Substantiation of the Use of a Flexible Chain-Type Subsoiler for Improving the Agrotechnological Properties of Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study designed a flexible chain-type subsoiler and explored the improvement of soil quality through experiments. I also approve that improving soil quality is critical to increasing bioenergy production and sustainable development.  

1. The English writing level of this study is poor. I recommend that the entire paper be rechecked for grammar to improve quality.

2. Re-summarize the abstract content according to the format of the journal. The total number of words should not exceed 200 words.

3. As a research paper, the paper should be written in a scientific format, that is, introduction-materials and methods-results-discussion-conclusion. The research content and format of this paper need to be summarized again.

4. The introduction should explain the background and research status of this research field in detail, and point out the existing problems. The last paragraph introduces the main purpose of the study. The author lacks discussion of the research results of other researchers in this field in the introduction. This section should add content to enable readers to better understand the current research status in this field.

5. The first letter used to indicate the picture should be capitalized.

6. How is the equation (1) used to calculate the chain length L determined? Equation (3) is incorrectly expressed.

7. Line 87, the equation is repeated.

8. Line 146-147, how is soil sampling performed? What is the sampling method?

9. Line 161-162, how many times was each experiment repeated? The number of test repetitions has a great impact on the accuracy of the test results.

10. Line 167-172, how is the number of aggregates in soil determined? If obtained from a sample taken, is the sample representative of the overall results?

11. Line 252-253, the conclusion should write down the specific experimental results and should not include unexplored content.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be polished by native speaker.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your analysis of our article. We have taken your comments into account and would like to provide some answers and comments to your remarks.

 

1. The English writing level of this study is poor. I recommend that the entire paper be rechecked for grammar to improve quality.

The style and grammar were corrected

2. Re-summarize the abstract content according to the format of the journal. The total number of words should not exceed 200 words.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made.

3. As a research paper, the paper should be written in a scientific format, that is, introduction-materials and methods-results-discussion-conclusion. The research content and format of this paper need to be summarized again.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made.

4. The introduction should explain the background and research status of this research field in detail, and point out the existing problems. The last paragraph introduces the main purpose of the study. The author lacks discussion of the research results of other researchers in this field in the introduction. This section should add content to enable readers to better understand the current research status in this field.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made. I would like to respectfully draw your attention to the fact that there are very few articles in the ScienceDirect and MDPI databases on the design of the relevant tillage tools, including the use of flexible chains.

5. The first letter used to indicate the picture should be capitalized.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made.

6. How is the equation (1) used to calculate the chain length L determined? Equation (3) is incorrectly expressed.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made.

7. Line 87, the equation is repeated.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended.

8. Line 146-147, how is soil sampling performed? What is the sampling method? 9. Line 161-162, how many times was each experiment repeated? The number of test repetitions has a great impact on the accuracy of the test results. 10. Line 167-172, how is the number of aggregates in soil determined? If obtained from a sample taken, is the sample representative of the overall results?

The text of the article was amended accordingly. The soil selection procedure was as follows: the area on which the research was con-ducted (0,2 ha for each variant of the experiment) was divided into 10 plots. At least 3 samples were taken in each plot. Thus, the total number of samples was 30 for each experiment. Soil samples were taken from a depth of 5-20 cm. To determine the relative humidity of the soil, additional samples were taken the next day (after 24 hours), the sampling depth was 10cm. A steel soil probe sampler was used for soil sampling.

 

11. Line 252-253, the conclusion should write down the specific experimental results and should not include unexplored content.

The conclusions were corrected

 

Best regards,

The authors of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors determined the rational length of a flexible subsoiler through analytical calculations and field research. They established a proportionality factor of 2.4, which determines the ratio of the width of the plow grip to the length of the chain of a flexible subsoiler. This proportionality factor allows them to determine the length of the chain during the development of design-and-technological documentation. In addition to the analytical calculations, the authors conducted field experiments to analyze the quality indicators of soil cultivation. They compared the structural and agrotechnological condition of the soil when using a plow with a chain to a standard plow. The results showed that the number of aggregates of the soil that do not meet agricultural requirements decreased in the variants with the chain, and the structurality coefficient increased compared to the base variant. The resistance to soil compaction was also lower when using the proposed soil tillage unit. These findings support the authors' conclusion that a plow with a chain has a positive influence on the structural and agrotechnological condition of the soil compared to a standard plow. The surface of the field cultivated with the proposed tillage tools meets the requirements for sowing agricultural crops without additional technological operations. The research has some significance, but the innovative points are relatively few, it can be better if the content is much more abundant.

1. How does the elastic chain bottom ripper reduce soil compaction ? What are its advantages over other roasters? Please add more in the introduction.

2. Line 114, why the working depth is 0,3m, and how does it influence the result ?

3. Line 170-171, how can the result “in the proposed variants №1 and №2 decreased by 28.2% to the agrophone and by 7.1% to the base variant, and the structurality coefficient” be received ?

4. The authors determined the rational length of a flexible subsoiler through analytical calculations and field research. According to the results of the analytical calculations, a proportionality factor of 2.4 was established, which determines the ratio of the width of the plow grip to the length of the chain of a flexible subsoiler. The value 2.4 is received from the table 2, I wonder whether the data is much enough to confirm the value 2.4?

5. Please add more detailed content of the comparative experiment in the “3. Materials and Methods”.

6. Please explain every formula in the passage more specially, like in the line 75 why do you “limit the length of the "chain line of the flexible thread loop" of the subsoiler to the right branch of the parabola)”

7. Line 112, why do you choose “PLN-5-35” to do the experiment ?

8. Line 170, where are the №1 and №2 from?

9. In the Conclusions, please highlight your innovative points.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your analysis of our article. We have taken your comments into account and would like to provide some answers and comments to your remarks.

1. How does the elastic chain bottom ripper reduce soil compaction ? What are its advantages over other roasters? Please add more in the introduction.

The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made. I would like to respectfully draw your attention to the fact that there are very few articles in the ScienceDirect and MDPI databases on the design of the relevant tillage tools, including the use of flexible chains.

2. Line 114, why the working depth is 0,3m, and how does it influence the result ?

We have taken note of the remarks and have made the necessary amendments to the article.

3. Line 170-171, how can the result “in the proposed variants №1 and №2 decreased by 28.2% to the agrophone and by 7.1% to the base variant, and the structurality coefficient” be received ?

We have taken note of the remarks and have made the necessary amendments to the article.

4. The authors determined the rational length of a flexible subsoiler through analytical calculations and field research. According to the results of the analytical calculations, a proportionality factor of 2.4 was established, which determines the ratio of the width of the plow grip to the length of the chain of a flexible subsoiler. The value 2.4 is received from the table 2, I wonder whether the data is much enough to confirm the value 2.4? 6. Please explain every formula in the passage more specially, like in the line 75 why do you “limit the length of the "chain line of the flexible thread loop" of the subsoiler to the right branch of the parabola)”

One of the most promising designs of the subsoiler used as a part of a ma-chine-tractor unit for plowing, with due regards to the manufacturability of its design, is the subsoiler in the form of a flexible loop of chain, the ends of which are fixed on the additional pillars of the first and the last plow bodies, as it was well described in a scientific paper Yarosh, Y.; Sheludchenko, B.; Kondratiuk, A.; Biletskiy, V.; Pluzhnikov, O. In a Building Visual-Plastic Environment the Equal "Chain Line" Moving Flexible Lines. Scientific Horizons 2020, 4(89), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.33249/2663-2144-2020-89-4-65-71. In this case, it is important to make sure that the loop is loose enough, but that there are no overlaps in the chain. And the chain itself was chosen only on the basis of strength. Of course, our research is only the beginning and we plan to continue it actively.

 

5. Please add more detailed content of the comparative experiment in the “3. Materials and Methods”.

We have taken note of the remarks and have made the necessary amendments to the article.

7. Line 112, why do you choose “PLN-5-35” to do the experiment ?

We chose this plough because it was available for use in our university's research field at the time. Of course, we will continue our research, considering the use of other plough sizes. In the same study, it was important to achieve any positive result.

8. Line 170, where are the №1 and №2 from?

We have taken note of the remarks and have made the necessary amendments to the article.

9. In the Conclusions, please highlight your innovative points.

The conclusions were corrected

Best regards,

The authors of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The technogenic influence on the agricultural soils leads to their compaction, which decreases the yield of the crops. There are many types of subsoilers for mechanical soil decompaction, including the flexible chain-type working body (the chain), used to prevent the negative consequences of the technogenic influence. The work aimed to determine the 

rational length of a flexible subsoiler and to conduct comparative field research. 

 

1) According to the authors, a flexible working

 tool (chain) can reduce the soil compaction. 

 

2) The authors calculated and established, using six plow brand models, a universal value of the coefficient K, which determines the ratio of the width of the plow grip to the length of the chain of the flexible subsoiler as K=2.4. The specified coefficient is one valuable design parameter for new promising samples of tillage tools. 

 

3) The authors believe in their proposed tool to preserve soil structure, but this statement requires further thorough research. Because of this, this research seems incomplete yet and should first published at a conference. For a journal publication, experiments over several years should be done to confirm whether the proposed tool will preserve the soil structure and work for sustainability. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your analysis of our article. We have taken your comments into account and would like to provide some answers and comments to your remarks.

 

3) The authors believe in their proposed tool to preserve soil structure, but this statement requires further thorough research. Because of this, this research seems incomplete yet and should first published at a conference. For a journal publication, experiments over several years should be done to confirm whether the proposed tool will preserve the soil structure and work for sustainability. 

Thank you for your valuable comment on the soil structure. We have made the appropriate changes to the article, as the article is not about the overall improvement of soil structure, but only about the improvement of some agrotechnical indicators.

 

Best regards,

The authors of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

I am sure that your manuscript may be published in the Journal. It may be interesting for both soil scientists and applied ecologists. However, I believe your text may be improved significantly.

There are several important issues.

(1) You try to discuss several ecological and technical problems associated with tilling, but don't discuss no-till technology. However, I am sure that no-till approaches are very important for soil preservation.

(2) The question arises: what's about a chain? You discuss its length, but don' describe its thickness, link parameters, chemical properties, its position in soil. I guess all these characteristics may affect results.

(3) Terminology. "Agrophone" — I suspect that this word was derived from some Cyrillic construction. Generally speaking, I understand what you tried to describe, but your text is in English, and, in English, a phone is simply "a communication system that is used to talk to someone who is in another place" (cambridge.org). Besides, in different parts of your relatively short text, you use quite different constructions to describe three variants studied. I propose to use the uniform names for these variants over all text: e.g. 1 — cereal stubble; 2 — conventional tilling; 3 — experimental tilling.

(4) The next issue: why did you analyze only several, mainly technical characteristics of soils.  What's about soil profile changes,  organic matter distribution etc.?

(5) My guess is the last paragraph is not needed in the Conclusion, because, generally speaking, it repeats some parts of the main text.

Some additional comments:

Please, check all situations when en-dashes should be used (e.g., for ranges, between years etc.).

Figure 6 — What are whiskers mean?

Ref. 2 — Please, add the title of the article

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The general level of English language is applicable, but some parts should be checked.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your analysis of our article. We have taken your comments into account and would like to provide some answers and comments to your remarks.

(1) You try to discuss several ecological and technical problems associated with tilling, but don't discuss no-till technology. However, I am sure that no-till approaches are very important for soil preservation.

We completely agree with you. We added the relevant information to the text of our article

(2) The question arises: what's about a chain? You discuss its length, but don' describe its thickness, link parameters, chemical properties, its position in soil. I guess all these characteristics may affect results.

One of the most promising designs of the subsoiler used as a part of a ma-chine-tractor unit for plowing, with due regards to the manufacturability of its design, is the subsoiler in the form of a flexible loop of chain, the ends of which are fixed on the additional pillars of the first and the last plow bodies, as it was well described in a scientific paper Yarosh, Y.; Sheludchenko, B.; Kondratiuk, A.; Biletskiy, V.; Pluzhnikov, O. In a Building Visual-Plastic Environment the Equal "Chain Line" Moving Flexible Lines. Scientific Horizons 2020, 4(89), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.33249/2663-2144-2020-89-4-65-71. In this case, it is important to make sure that the loop is loose enough, but that there are no overlaps in the chain. And the chain itself was chosen only on the basis of strength. Of course, our research is only the beginning and we plan to continue it actively.

(3) Terminology. "Agrophone" — I suspect that this word was derived from some Cyrillic construction. Generally speaking, I understand what you tried to describe, but your text is in English, and, in English, a phone is simply "a communication system that is used to talk to someone who is in another place" (cambridge.org). Besides, in different parts of your relatively short text, you use quite different constructions to describe three variants studied. I propose to use the uniform names for these variants over all text: e.g. 1 — cereal stubble; 2 — conventional tilling; 3 — experimental tilling.

We completely agree with you. We have made appropriate corrections to the article

(4) The next issue: why did you analyze only several, mainly technical characteristics of soils.  What's about soil profile changes,  organic matter distribution etc.?

We have just started our research. But russia's despicable invasion of Ukraine is preventing us from conducting a full range of studies. It is also impossible to transport all the equipment to Lithuania right now. The main objective of the work was to establish the correct chain length and prove the effectiveness of its use. We plan to significantly expand the range of research at the earliest opportunity.

Figure 6 — What are whiskers mean?

This is how the values of standard deviations were shown

Ref. 2 — Please, add the title of the article

Fixed a bug

 

Best regards,

The authors of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has a potential but it needs a lot of work. Materials & methods are lacking, some terms concerning soil characteristic are wrong. I am a soil scientist so I cannot tell if the calculations for plow chain are correct. Details below.

 

1.      Please remove ‘soil profile’ from keywords. You did not study it. Same with ‘plow sole’.

2.      Line 88: You cite here fig. 4 but it appears you didn’t actually mean fig. 4?

3.      Table 2. I think the comment “The universal value of the coefficient C which determines the ratio of the width of the plow grip to the length of the chain of the flexible sub-soiler” should be placed below the table (as a footnote). Also it’s not very clear which value is the C coefficient.

4.      Line 112: Is the tested plow still available in the company's sales offer?

5.      What do you mean by agrophone? It is not a commonly used term.

6.      Lines 124-125: You should use some international soil classification, for example World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB), or at least cite the classification you have used.

7.      Lines 130-132: I assume ‘lumps’ are soil aggregates? Did you mean per 1kg? A unit ‘mm.kg’ doesn’t seem right. Where did you get this equation from? Can you cite the source?

8.      When did you take the soil samples? Just before the test? And how long after? How did you take samples? With a shovel? Or soil cane? From what depths? From how many points? How large was the field? Did you mixed samples at the end? Did you take soil samples in the same way for all tests? How many replicates of the analysis were applied?

9.      Also you should put more details on the study area. How large were tested fields? Which of the variants is a control? For example indicate it in table 3, it will be easier to read. I assume all tested areas were cereal stubble,, not only agrophone?

10.   Fig. 4: How this installation worked? Was it shaking? Or rotating? What was the frequency?

11.   Lines 148-151: In soil science the term “water content at sampling’ is more appropriate than absolute humidity. Do you use this term in agrotechnical sciences? Also how did you take these samples? How many? What was the procedure? Usually water content at sampling is calculated from the ratio of the mass of water contained in the soil during the sampling to the dry matter of soil dried at temp. 105 C.

12.   Lines 152-159: In soil science it is called soil bulk density. Also you didn’t test sediments but soil. And again, what was the procedure? You should cite some sources in these few paragraphs concerning soil analysis.

13.   Lines 157-159: I have no idea what you mean by unevenness of the surface. Is it the slope? Maybe you should add some figure here or cite the source of this method.

14.   Table 3: Please add the letters standing for each quality indicators (as listed in materials and methods section).

15.   Line 168: Soil particles is something entirely different. Please keep to the term ‘aggregates’.

16.   Line 170: You are using here numbers but they have not been assigned to any variant.

17.   Lines 170-172: Decreased compared to what? I thought that agrophone is your main control (line 121).

18.   Please rewrite the sentence in lines 167-172, especially part 170-172 – it is hard to understand what do you mean.

19.   Lines 173-174: What requirements? To be honest water content at sampling (absolute soil humidity) largely depends on the weather conditions, maybe you should include it in materials and methods section. You did not compared at all soil humidity among variants.

20.   Line 175-176: Again, what requirements?

21.   Line 180: How can you say that about plow sole? Was it present in this field? At what depth?

22.   Line 182: What do you mean by the standard value?

23.   Lines 186-187: Decreased compared to what?

24.   Lines 190-191: Again, what requirements?

25.   Line 197: It could be replaced by no-tillage systems as well.

26.   Discussion: Instead of ‘the authors of this article’ I suggest using ‘we’. Also, add some info on no-tillage systems. Is it possible to quit plowing completely? In my opinion no, so you could enrich your discussion and shed some light on this topic.

27.   Lines 198-199: Please remove “proposed in this scientific article.”

28.   Line 220: How it mitigates harmful emissions? And emission of what?

29.   Discussion: You should describe limitations of your study.

30.   Line 245: No particles or lumps, just aggregates.

31.   Lines 244-253: Rewrite it please. These are sentences cut from the text. Conclusions should be a short summary, not a repetition.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your analysis of our article. We have taken your comments into account and would like to provide some answers and comments to your remarks.

1. Please remove ‘soil profile’ from keywords. You did not study it. Same with ‘plow sole’.

We have corrected the keywords

2. Line 88: You cite here fig. 4 but it appears you didn’t actually mean fig. 4?

We fixed a bug in the article test

3. Table 2. I think the comment “The universal value of the coefficient C which determines the ratio of the width of the plow grip to the length of the chain of the flexible sub-soiler” should be placed below the table (as a footnote). Also it’s not very clear which value is the C coefficient.

Your remark has been taken into account. Changes have been made to the text

4. Line 112: Is the tested plow stillavailable in the company's sales offer?

Yes, such ploughs are mass-produced in Odesa at the Veles plant (Ukraine)

5. What do you mean by agrophone? It is not a commonly used term.

Your remark has been taken into account. Changes have been made to the text

6. Lines 124-125: You should use some international soil classification, for example World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB), or at least cite the classification you have used.

Your remark has been taken into account. Changes have been made to the text

7. Lines 130-132: I assume ‘lumps’ are soil aggregates? Did you mean per 1kg? A unit ‘mm.kg’ doesn’t seem right. Where did you get this equation from? Can you cite the source?

Your remark has been taken into account. Changes have been made to the text

8. When did you take the soil samples? Just before the test? And how long after? How did you take samples? With a shovel? Or soil cane? From what depths? From how many points? How large was the field? Did you mixed samples at the end? Did you take soil samples in the same way for all tests? How many replicates of the analysis were applied? 9.      Also you should put more details on the study area. How large were tested fields? Which of the variants is a control? For example indicate it in table 3, it will be easier to read. I assume all tested areas were cereal stubble,, not only agrophone?

The soil selection procedure was as fol-lows: the area on which the research was conducted (0,2 ha for each variant of the experiment) was divided into 10 plots. At least 3 samples were taken in each plot. Thus, the total number of samples was 30 for each experiment. Soil samples were taken from a depth of 5-20 cm. To determine the relative humidity of the soil, additional samples were taken the next day (after 24 hours), the sampling depth was 10cm. A steel soil probe sampler was used for soil sampling.

10. Fig. 4: How this installation worked? Was it shaking? Or rotating? What was the frequency?

The distribution of the soil into fractions took place thanks to the vibration of special sieves, the vibration frequency of 0,75 Hz was provided by a special installation.

11. Lines 148-151: In soil science the term “water content at sampling’ is more appropriate than absolute humidity. Do you use this term in agrotechnical sciences? Also how did you take these samples? How many? What was the procedure? Usually water content at sampling is calculated from the ratio of the mass of water contained in the soil during the sampling to the dry matter of soil dried at temp. 105 C. 19.   Lines 173-174: What requirements? To be honest water content at sampling (absolute soil humidity) largely depends on the weather conditions, maybe you should include it in materials and methods section. You did not compared at all soil humidity among variants.

This is a good remark. As for the humidity, the article mistakenly mentioned absolute humidity, while we defined relative humidity. And that was only to make sure that the humidity was normal.

12. Lines 152-159: In soil science it is called soil bulk density. Also you didn’t test sediments but soil. And again, what was the procedure? You should cite some sources in these few paragraphs concerning soil analysis.

We agree with the remark. We have corrected the text of the article

13. Lines 157-159: I have no idea what you mean by unevenness of the surface. Is it the slope? Maybe you should add some figure here or cite the source of this method.

We meant the microrelief of the field surface

14. Table 3: Please add the letters standing for each quality indicators (as listed in materials and methods section).

 We have corrected the text of the article

15. Line 168: Soil particles is something entirely different. Please keep to the term ‘aggregates’.

We have corrected the text of the article

16. Line 170: You are using here numbers but they have not been assigned to any variant.

We agree with the remark. We have corrected the text of the article

 

With regard to comments 17-31, we agree with these comments. We have partially addressed them by making appropriate corrections in the article. We would also like to note that, we have just started our research. But russia's despicable invasion of Ukraine is preventing us from conducting a full range of studies. It is also impossible to transport all the equipment to Lithuania right now. The main objective of the work was to establish the correct chain length and prove the effectiveness of its use. We plan to significantly expand the range of research at the earliest opportunity.

 

Best regards,

The authors of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is valuable because of its research into the elimination of the energy-intensive procedure of deep soil loosening.

The second part of the title of the paper is inconsistent with the content and contains a confusion of terms. The sense in which 'Sustainable Improvement' is used is puzzling, as I find it difficult to justify what sustainable improvement is meant. Just because the authors send an article to a publisher with the name "Sustainability" does not mean that you have to use this word in the title of the paper. I therefore ask you to justify the use of the term.

On the other hand, I categorically object to the use of 'Soil quality' in the title of the article, as it is likely that the authors do not understand this concept. I am aware of many definitions of soil, but none of them refers to tillage treatments. Anyway, in the abstract they stated very well why subsoiling is necessary, i.e. "significantly worsens their agrochemical, physical, mechanical, and agrotechnological properties, prevents the optimal use of potential soil fertility". And this offset version should be in the title e.g. "... Chain-Type Subsoiler for improvement agrochemical, physical, mechanical, and agrotechnological properties of soil".

 

As a farmer's son, I can imagine the principle of the chain, but it would have been good if the authors had described how the chain cuts and loosens the soil.  The authors did not give limitations on the use of the chain, i.e. for example the minimum soil moisture content, whether it is suitable for heavy/clay soils, or the extra tractor power required and the reinforcement of the frame, body (I don't know if I have a good translation of the word) or other plough components. They just limited themselves to saying that it is good because it eliminates one extra treatment.

Please be more specific as to whether similar studies have already been conducted, if so, please compare with your results.

I have marked "Reconsideration after major revision" only AND ONLY because of the inappropriate title of the article, the article itself, depending on whether there have already been similar studies, does not necessarily require major revisions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your analysis of our article. We have taken your comments into account and would like to provide some answers and comments to your remarks.
The remarks have been duly noted and the text of the article has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made. I would like to respectfully draw your attention to the fact that there are very few articles in the ScienceDirect and MDPI databases on the design of the relevant tillage tools, including the use of flexible chains. 
One of the most promising designs of the subsoiler used as a part of a ma-chine-tractor unit for plowing, with due regards to the manufacturability of its design, is the subsoiler in the form of a flexible loop of chain, the ends of which are fixed on the additional pillars of the first and the last plow bodies, as it was well described in a scientific paper Yarosh, Y.; Sheludchenko, B.; Kondratiuk, A.; Biletskiy, V.; Pluzhnikov, O. In a Building Visual-Plastic Environment the Equal "Chain Line" Moving Flexible Lines. Scientific Horizons 2020, 4(89), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.33249/2663-2144-2020-89-4-65-71. In this case, it is important to make sure that the loop is loose enough, but that there are no overlaps in the chain. And the chain itself was chosen only on the basis of strength. Of course, our research is only the beginning and we plan to continue it actively.
We would also like to note that, we have just started our research. But russia's despicable invasion of Ukraine is preventing us from conducting a full range of studies. It is also impossible to transport all the equipment to Lithuania right now. The main objective of the work was to establish the correct chain length and prove the effectiveness of its use. We plan to significantly expand the range of research at the earliest opportunity.
Best regards,
The authors of the article

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be polished by native speaker.

Author Response

Thank you for the meaningful analysis of our article. The article was edited by a native speaker

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

My new suggestions are more or less formal and are associated with Table 3 and Fig. 6:

Please, explain what whiskers mean, s.e. or something else...

Table 3 - all values shoud be with the same levels of accuracy. I  mean 0.7 +/- 0.05 should be 0.70 +/- 0.05

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is applicable, but there are some problems, mainly with typos.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed analysis of our article. Your comments has been taken into account

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments and introducing changes. I imagine it must be hard to conduct a study in your situation. I wish that soon you will be able to do your research in free Ukraine.

 

I believe your work is valuable, I have only a few comments. The most important concerns using the term ’granulometric composition’,  please change it because in the current form it’s not used correctly.

1.     Granulometric composition is not the percentage shares of soil aggregates of different diameters.  It is the shares of sand (0.05-2.0 mm), silt (0.002-0.05 mm) and clay (<0.002 mm) fraction [USDA 2022] or sand (0.63µ-2.0 mm), silt (2-0.63 µm) and clay (<2 µm) fraction {WRB 2022]. So what you did was the analysis of the content of aggregates of various diameters. And soil fractions – it is also sand, silt and clay, not aggregates. Please change it in lines 121-123.  

2.     Line 14: It’s morphological, not morpho-logical.

3.     Line 22: Please remove ‘-‘.

4.     Fig.4 is actually fig. 3 (please change the number in the caption).

5.     Line 106: ‘Deadline’ is not a right term.

6.     From the last review:

“11.   Lines 148-151: In soil science the term “water content at sampling’ is more appropriate than absolute humidity. Do you use this term in agrotechnical sciences? Also how did you take these samples? How many? What was the procedure? Usually water content at sampling is calculated from the ratio of the mass of water contained in the soil during the sampling to the dry matter of soil dried at temp. 105 C. 19.   Lines 173-174: What requirements? To be honest water content at sampling (absolute soil humidity) largely depends on the weather conditions, maybe you should include it in materials and methods section. You did not compared at all soil humidity among variants.

This is a good remark. As for the humidity, the article mistakenly mentioned absolute humidity, while we defined relative humidity. And that was only to make sure that the humidity was normal.”

 

What do you mean by ‘normal humidity’? From the point of view of soil science ‘water content at sampling’ is more accurate term. Also, you should describe the methodology of this analysis better (in lines 136-139). How did you dry the samples? Were they air-dried? Or in higher temperature?

 

7.     Lines 140-144: What was the procedure? You should cite some sources in these few paragraphs concerning soil analysis.

8.     Line 199: So is it relative or absolute humidity?

9.     Table 3: It’s soil bulk density.

10.  Line 274: Please use ‘soil aggregates’ instead of ‘soil formations’ .

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

there are some minor issues

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments, they are all valid and we have tried to take them all into account.

 

1. Granulometric composition is not the percentage shares of soil aggregates of different diameters. It is the shares of sand (0.05-2.0 mm), silt (0.002-0.05 mm) and clay (<0.002 mm) fraction [USDA 2022] or sand (0.63µ-2.0 mm), silt (2-0.63 µm) and clay (<2 µm) fraction {WRB 2022]. So what you did was the analysis of the content of aggregates of various diameters. And soil fractions – it is also sand, silt and clay, not aggregates. Please change it in lines 121-123. 

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

2. Line 14: It’s morphological, not morpho-logical.

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

3. Line 22: Please remove ‘-‘.

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

4. Fig.4 is actually fig. 3 (please change the number in the caption).

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

5. Line 106: ‘Deadline’ is not a right term.

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

6. From the last review:

 

“11.   Lines 148-151: In soil science the term “water content at sampling’ is more appropriate than absolute humidity. Do you use this term in agrotechnical sciences? Also how did you take these samples? How many? What was the procedure? Usually water content at sampling is calculated from the ratio of the mass of water contained in the soil during the sampling to the dry matter of soil dried at temp. 105 C. 19.   Lines 173-174: What requirements? To be honest water content at sampling (absolute soil humidity) largely depends on the weather conditions, maybe you should include it in materials and methods section. You did not compared at all soil humidity among variants.

 

This is a good remark. As for the humidity, the article mistakenly mentioned absolute humidity, while we defined relative humidity. And that was only to make sure that the humidity was normal.”

What do you mean by ‘normal humidity’? From the point of view of soil science ‘water content at sampling’ is more accurate term. Also, you should describe the methodology of this analysis better (in lines 136-139). How did you dry the samples? Were they air-dried? Or in higher temperature?

7. Lines 140-144: What was the procedure? You should cite some sources in these few paragraphs concerning soil analysis.

 

Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry, I got the terminology a bit wrong. The correct way to put it is this:

At the beginning of the process, the initial wet sample was considered. The soil samples were dried in a thermostat (at a temperature of 100-105 °C) to a constant weight. The weight of the sample after completion of the drying process was compared with the weight of the sample before drying, and an absolute final moisture content was obtained or relative (percent) to the original sample weight.

Absolute soil moisture W of the soil was determined by the formula:

W=(W1-W2)/W2 ⋅100% ,

where:

                W1 – weight of a moist soil, g;

                W2 – weight of the dry particles, g.

 

 

8. Line 199: So is it relative or absolute humidity?

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

9. Table 3: It’s soil bulk density.

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

10. Line 274: Please use ‘soil aggregates’ instead of ‘soil

We have made appropriate changes to the text of the article

 

Best regards, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx