Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 25;16(1):e0245591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245591

The impact of liquefaction disaster on farming systems at agriculture land based on technical and psychosocial perspectives

Muhammad Basir-Cyio 1,*, Mahfudz 1, Isrun 1, Zeffitni 2
Editor: Simon Clegg3
PMCID: PMC7834136  PMID: 33493216

Abstract

This research aims to determine the attitudes of the farmers whose lands are affected by liquefaction in Jono Oge, Central Sulawesi Province, The Republic of Indonesia. The methods used here were integrated survey and experimental design. The survey approach was intended to figure out the attitudes of the farmers viewpoints: (1) to return to their activities on the agricultural lands affected by liquefaction; (2) to consume their own agricultural products; and (3) of their willingness to be relocated. The experimental design approach was used to figure out the effectiveness of organic material input combined with the SP-36 fertilizer. The obtained results were analyzed using the Likert Scale, diversity test, correlational test, and regression test. The results showed that the farmers persevered farming on the lands affected by liquefaction (Index = 88.82%) yet refused to consume their own agricultural products with the reason that corpses remained buried beneath their lands (Index = 27.82%); and they also refused to be relocated (Index = 28.80%). The continued production suitability of the affected land was also investigated. Terrain profile identification results in Jono Oge showed the disaster impact was dominantly landslide as it still showed a clear characteristic horizon between the topsoil and the sub soil. This contrasts to terrain at Petobo, Central Sulawesi Province, where the high mix of the topsoil with the sub soil of agricultural land affected by liquefaction, prevented demarcation of the horizon. The land treatment of organic material and SP-36 fertilizer showed that the combined dose (M) of 40-kg ha-1 with P 300-kg ha-1 had the highest effect by changing the field pH from 5.7 to 6.41, increased the availability of P and increased the corncob indicator plant weight. Based on these indications, the lands affected by the liquefaction in Jono Oge can still be used as agricultural lands through restoration, from both social and technical aspects.

Introduction

The earthquake, liquefaction, and tsunami, which simultaneously shook the city of Palu, Donggala Regency, and Sigi Regency, Central Sulawesi Province, The Republic of Indonesia, on September 28, 2018, destroyed infrastructure, and killed no less than 10 thousand people, even more. The—number of lost lives reported by the government is based on recovered bodies. The number of victims still buried due to liquefaction and those carried by tsunami waves is difficult to detect because the events are unexpected, and in complete dark conditions. There are an unknown number of victims in addition to former residents of the city of Palu, Sigi and Donggala, as many visitors were at the city of Palu to witness the Nomoni traditional event. This local term describes the practise of giving of offerings to the gods around Palu Bay, as a sign of gratitude for the peace of enduring cultural preservation.

Three types of natural disasters that simultaneously occurred, in addition to stopping all economic activity, have also changed the legal aspects of agricultural land ownership affected by the faction. This is due to a shift and displacement of the position of agricultural land between two to three kilometers from the initial position before there was disturbance, including cultivated plants on the land. The shifted geographical locations require new studies and regulations from the government so land ownership and condition can be technically accountable. Earthquakes that occur everywhere will have physical, social, and economic impacts [1, 2]. In fact, traumatic conditions will overshadow people’s lives [3], including apathy which threatens to decrease the creativity of the affected people [4].

During the nearly seven months since the natural disaster occurred, there has been no farmer activity on the lands being cleared of disaster debris. There are several factors why farmers are still reluctant to plant crops on land previously used as an agricultural area. There are doubts over the condition of the land under faction which is considered no longer suitable for agriculture. The legal and technical aspects need resolution. There is also the hindering view the damaged land still holds many corpses of victims of liquefaction. Trauma is a physical disorder that takes a long time to heal [5], and on the other hand, farmers are pressured to meet immediate daily needs such as food. Traumatic conditions have a direct impact on the attitude of victims of whatever type of disaster they experienced [6], including decision makers [7]. This condition will have a long-term impact on local socio-economic aspects, especially poverty and declining economic transactions [8, 9]. The agricultural sector must continue to produce both rice and corn agricultural products which society needs for family consumption. In a traumatic transition period, victims need to be encouraged to have a strong vision for their future or a compelling the vision for the future [10].

The principles of sustainable development in the agricultural sector must continue to be considered without reducing concern for safety and environmental sustainability by promoting the value of humanity [11]. The essence of sustainability is the ability to guarantee Humanity by continuing to get what is needed today without compromising the rights of future generations to continue to get their needs met [12]. Ongoing local population security relies on productive agricultural land resources that were affected by liquefaction in Central Sulawesi. The faction of agricultural land which was affected by the liquefaction has experienced a very drastic change, both from environmental and socio-economic aspects. This condition has an impact on farmers’ psychocultural needs of spirit, requiring remedies from both scientists and the government so that survivor farmers can continue their key socio-economic roles while maintaining environmental sustainability.

The aim of the scientific study is to provide information from the results of research while at the same time demonstrating impacts of farming practices. Farmers are expected to understand the use of fertilizers and their application techniques on agricultural land affected by liquefaction. In addition, farmers affected by natural disasters can rise again with a new spirit in dealing with environmental conditions that have changed drastically due to natural disasters. Concurrently local governments provide guarantees that local land ownership rights remain a concern of the government that is being resolved through persuasive socialization. It is expected that agricultural production results from convoluted land can be accomplished, both for farmer families’ consumption and for sale to traditional markets in order to obtain education costs for their children. The three main components of sustainability include the community (farmers), economy, and the environment, combined for support by government policies with scientific considerations of research results, are the pillars of strengthening sustainable development [13, 14].

Based on these reasons, a series of studies have been carried out and the results can be disseminated to the farmers and their families to obtain the correct information as well as to commence the revival of their occupational activities.

Materials and methods

This research was carried out on the land affected by liquefaction caused by the earthquake in Jono Oge, Sigi Regency, by taking a comparison to the liquefaction-affected land area in Petobo, Palu, Central Sulawesi, The Republic of Indonesia. The research began in April to June 2019, when the farmers who were the victims of liquefaction had occupied the temporary housings, built by the government and with assistance by the international NGOs. The area of Petobo agricultural land affected by the earthquake was around 457.10 ha, to the extent the farmers were totally failed in harvesting, while the liquefaction-affected agricultural land in Jono Oge was around 124.20 ha. The map of the research location is presented in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Locations of research in Jono Oge and Petobo, Central Sulawesi.

Fig 1

This research assigned human participants to evaluate the effect of earthquake and liquefaction to their income, health. work behavior. They have been well informed that the information they provided in the questionnaire will not be affected their activities in The Republic of Indonesia. The study conducted based on UNTAD Research Centre Contract Number: 911.f/UN28.2/PL/2019, and the Ethical Clearance Number 0014/Sinenik/UN.28/2019 from the Professor Board of Tadulako University. Consent from the farmers as participants have been obtained, and the written description and personal details of the farmer has been removed and were not published anywhere in the paper.

The Jono Oge agricultural area is the focus of the research, while the Petobo agricultural land is only a comparison, because the two liquefaction patterns between Jono Oge and Petobo are not the same from the perspective of the workable land use for agricultural activities.

Survey approach

The field survey was carried out in two strategic segments, namely regarding human beings, in this case, the farmers affected by natural disasters, and the condition of the agricultural land environment, where the farmers make a living and financial resources for their families, and the education costs of their children. The determination of the number of the liquefaction-affected respondent farmers used the Slovin Formula, mathematically presented as follows:

n=N/{(1+N(e)2} (1)

Information: n = number of Samples

N = Total Population

e = Error Tolerance Limit

Based on this equation, 34 respondents or around 10% of 340 population of farmers were affected by the liquefaction. The respondents were sampled from those who worked in Jono Oge, while those who tried to farm in Petobo were not interviewed and no soil sampling was conducted. They were not interviewed because their conditions were still traumatic, so their answers were often fickle and inconsistent in providing information. Based on these considerations, they were involved in agricultural practices but were not urged to provide an explanation but were directly observed in the field. In addition, farmers affected by liquefaction can rise again with a new spirit in dealing with environmental conditions that have changed drastically due to natural disasters. Farmers are expected to understand the use of fertilizers and their application techniques on agricultural land affected by liquefaction. The two locations show different patterns of land disturbance. Liquefaction in Jono Oge is dominantly "landslide" so that the layer, or horizon, in the soil profile tends not to change to the depth of the solum 0.50 to 2.50 meters. Different results are found in the liquefaction in Petobo, where the pattern and composition of the profile layer undergoes very drastic change, where the topsoil and subsoil of the original soil cannot be identified by its texture, color, or root system.

The in-depth interviews were designed to demonstrate three attitudes of respondent farmers, namely (i) the wish to be back on planting in the liquefaction-affected land; (ii) the willingness to consume agricultural products on the liquefaction-affected land; and (iii) the responses to the government’s plan to relocate elsewhere. The farmers’ responses to these three attitudes and decisions are identified on Likert Scale [15] with a range of perceptions, "Strongly disagree-1–2–3–4–5 –Strongly agree". By paying attention to the statement items, the respondent farmers affected by liquefaction disaster had to choose numbers 1 to 5 based on the following criteria:

  1. strongly agree = 5

  2. agree = 4

  3. somewhat agree = 3

  4. disagree = 2

  5. strongly disagree = 1

The determination of the attitudes of the respondent farmers is presented in the Index (%) which is the value of the total score divided by the maximum score times 100 percent [I = (TS/MS) x 100%]. Assessment Intervals are presented in an index range of 0.00%–19.99% (Strongly Disagree); 20.00%–29.99% (Disagree); 40.00%–59.99% (Somewhat Agree); 60.00%–79.99% (Agree) and 80.00%–100.00% (Strongly Agree).

The perceptional data from the respondent farmers affected by natural disasters are strategic facts to be integrated with the data on the assessment of agricultural land resources, a place where farmers obtain a source of life in managing their families, both to meet their daily needs, and related to the sustainability of their children’s education. The implementation of the assessment of the agricultural lands affected by the liquefaction disaster, was carried out with three approaches, namely; (i) the soil profile analysis, in order to obtain any information on the topsoil to subsoil conditions, the layers that determine the suitability of the soil to provide the carrying capacity for agricultural activities, according to the type of plant being developed; (ii) the analysis of soil samples in the laboratory, to find out in detail the physical-chemical properties of the soil; and (iii) the direct planting on the liquefaction-affected lands, and by taking soil samples to be assessed in the green house as a comparison of the visualization of the biological condition of the vegetative plant growth with the vegetative growth planted directly on the field.

Experimental design

The field treatment experiments applied chicken manure fertilizer and SP-36 fertilizer with the aim of improving the physical condition of the liquefaction-affected soil, using the experimental design method. The experimental method [16] determines the effectiveness of chicken manure fertilizer (M) and phosphorus fertilizer (SP-36) which contain P2O5 (36%). An initial soil sample assessment indicated that the soil was less fertile. The experimental land was set in the form of 1 m x 3 m (3 m2) plots. The chicken manure (M) consisted of four dosage levels, namely (i) M0 (0 t ha-1 is equivalent to 0 kg plot-1); M1 (10 t ha-1 is equivalent to 5 kg plot-1), M2 (25 t ha-1 is equivalent to 12.5 kg plot-1) and M3 (40 t ha-1 is equivalent to 20 kg plot-1). The test applications of SP-36 synthetic fertilizer consisted of four dosage levels of S0 (0 kg ha-1 equivalent to 0 g plot-1), S1 (100 kg ha-1 equivalent to 50 g plot-1), S2 (200 kg ha-1 is equivalent to 100 g plot-1) and S3 (300 kg ha-1 SP-36 is equivalent to 150 g plot-1). There were 16 combinations of treatments, namely: M0S0; M0S1; M0S2; M0S3; M1S0; M1S1; M1S2; M1S3; M2S0; M2S1; M2S2; M2S3; M3S0; M3S1; M3S2; and M3S3. All treatment combinations were repeated three times so that the total experimental units were 48 plots. The observed variables included the soil physical-chemical properties, bulk density, P total, P available, dry weight of plant, phosphorus uptake, and weight of skinless cob.

Data analysis

(i) Likert scale data analysis

The data analyzed from the interviews and questionnaires were tabulated after the respondent farmers selected numbers 1 to 5 on the Likert Scale. The Likert Score Total calculation results for the first statement (i), "The farmers’ wish to return to their activities on the liquefaction-affected lands," obtained the total score (TS) = the total number of total subtotals of each answer choice, from a maximum score of 340 and a minimum score of 34. The Maximum Score = 34 x 5 = 170 (number of respondents x highest Likert Score) and The Minimum Score = 34 x 1 = 34 (number of respondents x lowest Likert Score). Index Calculation (%) = (Total Score/Maximum Score) x 100%. For the statement (i), “The wish to return for planting on the liquefaction-affected land,” can be seen in the following results:

  • The answer of strongly agree (SA) = 19 respondents x 5 = 95

  • The answer of agree (A) = 10 respondents x 4 = 40

  • The answer of somewhat agree (SWA) = 4 respondents x 3 = 12

  • The answer of disagree (DA) = 2 respondents x 2 = 4

  • The answer of strongly disagree (SD) = 0 respondent x 1 = 0

Total Score = 151, or Index (151/170) x 100% = 88.8, was between the 00.00%–100% assessment interval which means that the farmers "Very Agree" to return to their activities on their liquefaction-affected lands. The same calculation pattern was also carried out for the other two statements. For the statement (ii), the wish to consume agricultural products of the liquefaction-affected lands obtained TS = 46, or Index (46/170) x 100% = 27.06%, was between the assessment intervals of 20.00%–39.99% which means that the farmers "Disagree" to consume the agricultural products obtained from the liquefaction-affected agricultural lands. Meanwhile, for the statement (iii) about the willingness to be relocated, the TS = 49, or Index (49/170) x 100% = 28.82%, was between the assessment intervals of 20.00%–39.99% which means that the farmers "Do not Agree” to be relocated to other places, or they still wanted to survive on the liquefaction-affected lands to conduct farming.

(ii) Field assessment, soil sample analysis, and field experiments

The field assessment was focused on identifying the soil profiles through visual observation of the horizon or the ground layer. In assessing the soil profile, the changes in some physical properties of the soil were carefully examined, especially the changes in the layers due to landslide or liquefaction. There were three soil profiles identified, so that the differences of the layer change pattern in Jono Oge and those around Petobo can be explained. The land in Jono Oge generally experienced landslide or body soil (topsoil—subsoil) position movement to a new coordinate point. In the shifting process, the mix between the topsoil and subsoil layers was minimal, while the agricultural land in Petobo was dominated by the horizon mix process, making observations indicatively difficult to distinguish between the initial topsoil and subsoil because the boundaries between the two layers were visually unidentifiable.

Soil physical-chemical properties were determined through laboratory analysis of composite soil samples on the liquefaction-unaffected land and the liquefaction-affected land, using the Lab Procedures and Methods developed by the University of Wisconsin-Extension-Madison [17].

The observation data of the experimental results were analyzed based on the diversity analysis. When the Fisher-test results showed a measurable treatment effect, then the Duncan’s multiple range test followed. The statistical model used was a treatment combination test, and was also presented in a regression analysis [18] using SPSS software and SAS Program version 9.1. The mathematical model of multiple and linear regression was (i) [Yij = μ + αi + βj + (αβ) ij + εij], and the linear regression analysis was (ii) [Y = α + bX2]

Result and discussion

A. Perception

The analyzed data from the results of interviews and questionnaires were tabulated by considering the index value (NI) to simplify determining the conclusions or perceptions of the respondent farmers whose agricultural lands were affected by liquefaction. By paying attention to the statement items, the respondents had to choose numbers 1 to 5. The total Likert Score can be seen from the calculation of each part which was assessed, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Scoring results of the likert value, index, and the attitudes of the respondent farmers.

No. Perceptional Scope Score Total Score Indexed (%) Assessment Interval (%) Farmers’ Attitude
Min Max
1 Wish to Return to the Activities on the Lands Affected by Liquefaction 34 170 151 88.80 0–19.99 (SDA) Strongly Agree (SA)
20–39.99 (DA)
40–59.99 (SWA)
60–79.99 (A)
80–100 (SA)
2 Consuming the Agricultural Products from the Lands Affected by Liquidation 34 170 46 27.06 0–19.99 (SDA) Disagree (DA)
20–39.99 (DA)
40–59.99 (SWA)
60–79.99 (A)
80–100 (SA)
3 Resettlement to the locations which are not affected by natural disasters 34 170 49 28.82 0–19.99 (SDA) Disagree (DA)
20–39.99 (DA)
40–59.99 (SWA)
60–79.99 (A)
80–100 (SA)

From the tabulation of Likert Scale and Index by observing the intervals of the respondents’ attitude assessment of the three attitude statements, it is revealed that the farmers who have been trying to farm on the liquefaction-affected lands strongly agree to continue to manage their own agricultural lands, even though it has been affected by liquefaction (88.82%). The farmers still hope to be able to return to work their liquefaction-affected agricultural lands. This attitude shows that sociocultural has the power to influence one’s personal decisions [19, 20], including the farmers who are affected by the liquefaction natural disasters in Jono Oge. Meanwhile, the statements regarding the willingness to consume the agricultural products obtained from the liquefaction-affected agricultural lands, they said they did not agree, yet wanted to sell to the markets (Index of 27.08%). The reluctance to consume agricultural products is based on the consideration of the need for money so that it tends to be sold or because there is a wrong perception [21, 22]. The reluctance to consume agricultural products on the liquefaction-affected lands is caused by the misperception human corpses still buried beneath the ground have the potential to be absorbed by plant roots. This attitude reflects the low-level knowledge of the farmers. A person’s education can affect the mindset and also the rationality in seeing a problem [23, 24]. The third attitude is to refuse the resettlement to another safer location. This is shown by the obtained Index at 28.82% (Disagree) to leave the location adjacent to the liquefaction-affected lands. The cultural power is very decisive in social cohesion (socio-cohesion) which applies in a particular community [25, 26].

B. Observation data profile and soil chemical-physical properties

The liquefaction of agricultural lands in Jono Oge and Petobo (Fig 2) has completely stopped the agricultural activities which have affected the plight of the farmers. For the liquefaction victims who have survived natural disasters, it has been difficult to obtain a livelihood because they depend only on agricultural production.

Fig 2. The liquefaction-affected agricultural areas of Jono Oge and Petobo, Central Sulawesi.

Fig 2

The current condition of the liquefaction-affected agricultural lands is still neglected, and there has yet been no substantial agricultural activity. The farmers doubt starting to work on their agricultural lands due to a sense of trauma, furthermore, the resolve of the government is also needed. The farmers also need scientific information from researchers, both in terms of soil fertility and groundwater conditions [27, 28], to ensure that the liquefaction-affected lands can still be used for planting. The profile observation results on the liquefaction-affected land in Jono Oge show that the soil has a horizon position which is still relatively the same between the liquefaction-unaffected Entisol layers. The liquefaction-affected soil in Jodo Oge (Fig 3B) still has features which are not different from the landslide-unaffected soil (Fig 3A), except for the only slightly gray color in the landslide lands. Some landslide processes are randomized, yet some move to a certain depth without mixing [29, 30]. The analytical results of the subsoil physical properties in the two profiles do not differ, especially in the texture composition (Table 2). The soil texture can be used as an indicator in assessing the soil physical properties [31, 32]. The comparison results of the soil profiles have found no significant distinguishing characteristics, ranging from topsoil to the 2.5-m solum. The color changes in the landslide-affected lands indicate an infiltration of organic compounds from the soil surface (layer 0) into the topsoil, during the landslide event. The infiltration that carries the organic compounds affects the soil color changes in the subsoil, especially in the illuviation layer [33].

Fig 3. The Profile of the liquefaction-affected soil (Landslide-B), and the Profile of the liquefaction-unaffected soil (Landslide-A).

Fig 3

Table 2. Analysis of the physical-chemical properties of the initial soil samples.

No. Parameter Unit Score Information
1 Sand % 60.9
2 Loam % 10.2 Loamy clay sand
3 Clay % 28.9
5 Bulk density g/cm3 1.6
7 C-organic % 1.02 Low
8 N-Total % 0.16 Low
9 C/N 8.5 Low
10 pH H2O (1:2.5) 5.8 Somewhat Acid
11 pH KCl (1:2.5) 4.9
12 P2O5 (HCl 25%) mg/100g 24.08 Low
13 P2O5 (Bray I) Ppm 10.33 Low
14 K2O (HCl 25%) me/100g 29.41 Low
15 Ca2+ me/100g 4.65 Low
16 Mg2+ me/100g 0.43 Low
17 K+ me/100g 0.25 Low
18 Na+ me/100g 0.17 Low
19 CEC me/100g 23.27 Low
20 BS % 23.63 Low
21 Al-dd me/100g 0.35
22 H-dd me/100g 0.3

Information: Analyzed at the Agrotechnology Laboratory of the Faculty of Agriculture, Tadulako University (2019)

The similarity of the soil physical properties, especially the texture and position of the topsoil and subsoil in the liquefaction-affected soil and the unaffected one, shows strong cementation between the particles in topsoil and subsoil. Cementation is a determining factor in the strength of interparticle adhesion force work [34, 35]. The movements and shifts that occur in the uncemented layer underneath 2.5 meters, where the level of water saturation is maximum, do not affect the topsoil layer on the land that can be used for planting. Thus, technically it is still possible to be processed to produce agricultural products. This is also strengthened by the assessment results of the soil chemical properties in the laboratory which show no significant difference between the landslide-affected soil and the landslide-unaffected soil (Table 2).

In Table 2, it can be seen that the soil texture class is in the category of "loamy clay sand" with the composition of 60.90% sand, 10.20% dust, and 28.90% clay. The bulk density (ρ) of the soil is 1.60 g cm-3. The sandy texture class has high porosity so that the water holding capacity is low [36, 37]. The analysis results of several chemical properties, namely the pH (H2O) is 5.33, and the pH (KCl) is 4.66, the Alex content is 0.35 me/100 g, with the low exchangeable base ion which are Ca2+ (4.65 me)/100 g), Mg2+ (0.43 me/100 g), K+ (0.25 me/100 g), and Na+ (0.17 me/100 g). The N-total value is low (0.16%), as well as the C-organic (1.02%). The C/N ratio is low, the P-available is low (10.30 ppm), the P-total is moderate (24.08 mg / 100 g), the K-total is moderate (29.41 mg/100 g), and the Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) (23.27 me/100 g) is low. Based on those soil properties, the liquefaction-affected lands have low fertility, both before and after the liquefaction disaster. This condition shows that the liquefaction-affected lands from the physical aspect can still be used as agricultural areas, however it requires input to increase the nutrient availability in order to optimize the soil health and the carrying capacity for the plant growth. The administration of the organic materials input can improve the soil structure and the water holding capacity [38, 39].

Providing input from organic material (manure) and SP-36 Fertilizer also improves the propagation chemical properties of the soil, especially pH, available P, dry weight of plant tissue, uptake of P and also the weight of corn cobs. The experimental results showed that all doses of organic fertilizer and SP-36 and their combination had a significant effect on the observed variables (Table 3). Organic matter, in addition to being a source of OH-1 groups, can also release other organic compounds [40].

Table 3. Results of analysis of variance effect (F) of organic fertilizers and SP-36 fertilizers on variable dependents.

Sources of Variants F-calculated
pH-H2O P-total (mg/100-g soil P-available (ppm) Dry weight plant tissue (g plot-1) P-uptake (mg Kg-1) Corncob Weight (g plot-1)
Group 0.490306 0.253968 2.493292 0.667025 0.29509 0.58458
Interaction (MxP) 1327.326** 1498346 ** 634022.2 ** 2931.163 ** 143.14 ** 54.8875 **
Manure (M) 4688.13** 4762049** 2237699** 9064.184 ** 447.63 ** 108.147 **
Fertilizer SP-36 (P) 1898.6** 2301411 ** 820924.2** 4948.169 ** 259.009 ** 157.269 **

** Treatment is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The combination of the organic materials and the SP-36 significantly affects the physical-chemical properties of the liquefaction-affected soil. The used dosage is in accordance with the organic materials availability and the farmers availability who are dispersed by natural disasters in purchasing the SP-36 fertilizers which are easily obtained in the market. The treatments required for the organic fertilizer and the SP-36 are presented in Fig 4. The autocorrelation between the dependent variables (Table 4) shows the nutrients released from the organic fertilizer and the SP-36 into the rhizosphere adopted by the plant roots into the tissue, influence each other in the plant growth process. The interaction between the organic materials and the synthetic fertilizer accelerates the nutrients availability required by the growth of vegetative and generative plants [41, 42].

Fig 4. The impact of dosage interaction between the organic materials with the SP-36 fertilizer on (1) pH (H2O), (2) P-total, (3) P-available, and (4) the weight of corncobs.

Fig 4

Table 4. Correlation analysis results of pH-H2O, P-total, P-available, P absorption, and the weight of cobs.

Variable Indicators pH-H2O P-total P-available P-absorption Corncob Weight
pH-H2O Pearson Correlation 1 0.922(**) 0.930(**) 0.960(**) 0.923(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 16 16 16 16 16
P- total Pearson Correlation 0.922(**) 1 0.972(**) 0.926(**) 0.897(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 16 16 16 16 16
P-available Pearson Correlation 0.930(**) 0.972(**) 1 0.942(**) 0.926(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 16 16 16 16 16
P-uptake Pearson Correlation 0.960(**) 0.926(**) 0.942(**) 1 0.916(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 16 16 16 16 16
Corncob Weight Pearson Correlation 0.923(**) 0.897(**) 0.926(**) 0.916(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0.000
N 16 16 16 16 16

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The administration of organic fertilizer and SP-36 fertilizer can significantly increase the soil pH (H2O). The increased soil pH (H2O), due to chicken manure and SP-36 fertilizer, is optimum at the combination of 40-t ha-1 (P3) dosage of organic fertilizer, and 300-kg ha-1 (P3S3) dosage of SP-36 fertilizer. Before being treated, the soil pH (H2O) of 5.35 increased to 6.38 or increased by 1.04 points after treatment. The changes in pH from slightly acidic to neutral condition affect the macro nutrients availability, such as P, K, and Ca, and suppress their solubility, such as Al3+, Fe3+, and Mn2+. The dynamics of the soil chemical properties occur due to the release of hydroxyl ions (OH-1) from the decomposition of the organic materials, as a counterweight to the dynamics of H+ ions in the soil solution [43, 44]. The presence of OH- ions will stabilize the activity of H+ ions so that the acidity of the soil is controlled under conditions which are somewhat neutral to neutral [45]. Under the neutral pH conditions, the micro nutrient ions which have the potential to fix the macro nutrient ions are also controlled [46], thus the nutrients availability becomes high so that it is easily absorbed by the plant roots [47]. The adequacy of macro and micro nutrients needed by plants depends on their availability in the soil solutions around the rhizosphere [48]. The higher the availability, the more potential the root absorption process will also occur [49]. The accumulation of nutrients in the ribosome simplifies the distribution from xylem to phloem after undergoing a process of synthesis in the plant leaf tissue cells [50]. This condition certainly still occurs in the liquefaction-affected agricultural lands so that the corn plants, as the indicator plants, grow normally due to the carrying capacity of the soil physical-chemical properties after receiving input from the organic fertilizer and SP-36 fertilizer as shown in Fig 4.

The administration of 40-t ha-1 and SP-36 300-kg ha-1 (P3S3) dosage of the organic fertilizer had the highest effect on increasing the soil pH, P-total, P-available, and the weight of corncobs. The significant response of plants indicated that the liquefaction-affected lands required input in increasing the nutrients availability needed by plants [51, 52]. The response difference between the treatment combination of P0S0 and P3S3 seemed significant between both the blue line and the yellow line, for the pH (1), P-total (2), P-available (3), and the weight of corncob (4). Increasing the soil pH to the neutral condition, by administering organic materials, stabilized the dynamics of the chemical properties of the soil solution, in which the micro nutrients solubility was minimized and also reduced, thus directly increased the phosphorus nutrients availability [53, 54].

Conclusion

The farmers in Jono Oge continued farming in the liquefaction-affected areas, however they were reluctant to consume their own agricultural products because they thought there were still human corpse victims of liquefaction and earthquake, beneath the surface. The liquefaction-affected dual farming areas were different in the impact patterns, with the Jono Oge dominantly being landslide, so that the identifiers between the topsoil and the sub soil remained easily identified; while there had been a very high mixture on the agricultural land in Petobo, thus the horizon of the soil’s profile was difficult to identify. The physical-chemical condition of the liquefaction-affected soil in Jono Oge was able to be restored by administering organic materials and the SP-36 fertilizer, however, the farmers needed the support from the three parties, namely the government related to regulations, scientists to provide dissemination of the research results, and NGO activists to provide advice or assistance including to revitalize their spirit to change for a better life in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(ZIP)

S1 File

(ZIP)

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted by the collaboration with Professor Timothy Roberts from the Hunter Innovation and Science Hub of the University of Newcastle, Australia. We also wish to acknowledge Melanie Ball for English editing of the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Board of Professor of Tadulako University.

References

  • 1.Brante A, Guzmán-Rendón G, Barría EM, Guillemin M-L, Vera-Escalona I, Hernández CE. Post-Disturbance Genetic Changes: The Impact of the 2010 Mega-Earthquake and Tsunami on Chilean Sandy Beach Fauna. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 14239 10.1038/s41598-019-50525-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Subedi S, Bahadur Poudyal Chhetri M. Impacts of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake: Lessons Learnt from Nepal. In: Santos-Reyes J, editor. Earthquakes—Impact, Community Vulnerability and Resilience. IntechOpen; 2019. 10.5772/intechopen.85322 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Dams-O’Connor K, Trittschuh E, Leverenz JB, Keene CD, et al. Association of Traumatic Brain Injury With Late-Life Neurodegenerative Conditions and Neuropathologic Findings. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73: 1062 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.1948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.de Bruijn H, Janssen M. Building Cybersecurity Awareness: The need for evidence-based framing strategies. Gov Inf Q. 2017;34: 1–7. 10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Spitzer C, Barnow S, Völzke H, John U, Freyberger HJ, Grabe HJ. Trauma, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Physical Illness: Findings from the General Population: Psychosom Med. 2009;71: 1012–1017. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181bc76b5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ponnamperuma T, Nicolson NA. The Relative Impact of Traumatic Experiences and Daily Stressors on Mental Health Outcomes in Sri Lankan Adolescents: Mental Health Impact of Trauma and Daily Stressors. J Trauma Stress. 2018;31: 487–498. 10.1002/jts.22311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cieslak R, Shoji K, Douglas A, Melville E, Luszczynska A, Benight CC. A meta-analysis of the relationship between job burnout and secondary traumatic stress among workers with indirect exposure to trauma. Psychol Serv. 2014;11: 75–86. 10.1037/a0033798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Grzenda W. Socioeconomic aspects of long-term unemployment in the context of the ageing population of Europe: the case of Poland. Econ Res-Ekon Istraživanja. 2019;32: 1561–1582. 10.1080/1331677X.2019.1638289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vartanian JG, Carvalho AL, Toyota J, Kowalski ISG, Kowalski LP. Socioeconomic Effects of and Risk Factors for Disability in Long-term Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2006;132: 32 10.1001/archotol.132.1.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Papulova Z. The Significance of Vision and Mission Development for Enterprises in Slovak Republic. J Econ Bus Manag. 2014; 12–16. 10.7763/JOEBM.2014.V2.90 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Muschett FD. Principles of Sustainable Development. 1rd ed Muschett FD, editor. Routledge; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Seymour V. The Human–Nature Relationship and Its Impact on Health: A Critical Review. Front Public Health. 2016;4 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Magee L, Scerri A, James P. Measuring Social Sustainability: A Community-Centred Approach. Appl Res Qual Life. 2012;7: 239–261. 10.1007/s11482-012-9166-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Manurung K, Basir-Cyio M, Basri H. The Development and Potential Evaluation of Indonesian Lore Lindu National Park Ecotourism in Relation to the Economic Growth of the Surrounding Community. J Environ Manag Tour. 2019; 8 10.14505/jemt.v10.2(34).11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Weijters B, Millet K, Cabooter E. Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding. Int J Res Mark. 2020; S0167811620300367. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Seltman HJ. Experimental Design and Analysis. 2018; 428. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schulte EE, Peters JB, Hodgson PR. Wisconsin Procedures for Soil Testing, Plant Analysis and Feed & Forage Analysis–UW Soil and Forage LAB. Soil Sci Dep Coll Agric Life Sci. 2013; 304. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 3rd ed Universitas Michigan: McGraw-Hill; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Marginson S, Dang TKA. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the context of globalization. Asia Pac J Educ. 2017;37: 116–129. 10.1080/02188791.2016.1216827 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vågan A. Towards a Sociocultural Perspective on Identity Formation in Education. Mind Cult Act. 2011;18: 43–57. 10.1080/10749031003605839 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mowbray J, Mowbray H. A consideration of the needs of the adult patient with dementia attending for radiotherapy and its impact on the practical consent process. J Radiother Pract. 2010;9: 107–116. 10.1017/S1460396909990306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Trevelline BK, Fontaine SS, Hartup BK, Kohl KD. Conservation biology needs a microbial renaissance: a call for the consideration of host-associated microbiota in wildlife management practices. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2019;286: 20182448 10.1098/rspb.2018.2448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dweck CS, Yeager DS. Mindsets: A View From Two Eras. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019;14: 481–496. 10.1177/1745691618804166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.King RB. A Fixed Mindset Leads to Negative Affect: The Relations Between Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Subjective Well-Being. Z Für Psychol. 2017;225: 137–145. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000290 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Auta FJ. Systemic Population and Family Education for National Security and Development. J Educ Soc Res. 2013. [cited 3 Dec 2019]. 10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n5p135 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mesra R, Erianjoni E, Eriyanti F. The social meaning of money in social interaction of boarding students. Proceedings of the International Conferences on Educational, Social Sciences and Technology—ICESST 2018. Padang: Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan; 2018. pp. 43–50. 10.29210/201816
  • 27.Sharma R, Biedenharn KR, Fedor JM, Agarwal A. Lifestyle factors and reproductive health: taking control of your fertility. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11: 66 10.1186/1477-7827-11-66 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zeffitni -, Basir-Cyio M, Napitupulu M. Zone of Groundwater Quantitative Potential Based on the Characteristics of a Confined Aquifer at the Palu Groundwater Basin Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol. 2019;9: 1725 10.18517/ijaseit.9.5.3532 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Akgun A. A comparison of landslide susceptibility maps produced by logistic regression, multi-criteria decision, and likelihood ratio methods: a case study at İzmir, Turkey. Landslides. 2012;9: 93–106. 10.1007/s10346-011-0283-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fan F, Henriksen CB, Porter J. Relationship between stoichiometry and ecosystem services: A case study of organic farming systems. Ecol Indic. 2018;85: 400–408. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Groenendyk DG, Ferré TPA, Thorp KR, Rice AK. Hydrologic-Process-Based Soil Texture Classifications for Improved Visualization of Landscape Function. Singer AC, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: e0131299 10.1371/journal.pone.0131299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Salley SW, Herrick JE, Holmes CV, Karl JW, Levi MR, McCord SE, et al. A Comparison of Soil Texture-by-Feel Estimates: Implications for the Citizen Soil Scientist. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2018;82: 1526 10.2136/sssaj2018.04.0137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Celestina C, Wood JL, Manson JB, Wang X, Sale PWG, Tang C, et al. Microbial communities in top- and subsoil of repacked soil columns respond differently to amendments but their diversity is negatively correlated with plant productivity. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 8890 10.1038/s41598-019-45368-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Haddad MF, Rocha EP, Assunção WG. Cementation of Prosthetic Restorations: From Conventional Cementation to Dental Bonding Concept. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22: 952–958. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31820fe205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lorenzetti CC, Bortolatto JF, Ramos ATPR, Shinohara AL, Saad JRC, Kuga MC. The effectiveness of glass ionomer cement as a fiber post cementation system in endodontically treated teeth. Microsc Res Tech. 2019;82: 1191–1197. 10.1002/jemt.23268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Blanco-Canqui H. Biochar and Soil Physical Properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2017;81: 687 10.2136/sssaj2017.01.0017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bodner G, Leitner D, Kaul H-P. Coarse and fine root plants affect pore size distributions differently. Plant Soil. 2014;380: 133–151. 10.1007/s11104-014-2079-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bhogal A, Nicholson FA, Rollett A, Taylor M, Litterick A, Whittingham MJ, et al. Improvements in the Quality of Agricultural Soils Following Organic Material Additions Depend on Both the Quantity and Quality of the Materials Applied. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2018;2: 9 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ochoa-Hueso R, Delgado-Baquerizo M, An King PT, Benham M, Arca V, Power SA. Ecosystem type and resource quality are more important than global change drivers in regulating early stages of litter decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem. 2019;129: 144–152. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.El Nady MM, Ramadan FS, Hammad MM, Lotfy NM. Evaluation of organic matters, hydrocarbon potential and thermal maturity of source rocks based on geochemical and statistical methods: Case study of source rocks in Ras Gharib oilfield, central Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Egypt J Pet. 2015;24: 203–211. 10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.05.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mahal NK, Osterholz WR, Miguez FE, Poffenbarger HJ, Sawyer JE, Olk DC, et al. Nitrogen Fertilizer Suppresses Mineralization of Soil Organic Matter in Maize Agroecosystems. Front Ecol Evol. 2019;7: 59 10.3389/fevo.2019.00059 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Saha BK, Rose MT, Wong VNL, Cavagnaro TR, Patti AF. Nitrogen Dynamics in Soil Fertilized with Slow Release Brown Coal-Urea Fertilizers. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 14577 10.1038/s41598-018-32787-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dhaliwal SS, Naresh RK, Mandal A, Singh R, Dhaliwal MK. Dynamics and transformations of micronutrients in agricultural soils as influenced by organic matter build-up: A review. Environ Sustain Indic. 2019;1–2: 100007. 10.1016/j.indic.2019.100007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.von der Heyden BP, Roychoudhury AN. Application, Chemical Interaction and Fate of Iron Minerals in Polluted Sediment and Soils. Curr Pollut Rep. 2015;1: 265–279. 10.1007/s40726-015-0020-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cherian C, Arnepalli DN. A Critical Appraisal of the Role of Clay Mineralogy in Lime Stabilization. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng. 2015;1: 8 10.1007/s40891-015-0009-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dimkpa CO, Bindraban PS. Fortification of micronutrients for efficient agronomic production: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2016;36: 7 10.1007/s13593-015-0346-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ahmad RS, Imran A, Hussain MB. Nutritional Composition of Meat. In: Arshad MS, editor. Meat Science and Nutrition. InTech; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Etienne P, Diquelou S, Prudent M, Salon C, Maillard A, Ourry A. Macro and Micronutrient Storage in Plants and Their Remobilization When Facing Scarcity: The Case of Drought. Agriculture. 2018;8: 14 10.3390/agriculture8010014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Le Deunff E, Malagoli P. Breaking conceptual locks in modelling root absorption of nutrients: reopening the thermodynamic viewpoint of ion transport across the root. Ann Bot. 2014;114: 1555–1570. 10.1093/aob/mcu203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhou X, Liao W-J, Liao J-M, Liao P, Lu H. Ribosomal proteins: functions beyond the ribosome. J Mol Cell Biol. 2015;7: 92–104. 10.1093/jmcb/mjv014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.He M, He C-Q, Ding N-Z. Abiotic Stresses: General Defenses of Land Plants and Chances for Engineering Multistress Tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9: 1771 10.3389/fpls.2018.01771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Welk A, Welk E, Baudis M, Böckelmann J, Bruelheide H. Plant species’ range type determines local responses to biotic interactions and land use. Ecology. 2019. [cited 3 Dec 2019]. 10.1002/ecy.2890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Odutola Oshunsanya S. Introductory Chapter: Relevance of Soil pH to Agriculture. In: Oshunsanya S, editor. Soil pH for Nutrient Availability and Crop Performance. IntechOpen; 2019. 10.5772/intechopen.82551 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Zhang Y-Y, Wu W, Liu H. Factors affecting variations of soil pH in different horizons in hilly regions. Canário J, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0218563 10.1371/journal.pone.0218563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Simon Clegg

26 May 2020

PONE-D-20-00593

The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Muhammed Basir-Cyio

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One

The manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field and they have suggested that some modifications be made prior to acceptance.

If you could write a response to reviewers that will aid to expedite the review when resubmitted

I wish you all the best with your revisions

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The objective of the study is very broad not clearly elaborated. It doesnot specify what the study is going to investigate.

The methodology is weak. The perception survey is carried out only in one site. Two sites would be better for comparison as well as for better concrete results. The experimental methods does not indicate where and why the experiments were conducted.

Some references is missing. For instance, Joshi et al 2015 is missing.

There are many typos in the paper

Implications of research findings and limitation of the studies are not clearly outlined.

Reviewer #3: This paper is quite interesting. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach towards understanding how farmer attitudes towards continued cultivation of liquefaction-affected rural fields are shaped by likely presence of the dead, embedded in areas of landsliding and liquefaction, more than the actual soil physical-chemical properties of the soil. IN a general sense, the farmers are willing to continue to farm in these areas, and unwilling to move elsewhere, but unwilling to consume their own products grown in these fields. The authors attribute the latter to suggest that farmers are worried about 'root uptake' of the deceased into plants, and go on to make the unfortunate mistake of stating that this reflects the "low-level knowledge" of the farmers. The latter statement is arrogant and should be removed; there are many types of knowledge, including experience, and it is not impossible that degrading corpses also contribute locally to changes in soil chemistry. I understand why farmers might not want to consume crops grown amongst the dead for a variety of reasons, and cannot say I would be different!

That said, I think the paper is really interesting and I want to encourage the authors. I have made a series of notes on the PDF that I hope will help them revise this work. I don't know why the transcripts can not be made available with all identifying information removed, because these transcripts are the actual data to support what the authors are proposing here.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Attachment.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 25;16(1):e0245591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Sep 2020

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

We have reviewed and corrected the suggestions and corrections from the Review Team. Thank you for all the help and advice.

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

We have read and reviewed the Statistical Analysis in the article. From the results of the re-examination, it was found that the Statistical Analysis that we wrote was appropriate. Re-examination has been done to the maximum.

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Thank you for the advice from the Reviewer Team. In our opinion, the data underlying the findings are contained and written in the manuscript as a whole, without exception.________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

The language used in the manuscript is standard English which is easy to understand and unambiguous. Thank you for the review.________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The objective of the study is very broad not clearly elaborated. It doesnot specify what the study is going to investigate.

The methodology is weak. The perception survey is carried out only in one site. Two sites would be better for comparison as well as for better concrete results. The experimental methods does not indicate where and why the experiments were conducted.

Some references is missing. For instance, Joshi et al 2015 is missing.

There are many typos in the paper

Implications of research findings and limitation of the studies are not clearly outlined.

Reviewer #3: This paper is quite interesting. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach towards understanding how farmer attitudes towards continued cultivation of liquefaction-affected rural fields are shaped by likely presence of the dead, embedded in areas of landsliding and liquefaction, more than the actual soil physical-chemical properties of the soil. IN a general sense, the farmers are willing to continue to farm in these areas, and unwilling to move elsewhere, but unwilling to consume their own products grown in these fields. The authors attribute the latter to suggest that farmers are worried about 'root uptake' of the deceased into plants, and go on to make the unfortunate mistake of stating that this reflects the "low-level knowledge" of the farmers. The latter statement is arrogant and should be removed; there are many types of knowledge, including experience, and it is not impossible that degrading corpses also contribute locally to changes in soil chemistry. I understand why farmers might not want to consume crops grown amongst the dead for a variety of reasons, and cannot say I would be different!

That said, I think the paper is really interesting and I want to encourage the authors. I have made a series of notes on the PDF that I hope will help them revise this work. I don't know why the transcripts can not be made available with all identifying information removed, because these transcripts are the actual data to support what the authors are proposing here.

We have written down the suggestions and corrections from the Review Team in the manuscript. We are very grateful for the help, direction, and correction from the Review Team in helping to refine the manuscript which aims to perfect the manuscript we sent.________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers Coment (1).docx

Decision Letter 1

Simon Clegg

25 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-00593R1

The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Basir-Cyio

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

Although one reviewer is happy, one is unhappy with the way in which you have handled their comments

Can you please check over the comments of the reviewer from the previous submission, and check that you include each of their comments

If you could write a response to reviewers, that will expedite the review when the manuscript is resubmitted

I wish you the best of luck with your revisions

Thanks

Simon

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I suggest to edit few minor language errors

Reviewer #3: Sadly, I cannot recommend publication. The paper is plagued with grammatical errors, beginning with the title, and persisting throughout. The research method failed to provide a relevant pre-earthquake baseline with which to evaluate the results - for example, what % of farmers consumed the agricultural products from their lands prior to the earthquakes and thus how have the earthquakes changed this? The authors still adhere to the statement that "This attitude reflects the low-level knowledge of the farmers" and thus the authors' perspective of what constitutes 'knowledge' remain unchanged despite my prior recommendations. The paper floats between an agricultural piece on fertilizer and a social science piece on cultural attitudes but ultimately neither section fulfills its potential nor are clear lines drawn to connect these attributes. The authors should consider submitting this work to a lower tier journal. I really wanted to be able to support publication of this work because it has some interesting components, but ultimately I cannot.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 25;16(1):e0245591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Dec 2020

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I suggest to edit few minor language errors

Reesponse to reviewer #2:

Author : Thank you for reviewer 2. We have corrected some minor errors in the manuscript by re-reading it carefully and details according this suggestion.

Reviewer #3: Sadly, I cannot recommend publication. The paper is plagued with grammatical errors, beginning with the title, and persisting throughout. The research method failed to provide a relevant pre-earthquake baseline with which to evaluate the results - for example, what % of farmers consumed the agricultural products from their lands prior to the earthquakes and thus how have the earthquakes changed this? The authors still adhere to the statement that "This attitude reflects the low-level knowledge of the farmers" and thus the authors' perspective of what constitutes 'knowledge' remain unchanged despite my prior recommendations. The paper floats between an agricultural piece on fertilizer and a social science piece on cultural attitudes but ultimately neither section fulfills its potential nor are clear lines drawn to connect these attributes. The authors should consider submitting this work to a lower tier journal. I really wanted to be able to support publication of this work because it has some interesting components, but ultimately I cannot.

Response to reviewer #3:

Author: (A) In principle, the method we use has provided steps that can answer problems found in the field, especially related to the comparison or comparison of how many farmers consume their agricultural products before and after the earthquake and liquefaction. Before the disaster 100% of the farmers consumed their agricultural products and after the disaster no one wanted to consume their agricultural products because they believed that the land where they were farming there were still many corpses. Therefore they assumed that the remains of the corpses had been absorbed by plants. So that they are considered to have polluted the land and agricultural products, which is why they are reluctant to consume their agricultural products, especially to provide family needs. Almost all of them sell their agricultural products to traditional markets around the areas affected by the earthquake and liquefaction.

(B) It can be reiterated that all the farmers affected by the earthquake and liquefaction did not complete their education in elementary school. Some even received primary school education but also dropped out or did not graduate, so their insights and knowledge were still very limited. Therefore, even though they are given guidance and counseling, it is difficult to accept it, especially with regard to things that are mystical or superstitious, especially those related to corpses in the ground due to the disaster.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Simon Clegg

5 Jan 2021

The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives

PONE-D-20-00593R2

Dear Dr. Basir-Cyio,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

As you have addressed all the comments and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication

You should hear from the Editorial Office shortly.

It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you the best of luck for your future research

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

Acceptance letter

Simon Clegg

8 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-00593R2

The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives

Dear Dr. Basir-Cyio:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Simon Clegg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (ZIP)

    S1 File

    (ZIP)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Attachment.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers Coment (1).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES