Spatial Variability and Geostatistical Modeling of Soil Physical Properties Under Eucalyptus globulus Plantations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study assessed how Eucalyptus globulus plantations affect soil physical properties in Sogamoso, Colombia, finding that while intrinsic soil factors dominate, eucalyptus presence, reduces hydraulic conductivity, moisture, and aggregate stability, increasing erosion and compaction risks. However, there several issues need to be addressed as follows:

1） Can you specify which kind of geostatistical analysis in the title? The title should be modified clearly and concisely.

2） The ANOVA results showed no significant differences between vegetation covers, which could challenge common assumptions about eucalyptus impacts; however, this finding is not deeply analyzed.

3） In the conclusion, it mostly summarizes findings (e.g., eucalyptus reduces Ksat, moisture, and aggregate size on steep slopes) rather than synthesizing how these results advance broader scientific understanding of eucalyptus–soil interactions.

4） There is no mention of the study’s constraints in the conclusion. The conclusion does not suggest future studies that could address unanswered questions.

5） The introduction claims novelty in studying eucalyptus effects under “high tropical conditions,” but the conclusion doesn’t circle back to confirm how the results fill this gap.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. The title response was clarified to specify the type of geostatistical analysis conducted.
2. The explanation for the lack of significant differences in soil properties was expanded.
3. The conclusions were strengthened, including how the results enhance understanding of eucalyptus-soil interactions.
4. Some limitations of the study were identified, along with suggestions for future research on this topic.
5. The conclusions were phrased consistently with the introduction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study analyzed the spatio-temporal variability of soil physical properties by collecting 97 field samples, exemplifying a very classic research case. Its significance is evident, with a clear rationale, detailed methodology, and reliable results. However, a significant issue is apparent: such research had become routine over a decade ago. This study exhibits no development or innovation. It is recommended to supplement data on soil fertility and other indicators, and to discuss how changes in soil physical properties affect soil erosion, soil fertility, and carbon storage, thereby deepening the analysis and discussion. With these optimizations, it is believed this could become an excellent research paper. 1.Section 2.1 should supplement the spatial distribution of soil types, topography, and land use, as these conditions significantly influence soil physicochemical properties. 2.How was the vegetation cover classification result in Section 3.1 obtained? Please elaborate in Chapter 2. 3.What does the "a" in Table 2 denote? 4.The text in Figure 3 is too small and unclear. 5.The descriptions of several soil physical properties are overly redundant. These descriptions do not contribute to the research conclusions or scientific questions. It is recommended that the author refine the key points and reduce unnecessary elaboration. 6.The scientific question explored by the author should be the impact of eucalyptus trees on soil physicochemical properties. Therefore, the influence of other factors—such as temperature, acid rain, or fertilization—must first be excluded. 7.Regarding the impact of eucalyptus trees on soil physicochemical properties: changes in land use patterns can alter soil physical structure, thereby promoting soil erosion and a decline in soil fertility. Generally, converting other land types to forest land also requires several years for the ecosystem and structure to stabilize before soil fertility gradually recovers and soil structure optimizes. The author is advised to deepen the discussion on this aspect. 8.For Figure 4, the author used only correlation coefficients. It is recommended to employ more diversified analytical methods—including redundancy analysis (RDA), path analysis, and machine learning approaches such as SHAP—to obtain richer information.

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

1. Additional information about the soil types used in the study was included.
2. How the vegetation cover was classified in the methodology was specified.
3. The meaning of the letter "a" in the methodology, which indicates the result of the Tukey test, was clarified.
4. The size of the text in Figure 3 was increased.
5. The text was revised to eliminate redundancies in some variable descriptions.
6. The influence of other factors was excluded from the study, focusing only on the impact of eucalyptus on the soil's physical properties.
7. The discussion on the lack of significant differences in soil physical properties between vegetation covers was strengthened.
8. A principal components analysis was conducted, and the SHAP values for the properties based on hydraulic conductivity, along with their analysis, were included.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. The quality of the manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

 

Comment 1） Can you specify which kind of geostatistical analysis in the title? The title should be modified clearly and concisely

Response 1. The title response was clarified to specify the type of geostatistical analysis conducted.

 

Comment 2） The ANOVA results showed no significant differences between vegetation covers, which could challenge common assumptions about eucalyptus impacts; however, this finding is not deeply analyzed.

Response 2. The explanation of why no significant differences in soil properties were found was expanded.

 

Comment 3） In the conclusion, it mostly summarizes findings (e.g., eucalyptus reduces Ksat, moisture, and aggregate size on steep slopes) rather than synthesizing how these results advance broader scientific understanding of eucalyptus–soil interactions.

Response 3. The conclusions were strengthened, including how the results enhance understanding of eucalyptus-soil interactions.

 

Comment 4） There is no mention of the study’s constraints in the conclusion. The conclusion does not suggest future studies that could address unanswered questions.

Response 4. Some limitations of the study were identified, along with suggestions for future research on this topic. Research alternatives were suggested in the area.

 

Comment  5） The introduction claims novelty in studying eucalyptus effects under “high tropical conditions,” but the conclusion doesn’t circle back to confirm how the results fill this gap.

Response 5. The introduction now highlights the importance of the study in terms of utilizing new tools in the spatial analysis of soil physical properties.