Soil Quality Assessment in Response to Water Erosion and Mining Activity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A good attempt by authors to identify the important soil quality parameters of eroded soils subjected to amendment for SQI is marred by the limited quality parameters particularly soil physical parameters considered for the SQI.  The study has average importance to the readers. 

The material and methods need revision to include the details of the lab experiments including the properties (physicochemical) of the biosolid, method of application (surface or incorporation to defined depths), period of the experiment, the condition (whether under controlled Temp, RH or if not the range of temperature and RH), the time period between application of biosolid and soil sampling for lab analysis..etc. Some suggestions have been given in the body of the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language needs serious attention and improvement. Some suggestions have been given on the body of the manuscripts

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1. A good attempt by authors to identify the important soil quality parameters of eroded soils subjected to amendment for SQI is marred by the limited quality parameters particularly soil physical parameters considered for the SQI.  The study has average importance to the readers. 

Response 1.  We consider that the number of indicators is not limited as physical, chemical and biochemical properties of the soil are included and one of the options to generate a quality index is to use few but representative indicators therefore we propose to use a minimum set of data thus saving time and money. In addition, our number of properties falls within the range of other authors (Yu et al., 2018; Yinga et al., 2022) who have used 4 to 7 properties for the principal component analysis and its subsequent statistics for the generation of the quality index Regarding that the manuscript is clouded by the physical characteristics we consider that it is not so because eroded soils present heterogeneity in their different properties including the physical ones that is why the importance of considering them for the generation of the quality index. In addition to the above, according to several authors (Estrada-Herrera et al., 2017; AbdelRahman and Mohamed, 2019; Chandra et al., 2020; Das et al., 2021; Leul et al., 2023) a quality index can be generated from physical, chemical and biochemical properties.

Point 2. The material and methods need revision to include the details of the lab experiments including the properties (physicochemical) of the biosolid, method of application (surface or incorporation to defined depths), period of the experiment, the condition (whether under controlled Temp, RH or if not the range of temperature and RH), the time period between application of biosolid and soil sampling for lab analysis..etc. Some suggestions have been given in the body of the manuscript. 

 Response 2. Each of the observations he makes have been placed in the manuscript. In response to your comments, the underlined in yellow is what was added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript (agriculture-2452783) evaluated the quality of eroded soils (water and mining erosion) amended with biosolids using selected indicators (inorganic nitrogen and respiratory activity), highlighting low quality for water-eroded soil, very low quality for mining-eroded soil, and high-quality respiratory activity as an ideal indicator for assessing soil quality impacted by mining activities.

In general, the topics are well-written. However, they are often fragmented, losing the line of reasoning. Please consider merging several short paragraphs to maintain coherence. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section requires a more detailed description of the specifics.

Minor comments before accept manuscript.

Keywords in alphabetic order;

Please consider merging the paragraphs of the introduction. The way it is written, it is fragmented and the idea ends up getting lost.

L58-59. Hat is properties? Explain.

Please rewrite the last paragraph of the introduction and be more direct, clearly stating the objectives and hypotheses of the study.

Describe all methods with details.

Table 1. Add “descriptive” parameter in first column;

Which soils, beyond the ones you tested, could you expand or use your regression model reliably? For example, in tropical soils?

Table 7 and 8 need improve legends for more details.

Please consider including future prospects for the use of your model in the conclusions, as well as incorporating additional variables to expand its applicability to include other types of soils.

Considerer add figure or correlation maps. Many table is not interesting or readers.

Check old reference and change.

Best

English grammar and minor changes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1.  This manuscript (agriculture-2452783) evaluated the quality of eroded soils (water and mining erosion) amended with biosolids using selected indicators (inorganic nitrogen and respiratory activity), highlighting low quality for water-eroded soil, very low quality for mining-eroded soil, and high-quality respiratory activity as an ideal indicator for assessing soil quality impacted by mining activities.

In general, the topics are well-written. However, they are often fragmented, losing the line of reasoning. Please consider merging several short paragraphs to maintain coherence. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section requires a more detailed description of the specifics.

Response 1. As suggested, information has been added and some paragraphs have been ordered. The order of some ideas has been changed so that the information is better understood, this information has been underlined in pink. The materials and methods section has been further detailed according to your comments and what has been added has been highlighted in yellow color because reviewer 1 made the same suggestions to us.

Point 2. Minor comments before accept manuscript.

Keywords in alphabetic order

Response 2. Keywords have been placed in alphabetical order. Words are underlined in pink

Point 3. Please consider merging the paragraphs of the introduction. The way it is written, it is fragmented and the idea ends up getting lost.

Response 3. As suggested, information is added and some paragraphs have been put together. The information is highlighted in pink.

Point 4.  L58-59. Hat is properties? Explain.

Response 4. The properties to which we refer have been specifically placed in the manuscript. The information is highlighted in pink.

Point 5. Please rewrite the last paragraph of the introduction and be more direct, clearly stating the objectives and hypotheses of the study.

Response 5. The last paragraph has been rewritten in the manuscript and the objective and hypothesis have been added. The information is highlighted in pink.

Point 6.  Describe all methods with details.

Response 6. The materials and methods section has been further detailed according to your comments and what has been added has been highlighted in yellow color because reviewer 1 made the same suggestions to us.

Point 7. Table 1. Add “descriptive” parameter in first column

Response 7. Descriptive parameter has been added in the first column of table 1. The information is highlighted in pink.

Point 8. Which soils, beyond the ones you tested, could you expand or use your regression model reliably? For example, in tropical soils?

Response 8. In this research as in those of other authors (Cruz Ruíz et al., 2016; Biswas et al., 2017; Das et al., 2021) a series of steps were performed that included correlations, principal component analysis and generation of the minimum data set to subsequently perform a multiple regression of these data. Thus, we consider that multiple regression analysis can be applied to tropical, agricultural, horticultural and forestry soils, among others, given that the aforementioned steps have been used for several soils with different uses and management. In our case, we decided to apply it to eroded soils conditioned with biosolids, since there is scarce information about quality indexes in soils to which biosolids have been specifically applied. We believe and hope that our study will be the guideline for the development of future studies aimed at the generation of quality indexes in soils that unfortunately suffer erosion but to which organic matter can be added to mitigate the effects of the erosive phenomenon. In addition, one of the objectives of quality is that it should be easy to measure and that the indices generated can be used by different users.  Depending on the objective of the study, certain soil properties can be considered for the generation of the quality index, so not all properties or indices will be suitable for all purposes and contexts, hence the importance of not only relying on a single type of properties but to use the physical, chemical and biochemical properties of the soil.

Point 9. Table 7 and 8 need improve legends for more details.

Response 9. Legends have been placed in the manuscript for better detail. The information is highlighted in pink.

Point 10. Please consider including future prospects for the use of your model in the conclusions, as well as incorporating additional variables to expand its applicability to include other types of soils.

Response 10. Future perspectives have been included in the manuscript. The information is highlighted in pink.

Point 11. Considerer add figure or correlation maps. Many table is not interesting or readers.

Response 11. We consider that the tables are adequate for the purpose of the study and, in addition, since they are not saturated with information, they are clear and understandable. In addition, many of the studies aimed at soil quality use the tables to present their results.

Point 12. Check old reference and change.

Response 12. Very recent literature has been added (from this year) and the old literature has not been changed as it corresponds to the techniques for the elaboration of laboratory analyses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

  General Comments:

The manuscript titled "Soil Quality Assessment in Response to Water Erosion and Mining Activity" provides an investigation into the effects of erosive processes on soil quality in two types of eroded soils. The manuscript addresses an important environmental issue and presents valuable findings that contribute to the understanding of soil erosion impacts. I believe the study is relevant to the field and future policy in the study area. But, I also consider that the manuscript should be modified before it can be published. Despite its novelty, the manuscript is of great interest to readers. Additional comments on the manuscript are as follows:

Introduction:

Expanding the discussion on the specific impacts of water and mining activities on soil erosion and degradation would be beneficial. Providing more detailed information on the mechanisms and consequences of these erosive processes will enhance the reader's understanding. Additionally, the introduction lacks a clear statement of the study objectives and hypotheses. It is recommended to explicitly state the research questions that the study aims to address.

Materials and Methods:

Several details need to be clarified or expanded upon for better reproducibility. It is essential to specify the sampling locations and the duration of the study. Additionally, providing information on the selection criteria for the eroded soils and the biosolids incorporation technique would be valuable. The description of the statistical analysis is currently missing, and it is crucial to include the specific methods used to analyze the data and determine the significance of the results.

Results:

It is recommended to consider providing a brief introduction or rationale for the importance of calculating a soil quality index and how it contributes to understanding the overall soil health in the context of the study. Provide a concise definition or explanation of what the soil quality index represents and how it is calculated using the selected variables. Additionally, it would be helpful to briefly explain the purpose of performing PCA and how it aids in identifying the key components that contribute to soil quality assessment.

Discussion:

To enhance the discussion, it is advised to integrate the study's findings with relevant literature. Including references to studies on soil quality assessment, erosion impacts, and the selected indicators will strengthen the discussion and provide a broader perspective. Furthermore, exploring practical implications and management strategies based on the study's results would be valuable to readers interested in applying the findings.

