the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Jul 2025
Restorative Mitigation of Contaminated Soil for Ecosystem Services: Influences from Research Enterprise and Sustainable Development Goals
Abstract. Soil is a vital component of the ecosystem, as it provides nutrients needed for the growth of plants and supports all terrestrial life on the planet. The global agricultural sector underwent enormous change after the World Wars, thanks to some important developments in technology transfer that saw increased crop production during the Green Revolution of the 1960s; the initiatives included the use of high yielding variety seeds and also the application of synthetic agrochemicals as nutrient inputs and crop protection agents. This was meant secure food grains for growing human population. Despite all the achievements, the initiatives taken during the Green Revolution are meeting with some harsh criticism now. Soil is under constant pressure due to irresponsible land use and resource exploitation, erosion, escalating climate change, and also the indiscriminate usage of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Synthetic pesticides are contaminating soil, and the contaminants are making serious alterations to the content and most importantly to the chemical quality, properties and functions of soil, requiring an immediate risk assessment owing to the hazard and scientific uncertainty surrounding it. Soil pollution is one of the most serious concerns of our time, which not only limits the sustainability of community livelihood but also compromises ecosystem services, causing depletion in its fertility and risks to the environmental and human health. So, the environmentalists, economists, and social scientists have begun advocating more organic amendments to farming and restoration of ecosystems services of soil. Researchers explore physico-chemical and biological methods to mitigate the soil contamination. Research enterprise, local policy making, and globalized discourses on environment at the highest decision-making authority of intergovernmental organizations are being directed towards sustainable future of socio-ecological system.
- Preprint
(1254 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-271', Mohamed Asanulla Rahamathulla, 09 Oct 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-271/egusphere-2025-271-CC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Isak Shaikh, 09 Oct 2025
Authors sincerely appreciate the valuable time and effort taken to provide positive feedback. Yes; we'll edit the aforementioned reference (Brühl et al 2024) as per your advice & the journal style.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Isak Shaikh, 09 Oct 2025
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-271', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Nov 2025
This review systematically elucidates the central role of soil in ecosystems, tracing the evolution of agricultural development starting from the Green Revolution. The authors point out that while the promotion of high-yielding cultivars and agricultural chemicals alleviated the food crisis in the short term, it sowed the seeds of soil pollution and ecological degradation in the long run. By closely linking soil degradation to ecosystem services, human health, and sustainable development, the review highlights its pressing relevance and contemporary significance. The article adopts a sound perspective, but its writing logic lacks clarity, diminishing readability. Key issues include:
- The “INTRODUCTION” section should explicitly state the paper's primary focus; supplementation is recommended.
- The title “3.3 Soil Contaminants Origin, causes and status” lacks logical coherence with its subheadings 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Typically, Section 3.3 should explore the origin, causes, and status of soil contaminants, with subheadings organized accordingly. However, the author's 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 appear to merely describe the current situation. Recommend organizing Section 3.3's subsections according to Origin, Causes, and Status, or alternatively, renaming Section 3.3.
- The paper extensively cites policy documents, but the structure and content organization hinder readability, making the manuscript resemble a report rather than an academic paper. Authors should synthesize policy content into their own language for writing.
- Section 4.4.1 primarily discusses “Pesticides” and “PAHs.” As the authors previously noted, heavy metal pollution is also a significant component of soil contamination. Discussion and explanation of this aspect are lacking.
- All four case studies in Section 4.3 focus on managing organic pesticide pollution. However, soil pollution encompasses both organic (e.g., pesticides) and inorganic (e.g., heavy metals) contaminants. The paper emphasizes remediation strategies for organic pollutants while neglecting heavy metal pollution research, resulting in an incomplete thematic scope.
- Full forms should be provided for abbreviations used for the first time in the text. For example, FAO appears without full form explanation at line 215.
- The reference cited in Figure 4 (“Resilience Alliance, 2007”) is not found in the reference list. The author must carefully verify consistency between in-text citations and the reference list.
- Figure 7 suffers from poor clarity, rendering its content illegible. The author must improve the readability of images.
- Reference citation formatting errors exist on line 332.
- The reference list format is inconsistent; standardization is recommended.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-RC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC1', Isak Shaikh, 09 Nov 2025
Here is our measured and professional response that addresses the technical parts of the reviewer’s feedback clearly and respectfully.
Reviewer’s Overall Feedback: This review systematically elucidates the central role of soil in ecosystems, tracing the evolution of agricultural development starting from the Green Revolution. The authors point out that while the promotion of high-yielding cultivars and agricultural chemicals alleviated the food crisis in the short term, it sowed the seeds of soil pollution and ecological degradation in the long run. By closely linking soil degradation to ecosystem services, human health, and sustainable development, the review highlights its pressing relevance and contemporary significance. The article adopts a sound perspective, but its writing logic lacks clarity, diminishing readability.
Response to Reviewer Comments:
I sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading, thorough evaluation, and constructive feedback. We see these comments invaluable in enhancing the clarity, structure, and overall quality of our manuscript. We have included our responses to the specific points raised during the review. We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and structure, expanded the treatment of heavy-metal contamination (even referring to another manuscript in press) , harmonized section headings, simplified policy text into synthesized narrative, improved figure resolution and captions, and corrected reference formatting and missing citations. Below we respond point-by-point.In brief: The reviewer praises the article's scientific framing but critiques style and clarity, which seem to focus on presentation rather than substance. These concerns likely come from a non-expert reviewer with a general sustainability background. Their key points include (i) Criticism of clarity and structure lacks specifics, indicating a superficial review; (ii) Policy citations are a standard and necessary part of sustainability research; (iii) Editorial comments on formatting and abbreviations are minor and don't address scientific content. Note to the Editor: Authors appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. The manuscript has been revised for clarity while retaining its scientific depth. Given its interdisciplinary nature, integrating policy is crucial for relevance. P.S.: Some feedback appears more stylistic than scientific. We’ve revised the manuscript to improve clarity, reflecting its interdisciplinary scope. 1. Introduction Section
Reviewer’s Comment: The “INTRODUCTION” section should explicitly state the paper's primary focus.
Response: We have added a short, explicit aim statement “This review explicitly focuses on (i) the causes and current status of agricultural soil contamination, (ii) pathways by which contamination degrades soil ecosystem services, and (iii) restorative mitigation strategies (physico-chemical, biological and policy measures) with special emphasis on (agro)chemicals turned pollutants and their relevance for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” preceding / just before "Objectives" block.We have revised the Introduction to clearly articulate the main objectives of the review, emphasizing the central role of soil in ecosystems, its relationship with agricultural development, soil pollution, and sustainable management strategies.
- Section 3.3
Reviewer’s Comment: Section 3.3 title/subheadings do not match content
We already have Section 3.3 “Soil Contaminants Origin, causes and status.” The reviewer says subsections read like “current situation” rather than Origin/Cause/Status.
Response: We have restructured Section 3.3 so that the subsection headings now follow a clear logical sequence (from Origin to Causes/Pathways, and Current Status). We hope that this restructuring ensures consistency between the section title and its subheadings.
- Policy Citations and Readability
Reviewer’s Comment: The manuscript extensively cites policy documents (which affects readability) and intergovernmental references (FAO, Basel, Stockholm, UN Decade, etc.). That is appropriate in an interdisciplinary review — but the reviewer wants more synthesis and fewer long policy quotes.
Response: That's the whole point — to address the restorative mitigation of contaminated soil for ecosystem services with a holistic approach, drawing on research insights and aligning with the SDGs e.g., “global recognition of soil pollution as an emerging problem” and “calls for monitoring, prevention and remediation; emphasis on cross-scale policy instruments (on national and global levels) – as the phrase goes “think globally & act locally.” The authors herein try to show the policy implications for agri practice/research.
If the Editor wants, we can even move longer policy descriptions into a short boxed “Policy context” as an optional appendix if the journal allows supplementary material — this shall preserve full citations without burdening the main narrative. Finally, we want to state that the policy-related content has been synthesized and integrated into the narrative in our own words, improving readability while retaining key references and maintaining an academic tone.
- Section 4.4.1 – Heavy Metal Pollution
Reviewer’s Comment: There is no 4.4.1 labelled in the manuscript, since heavy metals are discussed in multiple places and Table 1 includes heavy metals and treatment options
Response: A dedicated subsection on heavy metal contaminants has been added, covering sources, environmental impacts, and recent research, complementing the discussion of organic pollutants.
- Section 4.3 Case Studies – Scope of Soil Pollution
Reviewer’s Comment: Case studies focus exclusively on organic pesticide pollution.
Response: The manuscript now includes additional discussion data on heavy metals and one extra entry in Table 1 with respect to heavy metals. We wrote the reasons behind not including case studies and guided readers to read our article in press and our previous studies which addressed heavy metal phytotoxicity, ensuring a more comprehensive thematic coverage of soil pollution. - Abbreviations
Reviewer’s Comment: Full forms should be provided for abbreviations at first mention.
Response: All abbreviations, including FAO, have been defined at first occurrence in the revised manuscript.
We have defined all abbreviations at first use (e.g., Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)) and can also include a short list of abbreviations in the front matter (enclosed herewith an ANNEXURE below, if journal allows).
- Figure 4 Reference
Reviwer’s Comment: The reference “Resilience Alliance, 2007” is missing from the reference list.
Response: The missing reference has been added and all in-text citations have been cross-checked for consistency with the reference list. - Figure 7 Clarity
Reviewer’s Comment: Figure 7 suffers from poor clarity.
Response: Figure 7 has been resubmitted to improve resolution and readability. - Reference Formatting
Reviewer’s Comment: Citation and reference list formatting errors exist.
Response: All references have been reviewed and corrected to ensure consistency and adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines.
Finally, we are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful suggestions. We believe that these revisions address the reviewer’s feedback and significantly enhance the manuscript’s structure, clarity, and coherence as expected by the reviewer while retaining our scientific rigor.
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC1', Isak Shaikh, 30 Nov 2025
This response was mistakenly registered as CommunityComment instead of Authors' Comment. I paste that response (to the Reviewer 1) again here. Here is our measured and professional response that addresses the technical parts of the reviewer’s feedback clearly and respectfully.
Reviewer’s Overall Feedback: This review systematically elucidates the central role of soil in ecosystems, tracing the evolution of agricultural development starting from the Green Revolution. The authors point out that while the promotion of high-yielding cultivars and agricultural chemicals alleviated the food crisis in the short term, it sowed the seeds of soil pollution and ecological degradation in the long run. By closely linking soil degradation to ecosystem services, human health, and sustainable development, the review highlights its pressing relevance and contemporary significance. The article adopts a sound perspective, but its writing logic lacks clarity, diminishing readability.
Response to Reviewer Comments:
I sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading, thorough evaluation, and constructive feedback. We see these comments invaluable in enhancing the clarity, structure, and overall quality of our manuscript. We have included our responses to the specific points raised during the review. We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and structure, expanded the treatment of heavy-metal contamination (even referring to another manuscript in press) , harmonized section headings, simplified policy text into synthesized narrative, improved figure resolution and captions, and corrected reference formatting and missing citations. Below we respond point-by-point.In brief: The reviewer praises the article's scientific framing but critiques style and clarity, which seem to focus on presentation rather than substance. These concerns likely come from a non-expert reviewer with a general sustainability background. Their key points include (i) Criticism of clarity and structure lacks specifics, indicating a superficial review; (ii) Policy citations are a standard and necessary part of sustainability research; (iii) Editorial comments on formatting and abbreviations are minor and don't address scientific content. Note to the Editor: Authors appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. The manuscript has been revised for clarity while retaining its scientific depth. Given its interdisciplinary nature, integrating policy is crucial for relevance. P.S.: Some feedback appears more stylistic than scientific. We’ve revised the manuscript to improve clarity, reflecting its interdisciplinary scope. 1. Introduction Section
Reviewer’s Comment: The “INTRODUCTION” section should explicitly state the paper's primary focus.
Response: We have added a short, explicit aim statement “This review explicitly focuses on (i) the causes and current status of agricultural soil contamination, (ii) pathways by which contamination degrades soil ecosystem services, and (iii) restorative mitigation strategies (physico-chemical, biological and policy measures) with special emphasis on (agro)chemicals turned pollutants and their relevance for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” preceding / just before "Objectives" block.We have revised the Introduction to clearly articulate the main objectives of the review, emphasizing the central role of soil in ecosystems, its relationship with agricultural development, soil pollution, and sustainable management strategies.
- Section 3.3
Reviewer’s Comment: Section 3.3 title/subheadings do not match content
We already have Section 3.3 “Soil Contaminants Origin, causes and status.” The reviewer says subsections read like “current situation” rather than Origin/Cause/Status.
Response: We have restructured Section 3.3 so that the subsection headings now follow a clear logical sequence (from Origin to Causes/Pathways, and Current Status). We hope that this restructuring ensures consistency between the section title and its subheadings.
- Policy Citations and Readability
Reviewer’s Comment: The manuscript extensively cites policy documents (which affects readability) and intergovernmental references (FAO, Basel, Stockholm, UN Decade, etc.). That is appropriate in an interdisciplinary review — but the reviewer wants more synthesis and fewer long policy quotes.
Response: That's the whole point — to address the restorative mitigation of contaminated soil for ecosystem services with a holistic approach, drawing on research insights and aligning with the SDGs e.g., “global recognition of soil pollution as an emerging problem” and “calls for monitoring, prevention and remediation; emphasis on cross-scale policy instruments (on national and global levels) – as the phrase goes “think globally & act locally.” The authors herein try to show the policy implications for agri practice/research.
If the Editor wants, we can even move longer policy descriptions into a short boxed “Policy context” as an optional appendix if the journal allows supplementary material — this shall preserve full citations without burdening the main narrative. Finally, we want to state that the policy-related content has been synthesized and integrated into the narrative in our own words, improving readability while retaining key references and maintaining an academic tone.
- Section 4.4.1 – Heavy Metal Pollution
Reviewer’s Comment: There is no 4.4.1 labelled in the manuscript, since heavy metals are discussed in multiple places and Table 1 includes heavy metals and treatment options
Response: A dedicated subsection on heavy metal contaminants has been added, covering sources, environmental impacts, and recent research, complementing the discussion of organic pollutants.
- Section 4.3 Case Studies – Scope of Soil Pollution
Reviewer’s Comment: Case studies focus exclusively on organic pesticide pollution.
Response: The manuscript now includes additional discussion data on heavy metals and one extra entry in Table 1 with respect to heavy metals. We wrote the reasons behind not including case studies and guided readers to read our article in press and our previous studies which addressed heavy metal phytotoxicity, ensuring a more comprehensive thematic coverage of soil pollution. - Abbreviations
Reviewer’s Comment: Full forms should be provided for abbreviations at first mention.
Response: All abbreviations, including FAO, have been defined at first occurrence in the revised manuscript.
We have defined all abbreviations at first use (e.g., Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)) and can also include a short list of abbreviations in the front matter (enclosed herewith an ANNEXURE below, if journal allows).
- Figure 4 Reference
Reviwer’s Comment: The reference “Resilience Alliance, 2007” is missing from the reference list.
Response: The missing reference has been added and all in-text citations have been cross-checked for consistency with the reference list. - Figure 7 Clarity
Reviewer’s Comment: Figure 7 suffers from poor clarity.
Response: Figure 7 has been resubmitted to improve resolution and readability. - Reference Formatting
Reviewer’s Comment: Citation and reference list formatting errors exist.
Response: All references have been reviewed and corrected to ensure consistency and adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines.
