Tempo-Spatial Variations in Soil Hydraulic Properties under Long-Term Organic Farming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract presents a clear statement of the purpose of the research paper. The paper aims to compare the impacts of tempo-spatial variations of long-term conservation tillage applications in organic farming upon the soil properties. A detailed explanation of the experiment that has to compare the impacts has been made in the abstract like factors included soil measurements and an increase in Ks value. However, the results of the experiment were not presented in the abstract section.

The background of Tempo-spatial variations of the hydraulic properties of soil under organic farming is explained here. It says that the Tempo-spatial variations alter with the pedagogical and geological influences on the formation of soil. It further says that alteration in the physical properties of soil occurs due to varying irrigation, tillage, and residue management. Apart from explaining the background of this paper, the introduction has also defined the research objectives.

The paper does not have a literature section, which implies that the findings in this paper are not backed by literary underpinnings.

Methodology, the paper has described the research study population, and respondents included in the study. The site where data is collected for running the experiment is also explained in this methodology section. The test site is in the eastern region of Tauberbischofsheim, in the northeastern district of 86 Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The sample data taken and administered about crop rotation are presented in the form of tables, which has eased the understanding of sample data. However, some of the calculations used in this section are hard to understand because the results are calculated directly without breaking down the calculation into steps.

The results of the study are presented in the form of tables, diagrams, and graphs. Graphs are plotted across penetration resistance of soil and soil depth. The graph plots are based on the results generated out of experimentation. The physical properties of the soil which is put into experimentation are presented through tables.  Comparative representation of soil properties in 2008 and 2012 has been done, which has eased the understanding of their variations. The identified hydraulic properties of soil are explained in terms of soil types which has made a further clear understanding of soil properties.

The conclusion has summarized the findings of the paper regarding soil property variations under organic farming. It has been stated that long-term organic farming increases hydraulic conductivity within soils, while the other properties of soil remain virtually invariant with time. It has also explained the effectiveness of long-term organic farming by stating that it is an efficient procedure to address the reverse effects of anthropogenic sealing of cropland by enhancing the preferential pathways of water flows. 

Comments

1) It is recommended to state the full form of abbreviations before using them in the research paper.

 

2) Some terms in this paper were not explained elaborately, such as unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity (Ku), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). It is recommended to the authors give a brief explanation of these terms too. 

Author Response

The abstract presents a clear statement of the purpose of the research paper. The paper aims to compare the impacts of tempo-spatial variations of long-term conservation tillage applications in organic farming upon soil properties. A detailed explanation of the experiment that has to compare the impacts has been made in the abstract like factors including soil measurements and an increase in Ks value. However, the results of the experiment were not presented in the abstract section.

• The authors respect this comment and we implement the results in the abstract section

The background of Tempo-spatial variations of the hydraulic properties of soil under organic farming is explained here. It says that the Tempo-spatial variations alter with the pedagogical and geological influences on the formation of soil. It further says that alteration in the physical properties of soil occurs due to varying irrigation, tillage, and residue management. Apart from explaining the background of this paper, the introduction has also defined the research objectives.

The paper does not have a literature section, which implies that the findings in this paper are not backed by literary underpinnings.

• The objective of this research was implemented in the introduction section in the first five sentences for the tempo-spatial variation influences

Methodology, the paper has described the research study population, and respondents included in the study. The site where data is collected for running the experiment is also explained in this methodology section. The test site is in the eastern region of Tauberbischofsheim, in the northeastern district of 86 Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The sample data taken and administered about crop rotation are presented in the form of tables, which has eased the understanding of sample data. However, some of the calculations used in this section are hard to understand because the results are calculated directly without breaking down the calculation into steps.

• The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his efforts in reading the methodology
• The authors totally agree with the reviewer comments regarding describing the calculation steps, however, the authors preferred to describe in detail these international methods and they already refer to the methods and references of each method or equation as these methods or equations already well known

The results of the study are presented in the form of tables, diagrams, and graphs. Graphs are plotted across penetration resistance of soil and soil depth. The graph plots are based on the results generated out of experimentation. The physical properties of the soil which is put into experimentation are presented through tables.  Comparative representation of soil properties in 2008 and 2012 has been done, which has eased the understanding of their variations. The identified hydraulic properties of soil are explained in terms of soil types which has made a further clear understanding of soil properties.

• The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his efforts in reading the result and discussion section

The conclusion has summarized the findings of the paper regarding soil property variations under organic farming. It has been stated that long-term organic farming increases hydraulic conductivity within soils, while the other properties of soil remain virtually invariant with time. It has also explained the effectiveness of long-term organic farming by stating that it is an efficient procedure to address the reverse effects of anthropogenic sealing of cropland by enhancing the preferential pathways of water flows. 

• The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his efforts in reading the conclusion section

 

Comments

1) It is recommended to state the full form of abbreviations before using them in the research paper.

 We considered this comment

2) Some terms in this paper were not explained elaborately, such as unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity (Ku), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). It is recommended that the authors give a brief explanation of these terms too

We considered this comment

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript follows the scope of LAND, and its contents are useful in land and water resource management. Some improvements must be made, especially in the method and presentation of results.

In the introduction, one paragraph should be added about organic farming, how it differs from non-organic (conventional?) agriculture, and why this research focuses only on organic farming.

The citation format must conform to the MDPI format. For example, on line 45: it should be “In agricultural lands, Jarvis et al. [11] reported that ……; line 46: should be “Hence, Strudley et al. [5] mentioned that …. ", etc. Notice some other citations.

Line 146: the symbol used for soil dry bulk density is inconsistent. See also remarks for each equation in this manuscript.

Table 2: The sample location should be shown on a separate map; no need for the soil management column due to the same for all sample locations.  

In Table 2, data on particle size and texture should be placed in the result section. The source/reference must be stated if it comes from secondary data.

The method section is not well structured. The authors only present field procedures and equations for their calculations. It should be continued with the method of analysis. For example, statistical analysis should be done to analyse the differences among the means to prove the effect of spatial variation on infiltration capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks), effective bulk density, and penetration resistance.

Line 193-194: “…. excluding location Nr. 1” Why?

The changing trend from year to year for variable eBD, Ks, and Penetration resistance, should be presented as graphs. The values shown in each variable graph use the average of the 5 locations (do not need each location's values). Thus, Figure 3 is no longer needed.

Line 208-211: “higher biological activity of soil that would result in a greater number of earthworms producing more bio-pores in soil”. What field evidence did the author get to support this opinion? Were there any observations made for the presence and abundance of soil organisms?

Line 215: table 2?

Figure 3: at location 4, it is necessary to explain why the 2008 measurements did not reach 50 cm

Figures 4 & 5: State the results of research on conventional management?

Figure 4: there is no remark for the solid red line

Author Response

This manuscript follows the scope of LAND, and its contents are useful in land and water resource management. Some improvements must be made, especially in the method and presentation of results.

In the introduction, one paragraph should be added about organic farming, how it differs from non-organic (conventional?) agriculture, and why this research focuses only on organic farming.

• The authors accept the reviewer comment and we implement in the introduction section these sentence to explain his point of view which actually add value to the manuscript “ Conventional and organic soil managements are fundamentally different [4,5]. Conventional management (CM) implies monoculture cultivations that their effects on soil structure are mainly influenced by the agricultural machinery, application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and crop roots. Otherwise, organic management (OM) is often more complex approach that soil structure is affected by crop roots with other different attributes; application of manures, intensive cultivations, and crop residues”

The citation format must conform to the MDPI format. For example, on line 45: it should be “In agricultural lands, Jarvis et al. [11] reported that ……; line 46: should be “Hence, Strudley et al. [5] mentioned that …. ", etc. Notice some other citations.

• The authors considered these corrections and we did them

Line 146: the symbol used for soil dry bulk density is inconsistent. See also remarks for each equation in this manuscript.

• The authors considered these corrections and we did them

Table 2: The sample location should be shown on a separate map; no need for the soil management column due to the same for all sample locations. 

• The authors respect the reviewer point of view, however the authors prefer to implement the management type in this table to reflect the management process and they prefer to keep it in the table

In Table 2, data on particle size and texture should be placed in the result section. The source/reference must be stated if it comes from secondary data.

• The authors respect the reviewer's point of view, however, the authors prefer to keep table 2 in the section of the methodology that describes the sample locations and the management and the texture classes

The method section is not well structured. The authors only present field procedures and equations for their calculations. It should be continued with the method of analysis. For example, statistical analysis should be done to analyse the differences among the means to prove the effect of spatial variation on infiltration capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks), effective bulk density, and penetration resistance.

Line 193-194: “…. excluding location Nr. 1” Why?

The changing trend from year to year for variable eBD, Ks, and Penetration resistance, should be presented as graphs. The values shown in each variable graph use the average of the 5 locations (do not need each location's values). Thus, Figure 3 is no longer needed.

Line 208-211: “higher biological activity of soil that would result in a greater number of earthworms producing more bio-pores in soil”. What field evidence did the author get to support this opinion? Were there any observations made for the presence and abundance of soil organisms?

• Yes, the reviewer totally right, and erased this sentence from the results and discussion section

Line 215: table 2?

• Changed from table 2 to table 3

Figure 3: at location 4, it is necessary to explain why the 2008 measurements did not reach 50 cm

• The authors correct the location Nr. 4 in Figure 3

 

Figures 4 & 5: State the results of research on conventional management?

• The authors corrected this mistake and we erased the word conventional mentioned in figures 4 and 5

Figure 4: there is no remark for the solid red line

The authors corrected this part and added this sentence to explain the solid red line “In addition, the results refer that the Ks values reach approximately to the steady state in both 2008 and 2012 after 6 hours.”

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made improvements based on several points of the review results. However, not all improvements are complete. For example, on line 65, there are still incorrect citations; inconsistent symbol of soil dry bulk density in line 159; no explanation to "at location 4, it is necessary to explain why the 2008 measurements did not reach 50 cm"; there is still no remark for the solid red line in figure 4.

The authors did not make improvements or comment on several other points.

Author Response

First of all, we appreciate your great efforts and fruitful comments that lead to improving the manuscript. we have reviewed the previous comments as follows:

This manuscript follows the scope of LAND, and its contents are useful in land and water resource management. Some improvements must be made, especially in the method and presentation of results.

In the introduction, one paragraph should be added about organic farming, how it differs from non-organic (conventional?) agriculture, and why this research focuses only on organic farming.

• The authors accept the reviewer comment and we implement in the introduction section these sentences to explain his point of view which actually adds value to the manuscript “ Conventional and organic soil management are fundamentally different [4,5]. Conventional management (CM) implies monoculture cultivations that their effects on soil structure are mainly influenced by the agricultural machinery, application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and crop roots. Otherwise, organic management (OM) is often a more complex approach that soil structure is affected by crop roots with other different attributes; application of manures, intensive cultivations, and crop residues”

The citation format must conform to the MDPI format. For example, on line 45: it should be “In agricultural lands, Jarvis et al. [11] reported that ……; line 46: should be “Hence, Strudley et al. [5] mentioned that …. ", etc. Notice some other citations.

• The authors considered these corrections and we did them

Line 146: the symbol used for soil dry bulk density is inconsistent. See also remarks for each equation in this manuscript.

• The authors considered these corrections and we did them

Table 2: The sample location should be shown on a separate map; no need for the soil management column due to the same for all sample locations. 

• The authors respect the reviewer point of view, however, the authors prefer to implement the management type in this table to reflect the management process and they prefer to keep it in the table

In Table 2, data on particle size and texture should be placed in the result section. The source/reference must be stated if it comes from secondary data.

• The authors respect the reviewer point of view, however, the authors prefer to keep table 2 in the section of the methodology that describes the sample locations and the management and the texture classes

The method section is not well structured. The authors only present field procedures and equations for their calculations. It should be continued with the method of analysis. For example, statistical analysis should be done to analyze the differences among the means to prove the effect of spatial variation on infiltration capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks), effective bulk density, and penetration resistance.

Line 193-194: “…. excluding location Nr. 1” Why?

The changing trend from year to year for variable eBD, Ks, and Penetration resistance, should be presented as graphs. The values shown in each variable graph use the average of the 5 locations (do not need each location's values). Thus, Figure 3 is no longer needed.

Line 208-211: “higher biological activity of soil that would result in a greater number of earthworms producing more bio-pores in soil”. What field evidence did the author get to support this opinion? Were there any observations made for the presence and abundance of soil organisms?

• Yes, the reviewer totally right, and erased this sentence from the results and discussion section

Line 215: table 2?

• Changed from table 2 to table 3

Figure 3: at location 4, it is necessary to explain why the 2008 measurements did not reach 50 cm

• The authors correct the location Nr. 4 in Figure 3
• That could be interpreted to the poor of macro-pores resulting from the absence of deep ploughing during organic farming processes and the presence of hardpans that did not allow the penetrologer probe to penetrate the deep soil beneath 25 cm in location Nr. 4. So the measurements in location Nr. 4 were recorded only to soil depth of 25 cm.

 

Figures 4 & 5: State the results of research on conventional management?

• The authors corrected this mistake and we erased the word conventional that mentioned in figures 4 and 5

Figure 4: there is no remark for the solid red line

The authors corrected this part and added this sentence to explain the solid red line “In addition, the results refer that the Ks values reach approximately to the steady state in both 2008 and 2012 after 6 hours which could be attributed that the steady state flow rate becomes constant.”

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made improvements based on suggested corrections.