve it.

 

Page 2-3       Line 87-110  The authors wrote too much on the historical review in this part.

              Line 111-126  I think the authors haven’t presented clearly what the methods you adopted and how you used these methods in this manuscript. For example, how did you use the historical analysis method, cartographic interpretation methods? what does the “historical data, ecological data” refers to? How you described and categorized the historical data? How did you conduct the comparative analysis? Please introduce the methods in detail.

 

Page 3-19     The entire part of “Results and Discussions” was more likely an overview on the historical process of soil erosion methods, the authors are encouraged to tell the readers that obtained by this manuscript based on the methods you adopted in  Page 2-3, which was largely lacking in current manuscript. Besides, it seems the discussion station was lacked.

Line 450- Line 458 By comparing the erosion maps in 1983 and 2020, it is suggested the authors to distinguish the changes in erosion that caused by the differences in two methods, and the changes in erosion that caused by the changes in land use patterns. Otherwise, the comparison makes no sense.

Table 1 to Table 10 The format of all tables are required to be improved, please refer to the published papers.

Author Response

In the attachment, you can find our answers

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: land-3412224

Tittle: Historical Overview of Methods for Recording Erosion Processes on the Territory of the Republic of Serbia

 

General comments:

The paper reviews the development process of soil erosion research in the Republic of Serbia, analyzes the key points and historical reasons for the formation of soil erosion research in different historical periods, and introduces the process of drawing soil erosion maps for two influential periods at present. The research has important reference value for soil erosion assessment at the national scale.

Overall, the manuscript describes the understanding and spatial expression process of soil erosion in chronological order. The current language used in manuscript descriptions is relatively clear, but there is a lack of quantitative analysis and visualization of important historical stages, which affects the readability of the paper. I hope the author takes it seriously during the editing process. Another issue is to focus on condensing and summarizing the disciplinary contributions of the work, comparing the participation and positive contributions of soil erosion research in the Republic of Serbia to international soil erosion research in an international context. The specific opinions are as follows:

Detailed comments:

1 .  Line 2-3: The title of the manuscript can be further optimized;

2 .  Line 8:  The abstract needs further revision to summarize the key content of this manuscript;

3 .  Line 38-39: The statement that the erosion rate is greater than the soil formation rate should have a limited condition or geographical range. Please verify;

4 .  Line 71-126: The landmark time of soil erosion in different historical periods can be systematically sorted out using charts and tables to increase logic and organization;

5 .  Line 128: Content 3.1. Can some charts be added to compare and analyze the time series evolution characteristics of the relationship between human activities and soil erosion;

6 .  Line 176: If possible, what kind of research was being conducted internationally during the same period in section 3.2, and make a simple comparison

7 .  Line 473: Is it before or after the modified EPM that Sediment Accumulation was treated as a separate category? Please verify with the author? Please also ask the author to provide additional clarification, Is there a necessity for sediment accumulation as a type;

8 .  Line 476: The research conclusion needs further simplification.

 

As a conclusion, major revision required.

Author Response

In the attachment, you can find our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your manuscript is clearly written, giving a general overview of the soil erosion mapping according to the Gavrilovic method, as well as some other approaches and attempts at soil erosion assessment in Serbia. However, according to my opinion, there is no clear scientific goal or idea for the future implementation and improvement of EPM by including the new technologies already available (remote sensing, machine learning, deep learning). I have already found a published monograph about the “Chronological development of the EPM” (Tosic and Dragicevic, 2023; in Serbian, which is not cited here), so I’m confused about the novelty and originality of your paper. Also, I can’t find a detailed methodology for the 2020 EPM-based map, nor for validation of the results by sedimentation measurements or field checks. Overall, the manuscript is more suitable for a conference paper or report than a typical scientific one.

Author Response

In the attachment, you can find our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revison of Historical Overview of Methods for Recording Erosion Processes on the Territory of the Republic of Serbia

 

 

Due to erosion, erosion calculation methods, soil degradation, land use, and spatio-temporal changes make this an appropriate topic for this thesis. The topic of the paper - historical review and assessment of soil erosion processes in the Republic of Serbia - is relevant and timely. Soil erosion is a global problem with significant impacts on ecosystems, agricultural productivity, and infrastructure. The Balkans are particularly affected by soil erosion and related natural hazards due to their different geographical and climatic conditions. Different models are used to assess erosion and natural hazards in the region, with a particular focus on RUSLE, EPM, and WEPP. These models analyze factors such as erosivity of rainfall, slope, soil type, land use and human activities. The integration of GIS-based technologies (e.g.: DSM, DEM) plays a crucial role in erosion mapping and risk mitigation strategies.

 

The paper has a few flaws, mainly structurally and regarding its lengthy and wordy style. It should be significantly changed, and it is especially true for the Materials and Methods and the Conclusion.

Although the study is historical and statistical, the statistical part is not convincing enough. No proper 4 decades comparison without historical/natural control. The title of the paper assumes rather soil science, geography, spatial analysis and validation of spatial analysis maps. It is a mistake that only the results of the calculation methods used in Serbia were compared, and no comparison with the other methods was made. The article in its present form is not well structured and difficult to understand; the historical overview is not a result. If the authors want to present the local (Serbian) calculation methods, it is worth comparing the results with other international calculation methods. Methods developed for local conditions are always more appropriate compared to international methods. In my opinion, due to the linguistic and social isolation of the 50s-80s, many great Central and Eastern European methods and studies were not available to Western Europe.

 

The chapter conclusion is insufficiently ‘conclusive.’ Broader implementation of the results is needed there.


General comment

Should to modify the title: Historical Overview of Methods for Recording Erosion Processes on the Territory of the Republic of Serbia correct form is:  Historical Overview of Methods for Estimation of Erosion Processes on the Territory of the Republic of Serbia

 

 

Keywords should to modify more specific words (e.g.): Gavrilović’s erosion calculation, .

Introduction
The introduction has sufficient size when it compared to the other chapters. In spite of the important citations of relevant articles missed from other countries from the Balkan Peninsula.

 

Materials and methods

 

Main problem is with materials and methods chapter that missed the important information and simple insufficient construction of elementary description.

The Erosion Potential Method (EPM) is appropriately employed to evaluate factors like rainfall, slope, soil type, and land use. Its integration with GIS technologies is a strong point, allowing spatial mapping of erosion hotspots. However, this section requires further elaboration on the following aspects:

Clear identification of sampling locations, preferably with maps or diagrams.- Detailed descriptions of soil properties, such as water management, texture, clay, and carbonate content.- Information on data sources and satellite imagery specifics is missing.

 

Results and discussion

Chapters 3.1 - 3.3.2.2 should be moved to the materials and methods.

The results section provides valuable insights but lacks sufficient quantitative data to support its conclusions. A comparison with other methods, such as RUSLE, would enhance the discussion. Additionally, incorporating references to international studies would increase the broader applicability of the findings.

Specific comments and questions:

Line (L.) 37: need more international references

L. 39 – 42: In this part have to mention ecosystem services.

L. 65 – 70: What are the typical soils (WRB, FAO) in Serbia? What were the soils physical properties? Which genetic soil types are susceptible to erosion?

L. 87 – 110: How has the spatial distribution of land use changed? A map of land use change would be helpful in understanding this article.

L. 128 – 175: This section is not a result, it should be moved to the materials and methods section.

L. 176 – 200: This section is not a result, it should be moved to the tools and methods section.

L 201 – 390: This section is not a result, it should be moved to the tools and methods section.

L. 416 – 422: Isolation is the reason.

L. 450 – 476: This section should be further upgraded. What are the main reasons for the differences? Which genetic soil types are included in the erosion sensitive areas? It is unclear to the reader what validation methods have been used to delineate and refine each area.

Conclusion                   
Unlike the other chapters of the "paper" it is too short and does not directly flow into the results and objectives. Second, limited international comparisons and broader contextualization.

 

References

There are too many domestic references as opposed to international references.

My final opinion is I am going to accept after major revision (substantial revisions to text or experimental methods needed).

Author Response

In the attachment, you can find our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been greatly improved, thus I think it can be accepted in its current form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: land-3412224-peer-review-v2

Tittle: Historical Overview of Methods for Estimation of Erosion Pro-2 cesses on the Territory of the Republic of Serbia

 

The authors have made one-by-one revisions and explanations to the first round of review comments, and the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved. I do not have many other opinions on the publication of the work, except for:

Line141:The expression in Figure 1 is not very standardized, at least there should be basic mapping information such as latitude and longitude, compass, legend, etc. on the map.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Now, the manuscript is much better compared to the previous version and according to my opinion it is now acceptable for publishing. The manuscript offer a good preview of the erosion mapping works on the territory of Serbia (probably other approaches aside of EPM are used also but on smaller areas). I just can't find explanation why the class of excess erosion is almost 300% higher in the latest map compared to the previous one. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Climate change and the resulting spatial variation in precipitation can have a significant impact on soil degradation and erosion. Over 60% of Europe's soils are subject to at least one type of environmental degradation.
The article has been much improved from the first version.
The article has been corrected and modified to make it more coherent, well structured and comprehensible.
Chapters 2.2.3 (Application of GIS technologies in creating the Erosion Map of Serbia (2020)) and 3.1 The comparison between 1983 and 2020 Erosion Maps were particularly well received.
Figure 2 helps to understand the process of GIS data analysis.


I thank the authors for their work and accept their responses as described in the cover letter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx