Geometry-Optimized Strip Tillage for Improving Soil Physical Quality and Hydraulic Function in Semi-Arid Vineyards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discusses soil structural alteration associated with mechanical disturbance. The topic is relevant; however, the study currently lacks methodological reproducibility, quantitative integration of results, and analytical rigor sufficient to support robust scientific inference.

1.1      Definition of Research Problem and Hypothesis

The manuscript describes physical processes but does not clearly state a testable research hypothesis. The text presents general mechanisms of structural change without defining the specific phenomenon being evaluated.

The authors should explicitly define:

• the physical process under investigation
• the measurable response variables
• the reference condition used for comparison
• the criteria used to interpret structural change

Without these elements, the study remains descriptive rather than analytical.

Furthermore, the use of the term 'Water-Use Efficiency (WUE)' in the title and conclusions is conceptually overextended based on the data presented. The manuscript reports improvements in soil physical and hydraulic indicators (infiltration and conductivity), but lacks direct measurements of crop physiological response, biomass accumulation, or yield per unit of water. Unless the authors provide agronomic data linking soil structural changes to actual plant water consumption, the title and objectives should be adjusted to focus on 'improved soil hydraulic properties' rather than WUE

The research hypothesis should be expressed in terms of a measurable physical response to a defined operational condition.

1.2      Control Treatment and Causal Attribution of Implement Geometry

The study evaluates the performance of a geometry-optimized U-shaped strip tillage implement; however, the experimental design does not include a mechanically comparable control treatment using a conventional single-shank subsoiler operated at equivalent depth, forward speed, and operational load. Without this comparison, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of implement geometry from the effect of increased soil–tool contact area, disturbed soil volume, and energy input per unit area.

Because the U-shaped configuration inherently increases the number of working elements and the soil deformation zone, part of the observed reductions in penetration resistance and improvements in infiltration may result from greater mechanical energy transfer rather than from geometric optimization itself. Consequently, the study currently demonstrates the effectiveness of localized deep loosening, but does not rigorously establish the relative performance advantage of the proposed implement over conventional subsoiling.

To support causal inference and strengthen the scientific validity of the conclusions, the authors should include or explicitly discuss comparison with a standard single-shank subsoiler under controlled and equivalent operational conditions. At minimum, the manuscript should acknowledge this limitation and restrict claims regarding the superiority of the optimized geometry.

1.3      Research Design and Methodological Specification

The methodological description is insufficient for replication. Several physical responses are reported without operational definition of measurement procedures.

The following information must be provided:

Soil characterization

• classification system adopted
• particle-size distribution
• initial structural condition
• moisture status at time of evaluation

Mechanical or operational condition evaluated

• nature of disturbance or intervention
• intensity or magnitude of applied stress
• frequency or duration of application
• depth of influence

Operational parameterization of mechanical intervention

• effective width and depth of the disturbed zone
• geometric configuration of the affected soil volume
• applied load or operational intensity
• soil moisture condition during intervention
• spatial reference framework for measurements

Measurement protocols

For each reported indicator (e.g., bulk density, penetration resistance, porosity, structural condition), the manuscript must specify:

• measurement method or instrument
• sampling geometry or core volume
• number of replicates
• spatial sampling scheme
• statistical treatment

Statements such as “structural degradation occurred” or “density increased” are currently presented without defined measurement procedure or uncertainty.

1.4      Quantitative Integration of Results

The results section presents numerical information in isolation, without analytical integration.

Required improvements:

• structured comparison between evaluated conditions
• presentation of magnitude of change
• inclusion of variability indicators
• explicit comparison criteria

Interpretations should be derived from defined physical indicators rather than qualitative description.

For instance, if penetration resistance thresholds are discussed, the manuscript should explicitly connect these values to root growth limitation criteria or hydraulic functionality.

The results should be structured to explicitly link operational condition → structural alteration → physical indicator → functional implication. Comparative tables summarizing physical indicators by evaluated condition, including magnitude of change and variability measures, are recommended to support interpretation.

Structural alteration must also be interpreted relative to soil load-bearing capacity and compressibility behavior. The manuscript does not position observed structural responses with respect to preconsolidation pressure or the virgin compression line. Without this reference, it is not possible to distinguish reversible densification from irreversible structural degradation, nor to evaluate whether mechanical disturbance exceeded the soil load-bearing threshold. Consequently, structural change is described but not physically interpreted.

In addition, the manuscript does not address cumulative structural degradation resulting from repeated mechanical disturbance. Structural evolution under recurrent intervention should be interpreted as a progressive process governed by stress history rather than as isolated events.

1.5      Causal Interpretation

The manuscript often implies causal relationships without demonstrating them analytically. Examples include:

• management practice improving soil structure
• structural condition influencing productivity
• traffic control mitigating degradation

To support causal inference, the authors should:

• define the causal pathway being evaluated
• distinguish observation from inference
• indicate whether relationships are measured, inferred, or theoretical

At present, causal language exceeds the strength of the evidence presented.

1.6      Figures and Tables

Several figures and tables are conceptually informative but lack technical precision.

Improvements required:

• define all variables in captions
• include measurement units consistently
• ensure direct correspondence between figure content and discussion in the text
• avoid schematic representations that are not linked to measured data

Tables presenting physical indicators should include sample size and variability measures to allow interpretation of data reliability.

1.7      Terminology and Scientific Notation

Technical notation and unit formatting are inconsistent and should follow standard SI conventions throughout the manuscript.

Please pay careful attention to scientific notation and unit formatting. For example:

• acceleration should be written as m s⁻², not m·s⁻²
• bulk density should use consistent units (e.g., Mg m-3 or g cm-3, but not both interchangeably without justification)
• stress and pressure units must be consistently formatted

Consistency in notation is essential for technical clarity and reproducibility.

1.8      Language and Technical Precision

Although the manuscript is understandable, the English expression frequently relies on descriptive wording rather than technical precision. Several sentences combine conceptual interpretation and results in the same statement, which obscures the analytical structure.

The text would benefit from:

• clearer separation between observation, interpretation, and implication
• reduction of repetitive conceptual statements
• increased use of quantitative descriptors

1.9      Scientific Contribution

The manuscript has potential relevance but currently provides limited methodological advancement or quantitative synthesis. Strengthening the operational definition of variables, the analytical structure, and the evidence supporting causal interpretation would substantially improve scientific contribution.

1.10   Interaction with Traffic Management and Sustainability

The study neglects the critical interaction between strip tillage and the spatial distribution of machinery traffic. In perennial systems such as vineyards, where traffic is intense and repetitive, the effectiveness of mechanical interventions to 'restore soil health' is strictly dependent on the adoption of Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) systems. Without a strategy to prevent subsequent operations (e.g., spraying, harvesting) from occurring over the newly mobilized zones, the benefits of the 'optimized geometry' will be transient and quickly neutralized by re-compaction. The authors must discuss how the proposed technique integrates into a systemic traffic management framework to ensure structural longevity.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We are grateful for the thorough evaluation and for the insightful comments that helped improve the analytical rigor and clarity of the manuscript.

Comment 1.1: Definition of Research Problem and Hypothesis. The manuscript describes physical processes but does not clearly state a testable research hypothesis. The text presents general mechanisms of structural change without defining the specific phenomenon being evaluated. The authors should explicitly define the physical process under investigation, the measurable response variables, the reference condition used for comparison, and the criteria used to interpret structural change. Without these elements, the study remains descriptive rather than analytical.

Response 1.1: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the research problem and hypothesis should be explicitly formulated in analytical terms. In the revised manuscript, the final paragraphs of the Introduction have been rewritten to clearly define the investigated physical process and the analytical framework of the study. Specifically, the manuscript now explicitly states that the investigated process is the mechanical alleviation of subsoil compaction through geometry-controlled strip tillage. The measurable response variables are defined as penetration resistance, bulk density, and infiltration rate in the 20–40 cm soil layer. The reference condition is defined as the untreated compacted soil and alternative working-body configurations tested under identical operational conditions. The revised Introduction now formulates a testable hypothesis that a geometry-optimized U-shaped strip tillage configuration can improve soil physical quality and hydraulic functioning in the compacted root zone compared with untreated soil and alternative tool geometries. These changes were introduced in the final paragraph of the Introduction (Section 1, pages approximately 7–8 of the revised manuscript).

Comment: Furthermore, the use of the term “Water-Use Efficiency (WUE)” in the title and conclusions is conceptually overextended because the manuscript reports improvements in soil hydraulic indicators but does not measure plant physiological response or yield.

Response: We appreciate this important conceptual clarification. We agree that the term Water-Use Efficiency could be interpreted as implying direct plant-level physiological measurements, which were not included in the present study. Therefore, the title and several passages in the manuscript were revised to focus on soil hydraulic functioning and soil physical quality rather than direct crop water-use efficiency. The revised title now emphasizes improvements in soil physical quality and hydraulic function. Corresponding adjustments were made in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions to ensure conceptual accuracy and avoid over-interpretation of the results.

Comment: The research hypothesis should be expressed in terms of measurable physical response to a defined operational condition.

Response: The hypothesis has now been reformulated in explicit analytical terms. The revised manuscript states that the study tests whether a geometry-optimized U-shaped strip tillage working body, operating within the compacted vineyard inter-row zone at a defined working depth and forward speed, can reduce penetration resistance and bulk density while increasing infiltration rate within the 20–40 cm soil layer relative to untreated compacted soil and alternative tool configurations. This formulation directly links the operational condition (strip tillage geometry and working parameters) with measurable physical responses.

Comment 1.2: Control Treatment and Causal Attribution of Implement Geometry. The study evaluates a geometry-optimized strip tillage implement; however, the experimental design does not include a mechanically comparable control treatment using a conventional single-shank subsoiler under equivalent operational conditions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important issue regarding causal attribution. In the revised manuscript, the experimental design has been clarified to explicitly indicate that three working-body configurations were evaluated: a single paraplow-type inclined shank, a pair of inclined paraplow shanks with opposing working faces, and the proposed U-shaped working body. All configurations were tested under identical operational conditions including working depth, forward speed, and soil moisture conditions. A new table summarizing the geometric parameters of the tested working bodies has been added to improve transparency of comparison. In addition, the Discussion has been revised to avoid implying absolute superiority of the proposed configuration and instead frame the results as comparative performance under controlled experimental conditions.

Comment: Because the U-shaped configuration increases the number of working elements and soil deformation zone, improvements may result from greater mechanical energy input rather than geometry optimization.

Response: We agree that this is a relevant methodological consideration. The revised manuscript now explicitly acknowledges that part of the observed improvement may be related to the increased soil disturbance zone associated with the multi-element configuration. The Discussion section now distinguishes between the effects of working-body geometry and the potential influence of increased soil–tool contact area and mechanical energy transfer. This clarification ensures that the conclusions are presented as experimentally supported observations rather than as definitive proof of geometric superiority.

Comment: The manuscript should acknowledge limitations regarding comparison with conventional subsoiling.

Response: The limitation regarding comparison with conventional single-shank subsoilers has been explicitly discussed in the revised manuscript. The Discussion now notes that although the tested configurations allow comparative evaluation of different strip-tillage geometries, further research comparing the proposed tool with standard subsoilers under identical operational energy input would strengthen causal interpretation.

Comment 1.3: Research Design and Methodological Specification. The methodological description is insufficient for replication.

Response: We fully agree with this comment and have substantially expanded the Materials and Methods section. The revised manuscript now includes detailed descriptions of soil classification, soil texture and structural condition, baseline soil physical properties, soil moisture conditions during measurements, spatial sampling scheme and number of replicates, instrumentation used for penetration resistance measurement, bulk density sampling procedures, infiltration measurement methodology, and statistical analysis procedures. These additions ensure that the experimental procedures are fully reproducible.

Comment: Statements such as “structural degradation occurred” or “density increased” are presented without defined measurement procedure or uncertainty.

Response: The Results and Methods sections have been revised to explicitly define the measurement procedures and to report variability indicators. Soil physical parameters are now presented as mean ± standard deviation based on replicated measurements. The statistical treatment used for data analysis is also described in the revised Materials and Methods section.

Comment 1.4: Quantitative Integration of Results. The results are presented as isolated numbers without analytical integration.

Response: The Results section has been reorganized to provide structured comparison between evaluated treatments. The revised presentation explicitly reports the magnitude of change in penetration resistance, bulk density, and infiltration rate relative to the reference condition. Variability indicators are included and graphical representations were improved to better illustrate relationships between soil fragmentation efficiency and draft resistance.

Comment: Interpretation should be derived from defined physical indicators rather than qualitative description.

Response: We agree and have revised the interpretation accordingly. Penetration resistance values are now interpreted in relation to commonly reported thresholds limiting root growth, while changes in bulk density and infiltration rate are discussed in terms of their implications for soil porosity and hydraulic continuity within the root zone.

Comment: Structural alteration should be interpreted relative to soil load-bearing capacity and compressibility behaviour.

Response: We appreciate this insightful suggestion. The revised Discussion now acknowledges the relevance of soil load-bearing capacity and compressibility behaviour when interpreting structural changes induced by mechanical tillage. Although pre-consolidation pressure was not directly measured in this study, the Discussion now addresses the implications of mechanical disturbance relative to soil structural resilience and highlights this aspect as an important direction for future research.

Comment: The manuscript does not address cumulative structural degradation resulting from repeated mechanical disturbance.

Response: The revised manuscript now discusses the cumulative effects of repeated machinery traffic and mechanical disturbance in perennial cropping systems such as vineyards. The Discussion highlights that structural improvement achieved by localized strip tillage may gradually decline if repeated traffic occurs over the treated zone, emphasizing the importance of integrating the technique with appropriate traffic management strategies.

Comment 1.5: Causal Interpretation. The manuscript implies causal relationships without analytical demonstration.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised to clearly distinguish between observed experimental results, analytical interpretation, and broader theoretical implications. Statements implying direct causality were reformulated where appropriate, and the conclusions now emphasize experimentally observed relationships rather than general causal claims.

Comment: The authors should define the causal pathway being evaluated.

Response: The causal pathway considered in the revised manuscript is now explicitly described as follows: operational condition (geometry and working parameters of the tillage tool) leads to structural alteration of the compacted soil layer, which is quantified using physical indicators such as penetration resistance, bulk density, and infiltration rate. The potential functional implications for root development and soil hydraulic behaviour are discussed as interpretations based on these measured indicators rather than as directly measured outcomes.

Comment: 1.6 Figures and Tables

Several figures and tables are conceptually informative but lack technical precision.

Improvements required:

• define all variables in captions
• include measurement units consistently
• ensure direct correspondence between figure content and discussion in the text
• avoid schematic representations that are not linked to measured data

Tables presenting physical indicators should include sample size and variability measures to allow interpretation of data reliability.

Response: All figures and tables have been revised to ensure consistency of units and clear definition of variables. Captions were expanded to include definitions of all variables and measurement units, and graphical elements were refined to improve readability and interpretability.

Comment: 1.7 Terminology and Scientific Notation

Technical notation and unit formatting are inconsistent and should follow standard SI conventions throughout the manuscript.

Please pay careful attention to scientific notation and unit formatting. For example:

• acceleration should be written as m s⁻², not m·s⁻²
• bulk density should use consistent units (e.g., Mg m-3 or g cm-3, but not both interchangeably without justification)
• stress and pressure units must be consistently formatted

Consistency in notation is essential for technical clarity and reproducibility.

Response:

The manuscript has been thoroughly checked to ensure consistency with SI conventions. Units for mechanical stress and penetration resistance are now reported primarily in MPa in accordance with soil mechanics standards. Where field penetrometer readings are traditionally expressed in kg·cm⁻², the equivalent MPa conversion is now indicated to maintain clarity.

Comment: 1.8 Language and Technical Precision

Although the manuscript is understandable, the English expression frequently relies on descriptive wording rather than technical precision. Several sentences combine conceptual interpretation and results in the same statement, which obscures the analytical structure.

The text would benefit from:

• clearer separation between observation, interpretation, and implication
• reduction of repetitive conceptual statements
• increased use of quantitative descriptors

Response:

The manuscript has been carefully edited to improve technical precision and clarity of expression. Descriptive language has been replaced with more quantitative and technically precise formulations where appropriate.

Comment: 1.9 Scientific Contribution

The manuscript has potential relevance but currently provides limited methodological advancement or quantitative synthesis. Strengthening the operational definition of variables, the analytical structure, and the evidence supporting causal interpretation would substantially improve scientific contribution.

Response:

The revised manuscript now more clearly positions the contribution of the study within the context of mechanical soil management in perennial cropping systems. Particular emphasis is placed on the integration of implement geometry optimization with measurable soil structural indicators relevant to vineyard management under semi-arid conditions.

Comment: 1.10 Interaction with Traffic Management and Sustainability

The study neglects the critical interaction between strip tillage and the spatial distribution of machinery traffic. In perennial systems such as vineyards, where traffic is intense and repetitive, the effectiveness of mechanical interventions to 'restore soil health' is strictly dependent on the adoption of Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) systems. Without a strategy to prevent subsequent operations (e.g., spraying, harvesting) from occurring over the newly mobilized zones, the benefits of the 'optimized geometry' will be transient and quickly neutralized by re-compaction. The authors must discuss how the proposed technique integrates into a systemic traffic management framework to ensure structural longevity.

Response:

We fully agree with this important observation. The Discussion section has been expanded to address the interaction between strip tillage and traffic management in vineyard systems. The revised manuscript now highlights the importance of maintaining permanent traffic lanes and minimizing repeated compaction within loosened zones to ensure long-term effectiveness of the intervention.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the optimization of a U-shaped strip tillage implement for vineyard root-zone loosening. While the research demonstrates rigorous experimental design and multifactor optimization, several methodological and interpretive limitations need to be addressed to strengthen the validity and applicability of the findings. The following specific comments are provided for the authors' consideration.

Comment 1: Insufficient characterization of control treatments

In Section 3.1, the authors compared three working body designs: (i) a single paraplow-type inclined shank, (ii) a pair of paraplow-type inclined shanks with opposing working faces, and (iii) the proposed staple-shaped working body. However, detailed geometric parameters (shank inclination angles βb and βk, shank spacing Bq, chisel entry angle αi, working depth a, and working width) are only provided for the U-shaped design in Sections 2.2–2.3. The complete absence of parameter specifications for the control treatments (single and double paraplow shanks) makes it impossible to independently evaluate the conclusion that "the staple-shaped working body achieved the most favourable combination of high soil-crushing efficiency and reduced draft resistance." The observed performance differences may stem from genuine geometric optimization of the novel design, or alternatively, from suboptimal parameter selection for the control implements. We recommend supplementing a detailed parameter table for the control groups, or at minimum, clarifying whether identical working depths, forward speeds, and soil-engagement areas were maintained across all treatments to ensure fair comparison.

Comment 2: Limited soil type representativeness

The experimental investigations were conducted exclusively on "light serozem of medium loam texture" (Section 2.1). Serozem soils possess distinctive characteristics including carbonate accumulation in the subsoil and specific textural properties that influence soil-tool interaction mechanics. The generalizability of results to other vineyard soil types—such as clay soils, gravelly soils, or calcareous substrates common in Mediterranean and other viticultural regions—is consequently constrained. We suggest that the authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation in Section 4 (Discussion), or alternatively, provide validation experiments across contrasting soil textures to demonstrate the robustness of the optimized geometry.

Comment 3: Undefined operational scope and adaptability

The manuscript does not address whether the developed implement is adaptable to vineyards with varying row spacing, different slope gradients, or diverse soil conditions beyond the tested serozem. Given that vineyard systems exhibit substantial heterogeneity in these factors, the practical applicability of the proposed tool remains uncertain. We recommend that Section 4 include explicit discussion of the operational scope and limitations of the tool, or that future research directions explicitly address extension to contrasting vineyard scenarios (e.g., steep slopes, narrow-row high-density plantings, or heavy clay soils).

Comment 4: Lack of root distribution validation for target depth selection

The 20–40 cm soil layer is consistently designated as the "root zone" (Sections 2.1, 3.4) without empirical verification of actual root distribution patterns in the experimental vineyard. Grapevine root systems exhibit substantial variation depending on rootstock genotype, scion cultivar, training system, and irrigation regime, with effective rooting depth potentially extending to 60–100 cm in deep, well-drained soils. The assumption that 20–40 cm represents the critical limiting layer for root growth therefore requires substantiation. We recommend supplementing root distribution survey data (e.g., through soil coring or trench profile methods) or citing relevant literature on root architecture in local vineyard systems, to demonstrate that the selected working depth effectively targets the principal zone of root restriction rather than deeper compaction layers.

Comment 5: Agronomic justification of soil fragmentation indicator

The soil-crushing efficiency F<50 (percentage of aggregates <50 mm) serves as the primary response variable for optimization throughout the manuscript. However, the referenced standard ISO 7256/1:1984 (Section 2.6) pertains specifically to disc harrows rather than deep subsoiling implements. Furthermore, the direct relationship between aggregate size distribution in the 0–50 mm range and root growth conditions in vineyard subsoils lacks adequate literature support. We suggest the authors address: (1) the rationale for selecting 50 mm as the critical threshold value; (2) quantitative relationships between F<50 and soil pore continuity or root penetration impedance; and (3) whether alternative indicators—such as water-stable aggregates >2 mm or air-filled porosity—might provide more mechanistically relevant assessments of root-zone quality for perennial cropping systems.

Comment 6: Incomplete visualization of multi-objective trade-offs

In Section 3.3, the authors employed a "desirability function" for simultaneous optimization of F<50 and R; however, Figure 14 only presents the desirability surface for γ and α, without illustrating the trade-off relationships involving Bq and V. In practical field operations, farmers may need to make subjective decisions between fragmentation efficiency and energy consumption. We recommend supplementing relevant information to enable decision-makers to flexibly select parameter combinations based on specific operational conditions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and suggestions that helped improve the methodological transparency and practical relevance of the study.

Comment 1: Insufficient characterization of control treatments

In Section 3.1, the authors compared three working body designs: (i) a single paraplow-type inclined shank, (ii) a pair of paraplow-type inclined shanks with opposing working faces, and (iii) the proposed staple-shaped working body. However, detailed geometric parameters (shank inclination angles βb and βk, shank spacing Bq, chisel entry angle αi, working depth a, and working width) are only provided for the U-shaped design in Sections 2.2–2.3. The complete absence of parameter specifications for the control treatments (single and double paraplow shanks) makes it impossible to independently evaluate the conclusion that "the staple-shaped working body achieved the most favourable combination of high soil-crushing efficiency and reduced draft resistance." The observed performance differences may stem from genuine geometric optimization of the novel design, or alternatively, from suboptimal parameter selection for the control implements. We recommend supplementing a detailed parameter table for the control groups, or at minimum, clarifying whether identical working depths, forward speeds, and soil-engagement areas were maintained across all treatments to ensure fair comparison.

Response:

Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that the geometric parameters of the control working bodies should be reported to allow an objective comparison between the evaluated configurations. In the revised manuscript, a new table has been added summarizing the geometric characteristics of all tested working bodies, including shank inclination angles, spacing between working elements, working depth, and chisel dimensions. In addition, the manuscript now explicitly states that all working bodies were tested under identical operational conditions (working depth, forward speed, and soil moisture). These additions ensure transparency of the experimental design and allow independent evaluation of the comparative performance of the tested configurations. The corresponding information is presented in Section 3.1 and Table X of the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: Limited soil type representativeness

The experimental investigations were conducted exclusively on "light serozem of medium loam texture" (Section 2.1). Serozem soils possess distinctive characteristics including carbonate accumulation in the subsoil and specific textural properties that influence soil-tool interaction mechanics. The generalizability of results to other vineyard soil types—such as clay soils, gravelly soils, or calcareous substrates common in Mediterranean and other viticultural regions—is consequently constrained. We suggest that the authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation in Section 4 (Discussion), or alternatively, provide validation experiments across contrasting soil textures to demonstrate the robustness of the optimized geometry.

Response:

We appreciate this observation and have added an explicit discussion of this limitation. The revised manuscript now clarifies that the experimental results are directly applicable to medium-loam serozem soils typical of the study region, while acknowledging that further validation across different soil textures would be valuable for broader generalization.

Comment 3: Undefined operational scope and adaptability

The manuscript does not address whether the developed implement is adaptable to vineyards with varying row spacing, different slope gradients, or diverse soil conditions beyond the tested serozem. Given that vineyard systems exhibit substantial heterogeneity in these factors, the practical applicability of the proposed tool remains uncertain. We recommend that Section 4 include explicit discussion of the operational scope and limitations of the tool, or that future research directions explicitly address extension to contrasting vineyard scenarios (e.g., steep slopes, narrow-row high-density plantings, or heavy clay soils).

Response:

The Discussion section has been expanded to address the potential applicability of the proposed tool under different vineyard configurations. We now discuss possible adjustments for varying row spacing, slope gradients, and soil conditions, and indicate directions for future research aimed at validating the implement under contrasting viticultural environments.

Comment 4: Lack of root distribution validation for target depth selection

The 20–40 cm soil layer is consistently designated as the "root zone" (Sections 2.1, 3.4) without empirical verification of actual root distribution patterns in the experimental vineyard. Grapevine root systems exhibit substantial variation depending on rootstock genotype, scion cultivar, training system, and irrigation regime, with effective rooting depth potentially extending to 60–100 cm in deep, well-drained soils. The assumption that 20–40 cm represents the critical limiting layer for root growth therefore requires substantiation. We recommend supplementing root distribution survey data (e.g., through soil coring or trench profile methods) or citing relevant literature on root architecture in local vineyard systems, to demonstrate that the selected working depth effectively targets the principal zone of root restriction rather than deeper compaction layers.

Response:

The revised manuscript now provides additional justification for the selection of this depth interval. Field measurements of penetration resistance indicated that the main compaction layer restricting root development occurred within this depth range. In addition, literature references describing grapevine root distribution patterns under semi-arid conditions have been included to support this choice.

Comment 5: Agronomic justification of soil fragmentation indicator

The soil-crushing efficiency F<50 (percentage of aggregates <50 mm) serves as the primary response variable for optimization throughout the manuscript. However, the referenced standard ISO 7256/1:1984 (Section 2.6) pertains specifically to disc harrows rather than deep subsoiling implements. Furthermore, the direct relationship between aggregate size distribution in the 0–50 mm range and root growth conditions in vineyard subsoils lacks adequate literature support. We suggest the authors address: (1) the rationale for selecting 50 mm as the critical threshold value; (2) quantitative relationships between F<50 and soil pore continuity or root penetration impedance; and (3) whether alternative indicators—such as water-stable aggregates >2 mm or air-filled porosity—might provide more mechanistically relevant assessments of root-zone quality for perennial cropping systems.

Response:

The manuscript now clarifies that F<50 is used as an engineering indicator of soil fragmentation intensity resulting from mechanical disturbance rather than as a direct agronomic indicator of soil fertility. Additional explanation has been provided linking aggregate fragmentation to the formation of macropores and the reduction of mechanical impedance to root growth.

Comment 6: Incomplete visualization of multi-objective trade-offs

In Section 3.3, the authors employed a "desirability function" for simultaneous optimization of F<50 and R; however, Figure 14 only presents the desirability surface for γ and α, without illustrating the trade-off relationships involving Bq and V. In practical field operations, farmers may need to make subjective decisions between fragmentation efficiency and energy consumption. We recommend supplementing relevant information to enable decision-makers to flexibly select parameter combinations based on specific operational conditions.

Response:

In response to this suggestion, the manuscript now includes an expanded graphical analysis illustrating the relationship between soil fragmentation efficiency (F<50) and draft resistance (R). The corresponding figure illustrates the Pareto-type trade-off between these two objectives and complements the desirability-based optimization analysis presented in the manuscript. This visualization provides practical insight into parameter selection depending on operational priorities.