Since the Green Revolution, higher crop production has caused a significant decrease in available soil elements. Microelement deficiencies have become a factor that limits the productivity of agricultural crops around the world. Recent advances in bionanotechnology have opened the way to the development of biocompatible foliar nanofertilisers with higher nutrient utilization efficiency. It was assumed that the applied foliar fertilisation would have a positive effect on the growth and development of plants. The application of fertiliser positively affected the parameters analysed of plant gas exchange (net photosynthesis rate (PN), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), intercellular conductance (Ci)) and chlorophyll content and its fluorescence (relative chlorophyll content (CCI), maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem (Fv/Fm), maximum quantum efficiency of primary photochemistry (Fv/F0), photosynthetic efficiency index (PI), total number of active absorption reaction centers (RC/ABS)). Compared to the control, in most analyses, the most stimulating effect was observed for fertiliser concentrations of 0.25 to 0.30% (except Ci – 0.35%). However, the effectiveness of the applied doses depended on the measurement date. To clearly determine the dose that will have the most stimulating effect on the analysed parameters and at the same time will not be toxic to plants, more research should be conducted, especially under field conditions.
The present study attempted to identify the current status and stressors affecting spring water properties in an urban area, using the example of the Warsaw agglomeration. For this purpose, they study monitored hydrological and hydrochemical properties of three springs, each draining a Quaternary porous aquifer and representing different anthropopressure across the city. The measurements of discharge and physico-chemical parameters were carried out regularly twice a month from June 2023 to May 2024, while the chemical composition, including main cations and anions, was determined once every two-month period using ion chromatography. The results documented a good agreement between the degree and timing of impact of human-induced alternations and the physico-chemical properties of spring waters. The highest total dissolved solids (TDS) and concentrations of Cl−, SO42−, and Na+ were measured in the most urbanised areas. Seasonal changes in the spring water chemistry, primarily in terms of main anions, confirmed their anthropogenic origin, related to different deposition and migration over time. A comparison with archival data proved significant long-term transformation of spring properties, including gradual decrease of their discharge, increase in water temperature, and changes to the hydrochemical type. Such an evolution of groundwater quality reflects the impact of climate warming and human activities, including increase in the degree of imperviousness as a result of urbanisation, application of road maintenance chemicals, and emission of pollution to the atmosphere. The results provide the most recent insight on shallow groundwater status and stressors in Warsaw and reflect intensive modification of the aquifer system across the urban environment.
The estimation and potential exploitation of water resources in arid and semi-arid regions, especially in the watersheds of Northern Algeria, where climatic variability affects the transformation of precipitation into river flow, needs to be based on effective management of these resources depends on understanding hydrological relationships. This must be grounded in knowledge and probable mastery of the phenomena governing their formation under local physico-geographical conditions, particularly in ungauged watershed areas.
The objective of this approach is to develop a general and regional model for estimating interannual average flow (IAF) at the level of ungauged basins. This model is based on the analysing and identifying the influence of local factors such as the surface area of the watershed, relief, geology, soils, and plant cover. Its development relies on statistical and grapho-analytical methods.
The results demonstrate that the watershed area and climatic flow are key parameters, which indicate the dependency of the climatic coefficient kobs on these two factors and give good correlations, which vary from 0.615 to 0.92. Hence, the model was established based on these two parameters and found to perform well in estimating IAF, according to the performance criteria.
Groundwater contamination with fluoride is a major global issue, contributing to 65% of endemic fluorosis cases worldwide. This study evaluates the seasonal variations in groundwater fluoride concentrations and their connection to health risks in the Tolon District, Ghana. A total of ninety-seven groundwater samples were examined over two seasons to assess fluoride (F−) concentrations. Levels of F− varied from undetectable levels to 1.30 mg∙dm−3 and had an average of 0.24 mg∙dm−3 during the rainy season. In the dry season, it varied from undetectable levels to 2.08 mg∙dm−3 and had an average of 0.36 mg∙dm−3. Significant spatial and temporal variations were observed, with lower fluoride levels in the northern part of the area and higher levels in the southern region during both seasons. Approximately 84% and 74% of samples fell into group I (optimal for dental health), and 16% and 21% into group II (moderate risk of dental fluorosis) during rainy and dry seasons, respectively. Additionally, 5% of the samples during the dry season fell into group III (high risk of dental fluorosis). Hazard quotient (HQ) values for fluoride varied widely, with higher risks observed in children compared to adults during both seasons. This study highlights that children in the Tolon district face greater risks of fluorosis than adults, emphasising the need for targeted mitigation strategies. The research contributes significantly to addressing the pressing global issue of water quality and public health, offering insights that can guide both immediate interventions and long-term sustainability efforts in affected regions.
In Europe, Chinese mitten crabs (Eriocheir sinensis) are invasive catadromous crustaceans that are increasingly prevalent and at the same time actively removed from the aquatic environment. In contrast, in Asia, the muscles, hepatopancreas, and gonads of these crustaceans are a traditional source of food with high nutritional value. A significant abundance of these crustaceans found in the southern Baltic Sea watershed, along with findings from previous studies on their nutritional value, indicate that the meat of these crabs could serve as an additional food source for both humans and animals, including in Europe. When evaluating the meat’s worth, vitamin content plays a crucial role, which remains unknown in individuals from invasive populations. The aim of this study was to assess the content of fat-soluble vitamins A, E, and D in the edible parts of male and female crabs during two migratory seasons: spring and autumn. The results showed that the average content of vitamins A, D, and E in the edible parts of Chinese mitten crabs was 0.226 ±0.143 ng∙mg−1, 0.844 ±0.683 ng∙mg−1, and 1.418 ±1.199 μg∙mg−1, respectively. Muscles exhibited the highest content of vitamins A and D, while the hepatopancreas contained the most vitamin E. Smaller differences in vitamin content were noted between the sex of the crabs and the seasons of migration. The results show that Chinese mitten crabs can be a valuable source of vitamins A, E, and D, opening potential opportunities for utilizing their meat in the food industry and as a dietary supplement.
The red scale insect Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) is a major pest of guava trees in different parts of the world. This study aims to determine the population abundance and spatial distribution pattern of A. aurantii during the two successive growing seasons of 2022–2023 and 2023–2024. This pest was surveyed every two weeks in a private guava grove located in the Armant district of the Luxor region of Egypt. The results showed that individuals of A. aurantii were found on the leaf surfaces of guava trees at varying densities throughout the year. In the south-eastern site, where population density remained continuously high during the two years of the study, the pest favoured the upper leaf surface in the basal canopy layer. In this context, the spatial distribution pattern of A. aurantii at all sites on the guava tree was aggregated using dispersion measures over the two years. To distinguish the estimates of A. aurantii individuals in the sixteen coordinates studied, the cluster analysis method was used in conjunction with correlation analysis. Principal component analysis was performed, followed by two-dimensional analysis of sixteen coordinates to establish their correlation. Based on the findings of this study, an integrated pest management strategy can now be developed to help mitigate pest populations of A. aurantii found in guava tree orchards.
Accurate interpretation of pumping test data in stratified aquifers requires approaches that account for vertical heterogeneity, a factor often neglected in conventional analytical solutions. This study presents a Pythodriven axisymmetric numerical modelling framework, built using MODFLOW 6 and FloPy, to simulate both pumping and recovery phases in vertically heterogeneous confined aquifers.
The model discretises the domain radially and vertically to allow layer-specific representation of hydraulic conductivity, while specific storage is assigned uniformly. An optimisation-based inverse modelling approach was used to estimate aquifer parameters by minimising the difference between observed and simulated drawdowns. Applied to a case study in Bahariya, Egypt, the results yielded hydraulic conductivity values consistent with the site’s stratigraphy – ranging from approximately 10−5 m∙d−1 in shale to over 27 m∙d−1 in limestone – and a specific storage of 4∙10−8 m−1. The simulated radius of influence was 133.67 m, and the root mean square error between the observed and simulated drawdown was 0.01 m.
Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that vertical discretisation had the greatest influence on model accuracy, with coarser grids increasing residual error by nearly 90% and reducing the radius of influence by 9%. The temporal resolution had minimal impact on accuracy but significantly affected computation time.
This framework offers an open-source, automated, and script-based tool for simulating pumping tests in layered aquifer systems, enabling more reliable estimation of hydraulic parameters for both scientific and applied groundwater studies.
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have significantly contributed to the conception, project, execution, and interpretation of the results. All such contributors must be listed as co-authors. Other individuals who influenced key aspects of the study should be acknowledged or mentioned as co-workers. The author must ensure that all co-authors have been properly included, have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper, and have agreed to its submission for publication.
When it comes to changes in authorship, it is crucial that authors carefully consider the authorship list and order before the original submission, as changes are generally not considered by the editors of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” once the manuscript has been submitted. According to the journal’s policy, all authors must be listed in the manuscript and entered into the submission system. Any addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors should be made only prior to acceptance and only with the approval of the journal editor. Requests to change authorship must come from the corresponding author, who must provide a valid reason along with written confirmation from all authors, including those being added or removed, stating their agreement with the proposed changes. These requests must be submitted through a designated form (FORM),and those that fail to follow the instructions in the form will not be considered. Only under exceptional circumstances will changes be considered after acceptance. During the evaluation of such requests, publication may be paused. If approved after publication, changes will be documented through a corrigendum. Unauthorized changes to authorship may lead to rejection of the article.
Authors must disclose all sources of funding for their study, as well as the involvement of scientific institutions, associations, and any other entities. They must also disclose any significant conflicts of interest that could influence the outcomes or interpretation of the study.
In the case of applying AI and AI-assisted technologies in the work, the author is obliged to make a proper declaration within the manuscript. This declaration must include the name of the AI tool or service used and the reasons for its use. Importantly, AI cannot be credited as an author of the manuscript. Since texts generated with the use of AI may be fragmentary or incorrect, the author—who remains fully responsible for the entire submitted article—is obliged to carefully review any AI-generated content and make necessary corrections before submission.
Authors reporting original research should provide an accurate and detailed account of the work performed, along with an objective discussion of its significance. All source data must be accurately presented in the manuscript, and sufficient detail and references should be included to allow others to replicate the study. Deliberate falsification or misrepresentation is unethical and will not be tolerated by the editors.
Authors should also be ready to provide the raw data used in their study for editorial review if requested and must retain this data for a reasonable period after publication.
In terms of publication ethics, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Simultaneous submission of the same paper to multiple journals is considered unethical and is prohibited.
Proper citation is essential; authors must always acknowledge and cite all works that influenced the development of the manuscript and confirm any use of other authors’ work.
If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the Editorial Office.
Only original works should be submitted. Authors must ensure that all cited authors and quoted material are properly credited and referenced. Any instances of ghostwriting or guest authorship are considered forms of scientific misconduct and will be addressed accordingly, including notification of relevant authorities. All indications of scientific dishonesty or breaches of ethical standards will be thoroughly documented by the Editorial Office.
Editors’ duties
Editors assess submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic value, including significance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity, as well as their alignment with the journal’s focus. This evaluation is conducted without consideration of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, political beliefs, or affiliations. Editorial decisions regarding publication are independent of governmental policies or any external influences. The Editor-in-Chief of JWLD holds complete authority over the journal’s editorial content and the scheduling of its publication.
Editors refrain from utilising AI or AI-assisted technologies for decisions that require critical analysis or the formulation of substantive opinions. They and the editorial team will keep all information related to a submitted manuscript confidential, only sharing it with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, relevant editorial advisers, and the publisher as necessary.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for personal research purposes without the explicit written permission of the authors. Any privileged information acquired during the manuscript review process will remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain. In cases where there is a conflict of interest, such as competitive or collaborative relationships with authors, editors will recuse themselves and assign the manuscript to another editorial board member.