Conclusion:

Including a brief discussion on the potential consequences of low-quality NI in water-eroded soil and the positive implications of high-quality respiratory activity in mining-eroded soil would strengthen the conclusion. This would provide insights into the study’s results’ significance and relevance to soil management and environmental conservation efforts.

Additional Suggestions:

a.       Consider providing a clear research question or hypothesis at the beginning of the manuscript to guide the study and improve the focus of the discussion.

b.       The introduction mentions the productivity of the “edaphic environment”. It would be beneficial to briefly define or explain this term for readers who may not be familiar with it.

c.       Include a brief section on the limitations of the study, discussing any potential constraints or factors that may have influenced the results.

d.       Consider incorporating a subsection on practical implications or management strategies based on the study's findings, providing guidance for soil quality improvement and erosion mitigation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1. Introduction:

Expanding the discussion on the specific impacts of water and mining activities on soil erosion and degradation would be beneficial. Providing more detailed information on the mechanisms and consequences of these erosive processes will enhance the reader's understanding. Additionally, the introduction lacks a clear statement of the study objectives and hypotheses. It is recommended to explicitly state the research questions that the study aims to address.

Response 1.  More detailed information on both types of erosion has been added to the manuscript (the added information is underlined in the manuscript.). The objective has been written in the clearest way. The hypothesis and research questions have been added (the added information is underlined in pink because reviewer 2 made the same observation).

Point 2.  Materials and Methods:

Several details need to be clarified or expanded upon for better reproducibility. It is essential to specify the sampling locations and the duration of the study. Additionally, providing information on the selection criteria for the eroded soils and the biosolids incorporation technique would be valuable. The description of the statistical analysis is currently missing, and it is crucial to include the specific methods used to analyze the data and determine the significance of the results.

Response 2.  According to your comment, the section on materials and methods has been detailed and has included the form of application of the biosolids, the doses used of the biosolids, the sampling times, the duration of the experiment and the conditions in which it was carried out. Selection criteria for both sampling areas have also been included. The added information is underlined in yellow because reviewer 1 made the same observation. With respect to the statistical analysis, we consider that the statistical analysis is clear and detailed.

Point 3. Results:

It is recommended to consider providing a brief introduction or rationale for the importance of calculating a soil quality index and how it contributes to understanding the overall soil health in the context of the study. Provide a concise definition or explanation of what the soil quality index represents and how it is calculated using the selected variables. Additionally, it would be helpful to briefly explain the purpose of performing PCA and how it aids in identifying the key components that contribute to soil quality assessment.

Response 3.  The suggested information has been added to the manuscript but in the discussion section as we consider it more appropriate to be included there.  The added information is underlined in green.

                                                                                                                                 Point 4. Discussion:

To enhance the discussion, it is advised to integrate the study's findings with relevant literature. Including references to studies on soil quality assessment, erosion impacts, and the selected indicators will strengthen the discussion and provide a broader perspective. Furthermore, exploring practical implications and management strategies based on the study's results would be valuable to readers interested in applying the findings.

Response 4. Further information of interest has been added to the manuscript to strengthen the discussion. The added information is underlined in green.

                                                                                                                                 Point 5. Conclusion:

Including a brief discussion on the potential consequences of low-quality NI in water-eroded soil and the positive implications of high-quality respiratory activity in mining-eroded soil would strengthen the conclusion. This would provide insights into the study’s results’ significance and relevance to soil management and environmental conservation efforts.

Response 5. Information has been added to the conclusion to make it clearer. The information is underlined in green

Additional Suggestions:

1. Consider providing a clear research question or hypothesis at the beginning of the manuscript to guide the study and improve the focus of the discussion. The hypothesis and research questions have been added (the added information is underlined in pink because reviewer 2 made the same observation).
2. The introduction mentions the productivity of the “edaphic environment”. It would be beneficial to briefly define or explain this term for readers who may not be familiar with it. The term has been defined. It is underlined in green.
3. Include a brief section on the limitations of the study, discussing any potential constraints or factors that may have influenced the results. The suggested has been placed in the manuscript. It is underlined in green.
4. Consider incorporating a subsection on practical implications or management strategies based on the study's findings, providing guidance for soil quality improvement and erosion mitigation. The suggested has been placed in the manuscript. It is underlined in green.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I am happy to share the great news that, after careful review, I sincerely recommend that your manuscript be accepted for publication. Your research has demonstrated exceptional quality and significant contributions, making it a valuable addition to this field. In addition, your manuscript demonstrates outstanding writing and organization skills, effectively incorporating comments and suggestions that I previously provided in the peer review process.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 comment 2

We appreciate your valuable comments, which were of great help in improving the writing. Thanks to your observations, the manuscript was greatly enriched and the information was clearer.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx