Changes in Soil Properties Under the Influence of Microplastics in Plastic and Open Field Production in Three Serbian Valleys
, Tara Grujić 2, Marina Jovković 2, Veljko Perović 3, Dragan Čakmak 3, Aigul Zhapparova 4, Vesela Radović 1, Slobodan Stefanović 5, Vladimir Miladinović 6, Slađan Stanković 7, Žaklina Marjanović 1, Sayagul Kenzhegulova 8, Aigul Tleppayeva 8, Gulya Kunypiyaeva 9 and Slobodan Krnjajić 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript referenced Horticulturae-3462576 which reports the quantification of microplastics and their potential relationship within the chemical and physical characteristics of soils from three horticultural regions of Serbia. This study considered soils from two crop production systems, one from greenhouses and plastic mulching and other from alluvial plains. Overall, the paper is interesting. Nevertheless, I would like to propose a number of suggestions that may assist in aligning the paper with the objectives and scope of this specific journal.
* The enhancement of the authors' English writing skills is strongly advised.
*Along the draft, abbreviations could be explained, and in the chemical formulae is need correctly the numbers position.
* There is a discrepancy between the aims mentioned in the abstracts and those set out in the manuscript.
* Improve Materials and methods section.
2.1. Site description and sampling. The authors should provide more context on the choice of sampling sites, regions and years, especially regarding their proximity to human activities, for example kind of agricultural crops, extension, type of crop and production, are agrochemicals applied in these crops? The studies regions presented the same type of soils? Which type?
Provide more detail of the sampling methods used (i.e. elements, number of samples, transport and conservation conditions).
Figure 2 shows a map of the regions under study. However, the adequacy of five composite samples as a representative sample for each region is questionable. The authors should provide an explanation of this methodological decision.
The authors measured total nitrogen (N) content, yet did not measure other forms of nitrogen. Why was this the case?
*The Results should be presented in the same order that M&M section.
*line 183. Correct the year.
*In the Discussion section, please elaborate on the significance of these data in current research fields related to agriculture production systems and soil conservation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe enhancement of the authors' English writing skills is strongly advised.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your keen revision and helpful comments. We agree with your comments that greatly contributed to the quality of the manuscript
Comment 1: The enhancement of the authors' English writing skills is strongly advised
Response 1: English was checked and improved both grammar, and writing
Comment 2: Along the draft, abbreviations could be explained, and in the chemical formulae is need correctly the numbers position
Response 2: Agree. Corrected and explained
Comment 3: There is a discrepancy between the aims mentioned in the abstracts and those set out in the manuscript
Response 3: Agree. Thank you. Abstract and Introduction sections were corrected, improved and complemented
Comment 4: Improve Materials and methods section.
2.1. Site description and sampling. The authors should provide more context on the choice of sampling sites, regions and years, especially regarding their proximity to human activities, for example kind of agricultural crops, extension, type of crop and production, are agrochemicals applied in these crops? The studies regions presented the same type of soils? Which type?
Response 4:
We agree with all your comments. The section was largely improved and complemented
Comment 5: Provide more detail of the sampling methods used (i.e. elements, number of samples, transport and conservation conditions).
Response 5: We added more information on sample handling
Comment 6: Figure 2 shows a map of the regions under study. However, the adequacy of five composite samples as a representative sample for each region is questionable. The authors should provide an explanation of this methodological decision
Response 6:
Agree. We replaced the map with more quality map, and explained better the sampling technique in the Materials and Methods section
Comment 7: The authors measured total nitrogen (N) content, yet did not measure other forms of nitrogen. Why was this the case?
Response 7:
Yes, you are right, we only determined the total N, since the content of mineral N is very dynamic and can change over a short period of time, even during the day, depending on environmental factors. Since this study was one of the first in the country and the main goal of the project was to determine the degree of soil pollution (natural and arable) by MPs and the changes caused by it, this time we did not include mineral N analysis in the tasks. But this may be a task for future studies. *The Results should be presented in the same order that M&M section.
Comment 8: line 183. Correct the year.
Response 8: Thank you. The year is corrected
Comment 9: In the Discussion section, please elaborate on the significance of these data in current research fields related to agriculture production systems and soil conservation.
Response 9: We largely improved and complemented the Discussion section with more detailed information and citations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI really appreciate that the Editor offers me this opportunity to review the manuscript titled by ‘Changes in soil properties under the influence of microplastics in plastic and open field production in three Serbian valleys’. The experimentation is clearly, and conclusions are clear stated. Meanwhile, this work is well done with heavy workload. However, the writing and logic of this paper may be improved. In addition, there are also some major concerns of this manuscript that need a "major revision" before its acceptance for publication in this journal.
