An In Situ Videotaping Approach for Parameterizing Subsoiling-Induced Soil Disturbance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, I am reviewing your manuscript "An in-situ videotaping approach for parameterizing subsoilinginduced soil disturbance" The main prerequisite for sustainable agricultural production is the efficient use of soil on the farm. I agree that, subsoiling is an important technology in conservation tillage, therefore In this sense, the manuscript should be published in a journal. However, I have a few comments that will help emphasize the importance of the results of these studies:
The methodological part does not contain a description of the rice-wheat rotation. How many years is rice grown, how many years is wheat grown?
I understood that subsoil loosening was done in the wheat field, it is written in the introduction. Move this information to the Materials and Methods part. However, it is not clear whether after wheat harvest or during soil preparation for wheat sowing? How many times was the Subsoil loosening process observed and recorded?
Please describe in detail the experiment itself: changes in soil depth and differences between different soil layers? It is not clear how many repetitions there were in the experiment? What is the area of the experimental field?
Table 4. Has a statistical analysis of the Crack area density (Dc) results been performed?
Figure 10. The picture is not informative about what it wants to show, especially camera 4. There is no explanation under the picture what it means 2s; 3,7s; 4,9s;7,8s; 12s.
Explanations of dimensions and units of measurement should be consulted throughout the text. Explanations of these dimensions are missing below the tables and figures.
Table 5. and Table 6. The results presented do not include a statistical evaluation. Have these indicators not been subject to statistical evaluation?
Describe the result analysis and discussion sections separately, it will be clearer for the readers.
A thorough review of the findings and their presentation is required. The first conclusion reflects your intended hypothesis rather than the obtained result.
Author Response
- The methodological part does not contain a description of the rice-wheat rotation. How many years is rice grown, how many years is wheat grown?
Reply 1: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have added “The site is in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River basin where the rice-wheat rotation has a long history. The rice is planted in early June and the wheat in early November every year. The experiment was conducted after rice harvest and during soil preparation before wheat sowing.” Please check in 2.1. Characterization of soil.
- I understood that subsoil loosening was done in the wheat field, it is written in the introduction. Move this information to the Materials and Methods part. However, it is not clear whether after wheat harvest or during soil preparation for wheat sowing? How many times was the Subsoil loosening process observed and recorded?
Reply 2: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, for the first question, we have deleted the “in the wheat season” in Introduction, and added “The experiment was conducted after rice harvest and during soil preparation before wheat sowing.” in 2.1. Characterization of soil. For the second question, we have added “tillage depth was performed with 5 different tillage depths: 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 cm, with a tillage distance of 5 m at each depth and a tillage speed of 0.05 m s-1.”, and “Soil disturbance process of subsoiling at each tillage distance was recorded simultaneously by 5 cameras, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.” in 2.3. Experimental design of subsoiling videotaping.
- Please describe in detail the experiment itself: changes in soil depth and differences between different soil layers? It is not clear how many repetitions there were in the experiment? What is the area of the experimental field?
Reply 3: We are very sorry for our incorrect expression, for the first question, we aimed to express the changes in soil depth rather than different soil layers, and we have changed all the soil layer to soil depth in the paper. For the second question, tillage repetition is the extension of the tillage distance, 5 m tillage distance satisfies the research demand for this paper, so we have added “tillage depth was performed with 5 different tillage depths: 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 cm, with a tillage distance of 5 m at each depth and a tillage speed of 0.05 m s-1.”, and “Soil disturbance process of subsoiling at each tillage distance was recorded simultaneously by 5 cameras, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.” in 2.3. Experimental design of subsoiling videotaping. For the third question, we have added “An area of 80 m2 (10 ´ 8 m) was randomly selected in the experimental plot, the test-rig was moved laterally parallel to the 8 m side. The test-rig was moved 2 m for each test to prevent the intersection of the disturbance area or the disturbance of test-rig for the next test.” in 2.3. Experimental design of subsoiling videotaping.
- Table 4. Has a statistical analysis of the Crack area density (Dc) results been performed?
Reply 4: We are very sorry for our unclear expression, because Dc was calculated from crack area (A) and soil specimen (S), and crack area (A) and soil specimen (S) were not in one-to-one correspondence, so crack area density Dc was obtained from the average crack area (A) and the average total surface area of soil specimen (S). Crack area density Dc has no statistical analysis. Please check “Crack area density Dc was obtained from the average crack area A and the average total surface area of soil specimen S, so it was not significance test.” in the note of Table 4.
- Figure 10. The picture is not informative about what it wants to show, especially camera 4. There is no explanation under the picture what it means 2s; 3.7s; 4.9s;7.8s; 12s.
Reply 5: Figure 10 showed the soil disturbance process during subsoiling, which highlighted the importance of the videotaping approach and revealed a dynamic change in the process from the beginning to the end of the subsoiler cycle into the soil. Camera 4 showed the process of lifting soil to the maximum. For the second question, we have added “2 s, 3.7 s, 4.9 s, 7.8 s and 12 s were the times when the subsoiler entered the soil.” below Figure 10.
- Explanations of dimensions and units of measurement should be consulted throughout the text. Explanations of these dimensions are missing below the tables and figures.
Reply 6: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have changed the wrong dimensions and units and added the explanations of dimensions.
- Table 5. and Table 6. The results presented do not include a statistical evaluation. Have these indicators not been subject to statistical evaluation?
Reply 7: These indicators have not been statistically evaluated, because “Table 5 showed the parameters of soil disturbance cross-sections after subsoiling in Figure 12” in 3.5. Soil disturbance cross-section after subsoiling, and the data in Table 6 were obtained by averaging three replicates, so the data was not significance test.
- Describe the result analysis and discussion sections separately, it will be clearer for the readers.
Reply 8: The results of this paper are discussed in conjunction with the references while analyzing them, and if the results are separated from the analysis will lead to a distraction from the central content of the discussion and affect the effect of the analysis of the results. We have changed “3.7. Analysis and Discussion of Soil Disturbance Processes”.
- A thorough review of the findings and their presentation is required. The first conclusion reflects your intended hypothesis rather than the obtained result.
Reply 9: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have reviewed and changed the first conclusion to “The in-situ videotaping method could provide soil displacement parameters and soil crack parameters of the subsoiling process, which were significantly correlated with till-age depth.”
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript titled “An in-situ videotaping approach for parameterizing subsoiling-induced soil disturbance” is an interesting and well written. The paper addresses an important issue for the subsoiling process and methodology. I am not an engineer, bet the methodology is quite well described that even me could understood the techniques operations. Moreover, the paper includes many visualizations, what helps to better understand the processes, methodology and the results.
I have only suggest excluding the “rise-wheat rotation” from the key words, as the study doesn’t include any data on this.
Author Response
I have only suggest excluding the “rice-wheat rotation” from the key words, as the study doesn’t include any data on this.
Reply 1: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, we have added “The site is in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River basin where the rice-wheat rotation has a long history. The rice is planted in early June and the wheat in early November every year. The experiment was conducted after rice harvest and during soil preparation before wheat sowing.” Please check in 2.1. Characterization of soil.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I found the peer-reviewed manuscript interesting and very well written. The authors have undertaken current research, the results of which can be used in practice to optimize the plowing procedure (subsoiling) - so as to achieve the maximum cultivation effect, while minimizing energy (fuel) consumption. A valuable conclusion is that the optimal depth of subsoiling (20 cm) was established from the point of view of the best physical parameters of the soil and the lowest energy consumption. Greater plowing depths caused disturbances in the soil structure, finally creating the phenomenon of the "mole cavity".
I believe that similar research should be continued on different types of soils and at different latitudes. The critical point (treatment depth in cm) regarding the sensitivity of the soil to subsoiling may be different depending on the type of soil, its moisture content, etc. This article is very helpful in carrying out further research. The authors have thoroughly described and illustrated the essence of the problem and the entire methodological assumptions, which makes it easy to follow their research. The interpretation of the obtained test results is correct and clear.
Congratulations to the authors of a valuable article. In my opinion, it may be considered for publication in Agronomy in its current form.
08.01.2023.
Author Response
I believe that similar research should be continued on different types of soils and at different latitudes. The critical point (treatment depth in cm) regarding the sensitivity of the soil to subsoiling may be different depending on the type of soil, its moisture content, etc.
Reply 1: Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, the depth of the key point varies with soil type and our research found that “The critical depth may be related to the plow pan of paddy soil.” in 3.5. Soil Disturbance Cross-section after Subsoiling.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Few comments tracked in yellow colored; Subsoiling in first use as Subsoiling (SS), then subsequent mentioning in abbreviated form "SS'.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Few comments tracked in yellow colored; Subsoiling in first use as Subsoiling (SS), then subsequent mentioning in abbreviated form "SS'.
Reply 1: Thanks to the reviewer's comments, we have changed the comments tracked in yellow colored.
Special thanks to you for your good comments and the revised pdf.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors for considering my comments and correcting the manuscript. I think the article is suitable for publication.
