Alleviating Soil Compaction in an Asian Pear Orchard Using a Commercial Hand-Held Pneumatic Cultivator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1 

We thank you for the detailed and critical evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and expertise devoted to improving our work. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address the reviewer’s comments, including restructuring the Introduction, adding hypotheses, clarifying experimental design limitations, reanalyzing the data, and refining data presentation and interpretation. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response, with corresponding changes highlighted in the revised manuscript. Please check the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

View letter

1. Line 20-21 The results section in the abstract only mentions the frequency of decline but lacks specific data, reducing its persuasiveness.
2. Line 22 The abstract states that pneumatic subsoiling had no effect on fruit yield and quality, which contradicts the description in Section 3.3 (Fruit Yield and Quality) of the main text.
3. The measured soil indicators are too limited. It is recommended to supplement with additional soil physical indicators, such as porosity and bulk density.
4. Line 150-151 The R120 treatment involved drilling holes without injecting high-pressure gas. Please state whether the drilled holes were sealed afterward. If they were sealed, explain whether and how this could affect the experimental results.
5. Lines 160、170 There are two sections numbered "2.4.
6. Line 167-169 For the CK (Control) treatment, why was soil penetration resistance measured at 120 cm from the trunk instead of 180 cm? Please explain.
7. Line 179-183 In Section 2.6 (Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis), "buffer trees" are mentioned. Please specify the distance between these buffer trees and the measured trees, or provide a corresponding schematic diagram.
8. Table 2 lacks notation indicating significant differences, and data appears to be missing. Please supplement and clarify. Other tables also appear to lack significance notation; it is recommended to check and revise all tables accordingly.
9. Line 218-219 Footnote iii under Table 2 mentions measuring soil penetration resistance for two holes, which contradicts the method description in the main text.
10. The tables in the text do not intuitively show the differences between treatments. Could figures be used to represent this data more clearly?
11. The author name "Pen" in Reference 15 is inconsistent with "Peng" cited in line 331 of the main text.
12. The discussion section provides insufficient analysis regarding differences between varieties.
13. Table 3-6 The footnotes below the tables are redundant, as they repeatedly annotate the definitions of the treatment methods.
14. It is recommended to standardize the reference format. Most references include a DOI at the end, but a few do not.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

We thank you for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. The reviewer raised valuable points regarding the clarity of data presentation, consistency between the Abstract and main text, completeness of soil physical measurements, treatment method descriptions, statistical analysis approaches, and overall reporting standards. In response, we have:

• Revised the Abstract to include precise quantitative results and align statements with the Results section.
• Clarified treatment procedures, measurement locations, and field layout details in the Materials and Methods.
• Justified the soil indicators collected in this operational orchard study and acknowledged limitations regarding the absence of additional soil physical parameters.
• Updated all tables for clarity, ensured consistency in treatment annotations, and included graphical figures to enhance data interpretation.
• Revised the Discussion to address cultivar differences, potential implications of treatment effects, and study limitations.
• Standardized the entire reference list to comply with journal formatting requirements.

We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript’s clarity, scientific rigor, and practical relevance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

There is no information on the influence of the granulometric composition and soil moisture on its susceptibility to compaction.

Materials and Methods

Using multiple pressure units: kg/cm², bar pressure should be given in Pascal.

There is no picture presenting the research area, only the coordinates are given.

There is no diagram showing the arrangement of trees and variants of the arrangement of points where high-pressured air injection were used.

The granulometric composition of the soil divided into individual fractions from the research site was not provided.

Soil moisture content was not reported during the measurement.

There is no photo of the diagram of the device used for the operation holes drilled.

 

No detailed measurement information penetration resistance: cone vertex angle, cone surface, penetration speed.

 

Were there any problems with tree roots encountered during the measurement penetration resistance?

Did the tree roots affect the penetration resistance results?

When exactly were the penetration resistance measurements performed: before soil loosening, after soil loosening, and at what time interval?

A flowchart illustrating the research process, encompassing data collection would improve the interpretation of research.

Results

In the case of penetration resistance, including a graph with the courses for each of the 4 variants of the experiment before loosening and the two terms would significantly improve the interpretation of the results.

How can we explain that penetration resistance was lower at certain depths after 85 days compared to 35 days after loosening?

Was the decrease in yield in some variants caused by damage to the roots when drilling the holes?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3

We thank you for your detailed and constructive comments that have significantly improved our manuscript. We have addressed each comment carefully. Major revisions include clarifying the soil granulometric composition classification, adding detailed measurement parameters for the penetrometer, explaining the absence of pre-treatment and moisture data, and providing rationale where diagrams, flowcharts, or site photos could not be included due to confidentiality and operational constraints. We also ensured consistent use of SI units throughout the manuscript. These changes strengthen the clarity, transparency, and contextual justification of our experimental approach and results interpretation. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my comments in the attached document.

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

View letter

1. Line192  What does soil type 5 refer to? Please explain.
2. Line 254  The soil infiltration resistance mentioned here was measured at 10 cm from the edge of the hole, which contradicts the annotation under Figure 1. Please check.
3. Line 258  Why is the soil permeability resistance only measured up to 45 cm?
4. Line 346  The R180+A treatment involves pneumatic deep loosening at 180 cm from the tree trunk, but the soil penetration resistance measurement is conducted at 120 cm from the trunk. Please explain this discrepancy.

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

Introduction

There is no information on the influence of the granulometric composition and soil moisture on its susceptibility to compaction.

comment have been addressed properly

Materials and Methods

Using multiple pressure units: kg/cm², bar pressure should be given in Pascal.

comment have been addressed properly

There is no picture presenting the research area, only the coordinates are given.

comment have been not addressed due to data confidentiality agreements with the orchard owner and restrictions on publishing site images

There is no diagram showing the arrangement of trees and variants of the arrangement of points where high-pressured air injection were used.

comment have been not addressed

The granulometric composition of the soil divided into individual fractions from the research site was not provided.

comment have been not addressed, no such studies have been conducted

Soil moisture content was not reported during the measurement.

comment have been not addressed, no such studies have been conducted

There is no photo of the diagram of the device used for the operation holes drilled.

comment have been not properly addressed, only device data is provided, without a photo or diagram

No detailed measurement information penetration resistance: cone vertex angle, cone surface, penetration speed.

comment have been addressed properly

Were there any problems with tree roots encountered during the measurement penetration resistance?

comment replied

Did the tree roots affect the penetration resistance results?

comment replied

When exactly were the penetration resistance measurements performed: before soil loosening, after soil loosening, and at what time interval?

comment have been addressed properly

A flowchart illustrating the research process, encompassing data collection would improve the interpretation of research.

comment replied but comment have been not addressed

Results

In the case of penetration resistance, including a graph with the courses for each of the 4 variants of the experiment before loosening and the two terms would significantly improve the interpretation of the results.

comment have been addressed properly

How can we explain that penetration resistance was lower at certain depths after 85 days compared to 35 days after loosening?

comment replied

Was the decrease in yield in some variants caused by damage to the roots when drilling the holes?

comment replied

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf