Assessing Different Stubble Tillage Technologies on Covered and Uncovered Surfaces
, Norbert Egri 1,2, Márta Birkás 1,†, Márton Jolánkai 1, Viola Kunos 1, Boglárka Bozóki 1 and Ákos Tarnawa 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell structured manuscript, but the title should be specific in perspective of location or zone or country wise.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Enclosed please find our answer.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript: Soil system--3231001
Title: Assessing Different Stubble Tillage Methods on Covered and Uncovered Surfaces
Authors: Zoltán Kende, Norbert Egri, Márta Birkás, Márton Jolánkai, Viola Kunos, Boglárka Bozóki and Ákos Tarnawa
General comments:
In this paper, effects of ten different tillage technologies on clay loam soil properties under uncovered and mulched conditions were investigated. This paper stated that shallow tillage with the Lemken Rubin 9 disk is the most effective way to preserve soil moisture. Also, mulched conditions of bird cultivator treatment are yielding the highest abundance of earthworm population. Generally, even though the time of study is short, but the paper was well written, and the results were clearly presented. While the findings are important and are current research interests in the topic of soil conservation, the presentation of the manuscript requires some improvement.
My main concerns are about the clarity of the writing. The main results as the aim of the study are less discussed in the discussions. The introduction, abstract and conclusion is more focused on stubble tillage itself rather than various methods of stubble tillage. Also, I found some repeat sentences in the paper. My other concerns regarding the findings can be found in the specific comment below.
Title
Assessing Different Stubble Tillage Methods on Covered and Uncovered Surfaces
I just wonder this “different methods or tools or technologies?
Abstract.
I suggest adding the best result of the finding between different tools based on all parameters. The sentence in the abstract is similar to the conclusion.
Line 17-19. I think it is better to show the highlights of your study (emphasis on different tools of stubble tillage).
Introduction
The background is focusing on stubble tillage. Please add the background why do you need to compare different tools or methods or technologies on stubble tillage.
Line 95-97. This sentence is similar to line 86-88 and 102-105.
Line 93 and 89. Which one is your objective?
Materials and Methods
Line 137. Only 3 plots? It’s better to add the figure of the experimental plot design.
Table 1. Why did you choose these 5 machines? Are all tools always used by farmers in the location? Please add the habits (practice) of the local farmer.
Figure 1. Please add the information about the plots.
Line 152. Is soil sampling for chemical properties analysis?
Line 164. Soil structure or texture?
Line 189. Please explain the total of 21 samples.
Results
Figure 2. What is the meaning of different colors? Significance?
Line 384. Is this soil structure?
Figure 12. The result was interesting. However, I cannot find in the discussions the main result of this study. Uncovered treatment shows the best results. Also, uncovered carrier deep (number 3) is better than shallow or covered results. Please add in the discussions about the results.
Discussions
Discussions about the main results of the machines’ ranking are poor.
Line 627. This study highlights climate change, but the discussion is poorly related to climate change.
Line 618. I think long data availability is also needed in future research to get a better analysis of the different stubble tillage technologies.
Conclusions
The conclusion is similar to the abstract. Please revise it.
Line 631-642. I suggest writing the best result of the finding between different tools based on all parameters. Based on this conclusion, the effect of shallow or deep treatments is more dominant than different machines. Also, the covered method (mulching) is better than uncovered. The result is in contrast to the study result (Figure 12).
Line 637-642. The conclusion should answer the aim of the study. However, here the study emphasizes the benefit of stubble tillage and effect of mulching, that unfortunately have been written more in the introduction. Please add the key results of this study, the same as your objectives.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Enclosed please find our answer.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAssessing Different Stubble Tillage Methods on Covered and Uncovered Surfaces
The authors investigated the effect of incorporating stubble using different tillage technologies. Authors conducted a filed trail to evaluate the effect of tillage machines at shallow and deep depth for straw covered and uncovered fields on selected physiochemical properties.
Some of the statements used in the introduction seems contradicting or a bit confusing i.e. according to the authors, conventional tillage is different from no-till, whereas no-till is a type of conventional tillage (noted in line comments). The authors would need to do a better job by providing pertinent information in the materials and methods section in greater details to ensure repeatability of this type of study. I agree that is the if authors include additional year of another location of this trial their results will advance the agronomic science broadly and also in Hungary.
Line comments
Line 11 if study was conducted during a growing condition, which is an aberration from the norm, additional year of study should provide sufficient evidence to support the observed findings
Line 26: This statement is confusing. The authors need the reword statement
mention the tradition system such as disc ploughing
Line 30: no till is a type of conservation tillage systems; authors need the reword statement
Line 34: Authors should provide a sound scientific reference for the term ‘stubble tillage’. How different is stubble tillage from conventional tillage that has stubble in the field? This term is very confusing
Line 44: no till is a type of conservation tillage systems, so authors need the reword statement
Line 46: This statement needs to be reworded for example " Incorporating stubble into the soil is especially beneficial in dryland farming, where maintaining soil moisture and structure is critical for crop yields [10,11].
Also, authors should provide evidence to support this assertion
Line 52: Authors need to define soil quality since parameters or metric for evaluation soil quality tends to vary from regions
Line 53: is there a conventional secondary tillage system?
Materials and Methods
Line 117: Why was humus content measured and not soil organic matter and how was this parament measured?
Line119: Authors should provide information on the soil extraction method for nutrient and how authors came to conclusion that the soil had high K content
Line122: What type of conventional tillage? Was it no-till?
Line129: According to the authors, the trial was a strip field trial. However, the replicates were within the strip. The lack of randomization of the strip field trial and multiple location/ multiyear study severely impact the integrity of this much needed study. This concerns needs to be addressed to proceed with
Also, authors only mentioned that there was with or without mulching (straw covered and uncovered). How was the mulch introduced? What was the amount? What kind of mulch? Was the mulch representing the stubble in the study? All of these important questions need to be addressed
Results and Discussion
I read through the result section, but I did not provide any edits on this section. This was because of the major flaws in the materials and methods sections which I noted earlier. Authors need to address this and provide a compelling case.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Enclosed please find our answer.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors evaluate the effects of different stubble tillage methods on soil properties, comparing uncovered and mulched conditions within a single field experiment in Hungary. The authors claim that shallow tillage techniques (e.g., Lemken Rubin 9 disk) improve soil moisture retention at mid-layer depths (up to about 27% at 15-30 cm) while minimizing soil compaction and that mulching increases earthworm abundance. They suggest these findings support soil conservation and resilience strategies under changing climate conditions, aligning with policy goals such as the European Green Deal. The overall conclusion is that stubble tillage—especially shallower operations and those combined with mulching—can help maintain soil health and sustainability.
In terms of novelty, the practice of stubble tillage and the use of mulching as a conservation measure have been extensively studied and documented. Many past investigations have addressed how different tillage depths, implements, and residue management strategies affect soil moisture, penetration resistance, soil biota, and aggregate structure. The authors’ results confirm widely known trends: shallow, minimally invasive tillage tends to retain moisture, reduce compaction, and maintain better soil structure; mulch generally benefits soil biota. The overarching theme—optimizing tillage depth and residue management to enhance soil health—is well-established. The novelty does not lie in the conceptual framework itself but perhaps in the specific combination of tested machinery, local soil conditions, and the focus on an unusually wet year. The study might provide new empirical data for a particular region and set of conditions, but the main takeaways—shallow tillage preserves moisture and structure, mulching improves biological conditions—are not particularly unique. Thus, the overarching theme (conservation tillage for soil health) and even the topic (stubble tillage under mulched vs. uncovered conditions) is more of an incremental contribution rather than a fundamentally new insight.
My first concern is about the experimental design and statistical robustness. The manuscript states that a field-scale trial with operational constraints was conducted, resulting in a non-randomized layout. Although they mention three replicates, it is unclear whether the statistical comparisons sufficiently account for spatial variability and potential confounding factors. Without a fully randomized block design or careful spatial analysis, the reliability of differences reported could be questionable. Further, some parameters seem influenced by soil inherent heterogeneity and uneven rainfall distribution. A clearer description of how variability within the field was managed would be beneficial.
My second concern is that the authors fail to deeply explain the physiological or mechanistic underpinnings of their findings. For example, they report that shallow tillage retains moisture better than deep tillage but do not thoroughly discuss why this is the case beyond general references. Also, the reasoning as to why certain implements (e.g., Carrier 925 disk) performed better is only superficially treated. A more technical and mechanistic explanation linking the implement design (disk shape, working angle, residue mixing pattern) to the observed soil responses would strengthen the manuscript.
My third concern regards the short-term scope. The authors acknowledge their experiment took place over a single summer with above-average rainfall. Soil structural changes, humus content alterations, and earthworm population responses are often better assessed over multiple seasons to account for long-term equilibrium conditions. The authors present their results as if they hold broadly, but do not fully justify that these are not anomalies due to the unusual weather. More explicit caution and context regarding climatic atypicality would be beneficial.
My fourth concern is related to nutrient data interpretation. The authors measure changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content and attribute some differences to rainfall and residue decomposition. However, these nutrients are strongly influenced by spatial heterogeneity, sampling timing, and extraction methods. The authors do not provide a strong linking argument of how each implement might specifically influence nutrient dynamics. For instance, the sudden increases or decreases in P and K are mentioned without a thorough soil chemical or mineralogical explanation. These data would be more valuable if tied into a coherent narrative about the underlying soil processes.
My fifth concern is the lack of a stronger link to the European Green Deal and broad sustainability goals. While the authors mention the relevance of their findings to the Green Deal and climate change scenarios, the connection is mostly declarative. They should better articulate how farmers and policymakers might use these findings in practice. For example, how might these results influence machine choice, timing of operations, or residue management strategies to explicitly meet the Green Deal’s sustainability targets, rather than simply restating that these practices are in line with sustainable approaches.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language of the manuscript is generally clear and understandable, but there are some areas that could benefit from revision to improve grammar, word choice, and overall fluency.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Enclosed please find our answer.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
Your manuscript is really interesting and relevant. I only have a few suggestions to improve its quality.
1. Neither the abstract nor the introduction states the aim of the study.
2. The methodological part must indicate specific methods for soil agrochemical analyses (lines 117, 119).
3. The first table does not list manufacturers and countries for agricultural machinery.
4. Provide a visual plan of the experiment.
5. Explain in more detail the method for determining earthworm abundance.
6. Please specify methods for soil agrochemical analysis, not just standards.
7. The first table contains abbreviations - codes, but in all the figures you use the full names. I would advise you to use abbreviations - codes and provide explanations of the abbreviations in the notes below the figures.
8. When describing the data, I would like you to refer more to meteorological conditions.
9. Figures 6,7,8,9,10 are not sufficiently informative. Because the data in them is not statistically processed. There is no explanation provided in the notes below the figures.
10. The relationships between characteristics should be assessed using the chosen correlation analysis method.
11. Avoid self-citation.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Enclosed please find our answer.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the information is well presented. The manuscript present technical and scientific merits and interesting results about stubble tillage technologies effects on selected soil properties.
I recommend Accept
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you again for your previous suggestions and opinion, our manuscript has been improved a lot based on your reveiw.
Sincerely yours,
The Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors adequately responded to my comments and improved their work. the new manuscript has some redundancies, specifically in the introduction section that I highlighted in the attached file. please modify it based on the comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you again for your previous suggestions and opinion. Now, we corrected those lines which you indicated as redundancy, also we inserted the relevant and suggested publications into the manuscript. We think our manuscript has been improved a lot based on your reveiw.
Thank you for your kind help again!
Sincerely yours,
The Authors
