The Shadow Values of Soil Hydrological Properties in the Production Potential of Climatic Regionalization of the Czech Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Report for the Manuscript: Agriculture-1849296

“Econometric analysis of soil production potential in the Czech
Republic: what is the role of soil-hydrological factors?”

Journal Name: Journal of Agriculture

 

REVIEWER REPORT

Summary

The article aims to introduce a new assessment model for determining the official price of agricultural land based on production potential. The subject is interesting and the authors claim contribution outputs in the abstract. However, the article lacks some fundamental necessities to be publishable ranging from a convincing argument and theoretical background in the introduction to evident methodological debates in the method section and to specifying discussion and results. The details of my main concerns are as follow. It is worth noting that only after major and complete revisions of the current paper, it can be re-reviewed.     

 

Title, Abstract, and Keywords

1-     It is suggested to change the title so that it conveys the main message of the research

2-    There are some undefined abbreviations that need to clarify (e.g. ESEU and SUR).

3-    Keywords are not covering all of the articles’ contents

Introduction

4-    There are some disorganizations in the structure of this section, for instance, the section starts with various models of soil retention and then it continues with land management, agriculture, and food security which has led to vague arguments on the main concern of the article

5-      Moreover, this section is too long and somehow unproductive in some paragraphs that cannot help the contributions of the paper. It is highly recommended that the authors polish this section to reach a complete introduction with a clear state of the art, research goals, and contributions   

6-    There should be a theoretical model by which all areas covered in the introduction tie with each other in a cohesive manner

Research Methodology:

7-    The structure of this section doesn’t meet scientific standards as it suffers from dispersed debates and non-innovative methodological tools and so needs to be addressed robustly as the authors claim in the abstract. For instance, model explanations are weak and inconvenience and there is no evidence to improve the model's reliability and applicability   

8-     Tables 1, 2, and 4 can be merged to a clearer and more purposeful data on soil characteristics, and tables 3 and 5 can be moved to the appendixes section.

Results and Discussion

9-    The contributions of the article to concurrent literature is too weak. There are general conclusions made as results of the research and led to an unconvincing discussion on the research concern (e.g. “it can be concluded that with higher humidity and higher average precipitation, the magnitude and influence of the soil water retention parameter will de- crease, which is consistent within the model” in lines 308 to 310). Therefore, this section needs a specific and clear discussion contributing to current literature as the authors claim in the abstract section.

10- This section is mainly focused on water retention while there are some other discussions made in the introduction section on agriculture agricultural prices, land management, and climate change that are remained untouched in this

11-  There are general discussions without diving into them, thereby reducing the applicability of the results  

12-  This section lacks visualization techniques. The presentation of the results needs to be improved via maps and other visualization  

Conclusion

13-  This section is too general and so it does not comprehensively cover the results

14-  It is suggested to add policy implications to this section

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

All changes are described in the file below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript aims to analyze the influence of the retention of the main soil units on production potential, which is important for the food security of the Czech Republic.

 

But there are still some aspects that need to be improved by the authors for future publication:

 

Introduction: The authors are suggested to refine the literature review in the introduction. In this case, it can provide a more accurate literature basis.

 

Data: The authors are suggested to provide a detailed description of the major variables in this model.

 

Results: The results of this manuscript may need to be tested for robustness, which can prove that the results are reliable.

Author Response

All changes are described in the file below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Attached I send you the comments to improve it

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All changes are described in the file below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting paper considering econometric analysis of soil production potential with special respect to soil-hydrological factors however there is a number of issues that I would suggest authors to consider amending:

 

1.     The papers’ title suggests the reader that the paper focuses on Econometric analysis of soil production potential. However, in further parts of the paper, regardless the kind of scientific discussion that the authors wish to follow, neither scientific problem/question has been formulated nor thesis/paper’s aim sufficiently underlined. I would recommend the authors amend the paper in that scope.

2.     Considering the fact that the aim and scope of AGRICULTURE Journal is to publish high quality original articles on latest research dealing with various aspects of, amongs others, on the science and technology of crop and animal production, biosecurity, and postharvest handling of produce, agricultural technology, I would recommend the authors to extend the literature review on the current state of art (latest publications from international journals) justifying that the papers objective is dealing with current scientific problem, I have some doubts in that matter, since authors in the introduction part refer to publications from 2014 or 2013.

3.     In the introduction and abstract part, the authors mentioned that agriculture land and its production potential determine its value/price. In the further part of the paper the authors underline that it is significant issue form the sustainability perspective. I would recommend the authors to mention or refer to publications that deal with the topic of property sustainable value and highest and best use analyzes. Explaining these issues would bring clarification of the study objective for potential readers. 

4.     In chapter 2 the authors described the selected soil properties and the differentiation of their particular states. I would recommend the authors to indicate how the particular soil properties were selected. Was there any analysis made in that scope? If so, what was the criteria of selection. If the RISWC differentiation was adopted, what was the reason for that?

5.     In chapter 2 the authors indicate that SUR approach was used. What are the advantages of the used methodology in comparison to the current state of art methods? Why do Authors think that the applied methodology outperforms the existing ones in the literature? The mathematical apparatus presented in the paper is quite simple nevertheless, in my opinion, it can be an exhaustive explanation of the mechanism’s indicated in next parts of work. 

6.     In chapter 3 the authors presented results in a comprehensible way.

7.     There are some examples of, in my opinion, mistranslations, therefore proofread of the manuscript would be highly appreciated and would certainly improve the papers’ comprehensibility for foreign readers

Concluding the above, the paper has a cognitive and practical potential. However, it requires major amendments.

Author Response

All changes are described in the file below.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As regards the considerable improvements in the current version, after the following minor revisions, the article will be publishable:

- The quality of the map should be improved as it is hard to read

-   it is suggested that the discussion and conclusion are more focused on climate change implications from the lens of the current study results 

Author Response

We would like to thank the opponent for the review and comments.  The changes are recorded using the change tracking function in MS Word.  

Response to the reviewer’s comments:
- The quality of the map was improved for better reading.
- The discussion and conclusion was extend of the part focused on climate change. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The quality of the paper has been improved. The authors amended the paper according to the suggestions. I think that the readers will appreciate the paper in the present form. I recommend the paper for publication in that form and would like to congratulate the authors for interesting original paper preparation.

Author Response

We would like to thank the opponent for the review and comments.  The changes are recorded using the change tracking function in MS Word.  

According to the comments of first opponent, the article was modified in the following points:
- The quality of the map was improved for better reading.
- The discussion and conclusion was extend of the part focused on climate change.