Optimizing Subsurface Drainage Pipe Layout Parameters in Southern Xinjiang’s Saline–Alkali Soils: Impacts on Soil Salinity Dynamics and Oil Sunflower Growth Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1. Reference to international studies on salt-affected soils in the introduction would help demonstrate that the findings have a global applicability.
2. Critically compare the effectiveness of different drainage system configurations and models used in similar ecological regions, mentioning any previous attempts to optimize spacing and depth.
3. Incorporate a comparative analysis of the various modeling approaches for predicting salt accumulation and crop growth outcomes. A clear distinction between the methodologies would underline the advantages of your approach.
4. Provide a more explicit explanation of the experimental design, particularly the statistical methods used to analyze the results. Clarify whether other factors like crop variety or soil texture were controlled for, or if they were part of the analysis.
5. Include a discussion on the robustness of the models used to simulate the effects of different configurations. For example, how sensitive were the results to variations in model parameters? Discuss any limitations of the model that could impact the interpretation of the results.
6. Highlight whether the experimental results align with the expected outcomes based on prior studies or if they represent a novel contribution to the field. Furthermore, contextualize how your findings will affect the long-term sustainability of soil management practices.
7. Ensure that all figures are adequately/thoroughly explained and discussed within the text to guide readers through the experimental process and outcomes. Discuss any unexpected trends or anomalies that the figures reveal. Also for Figures that contain multiple chats, label a, b, c etc accordingly both on Figures and in the text (results and discussions)
8. Include suggestions for policy or practice changes based on your findings, such as recommendations for subsurface drainage system configurations or modifications to irrigation strategies. Discuss how your results can inform sustainable agricultural practices in arid regions facing similar challenges.
9. Investigate potential impacts on biodiversity or other ecosystem services when implementing optimized drainage systems. Additionally, exploring the economic feasibility and social acceptance of these systems would add another layer of depth to the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have had the pleasure of reviewing your manuscript titled " Optimizing Subsurface Drainage Pipe Layout Parameters in Southern Xinjiang's Saline-Alkali Soils: Impacts on Soil Salinity Dynamics and Oil Sunflower Growth Performance." I must commend your comprehensive and robust approach to this pertinent issue in the realm of sustainability.

While the topic is undoubtedly important and the experimental design is comprehensive, I unfortunately have to recommend your MS to be resubmitted after major revision. My concerns stem from several key areas that, in my opinion, prevent the manuscript from reaching the standards expected for publication in Sustainability.

First, the introduction feels a bit disjointed. It sets a broad stage, talking about soil salinization globally and in Xinjiang, but doesn't effectively pinpoint the specific knowledge gap this research addresses. What new insights are we getting beyond what's already known? The literature review, while present, lacks a critical synthesis. It reads more like a list of relevant studies than a critical assessment of the current state of knowledge and the shortcomings that this research aims to resolve. A more compelling justification for the study is needed to attract the reader.

Second, and this is a more substantial concern, the discussion section falls short. The authors present the results clearly enough good job with the data visualization. But the interpretation is weak. It feels descriptive rather than analytical. For example, the correlations found between groundwater depth and soil salinity are reported, but the why behind those correlations isn't explored deeply enough. Are there specific hydrological processes at play here that we're not getting a full understanding of ?. It's not enough to just state the statistical significance; a deeper, more mechanistic explanation is crucial. A diagram or conceptual model explaining these interactions would have been extremely helpful.

Finaly, the manuscript lacks a strong conceptual framework. The study is largely empirical, driven by observations rather than a comprehensive theoretical understanding. While statistical analyses are used, I would have liked to see a more sophisticated modelling approach, perhaps integrating existing hydrological models to test hypotheses and strengthen the interpretation of the results.

The multi-criteria optimization using TOPSIS is a good attempt, but the choice of objectives and their weighting needs more justification. It feels a little subjective. A clearer explanation of this methodology and its appropriateness for this specific context is needed.

Additionally, while the manuscript is quite long, it could be significantly improved through more concise writing. Some sections feel repetitive and could be streamlined without losing crucial information.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should consider the following comments:

The literature review in the introduction is not adequate for this part of the manuscript, rather it should be included in the discussion. What is missing from the introduction is a presentation of the problem, and ways to remove soil salinity, what climatic, soil factors promote or limit the formation of salinity, which elements are most responsible for the formation of salinity in the region of the study conducted.

What does “dark tube test area” mean in the description of Table 1?

In Table 1, the wording “Amount of powder”, amount of grit” are not used in the specialized literature, in relation to soil texture.

The description of the methodology in line 101-106 is strange, difficult to interpret and it is not clear what the experience was like, the style of English should be improved.

In the methodology chapter there is no information on the number of repetitions of the tests performed, moreover, how care was taken to ensure the representativeness of the samples for soil analysis, the control treatment is located at the edge of the field according to the scheme presented by the authors.

What statistical methods were used to verify the research hypothesis, there is no information in this regard.

In the results section, equation 3 should be described in the methodology section, this creates confusion in the manuscript.

Table 5 lacks a legend.

Figure 7 lacks information at what level of statistical significance the differences in the averages were shown.

Figure 8 is adequate is the content of the manuscript, there is no information in the methodology on pareto, this should be clarified.

The authors use the TOPSIS model, which is not described in the methodology, it is not known what the accuracy of this model is and whether it has been used previously in similar research cases should be clarified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Please provide a graphical abstract

1. Introduction

• The rationale for using genetic algorithms and TOPSIS should be explained earlier and more clearly, especially for non-specialist readers.

2. Materials and Methods

• Clearly define all treatment combinations (A1–A4, CK) earlier within the design explanation.
• Include brief justifications for chosen depth and spacing values based on prior studies or preliminary trials.

3. Results

• The figures and tables are informative but need clearer captions—explain what treatments the reader is looking at.
• In Section 3.1, data are well-described, but consider adding a brief explanation of how the “bimodal” trend connects with evapotranspiration patterns.

4. Conclusion

• The conclusion is clear and well-aligned with results. Consider slightly rephrasing the final sentence to emphasize the practical applicability for regional policymakers or irrigation managers.

Language and Formatting

• There are a few grammatical inconsistencies—I recommend thorough proofreading.
• Ensure consistent naming of figures and sections. Some tables and figures are referenced as “see table” or “figure above”—use proper numbering instead.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Agree

Author Response

Thank you for your help with this article

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have addressed many of my concerns and made notable amendments to the manuscript. However, crucial issues still require attention, and I offer the following comments for your consideration:

The discussion section still falls short as the interpretation still very weak.

Author Response

comment: 

the authors have addressed many of my concerns and made notable amendments to the manuscript. However, crucial issues still require attention, and I offer the following comments for your consideration:

The discussion section still falls short as the interpretation still very weak.

reply: 

Thank you for your question. We appreciate your attention to detail. We recognize that the description of discussion could be clearer, and have revised this section. These improvements should help readers better understand the experimental process and its outcomes. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved over the previous version. The indicated points have been corrected, resulting in a better and more accurate understanding. However, regarding the methodology, there is no information on the distance of soil sampling from the installed drainage lines in both A1 and A2, because the distance of the measuring points from the drainage line is crucial from the point of view of the impact on soil salinity and the depth of ground water in the field area, this should be completed.

Author Response

comment:The manuscript has been significantly improved over the previous version. The indicated points have been corrected, resulting in a better and more accurate understanding. However, regarding the methodology, there is no information on the distance of soil sampling from the installed drainage lines in both A1 and A2, because the distance of the measuring points from the drainage line is crucial from the point of view of the impact on soil salinity and the depth of ground water in the field area, this should be completed.

reply: Thank you for your valuable comments which have improved the content of this manuscript. We have added the information about the distance of the measuring points from the drainage line：set up sampling points above the dark pipe, 0 spacing 1/2 spacing and 1/4 spacing following a stratified random design within experimental plots.