the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 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
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.
-
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
-
Preprint
(633 KB)
-
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
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
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jose Paruelo, 26 May 2024
-
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
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jose Paruelo, 26 May 2024
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 333 | 109 | 51 | 493 | 22 | 24 |
- HTML: 333
- PDF: 109
- XML: 51
- Total: 493
- BibTeX: 22
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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
Walter Baethgen
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
- Preprint
(633 KB) - Metadata XML