Comment on: &ldquo;Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay&rdquo; On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

Paruelo, José; Lopez-Marsico, Luis; Baldassini, Pablo; Lezama, Felipe; Bazzoni, Bruno; Staiano, Luciana; Nuñez, Agustín; Guido, Anaclara; Ríos, Cecilia; Tommasino, Andrea; Gallego, Federico; Pezzani, Fabiana; Camba Sans, Gonzalo; Quincke, Andrés; Baeza, Santiago; Piñeiro, Gervasio; Baethgen, Walter

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023

Preprints

14 Nov 2023

| 14 Nov 2023

Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence

José Paruelo, Luis Lopez-Marsico, Pablo Baldassini, Felipe Lezama, Bruno Bazzoni, Luciana Staiano, Agustín Nuñez, Anaclara Guido, Cecilia Ríos, Andrea Tommasino, Federico Gallego, Fabiana Pezzani, Gonzalo Camba Sans, Andrés Quincke, Santiago Baeza, Gervasio Piñeiro, and Walter Baethgen

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has also been posted on OSF Preprints in parallel to the EGUsphere preprint.

Abstract. In this article we make comments on some methodological issues and on the general approach of the paper “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” by Ina Säumel, Leonardo R. Ramírez, Sarah Tietjen, Marcos Barra, and Erick Zagal, Soil 9, 425–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-425-2023. We identified various design and methodological problems that may induce potential misinterpretations. Our concerns are of three different types. First, there are aspects of the study design and methodology that, in our opinion, introduce biases and critical errors. Secondly, the article does not put forth any novel propositions and ignores extensive local literature and aspects that are central to the interpretation of the data Finally, we are concerned about the possible interpretations of a study, generated from institutions based on developed countries with not the participation of local scientists from the Global South in the design of policies and development of non-tariff barriers for South American countries.

How to cite. Paruelo, J., Lopez-Marsico, L., Baldassini, P., Lezama, F., Bazzoni, B., Staiano, L., Nuñez, A., Guido, A., Ríos, C., Tommasino, A., Gallego, F., Pezzani, F., Camba Sans, G., Quincke, A., Baeza, S., Piñeiro, G., and Baethgen, W.: Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023, 2023.

Received: 04 Sep 2023 – Discussion started: 14 Nov 2023

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 633 KB)

Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
Preprint (633 KB)

Corresponding article

Download & links

Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has also been posted on OSF Preprints in parallel to the EGUsphere preprint.

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2023', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Dec 2023

This paper is a commentary on Säumel, Ina, Leonardo R. Ramírez, Sarah Tietjen, Marcos Barra and Erick Zagal. 'Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in Uruguay's changing landscapes'. SOIL 9, fasc. 2 (24 July 2023): 425-42. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-425-2023. The authors of the comment point out some methodological criticisms of the work of Säumel et al. Probably some of these deserve discussion and careful response by the authors. In general, however, the paper by Säumel et al. is well written, with a robust statistical analysis. Finally, his work is only a contribution to the discussion on soil degradation in Uruguay, not the definitive study. In addition, the authors can share data from their work for further analysis and check the performance of their statistical models, so it is possible to check the accuracy of the work. In this commentary on the work of Säumel et al, the authors emphasise the lack of input from 'local' scientists, pointing out that the work was carried out by research institutes based in 'developed countries'. This kind of statement devalues the scientific nature of the commentary, giving it a dimension not appropriate to the journal. The role of the 'global south' in soil science is as important as that of the 'global north' and the 'global centre'. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to deal with improbable neo-colonial threats that undermine the scientific soundness of this commentary. I believe, therefore, that this commentary would be more relevant if it simply focused on the methodological criticalities, as presented in the first part.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jose Paruelo, 26 May 2024
  
  Thank you for your comment. In our response, we highlighted several design and methodological issues in the published version that could lead to potential misinterpretations of the novelty of the results and, more importantly, to implications against grassland conservation. Of course, it would be important to receive a response from the authors on these points.
  
  We believe that discussing scientific neo-colonialism is justly relevant and appropriate for a scientific journal. Recognising the practices of intellectual colonialism is a first step, but not enough if scientific practitioners are to create truly inclusive environments and reduce inequalities. The idea of scientific colonialism is often most evident when we move from looking at a particular article and/or journal to looking at the way research groups work. This seems to be an example, where all the articles (at least 10) derived from the same project and funding source (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the project“Rural Futures—Strategies toward multifunctional, bio-diverse and sustainable productive landscapes in silvi-and agricultural modified grasslands in Uruguay”(01LN1305A)), almost exclusively authored by the European research group while local researchers are listed in the acknowledgements section. In other words, what could be a special case of an article seems to be a way of working.
  
  In our manuscript, we cited an article by Nakamura et al. (2023) published in Nature that addresses, precisely, the dynamics of scientific relationships between the Global South and North. A well-founded opinion that opens further discussion on how we conduct science deserves to be included in a scientific journal. Removing our comment on scientific neo-colonialism would obstruct an important dialogue that we believe could enhance collaboration.
  
  Of course, these issues are complex and filled with contradictions. For instance, the senior author of this manuscript (JMP) is writing this while looking at posters of two of his "idols": Humboldt and Darwin. Both eminences were associated with colonial powers. Clearly, they lived in a different historical context, political climate, and stage of scientific development in South America. Were they ardent colonizers? Were they merely functional to colonial power? The answer is not straightforward; it depends on the context in which we judge their legacy.
  
  We are no longer in the 19th century, and the political, historical, and scientific contexts have evolved. These changes need an open discussion about what South American scientists perceive as colonialist practices.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2023', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2024

Review of Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland
management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of
Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence.

This comment makes some valid methodological criticisms of the paper e.g the use of carbon stocks rather than concentrations and some overselling of the data in the original paper which warrant a response from the authors. However, rather than offer a well-argued critique of the major themes of the paper it reads more like a line-by-the-line review which is not suitable for a comment article. This approach does not take the discussion forward.
I would suggest that the authors reframe their comment to pick up on the key issues with the paper rather than pick apart every method or approach used. For example they could expand on the interpretations relating to the conversion of grasslands to silvo pastoral systems and the expansion of native forests onto grassland; and why they believe these to be in error, rather than focussing on the arguing whether, for example total P can be used as an indicator of soil fertility or why stratified sampling is better than random sampling. .
These big themes could be developed in the comment and an alternative thesis presented which should be supported by evidence.
The authors allude to problems with the authorship. At least two of the authors of the original article are South American and while it would have been good to see a Uruguayan author as well, I don’t think the accusation not including authors from the global south is warranted.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jose Paruelo, 26 May 2024
  
  Thank you for your comment. Our focus in the submitted comment was to highlight some design and methodological problems of the original paper that may lead to erroneous conclusions and recommendations against grassland conservation. We believe the best way to address these shortcomings is to be specific, identifying the most critical points and clearly stating our concerns. This approach would facilitate a meaningful response from the authors. Our main objective was to comment on issues that may affect the interpretation and use of the results. For example, if the geographical scope of the article is Uruguay, and the conclusions are generalized for the entire country, discussing the sampling design is particularly relevant. Our focus was not on introducing broad issues open to discussion, such as the expansion of forests into grassland areas or the role of silvopastoral systems. Instead, we aimed to identify and explain some conclusions that, in our opinion, are not well-supported by the data. In a revised version of the manuscript, we will remove statements related to such broad and controversial points that are beyond the scope of this type of article. Moreover, we do not consider appropriate to present an alternative thesis while there are concerns about the methodological approach that questions the quality of the presented evidence.
  We have no issue with the authorship itself. Our general concern is related to Global North scientists providing “scientific evidence” and “solutions” on the poor environmental performance of a Global South country. The interpretation of highly sensitive issues such as environmental performance requires local and regional context, which local scientists are in a much better position to provide. Including two South American researchers in the authorship does not sufficiently address this concern. We support the importance of Global North-South collaboration in studies of this nature, regardless of our opinion on the scientific quality of the research. However, in the case of Saumell et al.'s article, we have major concerns about the evidence presented and the recommendations they addressed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-AC2

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2023', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Dec 2023

This paper is a commentary on Säumel, Ina, Leonardo R. Ramírez, Sarah Tietjen, Marcos Barra and Erick Zagal. 'Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in Uruguay's changing landscapes'. SOIL 9, fasc. 2 (24 July 2023): 425-42. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-425-2023. The authors of the comment point out some methodological criticisms of the work of Säumel et al. Probably some of these deserve discussion and careful response by the authors. In general, however, the paper by Säumel et al. is well written, with a robust statistical analysis. Finally, his work is only a contribution to the discussion on soil degradation in Uruguay, not the definitive study. In addition, the authors can share data from their work for further analysis and check the performance of their statistical models, so it is possible to check the accuracy of the work. In this commentary on the work of Säumel et al, the authors emphasise the lack of input from 'local' scientists, pointing out that the work was carried out by research institutes based in 'developed countries'. This kind of statement devalues the scientific nature of the commentary, giving it a dimension not appropriate to the journal. The role of the 'global south' in soil science is as important as that of the 'global north' and the 'global centre'. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to deal with improbable neo-colonial threats that undermine the scientific soundness of this commentary. I believe, therefore, that this commentary would be more relevant if it simply focused on the methodological criticalities, as presented in the first part.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jose Paruelo, 26 May 2024
  
  Thank you for your comment. In our response, we highlighted several design and methodological issues in the published version that could lead to potential misinterpretations of the novelty of the results and, more importantly, to implications against grassland conservation. Of course, it would be important to receive a response from the authors on these points.
  
  We believe that discussing scientific neo-colonialism is justly relevant and appropriate for a scientific journal. Recognising the practices of intellectual colonialism is a first step, but not enough if scientific practitioners are to create truly inclusive environments and reduce inequalities. The idea of scientific colonialism is often most evident when we move from looking at a particular article and/or journal to looking at the way research groups work. This seems to be an example, where all the articles (at least 10) derived from the same project and funding source (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the project“Rural Futures—Strategies toward multifunctional, bio-diverse and sustainable productive landscapes in silvi-and agricultural modified grasslands in Uruguay”(01LN1305A)), almost exclusively authored by the European research group while local researchers are listed in the acknowledgements section. In other words, what could be a special case of an article seems to be a way of working.
  
  In our manuscript, we cited an article by Nakamura et al. (2023) published in Nature that addresses, precisely, the dynamics of scientific relationships between the Global South and North. A well-founded opinion that opens further discussion on how we conduct science deserves to be included in a scientific journal. Removing our comment on scientific neo-colonialism would obstruct an important dialogue that we believe could enhance collaboration.
  
  Of course, these issues are complex and filled with contradictions. For instance, the senior author of this manuscript (JMP) is writing this while looking at posters of two of his "idols": Humboldt and Darwin. Both eminences were associated with colonial powers. Clearly, they lived in a different historical context, political climate, and stage of scientific development in South America. Were they ardent colonizers? Were they merely functional to colonial power? The answer is not straightforward; it depends on the context in which we judge their legacy.
  
  We are no longer in the 19th century, and the political, historical, and scientific contexts have evolved. These changes need an open discussion about what South American scientists perceive as colonialist practices.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2023-2023', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2024

Review of Comment on: “Back to the future? Conservative grassland
management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of
Uruguay” On the risks of good intentions and poor evidence.

This comment makes some valid methodological criticisms of the paper e.g the use of carbon stocks rather than concentrations and some overselling of the data in the original paper which warrant a response from the authors. However, rather than offer a well-argued critique of the major themes of the paper it reads more like a line-by-the-line review which is not suitable for a comment article. This approach does not take the discussion forward.
I would suggest that the authors reframe their comment to pick up on the key issues with the paper rather than pick apart every method or approach used. For example they could expand on the interpretations relating to the conversion of grasslands to silvo pastoral systems and the expansion of native forests onto grassland; and why they believe these to be in error, rather than focussing on the arguing whether, for example total P can be used as an indicator of soil fertility or why stratified sampling is better than random sampling. .
These big themes could be developed in the comment and an alternative thesis presented which should be supported by evidence.
The authors allude to problems with the authorship. At least two of the authors of the original article are South American and while it would have been good to see a Uruguayan author as well, I don’t think the accusation not including authors from the global south is warranted.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jose Paruelo, 26 May 2024
  
  Thank you for your comment. Our focus in the submitted comment was to highlight some design and methodological problems of the original paper that may lead to erroneous conclusions and recommendations against grassland conservation. We believe the best way to address these shortcomings is to be specific, identifying the most critical points and clearly stating our concerns. This approach would facilitate a meaningful response from the authors. Our main objective was to comment on issues that may affect the interpretation and use of the results. For example, if the geographical scope of the article is Uruguay, and the conclusions are generalized for the entire country, discussing the sampling design is particularly relevant. Our focus was not on introducing broad issues open to discussion, such as the expansion of forests into grassland areas or the role of silvopastoral systems. Instead, we aimed to identify and explain some conclusions that, in our opinion, are not well-supported by the data. In a revised version of the manuscript, we will remove statements related to such broad and controversial points that are beyond the scope of this type of article. Moreover, we do not consider appropriate to present an alternative thesis while there are concerns about the methodological approach that questions the quality of the presented evidence.
  We have no issue with the authorship itself. Our general concern is related to Global North scientists providing “scientific evidence” and “solutions” on the poor environmental performance of a Global South country. The interpretation of highly sensitive issues such as environmental performance requires local and regional context, which local scientists are in a much better position to provide. Including two South American researchers in the authorship does not sufficiently address this concern. We support the importance of Global North-South collaboration in studies of this nature, regardless of our opinion on the scientific quality of the research. However, in the case of Saumell et al.'s article, we have major concerns about the evidence presented and the recommendations they addressed.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2023-AC2

Note on duplicated preprint: although EGUsphere's policy does not support double preprinting, this preprint has also been posted on OSF Preprints in parallel to the EGUsphere preprint.

Viewed

Total article views: 501 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
338	111	52	501	23	26

HTML: 338
PDF: 111
XML: 52
Total: 501
BibTeX: 23
EndNote: 26

Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Nov 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2023	30	4	2	36
Dec 2023	42	12	4	58
Jan 2024	32	7	4	43
Feb 2024	30	6	1	37
Mar 2024	40	11	4	55
Apr 2024	35	8	1	44
May 2024	45	18	9	72
Jun 2024	19	15	4	38
Jul 2024	13	16	6	35
Aug 2024	17	4	9	30
Sep 2024	12	6	18
Oct 2024	9	2	1	12
Nov 2024	13	6	1	20
Dec 2024	1	2	0	3

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Nov 2023)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2023	30	4	2	36
Dec 2023	42	12	4	58
Jan 2024	32	7	4	43
Feb 2024	30	6	1	37
Mar 2024	40	11	4	55
Apr 2024	35	8	1	44
May 2024	45	18	9	72
Jun 2024	19	15	4	38
Jul 2024	13	16	6	35
Aug 2024	17	4	9	30
Sep 2024	12	6	18
Oct 2024	9	2	1	12
Nov 2024	13	6	1	20
Dec 2024	1	2	0	3

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 497 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 497 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Dec 2024

Download

Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.

Preprint (633 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We identified and discuss various design and methodological problems that may induce wrong conclusions in the article “Back to the future? Conservative grassland management can preserve soil health in the changing landscapes of Uruguay” by Ina Säumel et al. Soil 9, 425–442. We were also concerned about the possible interpretations of a study, generated from institutions based on developed countries with not the participation of local scientists from the Global South.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0