Corn Cropping Systems in Agricultural Soils from the Bajio Region of Guanajuato: Soil Quality Indexes (SQIs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is “CORN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN AGRICULTURAL SOILS FROM THE BAJIO REGION OF GUANAJUATO: SOIL QUALITY INDEXES (SQI)” (applsci-2854036). Comments are as follows.

(1) Abstract: There is a lack of important conclusions here.

(2) The advantages of the established SQI indicators are not explained.

(3) Keywords are not representative, and the author needs to modify them.

(4) L75-80: The research objective is not only to construct SOI, but also to develop a scientific soil quality evaluation method.

(5) Materials and methods: The importance of the research area was not clearly stated by the author.

(6) Table 1 is suggested to be included in the attachment.

(7) L205-208: The suitability of Table 2 from the references for this project has not been analyzed.

(8) Results and discussion: The content discussed in comparison with the references is clearly insufficient.

(9) The limitations of the research and the issues that need to be explored in the future are missing.

(10) There is no valuable content in the conclusion.

(11) Tables 1 and 3 avoid being distributed in two-page space, and Fig. 4 avoids being distributed in two-page space.

(12) The quality of Figure 3 needs improvement.

(13) The format of references needs to be checked.

(14) I suggest that the authors invite native speakers to revise the English.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this manuscript needs improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and the research was designed properly. It brings vast information on intensively used agricultural soils of Mexico. The findings might be used to estimate the quality of soils in this region. The results are sound, logical conclusions are drawn and discussed with recent literature. Statistical analysis is well prepared.

 

I have just a few remarks:

 

1.      Lines 67-70: I suggest shortly describing these other indicators and what they take into account.

2.      Materials & methods: Maybe you could add some photos of the sampled soil?

3.      Line 87: I suggest adding here citation of WRB.

4.      Figure 1: The caption ‘sampled municipalities’ covers the caption below. You can jus cover the whole text below (I assume it is not necessary to keep it). Is the red area on the top left map the Bajío region? If so then please add its name.

5.      Lines 126-144: Please provide names and manufacturers of the equipment used (for example of ICP).

6.      Results & discussion: I suggest compare your results with other studies. In the introduction you said that there are other SQIs. What did they take into account?

7.      Also I think you should add a paragraph on how your results can be applied. I know it is in the conclusion section but it’s very general.

8.      Line 444: Please change ‘referencias’ to ‘references’.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript "CORN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN AGRICULTURAL SOILS FROM THE BAJIO REGION OF GUANAJUATO: SOIL QUALITY INDEXES (SQI)" (applsci-2854036), This study focused on evaluating the quality of soils used for agriculture in the Bajío region of the State of Guanajuato, Mexico. The results are promising for local agriculture, with a strong appeal for public policies, which enhances the importance of this study. However, before recommending the manuscript for publication, the authors must improve several aspects of the present study. Therefore, I am recommending this work for major revisions.

 

As main observations I highlight:

1 – I identified plagiarism in the present study (applsci-2854036), with the following works:

      Bedolla-Rivera, H. I., Negrete-Rodríguez, M. D. L. L. X., Gámez-Vázquez, F. P., Álvarez-Bernal, D., & Conde-Barajas, E. (2022). Comparison of methodolgies of soil quality indices (SQI) for sodic soil. Revista internacional de contaminación ambiental, 38. https://doi.org/10.20937/RICA.54449

·       Bedolla-Rivera, H. I., Xochilt Negrete-Rodríguez, M. D. L. L., Medina-Herrera, M. D. R., Gámez-Vázquez, F. P., Álvarez-Bernal, D., Samaniego-Hernández, M., ... & Conde-Barajas, E. (2020). Development of a Soil Quality Index for Soils under Different Agricultural Management Conditions in the Central Lowlands of Mexico: Physicochemical, Biological and Ecophysiological Indicators. Sustainability, 12(22), 9754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229754

The aforementioned works are by the same author of the present study (applsci-2854036). If the terms and similarity are not resolved, I will be rejecting the present study.

2 – I noticed some grammatical errors in writing, therefore, I suggest the revision of English by a native speaker.

 

As smalls observations, which must be attended to, I highlight:

1 – The abstract needs to be reformulated, the sentence “Agriculture is a sector of great importance for Mexico’s economy, generating employment and contributing significantly to the country’s income. The Bajío stands out as one of the most productive agricultural regions in Mexico. However, intensive agricultural practices in this area have caused a progressive deterioration and loss of soil fertility.”, is very extensive, in which the main objective of an abstract is to emphasize the main results and be as clear as possible regarding the methodology, and the authors made this mistake.

2 – Figure 1 presents several problems, I highlight:

·      Title “Study area”? The authors need to reformulate this title, give it emphasis, so that whoever reads the work understands the figure based on its title.

·      I believe that the authors tried to create a “mask” trying to hide the term “municipalities”, they failed and harmed the figure.

·      Latitude and Longitude are essential in the location figure!

·      Caption almost in the middle of the figure? Authors need to address this.

·      The map of Mexico should be in the top right corner!

3 – Where is Figure 2? Authors must review all figure calls and tables in the manuscript.

4 – Figure 3 really needs to improve its quality!

5 – I have doubts about the representativeness of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The authors highlight that they tested KMO, but in the results they do not present its value, did the analysis really provide consistency? KMO > 0.7!

Still about PCA, I highlight:

·      3 variables, but how many samples? How many correlation factors can be observed between samples? Present the samples on the graph and separate them!

Note: I suggest observing Figure 2 of this study: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114010

·      Improve the quality of the Figure!

6 – Use the Mendeley Reference Manager for references as well as citations, as both Applied Sciences standards are not standardized in the body of every manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English language of this manuscript still needs improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this manuscript still needs improvement.

Author Response

On behalf of myself and the co-authors, we appreciate the time and dedication you took in revising our manuscript, which helped us have a better version of it. Regarding English, we will send to another translation company again to improve the language.
Greetings,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the reviews performed by the authors, I am considering the present study for publication.

Author Response

On behalf of the authors and myself, we want to thank you for your valuable time spent reviewing our manuscript, as well as your valuable suggestions, which, without a doubt, helped to substantially improve it.