Modeling the Process of Crop Yield Management in Hydroagro-Landscape Saline Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This Manuscript presents a robust study on modeling crop yield in saline soils, leveraging long-term data (1932–2020) and advanced mathematical techniques. Its interdisciplinary approach and focus on Central Asia's salinization issues are commendable. However, the paper lacks a clear articulation of its innovation compared to existing research, and the structure could be improved for better readability. The revision suggestions are as follows:

1. Academic Innovation: In the introduction sections, include a critical analysis of existing research, explicitly stating how the proposed model outperforms or differs from current models. For instance, elaborate on the model's advantages in terms of prediction accuracy, applicability range, or parameter selection.
2. Article Structure: It is recommended to reorganize the article's structure by appropriately adding subheadings to each section to ensure that each part has a clear objective and logical progression. Additionally, it is suggested to include a discussion section between the results and conclusion chapters, or alternatively, to rename Chapter 4 as "Discussion and Conclusion."
3. Methodology: The description of experimental methods and data sources is insufficient, especially regarding data collection and processing. Although the article mentions data from 1932 to 2020, it does not provide details on data sources, processing methods, or measures to ensure data accuracy and consistency. Clarify data collection frequency, the specific use of tools (e.g., MS Excel), and how missing or anomalous data were handled.
4. Result derivation: In the model derivation section, provide a detailed explanation of model assumptions and applicability conditions to ensure readers understand the model construction process. In the results section, include an interpretation of model fit, explaining how the models align with actual data and discussing their limitations.
5. Writing details: The line spacing in lines 401-412 needs to be adjusted, and the reference format is non-standard and inconsistent.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language in some parts of the article is not fluid, with excessive use of long and complex sentences that hinder comprehension. Additionally, some terms and abbreviations are not explained upon their first use. Provide full explanations for terms or abbreviations when they first appear (e.g., explain "CTSSmpt" upon its initial mention). Furthermore, polish the language to align with academic writing standards.

Author Response

1. Academic innovations: The introduction indicates the literature sources and we have divided the sections into subsections, adding relevant information on applicable models in the field of crop yields.
2.    Structure of the paper: As per your comments we added subheadings to each section.
3. Methodology: Mathematical models are built, based on empirical forms of generalisation of experimental data obtained in different soils by type and degree of salinity.
4.    Result conclusion: Added a detailed explanation and proposed a conceptual model for crop yield management on saline soils.
5.    Writing details: Line spacing in lines 401-412 was corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The language of this paper is clear, and its content is accessible to readers. This study develops a model integrating materialist theory, ecological laws, artificial intelligence graph analysis, and MS Excel, based on the crop yield formation process in the salt-affected agricultural landscapes of Central Asia and Kazakhstan from 1932 to 2020. The model employs differential balance equations, treating crop yield as a function of soil salinity, and incorporates exponential, logarithmic, and polynomial equations. With a high coefficient of determination (R²), it accurately predicts yield trends, providing a critical basis for optimizing regional agricultural production. However, after careful reading, I still have several questions and look forward to discussing them with the authors.

1. Are all the computational formulas and modeling processes in this study directly adopted from previous research? I could not discern which parts reflect the authors’ original contributions.
2. The paper does not explicitly specify the nature of the data used in the study. I hope the authors can further clarify this in the Materials and Methods section.
3. It is common knowledge that crop yield decreases with increasing soil salinity. I believe a deeper exploration of the mechanisms behind salt-induced yield reduction and corresponding mitigation measures would hold greater scientific value.
4. All figures in the paper provide only the R² value without other scientifically meaningful statistical metrics, such as confidence intervals.
5. Why do all figures lack titles and units for the horizontal and vertical axes? I find this puzzling.
6. I suggest the authors remove the black dividing lines in all figures or replace them with light gray to enhance the figures’ legibility and clarity.
7. Is it overly simplistic to judge the suitability of equations or models for predicting crop yield solely based on the magnitude of R²?
8. It is basic knowledge that crop growth depends on light, water, and soil. While the authors focus on salinization, the conclusions emphasize that crop yield trends follow certain patterns or plant ecological laws. I assume these theories apply beyond crops grown in saline soils, do they not?
9. Additionally, crop yield is influenced by human management practices. How do the authors account for the impact of human management in their model?
10. The study includes crops such as cotton, winter wheat, grain corn, alfalfa, sugar beet, sunflower, and peas. Among these, sugar beet, alfalfa, and cotton are highly or moderately salt-tolerant. Have the authors considered the differential yield responses of these crops to salinity changes compared to others? Based on Figure 5, the yields of cotton, alfalfa, and sugar beet appear to exhibit a more linear relationship with soil salinity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of this paper is clear, and its content is accessible to readers. 

Author Response

1. On the basis of conducted field data and available archival materials for the first time mathematical models were constructed, based on empirical forms of generalisation of experimental data obtained in different soils by type and degree of salinization.
2. The Materials and Methods section has been grouped into sub-sections with precise descriptions of the study.
3. The relevance of the considered problem is determined by the danger of irreversible process of secondary settlement of soils in irrigated lands of Central Asia, as a consequence of which for crop yield management there is a necessity to build mathematical models on the basis of empirical forms of generalisation of experimental data obtained in different soils by type and degree of salinization.
4. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.
5. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.
6. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.
7. Based on the construction of graphs of the dependence of relative yield of agricultural crops on the dimensionless (relative) value of the type and degree of soil salinization, based on the research, firstly, differential equations were obtained that describe the process in question, secondly, within the framework of the adopted very high determination index, confirming high correlation between arguments of the function and yield, system of exponential, logarithmic and polynomial equations was obtained that allows management of the yield of agricultural crops on saline lands
8. The method of empirical forms of generalisation of the results of the study on the influence of type and degree of soil salinity in irrigated lands on crop yields in different natural-climatic zones was used to create the database
9. The authors rely on a model reflecting trends in crop yields depending on the salt content in the soil of saline landscapes, which obey certain regularities, or laws of plant ecology
10. assessment of the possibility of using the research base as integral indicators for the development of dynamic and linear-correlation models of crop yields depending on the type and degree of soil salinity applicable to all types of crops.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Umirzakov et al. established a model to simulate crop yield management under soil salinization in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Although the topic is interesting and has practical meaning, the manuscript needs substantial revisions. As a reviewer, I strongly suggest the authors carefully check the manuscript before submit it to the journal, e.g., typos, the structure, grammar mistakes etc. For this manuscript, the lack of in-depth discussion makes the manuscript looks like a report rather than a scientific paper. Based on these considerations, I do not recommend to publish this manuscript in its current form (need substantial revisions). Please see my specific comments below.

I strongly suggest the authors dividing the methodology and results into subsections, which facilitates the readers to quickly understand what the authors want to convey.

The abstract needs substantial revisions as current form did not clarify the meaning/reason of implementing your experiment. Why your work important? What is the novelty of your work? Also, the expression in the abstract needs to be carefully revised.

I suggest the authors revise the introduction as they did not introduce the state-of-the-art of related studies. Please add a paragraph in the introduction to show current studies and properly cite them.

I suggest the authors polishing the manuscript by a native English speaker.

I suggest the authors add a paragraph at the end of the introduction to facilitate the readers better understand the manuscript’s structure and content.

Please use periods instead of decimal separators following international standards. For example, “0.9671” instead of “0,9671”. Please revise this issue for the rest of the manuscript.

I suggest the authors add discussion part to better show the importance/novelty of their work.

Fig. 1 What the meaning of the x-axis and y-axis? What the meaning of the blue and red lines? The authors marked CYi and CLFi in the blank. But it is hard to distinguish them.

Line 13 In the first sentence, I suggest the authors explain why your work important, or what the key question your work/deficiency in current literature. You just say you got the data. But it is more important to demonstrate why you did this experiment at first. In the following content in the introduction, maybe the novelty of this manuscript is “saline soil”?

Line 17 It is necessary to stress you use MS Excel here? Do you mean MS Excel is easy to obtain, therefore your application is easy to follow/establish? I do not understand why the authors mention the MS Excel here. If you try to determine trends, Matlab or other program language may provide more powerful calculation analysis. Please briefly clarify the reason, especially in the abstract.

Line 21 What is the “structural and dynamic variables”?

Line 22 What do your mean of “various assumptions”. I did not say any assumptions in the abstract. Why we care about “assumptions”?

Line 23 The last sentence is complete or not?

In Eq. (1), it maybe better to expand the equation rather than hide the middle variables in Lines 79-95.

Lines 107-110 Please add proper citations for the mentioned laws.

Line 162 It is not described with full clarity here. The phrase “based on artificial intelligence” is used, but it’s unclear what AI techniques (if any) were actually implemented. It seems the analysis was done in MS Excel rather than using AI algorithms.

Table 1. Correct errors and duplicates in Table 1 (e.g., repeated logarithmic equations for certain crops such as alfalfa and sugar beet).

In the discussion part, please briefly mention potential future research directions or applications of your model at the end of the conclusion to suggest how this research can be extended or practically utilized.

Table 3. The table may more appropriate to be settled in the results section instead of the conclusion part.

No comparison to existing models or discussion of limitations. Incorporate a brief comparative discussion highlighting how this model differs or aligns with existing crop yield prediction models to clarify the novelty and contribution of your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please polish the manuscript.

Author Response

As per your comments, added subheadings to each section.

The abstract has been substantially revised.

Added information to the introduction.

The article has been verified by a native English speaker.

added a paragraph at the end of the introduction.

The authors used dots instead of decimal separators.

added a discussion section to better show the importance/novelty of the work.

Fig. 1 The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.

 added information regarding the relevance of the article?

 17 The methodological basis of the study was the materialistic theory of scientific cognition (analysis and synthesis) and the laws of ecology with the use of graph-analytical methods, including MS Excel.

 21 added information in article

 22 The paragraph on assumptions has been removed as per the comments

 23 Supplemented the information

The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.

 162 According to the comments, they removed the data on AI.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the article “Modeling the process of crop yield management in hydroagro-landscape saline soils”, the authors presented a mathematical model based on differential balance equations representing the dependence of crop yields on soil salinity in agricultural landscapes, and includes exponential, logarithmic and polynomial equations with a high coefficient of determination.
2. The topic is original and relevant for this field of science. This model reflects the relationship between structural and dynamic variables, allowing you to predict yields under different conditions.
3. The study provides valuable information necessary for the territorial organization of agricultural production. No research on this topic has been conducted by other authors. The knowledge gained lays the scientific foundation for the effective cultivation of agricultural crops.
4. With regard to improving the methodology, the authors should consider the following issues.

The Materials and Methods section contains a lot of general information (4 pages), which is more suitable for an introductory literary review. It is advisable to show a specific object, subject, and research methods.

The authors found a decrease in crop yields with an increase in the salt content in the soil. But this has been known for a long time, what is the novelty?

5. Conclusions should contain a brief and concentrated summary of the information received, in which it is necessary to show the specific most important numerical values from the results obtained.
6. Figure 1 shows two curved lines, but they are not numbered.
7. References to literary sources are quite appropriate.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The abstract has been substantially revised.
2. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements in both academic rigor and writing quality, aligning closely with the journal's publication standards. The introduction now includes a critical analysis of existing research, clarifying the innovative advantages of the proposed model and enhancing academic value. Structural revisions, such as the addition of subheadings, improve logical flow and coherence. The methodology section provides detailed descriptions of data collection and processing methods, strengthening the transparency and credibility of the research. In the results section, detailed explanations of model assumptions and applicability conditions, along with discussions of model-data consistency and limitations. Writing refinements include smoother language, clearer explanations of terminology and abbreviations, and more standardized reference formatting. Overall, these revisions elevate the manuscript's quality, ensuring it meets the expectations of an academic journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to enhance the manuscript's readability and language precision to boost its publication potential. Focus on concise expression and streamline lengthy sentences.

Author Response

1. On the basis of conducted field data and available archival materials for the first time mathematical models were constructed, based on empirical forms of generalisation of experimental data obtained in different soils by type and degree of salinization.
2. The Materials and Methods section has been grouped into sub-sections with precise descriptions of the study.
3. The relevance of the considered problem is determined by the danger of irreversible process of secondary settlement of soils in irrigated lands of Central Asia, as a consequence of which for crop yield management there is a necessity to build mathematical models on the basis of empirical forms of generalisation of experimental data obtained in different soils by type and degree of salinization.
4. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.
5. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.
6. The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.
7. Based on the construction of graphs of the dependence of relative yield of agricultural crops on the dimensionless (relative) value of the type and degree of soil salinization, based on the research, firstly, differential equations were obtained that describe the process in question, secondly, within the framework of the adopted very high determination index, confirming high correlation between arguments of the function and yield, system of exponential, logarithmic and polynomial equations was obtained that allows management of the yield of agricultural crops on saline lands
8. The method of empirical forms of generalisation of the results of the study on the influence of type and degree of soil salinity in irrigated lands on crop yields in different natural-climatic zones was used to create the database
9. The authors rely on a model reflecting trends in crop yields depending on the salt content in the soil of saline landscapes, which obey certain regularities, or laws of plant ecology
10. assessment of the possibility of using the research base as integral indicators for the development of dynamic and linear-correlation models of crop yields depending on the type and degree of soil salinity applicable to all types of crops.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ revision. But I do not recommend publishing this manuscript based on Several reasons:

• Unfortunately, I do not understand what’s the ideas/meanings the authors what to convey due to the English problem. I found the revised manuscript is extremely hard to understand and unfriendly to readers (maybe the journal could provide related service?).
• Moreover, the authors did not carefully revise their manuscript according to my previous comments. For instance, in Fig. 1, the authors still use comma in numbers (I commented this issue before). Another instance, I suggested the authors correcting errors of the duplicates in Table 1 (repeated logarithmic equations for alfalfa and sugar beet). However, this mistake still remains in the revised manuscript.
• In the ‘Authors' Responses to Reviewer's Comments’, the authors did not articulate their specific revisions. For example, the authors state that ‘added information regarding the relevance of the article?’. Why the authors ask me this question? What relevant information? I do not understand.
• There is no reference in the discussion section at all.

Comments

Lines 458-478 In the discussion section, the authors did not cite any paper.

Lines 18-18 English of this manuscript needs substantial revisions. Are you sure you polished the manuscript handled by an English native speaker? Please carefully check the sentences. It is hard to understand what the ideas authors what to convey, e.g., ‘Based on the construction of graphs of the dependence of relative yield of agricultural crops on the dimensionless (relative) value of the type and degree of soil salinization, based on the research…’ There are six ‘of’ terms and two ‘based on’ terms in one sentence. I do not understand what you what to say.

Lines 69-75 This ‘one’ sentence contains amount information. Please rewire them in several sentences. Long sentence but makes the readers hard to understand what you want to say.

Fig. 1 The authors still use comma in numbers.

Table 1. The repeated logarithmic equations still exist, and the authors did not clarify this problem.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extremely hard to understand. Low-quality in English.

Author Response

As per your comments, added subheadings to each section.

The abstract has been substantially revised.

Added information to the introduction.

The article has been verified by a native English speaker.

added a paragraph at the end of the introduction.

The authors used dots instead of decimal separators.

added a discussion section to better show the importance/novelty of the work.

Fig. 1 The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.

Graf 13 added information regarding the relevance of the article

Graph 17 The methodological basis of the study was the materialistic theory of scientific cognition (analysis and synthesis) and the laws of ecology with the use of graph-analytical methods, including MS Excel.

Graph 21 added information in article

Graph 22 The paragraph on assumptions has been removed as per the comments

Graph 23 Supplemented the information

The graphs have been corrected according to the observations.

Graph 162 According to the comments, they removed the data on AI.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am not satisfied with the authors' reply. I did not find their reposne letter to address each of my comments. I do not know what specific revions they made in this round. Therefore, I stick to my previous suggestion: reject this mansucript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf