arg_1
stringlengths 4
5.08k
| round_1
float64 2
8
⌀ | ann_1
float64 1
2
⌀ | arg_2
stringlengths 8
2.19k
| round_2
float64 1
7
⌀ | ann_2
float64 1
2
⌀ | annotation_name
stringclasses 131
values | is_attacks
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
It was corrected to “modeling”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 104, 195, 223, 544: Is it “modelling” or “modeling”? The whole text should be unified.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was corrected. pH was measured in water solution. (Line: 206-207) Lines 163-164: “…were conducted under a controlled laboratory environment.” Can you explain this sentence?
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 145-146: “, soil reaction (pH) in 1:1 soil to KCl solution” is not clearly expressed.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was revised as recommended. (Line: 244-249) Line 174: “…resulting in 12 spectra”.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 163-164: “…were conducted under a controlled laboratory environment.” Can you explain this sentence? Generally, soil spectral measurement is carried out in a dark room to avoid interference from external light sources. What does the controlled laboratory environment you describe look like?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The text was revised. Each single measurement was based on internally averaged of 50 spectra (3 times). Each sample was measured from four positions (90°rotating the Petri dish each time). Consequently, 4 rotation x 3 time = 12 spectra were obtained. It is one of the commonly used method and several references are available. Line;252-259 Line 176: “…resulted 50 spectra…”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 174: “…resulting in 12 spectra”. It is not clear how the 12 spectra were obtained here.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
See previous comment.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 176: “…resulted 50 spectra…”. It is also not clear how 50 spectra were obtained.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The whole paragraph was revised. Line: 262-269. We would like to note that in practice a large variety of pre-processing techniques are used with different gap and moving window size to improve prediction quality (Luce et al. 2017, Mammadov at al. 2020). Yet, the quality of prediction still depends on several factors (measurement method, used device etc.).
| 2 | 1 |
Line 190: “…moving window sizes (mainly 7, 9 and 11)”. Need to use 3 different moving window sizes? It undoubtedly increases your experimental workload, and you do not explain it later. As far as I know, most articles use only one moving window size.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The text was revised, see previous comment.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 191, 365: “…with different gaps and segment sizes.” “…with gap segment size of…”. Do these two places mean the same thing?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was revised as “change in pH, temperature, precipitation by elevation”. Line:334-337.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 243: “(pH, temperature, precipitation)” should not be placed after the word elevation.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Corrected to “soil type”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 264: “…, and hence parent material.” It’s not clear here.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Both methods are used to characterize relations between soil properties and spectra. Based on our experience, for current study (or similar studies) relations among soil properties, and between PC1 and soil properties are well characterized by Spearman, and Pearson is more relevant to the relations between spectra and soil properties.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 281, 249: Why did you use Spearman's Rho correlation coefficients earlier and Pearson correlation coefficients here?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Line:515-518.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 325-328: “Regardless of… spectra.” Is there a necessary connection between these two sentences? The spectral absorption characteristics near 1400, 1900, and 2200 nm have their corresponding influencing factors.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Line:43, 440 Line 354-355: “…, in our case 11 bands…” “…in our case 10 wavebands…” It's confusing here.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 353-354, 374: “Savitzky-Golay 1st derivative…” “Savitzky-Golay 2nd derivatives” This is a very confusing way to write it.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was modified. Line: 438-441 Lines 356-357: Can the first derivative preprocessing method be used to remove illumination differences?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 354-355: “…, in our case 11 bands…” “…in our case 10 wavebands…” It's confusing here. And all in Table 3 are “10-bands”.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Line: 696-699 Lines 360-362: “… due to overtones and combination of fundamental vibrations of soil organic matter occurring in the VIS and NIR region.” The meaning of this sentence is not expressed clearly.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 356-357: Can the first derivative preprocessing method be used to remove illumination differences?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Line:702-705 Line 409: Note the singular and plural in the sentence.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 360-362: “… due to overtones and combination of fundamental vibrations of soil organic matter occurring in the VIS and NIR region.” The meaning of this sentence is not expressed clearly.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Corrected to “CaCO3”. Line: 750-752 Line 455: “soil mineralogy”?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 449, 479: “CO3”?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was replaced with “clay mineralogy”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 455: “soil mineralogy”?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Line 736-740 Line 471, 480, 520: “(r = 0.4*)” “(r =-0.52*)” “(r = 0.40*)”, etc.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 456-457: What does this sentence do here?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Line:759-762 Lines 516-518: You call attention to the spectral signature at 2326 nm, and then what?
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 490-491: “Unlikely, a weakly represented VIP peak centered at ~850 nm was a significant predictor for the Cd content.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear, and it is a little strange.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was revised. It was related to the contribution of the basic soil properties (e.g. controlling factor CaCO3, Fe, clay) to the prediction of M3 extractable elements Line:780-786.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 516-518: You call attention to the spectral signature at 2326 nm, and then what? Readers may be more interested in your analysis and interpretation.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Corrected or revised. Line:786-789 Line 523: “correspond absorption” should be “correspond to absorption”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 520: The correlation between K content and P content is not very high (r = 0.40*), but their corresponding VIP patterns are “identical”, how do you explain it?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was edited. Line:790-791 Lines 522-525: Is there a necessary connection between the first half of the sentence and the second half of the sentence?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 523: “correspond absorption” should be “correspond to absorption”.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Partial correlation analysis showed that the contribution of Fe was more important than that of SOC though the moderate correlation existed between them. Line: 786-791 Lines 541-543: Is this sentence appropriate here?
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 522-525: Is there a necessary connection between the first half of the sentence and the second half of the sentence? Is VIP peak related to Fe or SOC content?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
We have followed the instruction. The change was marked with the red letter.
| 4 | 1 |
Many thanks for your response. The manuscript has been largely improved. Modified content should be marked in the revised manuscript for easy review by reviewers.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The abstract was revised to show all key results.
| 4 | 1 |
The abstract could be more concise.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Introduction was modified.
| 4 | 1 |
The introduction part can highlight the key points and innovations of this paper.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The manuscript was checked for missing articles and edited.
| 4 | 1 |
The definite article “the” is missing in many places in the whole article. please check it.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
We reduced the number of parentheses significantly.
| 4 | 1 |
Too many parentheses are used in the essay, which is not recommended in writing.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was removed.
| 4 | 1 |
Line 135: “impairment water resources” Is this expression appropriate?
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Soory for the technical error. In the previous version, pH values were related to the determination in KCL solution. It was replaced with pH values in H2O water.
| 4 | 1 |
Table 1: The pH values are different from those in the previous version.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was edited both in the text and tables.
| 4 | 1 |
Attention should be paid to the number of decimal places in all numbers throughout the text.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
It was corrected.
| 4 | 1 |
Line 909: “c, f, f, a” should be superscripts, indicating the author's work unit. Please check the format of all references.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Thanks. The conclusions were rewritten to reflect the key results.
| 4 | 1 |
The conclusion is too long and does not highlight the key results.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and directions. We have carefully considered all issues and have revised the manuscript completely (e.g. 2) Introduction was revised, and 2 new paragraphs were added. Such modification leaded to the clear description of the objectives. 3) Material and Method section was revised. Revised version contains 5 subheading. 4) The results and discussion sections were separated, and their subheadings were reorganized. In the revised manuscript the Results contain 5 subheading and Discussion contain 3subheading. 5) Presentation of the results are improved with consideration of reviewers’ comments. Original Manuscript contained 3 Tables and 3 Figures. Revised manuscript contains 4 Tables and 5 Figures and 1 supplementary table and 1 supplementary figure. New subheading (3.2. Land use effect on soil properties) was added. New Table 4 and Figure 4 were added. Clarification: Table 1 and Table 3 were not changed. Old Table 2 is new Figure 2. Old Figure 2 is new Figure 3. Old Figure 3 is new Figure 5. 8) New 12 references were added to update the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. Thus, to avoid possible confusion we provided the location (subheading or line) for any change introduced. Our point-to-point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Subheading or line numbers refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript. Two version of the manuscript was uploaded: edited main manuscript (with track change), and edited main manuscript (clear). We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and directions. We have carefully considered all issues and have revised the manuscript completely (e.g. separation of section and subheadings, revising all the text, adding paragraphs and references, adding or changing Tables and Figures): 1) Abstract was revised. 2) Introduction was revised, and 2 new paragraphs were added. Such modification leaded to the clear description of the objectives. 3) Material and Method section was revised. Revised version contains 5 subheading. 4) The results and discussion sections were separated, and their subheadings were reorganized. In the revised manuscript the Results contain 5 subheading and Discussion contain 3subheading. 5) Presentation of the results are improved with consideration of reviewers’ comments. a) Original Manuscript contained 3 Tables and 3 Figures. Revised manuscript contains 4 Tables and 5 Figures and 1 supplementary table and 1 supplementary figure. b) New subheading (3.2. Land use effect on soil properties) was added. It contains new Table 2, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1. c). New Table 4 and Figure 4 were added. Table 4 is related to partial correlation analysis with consideration of soil properties, and Figure 4 is related to the principal component analysis (biplot). d) Clarification: Table 1 and Table 3 were not changed. Old Table 2 is new Figure 2. Old Figure 2 is new Figure 3. Old Figure 3 is new Figure 5. 6) Discussion with new 3 subheading was significantly expanded and linked to the references and the novelty was highlighted. 7) Conclusions of the study was modified to show its practical outcomes for the local and international readers. 8) New 12 references were added to update the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. Due to the separating the Results and Discussion section, overlapping of some comments made by the reviewers and associated changes modified all the text of the manuscript was modified. Thus, to avoid possible confusion we provided the location (subheading or line) for any change introduced. Our point-to-point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Subheading or line numbers refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript. Two version of the manuscript was uploaded: edited main manuscript (with track change), and edited main manuscript (clear).
| 2 | 1 |
The novelty of the study should be clearly stated in the Introduction section after the objectives are formulated.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The section was revised and information regarding solution standards and detection limit was added. (M&M. subheading 2.2). Chemical analyses and descriptive statistics of the results b) It is necessary to explain the method of sampling using the appropriate literature.
| 2 | 1 |
“Materials & Method" section: a) There is not adequate information regarding quality control of the chemical analyses. Authors should report the detection limits and the recovery of the analytic methods used, along with and the standard solutions for the calibration of the instruments.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The sampling scheme was explained as recommended (M&M, subheading 2.1). In general, sampling scale changes between 1:12 000 and 1:250 000 (Soil Survey Staff, USDA NRCS 2016). In this pioneering study area, soil properties are highly variable attributed to topography, land use history and land tenure ownerships (mainly 0.2-0.3 hectares and fragmented shrubbery areas) and geological setting that makes difficult to apply regular sampling scheme. Therefore, the sampling locations were randomly (irregularly) designated, yet cover variations in land use, topography, geological substrate and the erosive state of soil continuum thereby resulted in 114 samples from 525 ha used under four land use types (1 sample per ~ 5 hectares).
| 2 | 1 |
b) It is necessary to explain the method of sampling using the appropriate literature. Is the number of samples sufficient for the purpose of the research? Please explain.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Two references were added. (Subheading 2.1) The “Conclusions section” is not very successful concerning the presentation of results.
| 2 | 1 |
c) Lines 125-135: There should be bibliographic references for the specific methods and their official name should be mentioned. Reference to formal analytical methods must be made in a scientific manner. The writing language used must be different from the way an analyst mentions it in the lab.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
As mentioned above, we restructured the introduction section and included new paragraphs to illuminate the importance of the study. Special focus was given to clarifying prediction mechanisms for the studied soil properties and land use effect on soil properties.
| 2 | 1 |
The “Introduction section ” should be reworked, highlighting the relevance of this topic worldwide. It would be wise to give more international flavor in the sections of Introduction and Discussion.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
The suggested study was reviewed and included to the reference list. It helped us to explain the results of our study (e.g. prediction of Fe and Cd using basic soil properties, clay mineralogy and (soil type) and micro-nutrients).
| 2 | 1 |
In addition, it needs support with more and more up-to-date recent articles. I suggest the following: Soil parameters affecting the levels of potentially harmful metals in Thessaly area, Greece: a robust quadratic regression approach of soil pollution prediction, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14673-0
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_makarova
| 1 |
Response: We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and directions. We have carefully considered all issues and have revised the manuscript completely (e.g. separation of section and subheadings, revising all the text, adding paragraphs and references, adding or changing Tables and Figures): 1) Abstract was revised. 2) Introduction was revised, and 2 new paragraphs were added. Such modification leaded to the clear description of the objectives. 3) Material and Method section was revised. Revised version contains 5 subheading. 4) The results and discussion sections were separated, and their subheadings were reorganized. In the revised manuscript the Results contain 5 subheading and Discussion contain 3subheading. 5) Presentation of the results are improved with consideration of reviewers’ comments. a) Original Manuscript contained 3 Tables and 3 Figures. Revised manuscript contains 4 Tables and 5 Figures and 1 supplementary table and 1 supplementary figure. b) New subheading (3.2. Land use effect on soil properties) was added. It contains new Table 2, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1. c). New Table 4 and Figure 4 were added. Table 4 is related to partial correlation analysis with consideration of soil properties, and Figure 4 is related to the principal component analysis (biplot). d) Clarification: Table 1 and Table 3 were not changed. Old Table 2 is new Figure 2. Old Figure 2 is new Figure 3. Old Figure 3 is new Figure 5. 6) Discussion with new 3 subheading was significantly expanded and linked to the references and the novelty was highlighted. 7) Conclusions of the study was modified to show its practical outcomes for the local and international readers. 8) New 12 references were added to update the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. Due to the separating the Results and Discussion section, overlapping of some comments made by the reviewers and associated changes modified all the text of the manuscript was modified. Thus, to avoid possible confusion we provided the location (subheading or line) for any change introduced. Our point-to-point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Subheading or line numbers refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript. Two version of the manuscript was uploaded: edited main manuscript (with track change), and edited main manuscript (clear).
| 2 | 1 |
This manuscript attempts to integrate different preprocessing methods (8 kinds), sample grouping designs (88/26, 75%/25%), and soil spectral data to predict 15 soil properties by building PLSR models. Although this manuscript is about the application of proximal remote sensing technology to the prediction of soil properties in mountainous areas, the research focus of this manuscript is not prominent, and the conclusions drawn are not very clear. In other words, the manuscript feels like a lot of work has been done, but it doesn't specify what the important conclusions and innovations are. The abstract and conclusion parts lack conciseness and prominence. Especially in the results and discussion section, most of the content is to state the experimental results (correlation of data), while the discussion (eg. prediction mechanism, prediction accuracy, etc.) is not in-depth, and the analysis of model accuracy is rarely involved in the discussion.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Sorry for the technical error. The sample set was divided into two subsets (75% and 25%) for calibration (86 samples) and validation (28 samples).
| 2 | 1 |
When the samples are grouped, it is generally carried out according to 7:3 or 3:1 or a certain ratio. There are 114 soil samples in this study, what is the basis for grouping by 88/26 (77.2%/22.8%)?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The sections were separated as recommended.
| 2 | 1 |
Should the writing of the results and discussion sections be separated? Please think carefully.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The comment was fully considered: the PCA and partial correlation analysis was adopted form the recommended study (e.g., Cheng et al., 2019). Correspondingly, separate subheadings (with new Table 4 and Figure 4) were added. Generally it was considered in Introduction and Materials & Methods, Results and Discussion sections. Such approach helped to analyze the underlying mechanisms.
| 2 | 1 |
During the discussion, the reasons behind the experimental results should be analyzed, not only from the correlation between the sample data but also cannot be explained by relying too much on the VIP score curve. In addition, partial correlation analysis (e.g., Cheng et al., 2019) could be helpful and bring more insights given the fact that soil spectra are simultaneously influenced by several soil properties (e.g., SOM and Iron oxide). This may help to analyze the underlying mechanism.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was corrected
| 2 | 1 |
Line 104, 195, 223, 544: Is it “modelling” or “modeling”? The whole text should be unified.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
pH was measured in water solution.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 145-146: “, soil reaction (pH) in 1:1 soil to KCl solution” is not clearly expressed.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was revised as recommended.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 163-164: “…were conducted under a controlled laboratory environment.” Can you explain this sentence? Generally, soil spectral measurement is carried out in a dark room to avoid interference from external light sources. What does the controlled laboratory environment you describe look like?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The text was revised. Each single measurement was based on internally averaged of 50 spectra (3 times). Each sample was measured from four positions (90°rotating the Petri dish each time). Consequently, 4 rotation x 3 time = 12 spectra were obtained. It is one of the commonly used method and several references are available.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 174: “…resulting in 12 spectra”. It is not clear how the 12 spectra were obtained here.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
See previous comment.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 176: “…resulted 50 spectra…”. It is also not clear how 50 spectra were obtained.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The whole paragraph was revised. Line: 262-269. We would like to note that in practice a large variety of pre-processing techniques are used with different gap and moving window size to improve prediction quality (Luce et al. 2017, Mammadov at al. 2020). Yet, the quality of prediction still depends on several factors (measurement method, used device etc.).
| 2 | 1 |
Line 190: “…moving window sizes (mainly 7, 9 and 11)”. Need to use 3 different moving window sizes? It undoubtedly increases your experimental workload, and you do not explain it later. As far as I know, most articles use only one moving window size.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The text was revised, see previous comment.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 191, 365: “…with different gaps and segment sizes.” “…with gap segment size of…”. Do these two places mean the same thing?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was revised as “change in pH, temperature, precipitation by elevation”. Line:334-337.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 243: “(pH, temperature, precipitation)” should not be placed after the word elevation.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Corrected to “soil type”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 264: “…, and hence parent material.” It’s not clear here.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Both methods are used to characterize relations between soil properties and spectra. Based on our experience, for current study (or similar studies) relations among soil properties, and between PC1 and soil properties are well characterized by Spearman, and Pearson is more relevant to the relations between spectra and soil properties.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 281, 249: Why did you use Spearman's Rho correlation coefficients earlier and Pearson correlation coefficients here?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Line:515-518.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 325-328: “Regardless of… spectra.” Is there a necessary connection between these two sentences? The spectral absorption characteristics near 1400, 1900, and 2200 nm have their corresponding influencing factors.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Line:43, 440 Line 354-355: “…, in our case 11 bands…” “…in our case 10 wavebands…” It's confusing here.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 353-354, 374: “Savitzky-Golay 1st derivative…” “Savitzky-Golay 2nd derivatives” This is a very confusing way to write it.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was modified. Line: 438-441 Lines 356-357: Can the first derivative preprocessing method be used to remove illumination differences?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 354-355: “…, in our case 11 bands…” “…in our case 10 wavebands…” It's confusing here. And all in Table 3 are “10-bands”.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Line: 696-699 Lines 360-362: “… due to overtones and combination of fundamental vibrations of soil organic matter occurring in the VIS and NIR region.” The meaning of this sentence is not expressed clearly.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 356-357: Can the first derivative preprocessing method be used to remove illumination differences?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Line:702-705 Line 409: Note the singular and plural in the sentence.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 360-362: “… due to overtones and combination of fundamental vibrations of soil organic matter occurring in the VIS and NIR region.” The meaning of this sentence is not expressed clearly.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Corrected to “CaCO3”. Line: 750-752 Line 455: “soil mineralogy”?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 449, 479: “CO3”?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was replaced with “clay mineralogy”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 455: “soil mineralogy”?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Line 736-740 Line 471, 480, 520: “(r = 0.4*)” “(r =-0.52*)” “(r = 0.40*)”, etc.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 456-457: What does this sentence do here?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Line:759-762 Lines 516-518: You call attention to the spectral signature at 2326 nm, and then what?
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 490-491: “Unlikely, a weakly represented VIP peak centered at ~850 nm was a significant predictor for the Cd content.” The meaning of this sentence is not clear, and it is a little strange.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was revised. It was related to the contribution of the basic soil properties (e.g. controlling factor CaCO3, Fe, clay) to the prediction of M3 extractable elements Line:780-786.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 516-518: You call attention to the spectral signature at 2326 nm, and then what? Readers may be more interested in your analysis and interpretation.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Corrected or revised. Line:786-789 Line 523: “correspond absorption” should be “correspond to absorption”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 520: The correlation between K content and P content is not very high (r = 0.40*), but their corresponding VIP patterns are “identical”, how do you explain it?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was edited. Line:790-791 Lines 522-525: Is there a necessary connection between the first half of the sentence and the second half of the sentence?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 523: “correspond absorption” should be “correspond to absorption”.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Partial correlation analysis showed that the contribution of Fe was more important than that of SOC though the moderate correlation existed between them. Line: 786-791 Lines 541-543: Is this sentence appropriate here?
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 522-525: Is there a necessary connection between the first half of the sentence and the second half of the sentence? Is VIP peak related to Fe or SOC content?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
edited
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 541-543: Is this sentence appropriate here?
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The abstract was revised to show all key results.
| 4 | 1 |
The abstract could be more concise.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Introduction was modified.
| 4 | 1 |
The introduction part can highlight the key points and innovations of this paper.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The manuscript was checked for missing articles and edited.
| 4 | 1 |
The definite article “the” is missing in many places in the whole article. please check it.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
We reduced the number of parentheses significantly.
| 4 | 1 |
Too many parentheses are used in the essay, which is not recommended in writing.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was removed.
| 4 | 1 |
Line 135: “impairment water resources” Is this expression appropriate?
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Soory for the technical error. In the previous version, pH values were related to the determination in KCL solution. It was replaced with pH values in H2O water.
| 4 | 1 |
Table 1: The pH values are different from those in the previous version.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was edited both in the text and tables.
| 4 | 1 |
Attention should be paid to the number of decimal places in all numbers throughout the text.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
It was corrected.
| 4 | 1 |
Line 909: “c, f, f, a” should be superscripts, indicating the author's work unit. Please check the format of all references.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Thanks. The conclusions were rewritten to reflect the key results.
| 4 | 1 |
The conclusion is too long and does not highlight the key results.
| 3 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments and directions. We have carefully considered all issues and have revised the manuscript completely (e.g. separation of sections and subheadings, revising all the text, adding paragraphs & references, adding/changing Tables & Figures): 1) Abstract was revised. 2) Introduction was revised, and 2 new paragraphs were added. Such modification leaded to the clear description of the objectives. 3) Material and Method section was revised. Revised version contains 5 subheading. 4) The results and discussion sections were separated, and their subheadings were reorganized. In the revised manuscript the Results contain 5 subheading and Discussion contain 3subheading. 5) Presentation of the results are improved with consideration of reviewers’ comments. Original Manuscript contained 3 Tables and 3 Figures. Revised manuscript contains 4 Tables and 5 Figures and 1 supplementary table and 1 supplementary figure. New subheading (3.2. Land use effect on soil properties) was added. New Table 4 and Figure 4 were added. Clarification: Table 1 and Table 3 were not changed. Old Table 2 is new Figure 2. Old Figure 2 is new Figure 3. Old Figure 3 is new Figure 5. 8) New 12 references were added to update the manuscript to address reviewers’ comments. Thus, to avoid possible confusion we provided the location (subheading or line) for any change introduced. Our point-to-point response to the comments of the reviewers is detailed below. Subheading or line numbers refer to the line numbers in the revised manuscript.
| 2 | 1 |
The novelty of the study should be clearly stated in the Introduction section after the objectives are formulated.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The section was revised and information regarding solution standards and detection limit was added. (M&M. subheading 2.2). Chemical analyses and descriptive statistics of the results b) It is necessary to explain the method of sampling using the appropriate literature.
| 2 | 1 |
There is not adequate information regarding quality control of the chemical analyses. Authors should report the detection limits and the recovery of the analytic methods used, along with and the standard solutions for the calibration of the instruments.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The sampling scheme was explained as recommended (M&M, subheading 2.1). In general, sampling scale changes between 1:12 000 and 1:250 000 (Soil Survey Staff, USDA NRCS 2016). In this pioneering study area, soil properties are highly variable attributed to topography, land use history and land tenure ownerships (mainly 0.2-0.3 hectares and fragmented shrubbery areas) and geological setting that makes difficult to apply regular sampling scheme. Therefore, the sampling locations were randomly (irregularly) designated, yet cover variations in land use, topography, geological substrate and the erosive state of soil continuum thereby resulted in 114 samples from 525 ha used under four land use types (1 sample per ~ 5 hectares).
| 2 | 1 |
It is necessary to explain the method of sampling using the appropriate literature. Is the number of samples sufficient for the purpose of the research? Please explain.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
Two references were added. (Subheading 2.1) The “Conclusions section” is not very successful concerning the presentation of results.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 125-135: There should be bibliographic references for the specific methods and their official name should be mentioned. Reference to formal analytical methods must be made in a scientific manner. The writing language used must be different from the way an analyst mentions it in the lab.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
As mentioned above, we restructured the introduction section and included new paragraphs to illuminate the importance of the study. Special focus was given to clarifying prediction mechanisms for the studied soil properties and land use effect on soil properties.
| 2 | 1 |
The “Introduction section ” should be reworked, highlighting the relevance of this topic worldwide. It would be wise to give more international flavor in the sections of Introduction and Discussion.
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
The suggested study was reviewed and included to the reference list. It helped us to explain the results of our study (e.g. prediction of Fe and Cd using basic soil properties, clay mineralogy and (soil type) and micro-nutrients).
| 2 | 1 |
In addition, it needs support with more and more up-to-date recent articles. I suggest the following: Soil parameters affecting the levels of potentially harmful metals in Thessaly area, Greece: a robust quadratic regression approach of soil pollution prediction, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14673-0
| 1 | 2 |
land11030363_perova
| 1 |
We agree, and we have noted this point in the revised study limitations section.
| 2 | 1 |
The authors admit that, line 367, younger people were overrepresented, but to me, it was that older persons, especially over age 70, who were somehow missed in the survey sampling process. The study offers little to say about long covid among the elderly.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Interesting point, which we have added to the revised Conclusion and Implications section.
| 2 | 1 |
The authors consider a number of factors associated with long COVID and psychological symptoms. I would suggest another factor - frustration with not getting well.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for the kind response.
| 2 | 1 |
I accept the manuscript for its publication in this journal.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Please see our comments to each of the listed issues below.
| 2 | 1 |
However, I see several issues with the ending of this paper. I liked the ideas and the methodological setting (i.e., online survey) of this study and I think the reported data have potential. However, what I disliked was the interpretation and discussion of the empirical results. Frankly speaking, the authors are overselling their results. I found two major issues in the discussion of this paper: Authors response:
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
The first mentioned statement has been removed altogether in the revised manuscript. The second statement has been modified in accordance with the reviewer’s view (see revised section 4.3).
| 2 | 1 |
The authors said in the statistic section that “statistical significance was set at p<0.05.” (page 5, line 212). However, later they wrote “The descriptively higher proportion of females with long COVID bordered statistical significance (p=0.05)” page 5, line 230) and “However, the different proportions of men and women with long COVID (22% and 33%, respectively) bordered towards statistical significance […]” (page 10, line 318). As a statistician, I felt very mad about this, because the results speak a different language, this is non-significant result.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the relevant section in accordance with this guidance.
| 2 | 1 |
The authors wrote later in the conclusion section “[…] but a non-significant trend was found for the association between female gender and long COVID.” (page 11, line 389). This is a “no-go” in scientific research, the interpretation of “trends” resulted from non-significant results is strongly misleading. Honestly, there is no empirical evidence that there is an association between female gender and long COVID, there was no significant difference observed between men and women (p=0.05). That is the true story. Hence, I urge the authors not to mislead readers and to re-write these sections.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for pointing this out, we have revised the sentence (see section 4.1).
| 2 | 1 |
The next major issue targets the interpretation of interaction effects. The authors did three models with three different outcomes, namely psychological distress, fatigue, and perceived stress. In the results section, only two (and not three!) interaction effects became significant (psychological distress: p<0.001, fatigue: p<0.05, and perceived stress: p=0.36, see Table 4, page 7, line 269). However, the authors wrote “While participants with long COVID generally perceived more psychological distress, fatigue, and stress than those without long COVID, differences were larger for men than for women” page 9, line 303), Authors’ response: Authors introduced an interaction effect long COVID x gender into the model in order to test their third hypothesis (“(iii) whether gender moderated the associations between long 119 COVID status and the health outcomes”, page 3, line 119).
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
We have revised the sentence; see section 4.4.
| 2 | 1 |
“[…] men’s perception of poorer health when having long COVID appears to include higher levels of psychological distress, fatigue and perceived stress” (page 11, line 363),
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
We have revised the sentence; see section 5.
| 2 | 1 |
and finally “Third, long COVID appears to have a stronger effect on men than on women” (page 11, line 401). Again, the authors are overselling their results. All these statements are not true, only for two out of three outcomes, namely psychological distress and fatigue, but not for perceived stress (see also Figure 3). Hence, I strongly urge the authors to re-write these sentences so that readers are not misled.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for pointing out these mistakes, and we trust the editorial office will assist us further with any remaining details in the final stage of the process.
| 2 | 1 |
Besides these two major issues, I detected some smaller errors and miss-spellings (note, this list in not complete). Hence, I have some comments/suggestions that I hope will help the authors to further develop this line of work: Authors’ response:
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Alignment has been fixed.
| 2 | 1 |
Chapter 2 Materials and Methods: Something strange happened to the alignment of heading “2.2 Sample” (page 3, line 128).
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Table 1 has been revised accordingly.
| 2 | 1 |
Please fix this. Table 1 (page 3, line 137): I detected an error in the third column (“COVID-19 infection”). The total sample is reported here as 303. However, the single numbers do not sum up to 303 but rather to 310 (13+74+220+3=310). I know, there were 7 missing values within the 310. However, this table is still wrong, it must be 310 and not 303. The percentage of 87 long COVID (28.7%) then refers to 303 (87/303=28.7%). Hence, I urge the authors to re-calculate percentages in Table 1. Otherwise, this is misleading the readership.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Italics have been removed, see revised section 2.3.
| 2 | 1 |
Chapter 2.3 Measures: Sometimes the verbal scales are set in italic (e.g., “0=better than ususal”, page 4, line 173) and sometimes not (e.g., “4=very often”, page 5, line 187).
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
We are unsure how this problem occurred. We have fixed the problems in the revised tables.
| 2 | 1 |
Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5: The authors use a very inconsistent style of bold. For example, see Table 4 (page 7, line 269): Column Fatgigue, why is ES not printed in bold? Please use a consistent writing style.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for pointing out, we have addressed this issue throughout the revised manuscript.
| 2 | 1 |
Please use a consistent writing style throughout the whole manuscript. Results (page 7, line 274): Sometimes fatigue (page 7, line 274) and sometimes with a capital F (Fatigue, page 7, line 283).
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
We have corrected the two tables according to this guidance.
| 4 | 1 |
Wrong column headings in tables: I detected that the authors replaced “GHQ” with “psychological distress” in the text (also “PSS” replaced with “perceived stress”). This is correct. Psychological distress is the latent construct which is measured with the instrument GHQ. Unfortunately, the authors missed to replace GHQ by psychological distress in Table 4 (page 7, line 280) and Table 5 (page 7, line 297; see column headings: not “GHQ”, “Fatigue”, and “Perceived stress” but rather “Psychological distress”, “Fatigue”, and “Perceived stress”). Please correct the two tables.
| 3 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for noticing. We have corrected the manuscript according to this guidance.
| 4 | 1 |
Wrong use of abbreviations: The authors introduced the abbreviation “GHQ-12” for the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (see page 4, line 161), but wrote in the text only "GHQ" (e.g., page 5, line 207; page 6, line 256; page 7, line 274). Please replace every single “GHQ” in the text with the correct abbreviation “GHQ-12”. Please repeat this procedure for “PSS-10” (see page 4, line 185), i.e. replace “PSS” with “PSS-10” in the whole text.
| 3 | 2 |
life12060901_makarova
| 1 |
We agree, and we have noted this point in the revised study limitations section.
| 2 | 1 |
The authors admit that, line 367, younger people were overrepresented, but to me, it was that older persons, especially over age 70, who were somehow missed in the survey sampling process. The study offers little to say about long covid among the elderly.
| 1 | 2 |
life12060901_perova
| 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.