Trapnell's Upper Valley soils of Zambia: the production of an integrated understanding of geomorphology, pedology, ecology, and land use

Namwanyi, Nalumino L.; Hutton, Maurice J.; Mukumbuta, Ikabongo; Chabala, Lydia M.; Chongo, Clarence; Sichinga, Stalin; Lark, R. Murray

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-887-2024

Articles | Volume 10, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-887-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-887-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 2

Original research article

|

09 Dec 2024

Original research article |

| 09 Dec 2024

Trapnell's Upper Valley soils of Zambia: the production of an integrated understanding of geomorphology, pedology, ecology, and land use

Nalumino L. Namwanyi, Maurice J. Hutton, Ikabongo Mukumbuta, Lydia M. Chabala, Clarence Chongo, Stalin Sichinga, and R. Murray Lark

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Dec 2024)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 12 Feb 2024)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-315', Alice Milne, 09 Mar 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-315/egusphere-2024-315-CC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-CC1
- EC1: 'Reply on CC1', Simeon Materechera, 15 Mar 2024
  
  Comments noted and appreciated!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-EC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', R. Murray Lark, 26 Jun 2024
  
  We are glad for the opportunity to respond to comments on this paper. We note the handling editor’s observation that it is an unusual paper for SOIL. We understand that, which is why we took advice from the Editors before submission. There is a growing interest in the history of soil science, particularly in the colonial context. This was apparent at the recent Centennial Meeting of the International Union of Soil Sciences (Florence, May 2024). There were contributions at the meeting by historians as well as soil scientists, and much interest in this from researchers who want to use legacy soil information from various periods. We therefore think that the time is ripe for soil science journals to take on papers which have professional historians collaborating with soil scientists so that the work is sound from the perspective of both disciplines.
  We were therefore particularly pleased to note this positive comment on the paper by Professor Webster from Rothamsted Research who worked in Zambia after Trapnell’s time there.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-AC3
RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-315', Doyle McKey, 18 Mar 2024

Review by Doyle McKey (emeritus professor, University of Montpellier, France)
General comments : The manuscript analyzes the contribution of the Ecological Survey of Northern Rhodesia, carried out by Colin Trapnell and collaborators beginning in the 1930’s. They focus on how his field observations led him to develop an integrated view of geomorphology, soil, plant communities, and agricultural potential. His work is still widely cited, and has been influential in developing our understanding of soils, vegetation, and agriculture in a part of Africa where soil fertility is often low (Bell 1982), but varies with geomorphology, with nutrient-poorer soils on uplands and nutrient-richer soils in bottomlands (Scholes 1990).
The manuscript argues that Trapnell’s approach in fieldwork gave him particular insight into how soil conditions constrained agriculture, and on the adaptive value of traditional agricultural practices. The authors show that he analyzed not only how practices changed when farmers encountered environmental change, but also how they changed in response to social or economic change. They also show that he acknowledged the agency of African farmers, who made conscious decisions about which crops to grow, where, and when. His approach was thus more nuanced than that of what has been called « the ecological theory of development », a rather reductionist approach that some authors have considered to have been exemplified by his research. While the history of ideas about economic development, colonial legacies, and similar themes is rather far from my field of competence, these seem to be useful points. The detailed analysis and frequent citations of the survey’s traverse records make for sometimes laborious reading, but they do help make the central points of the manuscript.
Specific comments : The authors argue that « close attention to Trapnell’s experience could inform modern efforts to understand indigenous knowledge of African soils and their agricultural potential. » Modern work on soils and agricultural potential has been inspired and informed by Trapnell’s work, and it would be useful to give some examples. There are many examples that can be cited. The examples I know are mostly from northwestern Zambia, where I have some field experience (I have no field experience in southern Zambia). The papers I know (e.g., Grogan et al. 2013 ; Mielke & Mielke 1982 ; Stromgaard 1984, 1985, 1986, 1989) thus cite Trapnell’s later work in the northern part of present-day Zambia, from 1953 onwards (e.g., Trapnell 1953, 1959 ; Trapnell & Clothier 1957 ; Trapnell et al. 1976), rather than the early work in the survey in southern Zambia that is the subject of this paper. These papers analyze chitemene systems, described by Trapnell in 1953, and the fundikila and other mound-cultivation systems that seem to have been derived from chitemene. If the authors know of similar examples of modern work on soils and agricultural potential that were informed by the early work in the survey, in southern Zambia, these could be usefully cited and discussed.
References cited in this review :
Bell, R.H.V. (1982) The effect of soil nutrient availability on com- munity structure in African ecosystems. Ecology of tropical savannas (ed. by B J. Huntley and B.H. Walker), pp. 193-216. Ecological Studies; Springer, New York.
Mielke, H.W. and Mielke Jr, P.W., 1982. Termite mounds and chitemene agriculture: a statistical analysis of their association in southwestern Tanzania. Journal of Biogeography, 9(6) : 499-504.
Scholes, R.J., 1990. The influence of soil fertility on the ecology of southern African dry savannas. Journal of Biogeography, 17(4/5) : 415-419.
Stromgaard, P., 1984. The immediate effect of burning and ash-fertilization. Plant and Soil, 80 ; 307-320.
Stromgaard, P., 1985. A subsistence society under pressure: The Bemba of northern Zambia. Africa, 55(1) : 39-59.
Stromgaard, P., 1986. Early secondary succession on abandoned shifting cultivator's plots in the miombo of South Central Africa. Biotropica, 18(2) : 97-106.
Stromgaard, P., 1989. Adaptive strategies in the breakdown of shifting cultivation: the case of Mambwe, Lamha, and Lala of northern Zambia. Human Ecology, 17 : 427-444.
Trapnell, C.G., 1953. The soils, vegetation and agriculture of north-eastern Rhodesia, Lusaka, Government Printer.
Trapnell, C.G., 1959. Ecological results of woodland burning experiments in Northern Rhodesia. Journal of Ecology 47: 129-168.
Trapnell, C. G., and Clothier, J. N. (1957). The Soils, Vegetation and Agricultural Systems of North Western Rhodesia. Report of the Ecological Survey. Government Printer, Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia.
Trapnell, M.T. Friend, G.T. Chamberlain, & H.F. Birch. 1976. The effects of fire and termites on a Zambian woodland soil. Journal of Ecology 64: 577-588.
Trapnell, C.G. and Clothier, J.N., 1937. The soils, vegetation and agricultural systems of North Western Rhodesia. Report of the ecological survey. The soils, vegetation and agricultural systems of North Western Rhodesia. Report of the ecological survey. Cited 201 times (10 since 2020, 67 since 2000)

Technical corrections :
The text is in general very clearly written, but I have made a (large) number of (small) corrections. Line-by-line corrections are listed below. The corrections and remarks concern several different points.
Many of these concern the use of commas. For instance, in many places there was a comma before a parenthesis. If a punctuation mark is associated with a parenthetical statement, it should come after the second parenthesis, never before the first parenthesis. In some sentences, a comma was needed and I suggested inserting a comma. In other places, I suggested deleting a comma. Presence or absence of a comma sometimes changes the meaning of a sentence. For example, when two bears are sitting at a table with a human named Bob, and one says « Let’s eat, Bob ! », that is a friendly remark. But when the bear says « Let’s eat Bob ! », that is cause for concern. In the manuscript, I saw no places where presence or absence of a comma dramatically changed the meaning of a sentence, but precision in the use of commas makes for easier reading.
There are a few places where a word (or more) was missing. I noted these places and either suggested a correction or asked the authors to clarify. There were also a few places where a pronoun was used, but it was unclear to what noun it referred.
In a few places where a finding of the decades-old report was presented, the authors use the present tense. In these cases, past tense or past-perfect tense should be used. I noted these places and suggested corrections or asked the authors to clarify.
There were a few minor grammatical errors (e.g., disagreement in number between subject and verb) and misspellings. I corrected these.
Finally, one kind of « correction » I made is more a stylistic suggestion than a correction : the use of « which » and « that ». In American usage, The difference between « which » and « that » depends on whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive : « In a restrictive clause, use ‘that’ ; In a nonrestrictive clause, use ‘which’. (https://www.grammarly.com/blog/which-vs-that/#:~:text=Which%20vs.%20that%3A%20What's%20the,a%20nonrestrictive%20clause%2C%20use%20which. –see that site for the difference between these two types of clauses. However, in British usage, the two words appear to be used more interchangeably (https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/hwjlrp/that_vs_whicha_difference_in_british_english/).
Personally, I find the American usage more precise, and it seems to be catching on internationally.

Line 17 : remove the comma after « 1930s » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 26 : WHAT « is focused on the East African Soil Map »--is the ‘side-note’ focused on this map, or is the ‘account of pedology’ focused on this map? I think you mean the latter. If so, the meaning would be clearer if you inserted a comma between « Africa » and « which ».
Line 80 : « was takes place » : Do you mean « was taking place » ? « took place » ? Or something else.
Line 83 : delete the comma after « scenery » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 94 : « the first author was a missionary » : change to : « the first author of which was a missionary »
Line 95 : delete the comma after « work » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 95 : insert a comma between « 4.2) » and « participated »
Line 110 : « has not been achieved, » : change to « had not been achieved, »
Line 111 : insert a comma between « officer » and « attributed »
Line 115 : insert a comma between « Moore » and « whose »
Line 117 : « In this context » : change to : « It was in this context »
Line 126 : delete the comma betwen « production » and « only »
Line 157 : delete the comma after « transcribed »
Line 158 : delete the comma after « assistance »
Line 272 : « Recall (section 3), that » : delete the comma
Line 273 : « has been an important factor » : change to : « had been an important factor »
Line 283 : delete the comma after « minute » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 331 : « and landuse practices, » : change to : « and land-use practices, »
Line 337 : « wide ranging conversations » : change to : « wide-ranging conversations »
Line 381 : « field’, (Clarke, 1936) » : delete the comma after « field » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 399 : « mother, (Jaspan, 2017). » : delete the comma after « mother » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 402 : « 2017) shifts » : insert a comma after the parenthesis
Line 408 : « 566 – 567) where » : insert a comma after the parenthesis
Line 408 : insert a comma between « undertaken » and « it »
Line 414 : « with one or more interpreter. » : change « interpreter » to « interpreters »
Line 424 : insert a comma between « However » and « we »
Line 424 : « individuals and the education or experience » change to : « individuals or the education or experience »
Line 425 : « which equipped them » : change to : « that equipped them »
Line 428 : « This is Cikabanga, » : Unclear. Is ‘Cikabanga’ the name of the language in which the term ‘meninge skellem mouti’ appears ?
Line 456 : insert a comma between « mines » and « lies »
Line 469 : « in so far as this provide » : change « provide » to « provides »
Line 473 : « The information which Trapnell collected » : change « which » to « that »
Line 477 : « B. flagristipulata » : Spell out the name of the genus in full, as this species has not been mentioned previously in the manuscript.
Line 481 : « Afrormosia spp, » : First, « spp. » should not be in italics. Second, in the cited publication, was it « spp. » (plural, indicating more than one species) or « sp. » (singular, indicating one species)? It should be singular, as there is only one species. Third, « sp » should be followed by a period, not a comma. Fourth, while « Afrormosia » was used in the cited publication, it would be useful to add the current name, as follows : « (e.g. Afrormosia spp, [current recognized name Pericopsis elata, Fabaceae] and one … »
Line 482 : « Setaria sp, » : First, « sp » should not be in italics. Second, « sp » should be followed first by a period, then by a comma : « Setaria sp., »
Line 486 : « shifts, and rotations and » : change to : « shifts, rotations and »
Line 488 : « wild species which were eaten, » : change to : « wild species that were eaten, »
Line 500 : « I. paniculata » : Spell out the name of the genus in full, as this species has not been mentioned previously in the manuscript.
Line 512 : « Compbretum » : change to : « Combretum »
Line 520 : « The soil varies » : change to : « The soil varied » or to « The soil was observed to vary », because you are commenting on a report written in the past.
Line 533 : « Trapnell’s observations on the around Kafushi » : a word appears to be missing. Do you mean « Trapnell’s observations on the area around Kafushi » ?
Lines 543-544 : Spell out the generic name of these two species (or only the first one if they belong to the same genus). Also, put « B. hockii » in italics.
Line 546 : « gravel which is charateristic » : change « which » to « that » and change « charateristic » to « characteristic »
Line 548 : spell out the generic name of « H. filipendula »
Line 557 : « four year fallow » : change to « four-year fallow »
Line 557 : insert a comma between « site » and « which ». Also : « the community returned to the site, which was then abandoned. » : They returned for HOW LONG before the site was then abandoned?

Line 571 : « Nontheless » : change to : « Nonetheless »

Line 580 : « and others » : change to : « and at others »
Line 581 : « 1934) the demise » : insert a comma just after the parenthesis

Line 584 : It should be pointed out that when Trapnell refers to « anthills », these are in most (or all) cases termite mounds.

Line 588 : « technological change which was taking place » : change « which » to « that »

Line 590 : « but it was also associated » : What does « it » refer to here ? « the use of ploughing », or something else ?

Line 592 : « The traverse record, however, provide » : disagreement in number between subject and verb. Change to either : « The traverse records, however, provide » OR to : « The traverse record, however, provides »

Line 600 : « which notes » : change to : « that notes »

Line 643 : « contingencies which cause » : change to : « contingencies that cause »

Line 645 : « Western Report, Trapnell and Clothier (1937), he noted » : change to : « Western Report (Trapnell and Clothier, 1937), he noted »

Lines 655-656 : « Siegel (1989) shows that, for some, this was a deliberate ideological choice, the ‘African Watchtower Movement’, based among the Lamba, actively rejected urban life as a colonial innovation. » : This should be two sentences. E.g., "... Siegel (1989) shows that, for some, this was a deliberate ideological choice. The "African Watchtower Movement", based among the Lamba, actively..."

Line 684 : « concerns, which might » : change « which » to « that »

Lines 693-694 : « context which is entirely consistent » : change « which » to « that »

Lines 698-699 : « Aformosia » : correct to « Afrormosia » (current recognized name is Pericopsis elata)

Line 710 : insert a comma between « filipendula » and « were »

Line 711 : « and vegetation and Sweet Dambo » : change to : « and vegetation. Sweet Dambo »

Line 712 : « depended on a range of » : change to : « depended on the range of »

Line 714 : insert a comma between « Similarly » and « Colluvial »

Line 718 : « access, otherwise maize » : change to : « access. Otherwise, maize »

Lines 779-780 : « In the account of the soil classes the recently published East African Soil Map (Milne, 1936) is treated as normative, the point » : change to : « In the account of the soil classes the (then) recently published East African Soil Map (Milne, 1936) is treated as normative : the point »

Lines 784-785 : « in a state of maturity, and those stability, » : ?? One or more words are missing in this phrase

Line 787 : « poorly-drained conditions which » : insert a comma between « conditions » and « which »

Line 789 : « than these of the Southern Plateau which » : change to : « than those of the Southern Plateau, which »
Line 792 : insert a comma between « ironstone » and « which »

Line 796 : « both with climate expressed in colour variation » : why "both"? What are the two things included in "both"? Also, explain the relation between climate and colour variation. Unclear.

Line 799 : « your soils » : Why « your » soils ? Meaning unclear.

Line 800 : « Theses soils are correlated with » : Do you mean : « These soils are compared with » ? « These soils are considered similar to » ?

Line 805 : « extending of » : Do you mean « extending from » ?

Line 808 : « As noted in section ?? Trapnell » : there is a problem with the symbol after the word « section ». Also, insert a comma between the number of the section and « Trapnell »

Line 817 : « their larger base saturation and content of phosphate and nitrogen » : change to : « their larger base saturation and higher contents of phosphate and nitrogen »

Line 821 : « Trapnell and Clothier (1937), did not » : delete the comma

Lines 821-822 : « did not attempt these as mapping units. » : change to : « did not attempt to display these as mapping units. »

Lines 824-825 : « The Thorn soils were mainly on colluvial sandy loam material, generally more coherent
than the Transitional soils » : Meaning unclear. "more coherent" in what respect? Are you referring to some trait of the soil (e.g., structure)? Are you referring to the cohesioin of soil? Or are you referring to the coherence of the classification (these soils formed a more coherent class, i.e., less variable)?

Line 836 : « of the plateau » : these words should not be in italics.

Lines 840-841 : « Dambo Heads and Sweet Dambo of the Plateau Bush where gardens were established where A. campylacantha was found along with tall Hyparrhenia grass. » : Do you mean « Do you mean "... where gardens were established and where A. campylacantha..."? OR do you mean "...where gardens were established in places where A. campylacantha..."?

In either case, you should insert a comma between « Bush » and « where ».

Line 846 : « topography (dense scrub » : The second parenthesis is missing.

Line 847 : « and the cultivation period extended beyond » : Do you mean « Do you mean "...and the cultivation period can be extended beyond..."?

Lines 850-851 : « Sometimes followed by maize with or without sorghum. » : This is not a complete sentence (no subject or verb)

Line 858 : « the complexity which they observed » : change « which » to « that »

Line 866 : « the wood which was burned » : change « which » to « that »

Line 867 : « anthill, and where » : delete the « and ». Also, see my earlier comment about « anthill ».

Line 868 : « we sown » : change to : « were sown »

Line 871 : « The Ecological Survey Reports, (Trapnell and Clothier, 1937; Trapnell, 1943) » : delete the comma after « Reports » (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)

Line 872 : « the traditional systems which had been » : change « which » to « that »

Line 875 : insert a comma between « systems » and « which »

Lines 875-877 : « In the case of the Upper Valley System, however, they observe that, in the vicinity of the rail line the main priority is remediation in the light of rapid change which has already occurred. » : Verb tenses are tricky when you are describing a report that was published a long time ago. I suggest changing this sentence as follows : « In the case of the Upper Valley System, however, they observed that, in the vicinity of the rail line the main priority was remediation in the light of rapid change that had already occurred. »

Line 879 : insert a comma between « composts » and « could »

Lines 886-887 : « Three primary factors are identified, to which soils owe their characteristics. These are climate (past and present), parent material and the age of the land surface and nature of the changes that have taken place in relief. » : Where does the second factor end (after "parent material" or after "age of the lans surface") and the third factor begin? I BELIEVE that the second factor ends after « age of the land surface ». If so, insert a comma after « surface ». Then change « and nature of the changes » to : « and the nature of the changes. »

Line 888 : « The latter is key » : « latter » is used when speaking of the second of TWO things. "last" is used when speaking of the last of three or more things, as here ("three primary factors"). Change « latter » to « last ».

Line 889 : « says Trapnell (1943) cut » : insert a comma after « (1943) »

Line 896 : « environments where intense evaporation and soil moisture deficit results in » : change « results » to « result », as the subject of this verb is plural (« evaporation » and « deficit »).

Line 897 : « red earth soils correlated with those of » : Do you mean « red earth soils that are similar to those of » OR « red earth soils that correspond to those of » ?

Lines 906-907 : « As in the previous report, Trapnell explains the use of a regional physiographic basis for classification on the paucity of soil analytical data. » : "explains...on": unclear. I suggest writing something like: "As in the previous report, Trapnell explains that a regional physiographic basis was used for classification owing to the paucity of soil analytical data."

Line 907 : « he states that, when » : delete the comma.

Line 913 : « The notion of climatic sequences cutting across physiographic differences, » : Above (line 889), the structure is the inverse: physiographic differences "cut across the broad zonal arrangement of climatic soil types."

Line 917 : « those formed in the most wettest conditions » : delete « most »

Line 920 : « representing, respectively tropical and more temperate » : either insert a comma after « respectively » or delete the comma after « representing »

Lines 929-930 : « The earlier correlation with Non-calcareous Plains Soils » : « correlation » is not quite the right word. I suggest writing : « The earlier correspondence of these soils to the Non-calcareous Plains Soils »

Line 931 : « Trapnell et al. (1947) notes » : change « notes » to « note » (there was more than one author).

Line 944 : « variation, and » : delete the comma.

Line 947 : « the characteristics of which vary » : Ambiguous. I suppose that "which" refers to the parent material provided by the Kalahari Sand, but from the sentence structure it could also refer to the underlying bedrock. Please clarify.

Line 950 : insert a comma between « 1930) » and « were »

Line 965 : « with A.P.G.Michelmorewho » : change to : « with A.P.G.Michelmore, who »

Line 967 : « bush, (Michelmore, 1934). » : delete the comma after « bush ».

Line 971 : « field observations, (Milne, 1947), were made : delete the comma before and after the parentheses.

Lines 971-972 : « conceptual model in the field which allowed » : change « which » to « that »

Line 978 : « reports, meant » : delete the comma

Line 991 : « based on process understanding » : Unclear. Do you mean "based on the understanding of process" ?

Line 1001 : « it was not irredeemable, (Trapnell, 1934a) and » : move the comma to read as follows : « it was not irredeemable (Trapnell, 1934a), and »

Lines 1008-1009 : « such as the Lamba (?) who » : What should replace the question mark ?

Line 1010 : « this overlooks » : change to : « this view overlooks »

Line 1011 : « factors which may influence » : change « which » to « that »

Lines 1011-1012 : « This underlines » : change to : « This consideration underlines »

Line 1012 : « soil and landuse which » : change to : « soil and land use that »

Line 1014 : insert a comma between « linguists » and « as »

Line 1020 : insert a comma between « conditiosn » and « certainly »

Line 1026 : « concerns which » : change « which » to « that »

Line 1027 : « offers » : change to « offer » (the subject of this verb is « strategies », plural)

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-RC1
- EC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Simeon Materechera, 18 Mar 2024
  
  Much appreciated. Will wait to hear the authors responses..
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-EC2
  - RC3: 'Reply on EC2', Doyle McKey, 18 Mar 2024
    
    thanks for acknowledging receipt.
    Doyle McKey
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-RC3
    
    AC4: 'Reply on RC3', R. Murray Lark, 04 Jul 2024
    
    I am posting a response here as it seems to be required for finalizing the actual responses which I posted to the reviewer's first set of comments. Thank you.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-AC4
- EC3: 'Reply on RC1', Simeon Materechera, 18 Mar 2024
  
  Much appreciated. Will wait to hear the authors responses..
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-EC3
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', R. Murray Lark, 26 Jun 2024
  
  General comments
  The reviewer summarises the key points of the paper clearly. We are glad that he notes our response to those historians who use Trapnell’s work in Zambia to exemplify the ‘ecological theory of development’. We acknowledge the value of those studies but (and see reviewer 2) think that Trapnell’s work requires more nuanced consideration. We understand the reviewer’s point that the style of the paper is detailed, but this reflects the historical methodology of ‘close reading’ of sources, which we think is essential here. For example, it helps us to see both how Trapnell’s work influenced the development of the East-African soil map (Section 5.2) and why Trapnell appears to have played this down (lines 297 – 300). Given our general observations above on the need for transdisciplinary work along the history/soil science axis, we hope that our contribution will help with mutual understanding by being historically rigorous
  
  and pedologically informed.
  
  Specific comments
  We are grateful to the reviewer for this helpful list of studies which have been informed by Trapnell’s work. We shall incorporate these references in the second paragraph of the introduction to show the influence of Trapnell in soil science. We do note, however, that references to the field records themselves are rather sparse.
  Technical corrections
  The reviewer’s careful attention here is much appreciated. We have examined all his suggestions, and in each case we will make a revision to punctuation or presentation for improved clarity. Most of these corrections do not require further comment at this point, but we expand on the others below.
  • Line 26. The proposed comma achieves our sense here.
  
  • Line 80. Should be ‘was taking place’ .
  
  • Line 428. We shall clarify that Cikabanga is the language of the excerpt.
  
  • Line 477. We shall ensure, here and elsewhere, that the full generic name (e.g. Brachystegia) is given in the first reference to any species (e.g. Brachystegia flagristipulata).
  
  • Line 481. At line 318 we will explain that we use the Botanical names in the original Ecological Survey reports. It seems cumbersome to refer to the modern equivalents in the text, which is why we present the synonyms in Table S10 of the supplement.
  
  • Line 557. We will insert the comma as suggested. The length of the second phase of cultivation before the site was abandoned was not specified in the field record, and we shall state this in the revision.
  
  • Line 584. We shall clarify here that ‘anthills’ generally means ‘termite mounds’.
  
  • Line 784. We shall edit this to read ‘.. they have formed on mature and stable topography and so have been subject to seasonal leaching over a long period of time.’
  
  • Lines 796 We shall edit this to read ‘.. and show greater variation , particularly reflected in soil colour and texture. Yellow and organce clay soils were found on the Northern Plateau, and orange and pink to buff soils around the Copperbelt. In the drier conditions of the Southern Plateau the colours were more muted, and the Plateau soils were sandier in texture.’
  
  • Line 799. We shall delete ‘your’.
  
  • Line 808. This is left from a previous version of the paper. We shall edit to read ‘Trapnell compares them...’, deleting ‘As noted in section..’
  
  • Lines 824 – 825 Trapnell uses ‘coherent’ here to say that the soil material was cohesive. We shall clarify this.
  
  • Line 850–851. This will be edited to ‘These crops were sometimes followed by maize ...’.
  
  • Lines 897, 929 The verb ‘to correlate’ is used in geological and soil survey when two or more soil map legends, or working legends used by field surveyors, are compared to identify units which can be regarded as corresponding to each other. For example, Table C.4 in the first edition of the Booker Tropical Soil Manual presents the correlation of Soil Taxonomy and FAO soil groups. We shall clarify this as we agree it is confusing given the statistical sense of ‘correlation’
  
  • Line 991. We shall edit this to ‘... based on an understanding of processes.’
  
  • Line 1008 – 1009. This was a reference which was mistyped and so not compiled in LATEX. It was to the article by Speek and to the Central-Western report.
  
  • Regarding ‘which’ and ‘that’ we have aimed to follow Fowler’s Modern Eng- lish Useage in using the latter for definitive and the former for non-definitive clauses. We do not think this is quite the same as the reviewer’s meaning, but we shall re-examine each case.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-AC2
RC2:
'Correction', Doyle McKey, 18 Mar 2024

In my review, I wrote "The examples I know are mostly from northwestern Zambia,": this should have been: "The examples I know are mostly from northeastern Zambia,"

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-RC2
- AC5: 'Reply on RC2', R. Murray Lark, 04 Jul 2024
  
  Thank you for this clarification
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-AC5
RC4:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-315', Paul Smith, 03 Jun 2024

This is a useful review of the ground-breaking contribution made by C.G. Trapnell to our understanding of soil-vegetation associations, and the relevance of his observations and approach to sustainable agriculture today.
I transcribed CGT's notebooks in the late 1990s, and met him regularly to discuss his surveys, and I'm not sure that framing his approach in the 'ecological theory of development' is particularly useful (Section 4.7). Colin was a pioneer in his field, and was appointed 'ecologist' at a time when few knew what this was. He told me he used to receive letters addressed to 'The Evangelist' amongst other things. As the authors acknowledge, CGT (unlike his traverse colleague, Neil Clothier) was not the product of a formal education in agriculture. He read classics at Oxford and then did a Mycology degree. In short, he came into the job with few pre-conceived ideas or dogma.
In the Conclusions section (1005-1010), the authors say that 'Trapnell was inclined to disparage groups such as the Lamba who were reluctant to participate in the changed agricultural economy under colonialism, or to move to agriculturally superior land, with respect to their ‘backwardness’ or lack of industry.' I don't think this is correct. With regard to Kaonde-Lamba Chiteme systems, Trapnell uses the term 'backward' in relation to individual villages, not to ethnic groups. 'The Lamba and the Kaonde have the broadcast Chiteme system in common but the better Lamba are advancing to at least stage (2), and also have the more developed transplant modification of the distributed system.' (p. 325, Smith & Trapnell). He goes on to say (p.326) that the 'poor and backward villages......have not developed to the point of the Lamba cassava test or to the proper recognition of good root crop soils.' In all my dealings with him, Trapnell had a high level of respect for native agricultural knowledge - something he said he was was supported in by Colin Duff, his boss, but not everyone else in the department. Perhaps the best example of this was Trapnell's certainty that the groundnut scheme (initially mooted for Northern Rhodesia) would not work - based on his observations of native practices in Kaputa and the north east of only planting groundnuts on 'new land' or very short rotation because of crop failure in year 3 or even year 2. He told me that his pointing this out to the authorities was extremely unpopular!
In their final words (para 1030), the authors say 'In the setting of the Upper Valley we are better-placed, thanks to Trapnell, to make more nuanced

historical judgements, and to recognize traditional practices as ‘sustainable because capable of adaptation, and of underpinning further adaptation.’ This has implications for how future challenges can be addressed.' With this statement, I fully concur.
Paul Smith

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-RC4
- AC1:
  'Reply on RC4', R. Murray Lark, 26 Jun 2024
  
  General comments
  We are glad that the reviewer regards our work as useful, and concurs with our final assessment of its contemporary relevance. We are particularly pleased given his key role in making the traverse records available through his collaboration with Colin Trapnell.
  Specific comments
  1. Ecological concept of development. The ‘Ecological concept of development’ is a later term from historical appraisal of colonial science, rather than one used at the time (even though the Ecological Survey was widely referred to by its title, for example in reports of the Department of Agriculture). We agree that, as presented by Speek, it does not fit well as a descriptor of Trapnell’s approach or conclusions, and we argue for a more nuanced understanding (section 4.7). In this regard we do not think we are in disagreement with the reviewer.
  We propose to revise section 4.7 to emphasize that, while the concept of an ‘ecological’ approach to agricultural development would not have been widely understood at the time, the two reports of the Ecological Survey could reasonably be interpreted as advancing such a concept, unsuccessfully as it turned out. Nonetheless, we think that Speek’s characterisation of an ecological approach is reductive and fails to capture the sophistication of Trapnell’s understanding of the farming systems he observed and the factors which shaped their development.
  
  2. The Lamba We agree with the reviewer that Trapnell’s attitude to African agricultural systems was very respectful, this is our main point in section 4.7. This distinguished him from many in the Agricultural department at the time where there was clearly considerable disagreement over many issues, not least whether European cultivation in Zambia should be encouraged at all. However, there are comments which appear in the reports of the Ecological Survey which do not reflect this nuanced understanding, and these have been picked up by authors such as Speek. For example, in the North Western report (Paragraph 90, starting on page 24), Trapnell and Clothier refer to The Lamba-Kaonde group, comprising the Bulima, the Lamba,... Generally speaking these are backward tribes, lacking in crafts and primitive in diet..’.
  
  We are grateful to the reviewer for the references in the Traverse Records which recognize specific features of Lamba practice which Trapnell regarded as well-adapted, and which show him distinguishing between practices of communities within the Lamba ethnolinguistic group. We will use these in revision as outlined below.
  We propose to contrast the generalized comment by Trapnell and Clothier (1937) with the more nuanced observations in the field records, observing that Trapnell noted variations in practice within ethno-linguistic groups which depended on their precise ecological setting, varying from village to village, and on recent history (whether a community had recently moved to an area). We will contrast this with the generalised statement about the Lamba in the report which does require critical examination, not least in the broader historical and political context where many Lamba people in particular (see the reference by Siegel), assessed their economic options in broader terms than the potential returns from increased yields and engagement with a wider market.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-AC1
  - EC4: 'Reply on AC1', Simeon Materechera, 01 Jul 2024
    
    The comments of the authors are note and welcome. It will be interesting to see how they incorporate their reactions to the reviewer's comments in the revised manuscript.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-EC4
EC5:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-315', Simeon Materechera, 04 Jul 2024

Authors
One of the reviewers of your revised manuscript wrote:
I just saw the final response of the authors on the manuscript I reviewed for SOIL (https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315) and I am confused. Reading the first five pages of the document, I find that the authors have not responded to any of the corrections I made. I find this confusing, because in their previous response to my comments, they indicated they would make the necessary changes.
Can you check with the authors whether this is really the final version they want to post, or whether they made an error ?

Please respond to the above querry
Materechera

Thanks for your help in clearing this up.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-EC5
- AC6:
  'Reply on EC5', R. Murray Lark, 04 Jul 2024
  
  Hello,
  The version of the paper currently posted is the one that was accepted for review following some initial corrections (e.g. indicating that the maps in the paper are not subject to copyright).
  The system specified that we do NOT upload a corrected version of the paper at this stage in response to the reviewers' comments (and this has been our experience with other Copernicus journals). We submit responses which indicate the corrections that we intend to make, and it is then up to the editor (yourself) to indicate whether you are happy with our proposed set of corrections or whether you want us to address other issues as well. In response to that we prepare a revision for your decision.
  Kind regards
  Murray Lark
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-AC6
  - EC6: 'Reply on AC6', Simeon Materechera, 12 Jul 2024
    
    I will advise the Chief Editor to allow you to upload the revised version of the paper so that can be engaged on
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-315-EC6

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Revision (16 Jul 2024) by Simeon Materechera

AR by R. Murray Lark on behalf of the Authors (19 Aug 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (29 Aug 2024) by Simeon Materechera

RR by Doyle McKey (01 Sep 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have responded satisfactorily to my suggestions concerning content, and have made all the minor corrections and stylistic adjustments I recommended in my technical comments. I have made a few additional corrections of minor errors of form that I either missed in the first review or that appeared in the new text that was added during revision.
I guess my comments concerning the use of a hyphen (or not) in "land use" were not clear. The term takes a hyphen when it is a compound adjective modifying a noun, for example, "land-use change" (or "land-use practices", as on line 344). It does NOT take a hyphen when "use" is a noun and "land" is an adjective modifying it. In the title, for example, the correct form is "land use". Other places where the hyphen needs to be deleted to give two separate words : lines 46, 189, 341, 424, 519, 695, 749, 787, 1049, 1050, 1067.
Line 39 : I just did a Google Scholar search and found 31 citations of Smith and Trapnell (2001). It might be interesting to consult some of the additional ones not found in the Web of Science search.
Line 44 : You might consider citing these two references if you found them useful.
Line 96 : insert a comma between "landscape" and "was"
Line 105 : It is conventional to give the page number of a reference from which a direct quote was taken.

Line 159 : delete the comma after "records" (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 170 : insert a space between "P." and "Smith"
Line 181 : insert a comma after "Volume 1"
Line 190 : change "were" to "was" (subject of this verb is "information", singular)
Line 246 : "soil type of soil properties" : should "of" be "or" (or "and" ?)
Line 304 : Unless the error was already present in the text that is cited, change "usefuol" to "useful"
Line 324 : insert a comma after "(RML) "
Line 365 : "then" should be "than"
Lines 376-379 : This sentence is run-on. I suggest putting a period after "names" on line 377, and starting a new sentence with "Whilst"
Line 393 : delete the comma after "time" (no punctuation just before a parenthesis)
Line 409 : Delete the comma just before "would"
Line 499 : "…542. Practices…" change to : "…542). Practices…" (second parenthesis is missing)
Line 535 : spelling error. Correct to "characteristic"
Line 550 : spell out the generic name Brachystegia, as this is the first time this species is mentioned in the text.
Line 592 : What does "these" refer to ? The logical antecedents in the preceding sentence ("information", or "recent change") are both singular.
Line 667 : change "they appears" to "they appear"
Line 669 : "as such which" : insert a comma to read "as such, which"
Lines 670-671 : change "low-regard" to "low regard"
Line 696 : "and is also highlighted" : change to : "and as also highlighted"
Line 705 : delete the comma just before the last word of the line
Line 706 : "trying to advancing" : change to : "trying to advance"
Line 708 : delete the comma after "reports"
Line 761 : "did not attend, a letter" : change to : "did not attend. A letter"
Line 776 : Why are there parentheses around the number of the table ?
Lines 889-891 : Why do the words "main" and "village" bear an initial capital letter on line 889, but not on lines 890-891 ?

Figure 1, caption : "Map of Zambia, the black rectangle" : replace the comma by a semi-colon
Figure 6 and Figure 7 : all the "sp" in the species names should be "sp.", as this is an abbreviation, and "sp." should not be in italics.

Supplement : spell out the generic name for B. tamarinoides the first time it is mentioned. I don’t think this species was already mentioned in the main text. I also don’t recall previously seeing B. mimosifolia.
Table S1 : Entry for 14th June 1932 : last entry on the page : three Latin names are not in italics
I have not proofread the supplementary information in detail.
I like the supplementary table giving botanical names used by Trapnell and current names.
In the fourth line of the caption to this table (S10), change "is references" to "is referenced". Also, in the table itself, the spelling of Julbernardia has not been corrected. (in the table, this name is missing the second "r")
I don’t think you have any table where you give the scientific names of the crops. The vernacular names might be ok for most crops, but some might be ambiguous. For example, in Table 1 of the main text, I suppose that "groundnut" is Arachis hypogaea and that "groundbean" is Vigna subterranea, but I would prefer to be sure. A supplementary table with scientific names of the crops mentioned would be a useful addition.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (02 Sep 2024)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (15 Sep 2024) by Simeon Materechera

AR by R. Murray Lark on behalf of the Authors (20 Sep 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Oct 2024) by Simeon Materechera

ED: Publish as is (17 Oct 2024) by Jeanette Whitaker (Executive editor)

AR by R. Murray Lark on behalf of the Authors (19 Oct 2024) Manuscript

Short summary

We examined historical sources for the Ecological Survey of Zambia, 1932–1943. This found how normal erosion gave rise to soil variation in the upper Zambezi valley, which was expressed in vegetation patterns which African farmers interpreted to select sites for cultivation and traditional production systems. The survey challenged colonial assumptions about traditional practices. We identify lessons for modern-day approaches to traditional agricultural knowledge in Africa.