the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2023', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Dec 2023
reply
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
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
195 | 46 | 16 | 257 | 10 | 12 |
- HTML: 195
- PDF: 46
- XML: 16
- Total: 257
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 12
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