All manuscripts under consideration for publication will undergo peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief will determine which manuscripts are published based on the validation of the work, its relevance to researchers and readers, feedback from reviewers, and adherence to legal standards regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with fellow editors or reviewers in this decision-making process.
Additionally, journal editors may seek guidance on submitted papers beyond technical reviews, particularly regarding ethical concerns or issues involving data or materials accessibility. This advisory process typically occurs concurrently with the technical peer-review.
Reviewers’ duties
Peer review plays a crucial role in aiding editors with their decision-making and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through communications facilitated by the editorial team.
If any reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or realises they cannot complete the review promptly, they should inform the editor and withdraw from the process.
All manuscripts reviewed must be regarded as confidential and should not be shared or discussed with anyone unless authorised by the editor.
Reviews need to be conducted impartially. Personal criticisms of the author are not acceptable. Reviewers should clearly articulate their opinions and back them up with solid reasoning.
Reviewers are also responsible for identifying relevant works that have not been referenced by the authors. Any claim that a finding, derivation, or argument has been previously noted should include the appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should inform the editor if they notice significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript in question and any other published work they are aware of.
Reviewers must refrain from using AI to make decisions that require critical thinking or to form substantive opinions regarding the manuscript.
Any privileged information or insights gained during the peer review process must remain confidential and should not be exploited for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid evaluating manuscripts where there exist conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or any other relationships with the authors, organizations, or institutions involved.
Editors treat any misconduct by reviewers with seriousness and will address any claims of confidentiality breaches.
Publishers’ duties
In instances of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publications, or plagiarism, the publisher will work closely with the editors to address the issue and amend the article in question. This may involve the swift publication of an erratum, a clarification, or, in the most serious cases, retraction of the affected work. Furthermore, alongside the editors, the publisher will take responsible measures to identify and prevent the publication of papers involving research misconduct, and will never condone or knowingly permit such misconduct to occur.
The publisher is dedicated to the ongoing availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by collaborating with organisations and maintaining a digital archive.
Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change. This change will be made after careful consideration by the journal’s editorial team to make sure if there are grounds for these changes.
Aside from cases where a minor error is concerned, any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will be permanently linked to the original article. These changes can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, a Retraction, and in rare circumstances, a Removal.
The purpose of linking post-publication notices to the original article is to provide transparency around any changes and to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Note that all post-publication notices are free to access from the point of publication.
Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors prior to requesting any corrections to an article.
If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction is necessary for your article, please contact the Editorial Office journal@itp.edu.pl.
Correction notice
A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission, where the interpretation of the article may be impacted but the scholarly integrity or original findings remains intact.
A correction notice, where possible, should always be written and approved by all authors of the original article.
Please note that correction requests may be subject to full review, and if queries are raised, you may be expected to supply further information before the correction is approved.
Major and minor errors could be distinguished. For correction notices, major errors or omissions are considered changes that impact the interpretation of the article, but the overall scholarly integrity remains intact. Minor errors are considered errors or omissions that do not impact the reliability of, or the readers’ understanding of, the interpretation of the article.
Major errors are always accompanied by a separate correction notice. The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the published version. Under these circumstances, Editorial team will:
Minor errors may not be accompanied by a separate correction notice. instead, a footnote will be added to the article detailing to the reader that the article has been corrected.
Concerns regarding the integrity of a published article should be raised via email to the Editorial Office journal@itp.edu.pl.
Retractions
A Retraction will be issued where a major error (e.g., in the methods or analysis) invalidates the conclusions in the article, or where it appears research or publication misconduct has taken place (e.g., research without required ethical approvals, fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, duplicate publication, etc.).
The decision will follow a full investigation by the journal’s editorial team. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if they believe their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.
Retractions are issued to correct the scholarly record and should not be interpreted as punishments for the authors.
The COPE guidance can be found here https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing.
Retraction will be considered in cases where:
Where the decision has been taken to retract an article, Editorial team will:
Article removal
An Article Removal will be issued in rare circumstances where the problems cannot be addressed through a Retraction or Correction notice. Editorial team will consider removal of a published article in very limited circumstances where:
In the case of an article being removed from “Journal of Water and Land Development” website, a removal notice will be issued in its place.
Expressions of concern
In some cases, an Expression of Concern may be considered where concerns of a serious nature have been raised (e.g., research or publication misconduct), but where the outcome of the investigation is inconclusive or where due to various complexities, the investigation will not be completed for a considerable time. This could be due to ongoing institutional investigations or other circumstances outside of the journal’s control.
When the investigation has been completed, a Retraction or Correction notice may follow the Expression of Concern alongside the original article. All will remain part of the permanent publication record.
Expressions of Concern notices will be considered in cases where:
The Expression of Concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.
EDITORIAL PROCEDURE
Preliminary evaluation
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editors to ensure they meet the requirements and editorial policy of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” (JWLD). Submissions that are incomplete or not formatted according to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the authors with recommendations for correction. Upon successful registration on the editorial platform, authors will receive a reference number for their manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor reviews every submission and assigns it a priority status, resulting in one of the following decisions: (a) the manuscript is forwarded directly for peer review; (b) the manuscript is returned to the authors with suggestions for revising the presentation of data; or (c) the manuscript is rejected. If the authors revise the manuscript adequately, it will be sent to at least two independent reviewers. This preliminary evaluation phase typically takes 1 week.
Authorship statement
As part of the submission process through the editorial platform, authors must confirm the originality of their work, validate the listed authorship, agree to copyright transfer, and accept the terms of the peer review process.
Conflict of interest
Authors are required to disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest at the time of submission. This information is treated confidentially during the review process and does not influence editorial decisions. Similarly, reviewers and editors must disclose to the Editor-in-Chief any relationships that could be perceived as conflicts of interest in relation to a manuscript under review.
Review process
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to independent experts for peer review. The Editorial Office retains the right to select appropriate reviewers. Typically, reviewers return their feedback within 3–4 weeks of submission. Authors are expected to address and respond to all reviewer comments thoroughly.
The objective of the peer review is to provide a qualified evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific quality. Reviewers offer constructive feedback to help authors improve their work and enhance its suitability for publication. While confidential remarks to the editors are considered, comments intended to improve the manuscript should also be shared with the authors.
It is important to note that review times can vary depending on factors such as the availability and responsiveness of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions needed.
Acceptance
The review process at JWLD follows a double-blind model, ensuring that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Manuscripts are accepted for publication only after receiving favourable recommendations from independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to complete a standardised "Reviewer’s Questionnaire" and provide a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
If there is a significant difference of opinion among reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief may: (a) share all reviews among the reviewers for additional insight, (b) seek further opinions from additional reviewers, or (c) carefully weigh all feedback and make a balanced final decision. To support this process, reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed justifications for their recommendations. Reviews that clearly outline both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript are especially valuable.
If a revised manuscript is submitted or if authors believe their arguments were misunderstood during review, reviewers may be asked for further comments. However, the Editorial Office is cautious about repeated reviewer contact to avoid undue pressure and will assess the necessity and relevance of any follow-up requests.
In the case of rejection, authors have the right to appeal if they believe the reviewers have misunderstood or overlooked key aspects of the manuscript. Editors will then evaluate whether the appeal justifies reconsideration.
Common reasons for rejection
Manuscripts may be rejected outright—without being sent for peer review—if they are of insufficient quality. Common reasons for rejection include:
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
The ownership and management of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” (JWLD) belong to the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences – National Research Institute (https://www.itp.edu.pl/) and Polish Academy of Sciences (https://pan.pl/).
Editor-in-Chief – Professor Dr Hab. Mohamed Hazem KALAJI
Managing Editor – PhD, DSc, Associate Professor Adam BRYSIEWICZ
Guidance from COPE ( https://publicationethics.org/ ):
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.7
How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
Text recycling guidelines for editors
URL: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines
A short guide to ethical editing for new editors
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.8
Guidelines for managing the relationships between society owned journals, their society, and publishers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.2
Retraction guidelines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
Journal of Water and Land Development List of reviewers 2024