Finally, we are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful suggestions. We believe that these revisions address the reviewer’s feedback and significantly enhance the manuscript’s structure, clarity, and coherence as expected by the reviewer while retaining our scientific rigor.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-AC6
-
AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-271', Isak Shaikh, 11 Nov 2025
Hello and thanks for the Referee 1's feedback! The manuscript submits and presents itself as a scientific review, but the Editor has reclassified it as an original article. The main intellectual contribution is conceptual synthesis: bringing together soil ecosystem services, pesticide-driven contamination, bioremediation strategies, and global policy frameworks. Some readers and reviewers consider its novelty lying in interpretive integration or a report, rather than a review. Soil contamination, ecosystem service degradation, and sustainability transitions are timely and of high strategic importance globally. This manuscript effectively links soil science, environmental governance, and socio-ecological sustainability (e.g., discussion of SDGs, UN frameworks, Green Revolution historical arc, etc.), and the manuscript clearly communicates soil contamination related issues with their urgency. The manuscript clearly establishes contamination as a threat to soil microbial function, nutrient cycling, ecosystem resilience, and human health. The selected remediation case studies (e.g., Vemmenhög Project, Sweden; DDT/HCH co-processing in China; PCB remediation in Italy) provide real-world evidence of impact.
The novelty rests mainly on:
- Conceptual integration of soil ecosystem services with sustainability governance narratives.
- Emphasis on the nexus between remediation practices and SDGs
- Framing of “research enterprise” as a driver for farmer practice change.
And, in principle, the anonymous referee 1 accepts conceptual advances and policy-relevance as original contributions. We hope that the manuscript functions best as a perspective-based conceptual review, and or an original research article – as proposed by the Editor earlier - in the strict sense.
Please find attached herewith our measured and professional response that addresses the technical parts of the reviewer’s feedback clearly and respectfully.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
ISAK SHAIKH (on behalf of myself & the co-author)
-
EC1: 'Revised manuscript', Simeon Materechera, 12 Nov 2025
Dear Authors
Thank you very much for the revised manuscript and the notes associated with the revision. I would however request that you indicate in the response the exact position/locations in the manuscript (preferable by line numbers) where you have implemented the changes within the text. This will make it easier and clearer for the reader to evaluate the response.
Regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-EC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-271', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Nov 2025
Congratulations to the authors for addressing such a comprehensive topic. My suggestion for the overall draft is that the direction and objectives of the paper need to be stated more clearly, and all paragraphs should support these objectives. Additionally, the flow between and within paragraphs can be improved for better readability.
1. I do not see the result of this paper in the abstract. As a reader, I assume that I will get the general result of this research. Is there any improvement in soil quality or any recovery of ecosystem services? How does it link to Sustainable Development Goals? What are the important factors to develop sustainable land, et cetera
2. The first two sentences and the third sentence (in the first paragraph of the introduction) do not have a good flow. My suggestion is (e.g. you can describe the characteristics of fertile soils and how they benefit ecosystem services, instead of describing the soils in general).
3. Does the paper review the current state of knowledge on the degradation of soil pollution in the world or only in India? lines 60-85: The idea of the 4th paragraph is biased. The description of soil function and black cotton soil in Deccan Plateau in India should be separated into different paragraphs.
4. In the abstract, it is mentioned that researchers explore physico-chemical and biological methods to mitigate soil contamination. However, I don't see authors explain/mention those physico-chemical and chemical methods in the introduction.
5. Lines 97-99: It is too short to be one paragraph. At least, there are 3 sentences in one paragraph
6. I think the introduction's explanation is too broad and does not focus on pesticide contamination, impact and implications as mentioned in the objectives. I expect in the sub-chapter 1.2, the authors more focus on soil degradation caused by pesticide contamination,the mechanism, and its impact on ecosystem service as mentioned in the objectives, but it seems like the flow becomes broad again by mentioning "there is also a need to promote teaching and learning for a sustainable society...(lines 114-118)"
7. lines 163-167: The aim of the study is different from the objectives mentioned in the previous paragraph.
8. line 181: Authors mentioned that they used the PRISMA protocol, but did not describe search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening and selection process, and data extraction.
9. My suggestion is no need to explain more about sustainable development (lines 205 - 215). Authors can focus on soil pollution and later relate it to sustainable land / sustainable development
10. Since the authors mentioned physico-chemical and biological methods in the abstract, I expect the authors to have more explanation on chemical, phytoremediation, and bioremediation. The latest technology, and its impact on soil and the environment, should be explained more clearly.
10. The reference list could be formatted more neatly. Kindly revise it!technical mistakes:
line 38: pollutants in each of these phases and impact thereof on the quality of soil, --> I suggest ...pollutants in each of these phases and their impact on the quality of soil,
Figure 1. Did you make this figure?
line 53: ...temperature regulation, carbon sequestration, et cetera.
Figure 2: Can you explain the diagram? I dont understand the point and nonpoint pathways
line 196: …the citation is incorrect, perhaps (Zhang et al., 2023).
line 201: The World Commission on Environment on Environment and Development (WCED)
line 228:...data was fairly often missing in many other such instances, and participants of … --> no "and" in the beginning of the sentence.
line 234: Figure 5 shows some key tools for sustainably managing soil/Figure 5 shows several key tools for sustainable soil management.
lines 239-240: A standard method” catalogue for collecting and analysing contaminants is available with the ISO Technical Committee 190 (Soil Quality) --> add reference for this statement.
Line 291: reference of SOCI website 2024 is not in the reference list
line 294: (Evans, D.L et al 2020) --> the citation writing is incorrect
Line 295: "Irresponsible farming practice like irrigation and erosion" --> I do not think irrigation is an irresponsible farming practice, and erosion is not a farming practice.
line 296: . And other factors --> and is not placed at the beginning of sentence
lines 300-301: " Soil pollution is nothing but a chemical deterioration and degradation. Soil is under constant threat from climate change, hydrogeological cycle, natural landscape change or land use change, loss in biodiversity, and chemical pollution (Rockström et al., 2009)." --> The first and second paragraphs are not connected smoothly
line 315: USEPA is not in the reference list
line 322: The citation is not correctly written.
line 330: remove "and" at the beginning of the sentence
line 361: WBCSD is not in the reference list
line 366: ..while in sub-Saharan Africa is mining
lines 366-368: Western Europe, Northern Africa, Eastern Europe --> the first alphabet should be capital
line 431: the word chemical is currently becoming synonymous with contaminant.
line 496: remove "and" at the beginning of the sentence
line 504-507: no need to mention the detailed book of Evuti et al (2022). Authors can write the detailed book description in the reference list
line 510-514: I expect the authors to mention the type/species of bacteria and fungi that can be used as bioremediation
line 516: The description of omic tools is introduced abruptly. Is it part of bioremediation or biotechnology advances?
line 521: etc --> et cetera
line 526: that amounts to over 70% of all the global pesticide use (Zhang et al, 2022, Tang et al., 2022).
line 527: remove "and" at the beginning of the sentence
line 535: 370 million kilograms of pesticides had been sold in the EU in 2018 (Eurostat 2020a).
line 535: remove "and" at the beginning of the sentence
lines 536-537: the ambitious target of a climate-neutral EU by year 2050 (EC, 2020; EC, 2017; FAO, 2022). (EC, 2017) is not in the reference list
line 546: ...washing projects are being taken up to respect stringent environmental regulations (Wilson and Conway, 2024)
line 547: What is CLU-IN? It was also not described in the reference list
line 564: The Vemmenhög catchment area saw a drastic reduction in transport of pesticides to surface waters (EEA; EU, 2024).Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Isak Shaikh, 19 Nov 2025
Dear all,
I thank the second anonymous referee for their feedback on our preprint. Please find attached herewith our measured and professional response that addresses the scientific as well as technical, including editorial parts of the feedback clearly and respectfully.
Hope our response meets the reviewer comments.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
ISAK SHAIKH (on behalf myself and the co author)
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Isak Shaikh, 19 Nov 2025
-
EC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-271', Simeon Materechera, 18 Nov 2025
Relevant and constructive comments have been made by this reviewer. Authors are encouraged to study these comments and implement revision of the manuscript accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-EC2 -
AC4: 'Reply on EC2', Isak Shaikh, 20 Nov 2025
Respected Sir,
Thanks for your advice!
This manuscript aims to deliver a valuable and wide-ranging conceptual contribution with strong interdisciplinary framing and illustrative case studies. However, to achieve the level of scientific rigor, comprehensiveness, and persuasiveness in writing & the dissemination of knowledge, we propose being permitted to reposition/clarify the manuscript’s methodological claims in order to enhance its overall intellectual impact.
Why do we say so?
In response to the second anonymous reviewer’s comments, we were made to include a PRISMA flow diagram. Nevertheless, for many, much of the manuscript (and even it's "Conclusion" part) still reflects the characteristics of a narrative originality or conceptual synthesis paper rather than a fully reproducible systematic review.To prevent any potential frustration among readers arising from a perceived mismatch between methodological transparency and the scope of our claims, and to avoid any plausible contradiction (that could compromise reproducibility), we kindly request permission to state explicitly in the manuscript:
“We conducted a structured literature search, and all studies were screened at the title/abstract and full-text levels. This work involves critical secondary research and conceptual synthesis that incorporates elements of PRISMA 2020 to enhance transparency; however, it does not constitute a formal systematic review and no protocol was registered.”Please acknowledge the receipt of revised manuscript.
Please let us know if there are any other aspects of the manuscript that require revision. We would greatly appreciate your guidance.Sincerely,
Isak R. Shaikh (on behalf of myself & the co-author Parveen R. Shaikh)Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC2', Isak Shaikh, 20 Nov 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-271', Anonymous Referee #3, 28 Nov 2025
The manuscript addresses an important topic: “Restorative Mitigation of Contaminated Soil for Ecosystem Services: Influences from Research Enterprise and Sustainable Development Goals”. It brings together policy discourse, case studies, and conceptual discussion. However, the review manuscript currently lacks structure. The methods are not reproducible, the “Results” section is largely narrative, and the manuscript needs substantial tightening, restructuring, and language correction before it can be considered for publication.
Here are specific comments
Abstract:
The abstract should summarise your key findings and implications rather than repeating what is written in the literature
L24–25: “Researchers explore physico-chemical and biological methods to mitigate the soil contamination,” but does not specify what this particular review adds beyond existing literature.
Introduction and aim:
The introduction section is good. The sub‐section on the transboundary nature of soil pollution (Line 90–100) is relevant and well-motivated. However, I struggled to get the main aim of this review manuscript. Sharpening of the aim and scope at the end of the introduction is needed. Explicitly state whether the contaminant in focus is pesticides, heavy metals, microplastics, or all. Clearly state the conceptual threads on how restorative mitigation, ecosystem services, SDGs are used to address the contaminants, beyond the current literature.
Materials and methods
Line 156-158: “The review has been prepared for submission to this interdisciplinary research journal, as it is a key resource for the dissemination of knowledge for the environmental and soil science communities. We examine the effects of agricultural soil contamination on ecosystem services and the global sustainable development.” Do these statements add any value to methods?
Line 150: Various components from relevant research were identified……..
What are those components?
The authors used various methods to conduct this literature review. Could the authors present the methods in a flow diagram or some protocol so that readers can easily understand it?
Results and Discussion
The authors put important narrative synthesis under results. However, the “Results” section does not present new empirical results. That is fine for a review, but the heading “RESULTS” is misleading. The authors could directly start with topics such as ‘Towards Sustainable Socio-Ecological Systems’ instead of “Results”. There is an overlapping trend between the results and the Discussion. Discussion is a place for synthesis and interpretation.
In summary,
The review will be further improved by including explicit statements regarding its scope, objectives, and type of review, as well as a transparent and reproducible methodology for selecting and synthesizing the literature. The structure needs to be streamlined, with repetition removed, overly broad and discursive sections tightened, and a clear narrative focus established around a coherent framework that links soil contamination, ecosystem services, remediation strategies, and SDG relevance. The Results and Discussion should be reorganised as a more formal, structured synthesis, without extensive narrative passages, with a much better integration between case studies and the conceptual framework.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-271-RC3 - AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Isak Shaikh, 30 Nov 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 802 | 234 | 52 | 1,088 | 43 | 42 |
- HTML: 802
- PDF: 234
- XML: 52
- Total: 1,088
- BibTeX: 43
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1