1, lines 20 and 22, please provide the abbreviation and standardize the format of this paper.
2, line 29, soil respiration? The authors did not provide the impacts of MPs on CO2 emission. Please verify. There is marked difference between soil respiration and microbial respiration.
3, line 47-49, the authors should highlight the impacts of MP pollution on soil health. Please refer this related paper. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.17470. In addition, please give the scientific hypothesis in the introduction. For example, we therefore hypothesized that... Overall, the Introduction section should be improved. Try to show the significance and the novelty of the works, especially some important indicators. Moreover, the authors should strengthen the description of scientific problems.
4, The authors must provide the detection method (g/kg) of MPs in soil. The detail information such as recovery rate needs to be given. In fact, it is difficult to quantize the mass concentration of MPs in soil.
5, the SD or SE may be provided in the table 2 and 4.
6, line 253, the authors should provide the impacts of MPs on soil chemical characteristics, and give in-depth analysis and explanation.
7, line 281-293, too many simple lists exist in the section. The discussion section in present form was not satisfactory for publication, authors should analyze the results intensively, and the important results should be discussed in depth.
8, lines 302-314, please rewrite this paragraph. An interesting result needs to be analyzed in depth, but the authors did not provide valuable discussion.
9, lines 334-335, please provide references for this view.
10, In fact, the authors need to add note into these figures and tables such as Figure 3 and 4. It's very confusing.
11, the format of references should be revised.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your keen revision and constructive comments. We agree with your critics that greatly contributed to the quality of the manuscript
Comment 1: lines 20 and 22, please provide the abbreviation and standardize the format of this paper.
Response 1: Agree. DONE
Comment 2, line 29, soil respiration? The authors did not provide the impacts of MPs on CO2 emission. Please verify. There is marked difference between soil respiration and microbial respiration.
Response 2: Thank you for the comment. We agree and CORRECTED it both in the abstract and the body text.
Comment 3, line 47-49, the authors should highlight the impacts of MP pollution on soil health. Please refer this related paper. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.17470. In addition, please give the scientific hypothesis in the introduction. For example, we therefore hypothesized that... Overall, the Introduction section should be improved. Try to show the significance and the novelty of the works, especially some important indicators. Moreover, the authors should strengthen the description of scientific problems.
Response 3: Thank you for the comment. We agree and largely IMPROVED/ADDED/corrected the Discussion section
Comment 4, The authors must provide the detection method (g/kg) of MPs in soil. The detail information such as recovery rate needs to be given. In fact, it is difficult to quantize the mass concentration of MPs in soil.
Response 4: Thank you for the comment. Actually this paper is a part of the bigger project. Recently our paper was published in FORESTS with detailed explanation of the MPs isolation and determination technique. So we added new reference and better EXPLAINED the procedure
Comment 5, the SD or SE may be provided in the table 2 and 4.
Response 5: Thank you. SD and SE were ADDED in the tables
Comment 6, line 253, the authors should provide the impacts of MPs on soil chemical characteristics, and give in-depth analysis and explanation.
Response 6: Thank you. We agree. The explanations were expanded, and corrected and improved
Comment 7, line 281-293, too many simple lists exist in the section. The discussion section in present form was not satisfactory for publication, authors should analyze the results intensively, and the important results should be discussed in depth.
Response 7: We agree. The section was LARGELY IMPROVED
Comment 8, lines 302-314, please rewrite this paragraph. An interesting result needs to be analyzed in depth, but the authors did not provide valuable discussion.
Response 8: OK. IMPROVED
Comment 9, lines 334-335, please provide references for this view.
Response 9: ADDED
Comment 10, In fact, the authors need to add note into these figures and tables such as Figure 3 and 4. It's very confusing.
Response 10: CORRECTED
Comment 11, the format of references should be revised.
Response 11: CORRECTED, ADDED
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe positive responses are appreciated, but all the points could have been emphasized equally so as to help bring noteworthy significance to the denoted sections.
As a moderate final revision, it is recommended that the English writing skills be refined and that the conclusion be rephrased with a concise and definitive elaboration, if feasible.
-Line 69. Added a reference
-In each table, added the meaning of SD and SE
-Table 4. What's means LSD?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is strongly recommended that the authors enhance their English writing skills.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your great contribution to improving the manuscript.
We have accepted your suggestions for minor changes.
Comment: Line 69. Added a reference
Response: the reference is added
Comment: In each table, added the meaning of SD and SE
Response: the Notes with explanation below the Tables were added
Comment: Table 4. What's means LSD?
Response: Below the Table the explanation for LSD was added
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo special comments on this manuscript, just accept it in its present forms.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your great contribution to the quality of the manuscript
Comment 1: No special comments on this manuscript, just accept it in its present forms
