The Effects of Apple Growers’ Adoption of Straw Returning Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review report is attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has good sound, Only needs minor changes. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors named the title ’The effects of the adoption of straw returning technology by apple growers’, but the research focused on the dual effects on apple growers and soil fertility, so the title is inconsistent with the contents. The quality and quantity of research questionnaires conducted in the form of survey questionnaires are particularly crucial. It is not simply described as a representative survey of some regions. It is necessary to clarify whether the selected objects are apple growers, how many growers there are in the region, how many areas the apple planting area covered, what methods were used to select the survey objects, what standards were used, where the representativeness is reflected, etc. Which in this way the survey data can be scientific. In addition, whether to directly describe the technology of returning straw to the field using arbitrary methods will amplify the effect of straw returning to the field. Factors such as the quantity, method, and time of straw returning to the field in straw returning technology will affect whether the effect of straw returning to the field occurs. These were not reflected in the design of the survey questionnaire at the beginning, resulting in a weakened evaluation of the results of straw returning technology. Using the estimated decline degree of soil fertility by farmers in the survey questionnaire to represent the induction of soil fertility decline caused by the use or non use of straw returning in apple orchards, it is difficult to obtain scientific results on soil fertility by simply describing the degree of decline as 1-5 degrees. The first hypothesis does not have a logical relationship, and there is no direct connection between the application of straw returning to the field and how it increases farmers' income, leading to the failure of hypothesis 1. The research progress at home and abroad has not seen any introduction to the relationship between the background of fruit farmers, straw returning, and soil fertility. The reason is no clear statement on conducting this study. Insufficient analysis of the results and simple description of the data processing result in poor reproducibility of the data. The conclusion contains some contents else beyond the data.  In summary, it is recommended to sort out scientific problems and conduct research from the perspective of scientific investigation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There should be more logic relationships between sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest a more simplified presentation for better understanding by people who are not experts in the area of ​​knowledge.

The main question addressed by the research: the adoption of straw returning technology by apple farmers. The topic is relevant and address a specific gap in the field.

  • What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? In my opinion would be the adoption of technology of of straw returning by apple farmers. However for agronomists not expertise in the subject of manuscript, the data presented are difficult to understand.
• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? In my opinion the manner as the data were presented is difficult to understand for people that are not expertise in Propensity score matching (PSM).
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this
is/is not the case. The conclusion must be presented in a manner more easy for the technology to be addopted by apple farmers.
• Are the references appropriate? Yes.
• Any additional comments on the tables and figures. Some practical results for apple farmers must be included.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript much careful than the first one,however, the conclusions contained more suggestions beyongds the data,please delete them or give them a suitable position else.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The second manuscript is much better than before and from my pont view it reached the standard of the journal to publish.

Author Response

Thank you sincerely for your kind words and for acknowledging the improvements made in the revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback throughout the review process, which has been invaluable in helping us enhance the quality of the paper.

Your constructive comments not only guided us in addressing critical aspects of the study but also enabled us to better present our findings in a clearer and more focused manner. We are truly grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript, and we are delighted that the revised version now meets the standards of the journal.

Comment

" The authors revised the manuscript much careful than the first one,however, the conclusions contained more suggestions beyongds the data,please delete them or give them a suitable position else."

Response: We acknowledge your concern that some of the policy recommendations in the conclusion extend beyond the immediate scope of the data presented in this study. In response, we have revised the policy recommendations to focus solely on those supported by the study’s empirical findings. Below is the updated version of the policy recommendations section, which aligns more closely with the data-driven results of our research. The second paragraph of the last section has been revised as follows:

Based on the conclusions of this study, the following policy recommendations are proposed. First, to raise environmental awareness among apple growers and promote the benefits of straw returning technology, it is important to encourage farmers to participate in cooperatives and technical training on fertilizer reduction and efficiency improvement. The government can play a key role by organizing practical training sessions and disseminating technical manuals to help farmers improve their understanding of straw returning practices. Second, financial support should be provided to reduce farmers' economic burden and incentivize technology adoption. This can be achieved through subsidies or by lowering the credit participation threshold, making it easier for farmers to access financial resources for sustainable practices. Lastly, considering the differential effects of age and farm size on technology adoption, it is crucial to develop targeted support strategies that provide appropriate resources and assistance to growers of various ages and scales.

We trust that this revised section better reflects the findings of our study and ensures that the recommendations are fully aligned with the data. Thank you again for your insightful comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for authors by  accepted the suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for recognizing the revisions we have made. We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of our manuscript.

We are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our work, and we hope the revised version meets the journal's requirements.