Prediction of Salt-Tolerant Earthworms’ Cultivation Conditions Based on the Robust Artificial Intelligence Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor, 

this is very interesting research that gives the possibility of application in practice and development of the metod in future. 

The research results are presented in a good way.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Expert 1 modification comments

 

 

1. For chemical symbols, the author has rechecked and revised the full text;

 

2. The author has supplemented all the references;

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper mainly explores the linkage prediction relationship between the growth characteristics of salt-tolerant earthworms and the living environment variables and predicts the cultivation conditions in the salt-tolerant earthworms’ practical cultivation process with the help of the established improved BP neural network  model. Although this is a good study, it is important to take care of the following things. 

1. The introduction should be a little more focused.  

2. The word 'We' is not used in the research article, but it has happened many times in this article and it needs to be changed. 

3. In this research article, the chemical formula needs to be corrected in many places.  like row  211, 267  etc.

Author Response

Expert 2 modification comments

 

 

1. The calculation principle of relevant models has been explained in the introduction and introduction, and the amount of relevant literature has been increased;

 

2. The words "we" in the research article have been modified according to the requirements of experts;

 

3. The author has proofread and revised several parts of chemical formula symbols and mathematical symbols.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The issue of the manuscript entitled "Prediction of Salt Tolerant Earthworms' cultivation conditions based on the robust artificial intelligence model" is interesting, fits into the journal Sustainability, but requires some changes in the introduction, methodology, results and discussion.

They are presented in detail below

Introduction

Line 49-54

The authors point to soil contamination in Australia and the USA, and what about soils in selected areas of Asia?

Lines 55-70

The authors indicate various examples of the reaction of organisms to soil pollution. Research shows that earthworms are able to adapt to soil pollution on a physiological and behavioral level. Please indicate examples and refer to the literature refer to the literature

Line 74

Environment..  Please refer to the literature

Lines 78-80

What is it caused by?

Materials and Methods

 Preparation of Experimental Materials

 

Lines 111-113

From the description of the methodology, it can only be concluded that the earthworms used in the experiment were mature. I believe they should be labeled to species because earthworms belong to three ecomorphological groups that differ in biology and ecology

 

Result and Disscusion

I think the description of the results should be changed. In each subchapter of the results, the authors write that conclusions can be drawn based on the diagrams. This is unacceptable in this part, the description must be changed in the entire chapter. The discussion is not enough, the authors should cite more references to the literature.

 

Author Response

Expert 3 modification comments

 

 

1. The article has added relevant introduction on the current situation of soil pollution in Asia in lines 57 to 61;

 

2. The author has added relevant literature in lines 55 to 70 to show that earthworms can improve the soil pollution environment;

 

3. The author has added relevant references on line 74;
4. In lines 78 to 80, it refers to earthworms. The author has modified it.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

We find the work interesting from a modelling point of view, but it has major weaknesses from a biological point of view.

Firstly, there is no indication of the type of earthworms used for the experiment. This is an unacceptable mistake. The first thing to know is which biological unit we are working with, it is not the same an epigeic earthworm than an endogeic or an anecic one, and within each category, each species of earthworm has its own requirements.

Secondly, although we are indicated where the soil and manure used comes from, when an experiment of this type is carried out, soils are used according to the standard and if something has to be modified, the characteristics of all the materials used have to be specified.

The bibliography is incorrectly cited both in the text and in the references chapter.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Expert 4 modification comments

 

 

1. On line 43, the author has proofread the references, found the relevant documents and listed them;

 

2. The author has changed Michael Gatheru waigi in 2017 listed in line 44 to waigi, and given the correct introduction format of relevant references;

 

3. The author has introduced references for "2018 Soil Pollution Report" in lines 47-48;

 

4. Michaus has been revised to "some authors' testimonials" before the sentence on line 59;

 

5. In line 62, the author has correctly introduced the reference "Hani NEGM...";

 

6. In line 68, Negm(2020)and Hani NEGM(2019) are two different papers;

 

7. In view of the diversity of different species of earthworms in different regions, when selecting adult Daping No. 2 earthworm, this paper considered that the degree of saline-alkali soil in China has a high constraint on biological survival, and Daping No. 2 earthworm has a stronger vitality, so Daping No. 2 earthworm was selected;

 

8. The Daping No. 2 earthworm is a hybrid of the American red earthworm and the Japanese flower earthworm. It generally likes to live in the warm and wet garbage heap, under the cowshed and under the pigsty pile, especially in the decayed animal dung pile, which is its favorite place for survival and breeding. It has the characteristics of high reproduction rate and strong adaptability. In view of the extreme living environment with high salinity and high alkalinity, in order to ensure the normal operation of the experiment, it is necessary to ensure the survival rate of earthworms, so that the periodic changes and characteristics of the selected earthworms can be observed within a period of time;

 

9. Our research on the relationship between the growth variables of saline-alkali tolerant earthworms and environmental factors is mainly to observe whether the cultivated earthworms can adapt to the current living environment, and whether they can improve the adverse factors in the polluted environment. If they can be improved, how much will the relationship be improved? This provides important data support for us to continue to study the improvement of saline-alkali land in China;

 

10. In the part of experimental materials, the author has stated in the original text that earthworm Daping No. 2 was selected as the test earthworm;

 

11. The C/N ratio of soil is 8:1, the N, P and K contents are 145mg/kg, 63mg/kg and 115mg/kg respectively, and the C/N ratio of manure is 25:1, the C/N ratio of straw is 30:1;

 

12. Changed the word "ring" in line 113 to clitellum;

 

13. The C/N ratio of straw and excrement in line 114 has been adjusted. The position of the two is wrong in the writing order, and the author has modified it;

 

14. Line 115-117, the aluminum box is mainly used to dry the soil sampled each time (consisting of base material and prepared solution). The size and size of the aluminum box and sampling bag are purchased by the laboratory on Taobao, China(https://uland.taobao.com/sem/tbsearch?refpid=mm_26632258_3504122_32538762&keyword=%E8%B4%AD%E7%89%A9%E7%BD%91%E4%B8%8A%E5%95%86%E5%9F%8E%E7%BD%91%E7%AB%99&clk1=06229125233e145a84f2ac5055b09ce6&upsId=06229125233e145a84f2ac5055b09ce6).And meet the laboratory material standards;

 

15. The sampling standard is to take samples every 15 days, which are divided into C: N=25:1, C: N=30:1, soil ratio 1:2 and 1:1, solution ratio of two large module units, and each unit is set with three parallel samples, a total of 12 samples per time.The author has added this part in "Simulation Experience";

 

16. In lines 129-130, the author has changed the number "5" of the "5 indicators" mentioned to "8";

 

17. 100g sample in each aluminum box when testing humidity;

 

18. The introduction format of the reference in line 144 (P.Suresh Kumar, 2020) has been modified;

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The Manuscript looks better, but the authors were selective about the remarks:

They did not respond to the following comments:

 

Linie 111-113

 

From the description of the methodology, it can only be concluded that the earthworms used in the experiment were mature. I believe they should be labeled as species because earthworms belong to three ecomorphological groups that differ in biology and ecology

 Result and Discussion

 

I think the description of the results should be changed. In each subsection of the results, the authors write that conclusions can be drawn from the graphs. In this part it is unacceptable, the description should be changed in the whole chapter.

Author Response

Expert 3 modification comments

 

1. The author added the species of earthworm in line 121. The earthworm used for the experiment is Eisenia foetida.
2. In order to make the conclusion more explicit, the author modifies the method of the conclusion in lines 387, 419 and 452.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

When in a paper on the resistance of earthworms to salt content, they are asked which earthworm species is being used as each species can have a different behaviour, the answer is that they have been used and "The Daping No. 2 earthworm is a hybrid of the American red earthworm and the Japanese flower earthworm" but they do not answer the question asked, indicating that the authors do not know the biological unit they are working with and therefore the paper loses all validity.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Expert 4 modification comments

 

 

1. The author added the species of earthworm in line 121. The earthworm used for the experiment is Eisenia foetida.

 

2. The author has added the mathematical calculation formula of reproduction rate and mortality rate in lines 158 to 164.

 

3. The author has rechecked the document and inserted it according to the standard format of document insertion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf