Determining Attribute—Response Relationships of Soils under Different Land Uses: A Case Study
, Gabi Zaldea 3, Ancuța Nechita 3 and Lulu Cătălin Alexandru 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is interesting, but needs major revision before being accepted for publication. Specific comments were done along the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
in this manuscript, in order to rank soil physical properties in the case of three types of land use inculded cultivated vineyard, abandoned vineyard, and forest, interquartile ratio index was used in the formula of resilience for evaluating the dynamics of high stability soil properties, and entropy indicated a high level of uncertainly for penetration resistance. The authors believed that the interquartile ratio can thus be an alternative to the entropy in the evaluation of the response of some soil properties. This is a point-of-interest. But there were still some doubts that need to be clarified:
(1)in your abstract, "Entropy" first appears on line 14, not line 16.
(2)The literatures cited in the manuscript is old. You should look up some up-to-date literatures.
(3)Line 111-118: Is this paragraph necessary?
(4)Figure 3: The layout of four images is not aesthetically pleasing.
(5)Line 188-189: qij's meaning is unclear.
(6)Line 244:The meaning of "respons".
(7)Line 351: Why is the "compactness" word underlined and hyperlinked?
All in all, The theme of the manuscript is very good.
Author Response
reviewer 2
All the suggestions of the reviewer have been implemented in the text. We have corrected and modified all according to the suggestions, which we appreciate. In what regards lines 111-118, we consider that they should remain in the text, since they refer to the study area. Having in view the fact that most references regarding entropy indices are classic (e.g. Shannon CE, 1948), as well as some well appreciated papers regarding soils (e.g. Addiscott, T. M., 1995, Darvas G., 2005), we have added only a few new references regarding the study area (e.g. Chifu T et al., 2004, Lupascu A & Onofrei M., 2010, Ursu A, et al 2015).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did not answered all suggestions, but it is adequate to be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you.
