Equipment Development for Small and Urban Conservation Farming Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the working quality of three no-till equipment developed for a self-propelled walk-behind tractors to allows small producers to effectively plant and terminate their cover crops (cereal rye, by active coulter drill and a powered roller/crimper), and transplant cash crop (tomato with no-till transplanter) directly into flatten residue of cover crop, in order to reduce manual labor while increasing efficiency of field activities.
The aspects that should be improved can be summarised in the following points:
- Introduction paragraph: The work can be considered interesting although the machines described do not represent a great novelty and it would be helpful for the authors to report, either at the end of the introduction before the purpose of the work (L102-105), or at the beginning of the paragraph "materials and methods", the innovation brought by the study compared to what they have already published in the past and to what already exists in the literature.
- Materials and methods paragraph: The machines are well described as well as the statistical analysis carried out. I suggest to describe the experimental design of the tests and the statistical analysis in a small separate paragraph. It is currently divided between the beginning of paragraph 2 and 3, but a diagram of the experimental design would be useful to help the reader to understand the test performed. Furthermore, very little is said about the determination of the performance of the machines (Objective 1, L102) or the evaluation of the quality of the work (apart from the method that uses the chlorophyll meter to evaluate the quality of the work performed by the roller/crimper with crimping bar). The materials and methods should report in more detail the procedures used to evaluate the porformance and the quality of the work of the machines, with the bibliographic references of the methodologies adopted (e.g. ASABE…, CIOSTA). In paragraph 3 it is described only in part what was done during the Powered roller/crimper test. And the other machines?
- Paragraph 4 "Results and discussion" completely lacks critical discussions compared to other machines tested in the bibliography. In the case in which the construction novelties of the prototypes lead to substantial improvements in terms of reduced working time (h/ha) or reduced labor necessary, reduced costs or better quality of work, I believe that some indications with respect to the traditional modus operandi should be reported.
- Conclusion should be improved. In the conclusion section, you should remind the reader of what they have just read. Your conclusion should:
- Restate your hypothesis or research question;
- Restate your major findings;
- Tell the reader what contribution your study has made to the existing literature;
- Highlight any limitations of your study;
- State future directions for research/recommendations;
Furthermore, here below I reported some specific comments (L= Line):
L30- I would indicate the yield in Mg/ha instead of kg/ha.
L57- I recommend reporting quantities in megagrams (Mg) rather than tons.
L102-105 - Actually the goal is not well indicated here. Is the aim to evaluate the performance and quality of work of the tested machines? Rephrase please.
L189 – Please change 55o C with 55°C. What kind of procedure did you use to determine the dry matter contained in the biomass? There are specific ISO standards for cereals. If I remember correctly, ISO 711 concerns Cereals and cereal products Determination of moisture content (Basic reference method). However, temperatures in the stove are not below 110°C (even 130-133°C) for at least one day.
L244- This description should be moved to materials and methods.
L343- “77.9 cm. …. and”?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript presents the working quality of three no-till equipment developed for a self-propelled walk-behind tractors to allows small producers to effectively plant and terminate their cover crops (cereal rye, by active coulter drill and a powered roller/crimper), and transplant cash crop (tomato with no-till transplanter) directly into flatten residue of cover crop, in order to reduce manual labor while increasing efficiency of field activities.
The aspects that should be improved can be summarized in the following points:
- Introduction paragraph: The work can be considered interesting although the machines described do not represent a great novelty and it would be helpful for the authors to report, either at the end of the introduction before the purpose of the work (L102-105), or at the beginning of the paragraph "materials and methods", the innovation brought by the study compared to what they have already published in the past and to what already exists in the literature.
Response: The powered coulter aspect of the no-till drill does not exist anywhere else, especially for this scale of equipment. Also, there is no transplanter for a walk behind tractor that is designed for no-till planting. The uniqueness is that this set of equipment was all developed and prototyped by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Soil Dynamics Lab equipment designed by USDA scientists and engineers. Information regarding the powered roller/crimper was published in different studies as a separate machine but not as a full system with other novel equipment during three growing seasons. The corresponding author of this manuscript is the inventor of all described equipment.
Walk-behind tractor by itself without specialized no-till equipment does not have any sustainable agronomic value. Most implements for walk behind tractors are on conventional tillage, a system that promotes soil degradation.
- Materials and methods paragraph: The machines are well described as well as the statistical analysis carried out. I suggest describing the experimental design of the tests and the statistical analysis in a small separate paragraph. It is currently divided between the beginning of paragraph 2 and 3, but a diagram of the experimental design would be useful to help the reader to understand the test performed.
Response: On lines 116-122 we described the experimental design and included diagram of the experiment in Figure 1 with detailed explanation of equipment evaluated.
- Furthermore, very little is said about the determination of the performance of the machines (Objective 1, L102) or the evaluation of the quality of the work (apart from the method that uses the chlorophyll meter to evaluate the quality of the work performed by the roller/crimper with crimping bar). The materials and methods should report in more detail the procedures used to evaluate the performance and the quality of the work of the machines, with the bibliographic references of the methodologies adopted (e.g. ASABE…, CIOSTA). In paragraph 3 it is described only in part what was done during the Powered roller/crimper test. And the other machines?
Response: The plant spacing and stand counts were the only data collected for the transplanter regarding evaluation. Based on what we found at the ASABE library, there are no standards available for conservation agriculture.
- Paragraph 4 "Results and discussion" completely lacks critical discussions compared to other machines tested in the bibliography. In the case in which the construction novelties of the prototypes lead to substantial improvements in terms of reduced working time (h/ha) or reduced labor necessary, reduced costs or better quality of work, I believe that some indications with respect to the traditional modus operandi should be reported.
Response: There are no other no-till machines for a conservation system with cover crops developed elsewhere, that are specifically designed to work with walk- behind tractors. Therefore, there are no relevant references that we could compare our results. We agree to add some information regarding efficiency of our transplanting no-till system:
On lines 390-396 we added information as follows: “To evaluate the performance of the transplanter, the first gear of the BCS 583 two-wheel tractor was employed with the no-till transplanter to transplant tomato seedlings. The average working speed of the transplanter was 1.1 km h-1. At this speed and spacing between rows of 1.0 m, the field efficiency was 0.11 ha h-1. Consequently, it would require 9 hours to transplant tomato seedlings on the land area with cover crop residue of one hectare. By comparison, hand transplanting efficiency was about 60 m2 per hour (personal communications), or it would require 163 hours to transplant one hectare, which is 18 times slower than results obtained in this experiment.”
- Conclusion should be improved. In the conclusion section, you should remind the reader of what they have just read. Your conclusion should:
- Restate your hypothesis or research question;
- Response: We added lines 419 to 424:
“Widespread adoption of conservation farming systems in small US farms are hindered by lack of small machineries for no-till drilling, crimping cover crops and no-till transplanting. To help small farms reduce hand labor and adoption of conservation systems with cover crops, no-till equipment such as a no-till drill, powered roller/crimper, and no-till transplanter have been developed for walk-behind tractors at the USDA, NSDL. We hypothesized that the system performance of this set of three machines will be robust.”
- Restate your major findings.
Response: Retained lines 426 to 437 which stated our major findings.
- Tell the reader what contribution your study has made to the existing literature;
Response: We added lines 437-439:
- “Conservation agriculture machinery for small farms is a valuable contribution to existing literature where most studies are conducted for big commercial agriculture enterprises.”
- Highlight any limitations of your study;
- State future directions for research/recommendations;
Response: We added lines 440 to 446.
“The limitation of this study is the test was conducted only for rye as cover crop with tomato as the main crop. In addition, for adoption, the fixed cost in purchasing the system needs to be accounted. For future directions, we intend to test the system using other cover crops, cost the system, identify potential machinery manufacturers who will commit in manufacturing and selling the machines, and reach out to global partners in Southeast Asia where walk-behind tractors are commonly practiced and evaluate the applicability of this set of three machines system in tropical conditions.
Furthermore, here below I reported some specific comments (L= Line):
L30- I would indicate the yield in Mg/ha instead of kg/ha.
Response: changed yield to Mg/ha
L57- I recommend reporting quantities in megagrams (Mg) rather than tons.
Response: changed quantities to Mg instead of metric tons.
L102-105 - Actually the goal is not well indicated here. Is the aim to evaluate the performance and quality of work of the tested machines? Rephrase please.
Response: Lines 110-112: We rephrased: “The objective of this field experiment was to evaluate the performance (mechanical) and quality (agronomic) of experimental no-till equipment developed for a BCS 853 walk-behind tractor: 1. active coulter drill to plant a cereal rye cover crop, 2. a patented powered roller/crimper to terminate cereal rye, and 3. The no-till transplanter by planting tomato seedlings into flattened rye residue cover.”
L189 – Please change 55o C with 55°C. What kind of procedure did you use to determine the dry matter contained in the biomass? There are specific ISO standards for cereals. If I remember correctly, ISO 711 concerns Cereals and cereal products Determination of moisture content (Basic reference method). However, temperatures in the stove are not below 110°C (even 130-133°C) for at least one day.
Response: Line 218-219: it was oven-dried at 55O C for 72 hours, and added information: using an electric oven (Model No. SC-350; Grieve Corporation, Round Lake, IL) to estimate the amount of dry mass produced in each plot. This method has been used across many growing seasons and experiments.
L244- This description should be moved to materials and methods.
Response: Lines: 247- 249: It was moved to “2.2 Procedures” within materials and methods.
L343- “77.9 cm. …. and”?
Response: Line 374. Was corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am not sending a file with corrections, as there are a lot of them. The article requires thorough changes.
Firstly, the title has nothing to do with the content of the article. There is nothing about the development of the equipment of farms but only a description of the experience carried out on the tomatoes. This is the strongest point of this article, which should be improved and described in the right order.
There are many threads in the article that deviate from the main purpose of the work. This should be reduced or deleted.
Presented conclusions are not conclusions and do not respond to the stated purpose of the work, they are too general and contain general known statements. This is not acceptable in scientific articles.
The article cannot be based on the description of the machine and its qualities only on the experiment carried out, where the machine was used.
Reading this article, I had the impression that the authors want to boast about the machine, patent....a does not solve the scientific problem.
The article is valuable from the point of view of the conducted research, but it should be thoroughly rewritten with emphasis on a detailed description of the experience and the influence of external factors on the results achieved.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Open Review
Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am not sending a file with corrections, as there are a lot of them. The article requires thorough changes.
Firstly, the title has nothing to do with the content of the article. There is nothing about the development of the equipment of farms but only a description of the experience carried out on the tomatoes. This is the strongest point of this article, which should be improved and described in the right order.
There are many threads in the article that deviate from the main purpose of the work. This should be reduced or deleted.
Presented conclusions are not conclusions and do not respond to the stated purpose of the work, they are too general and contain general known statements. This is not acceptable in scientific articles.
The article cannot be based on the description of the machine and its qualities only on the experiment carried out, where the machine was used.
Reading this article, I had the impression that the authors want to boast about the machine, patent....a does not solve the scientific problem.
The article is valuable from the point of view of the conducted research, but it should be thoroughly rewritten with emphasis on a detailed description of the experience and the influence of external factors on the results achieved.
Below are my responses to your comments.
I am not sending a file with corrections, as there are a lot of them. The article requires thorough changes.
Response: I was expecting the reviewer to at least point out in the article some of the corrections, probably a page or two if there were a lot of them. We thoroughly reviewed the paper and asked colleagues to review it. We cannot see a LOT of corrections.
Firstly, the title has nothing to do with the content of the article. There is nothing about the development of the equipment of farms
Response: The reviewer may have misunderstood the manuscript from the way s/he interpreted the title. Several equipment (the equipment are already patented, hence the process of designing, testing, and manufacturing these equipment were already described previously and is NOT the intent of this article) were presented in this article as a holistic package (described as ‘development’) for small and urban conservation farming systems (CFS). The CFS composed of drilling a cover crop seed (equipment was a no-till powered coulter drill), terminating, or crimping the cover crop (equipment was a roller crimper) and transplanting tomato seedlings in no-tillage (equipment was a no-till transplanter for walk behind tractor). Three equipment were used as a system, that was from the title, the ‘equipment development’ being tested; not the development of each equipment; but the CFS developed using the three equipment.
but only a description of the experience carried out on the tomatoes.
Response: The description was more than just the tomatoes. The focus of the article is the ‘equipment development’ for the CFS; and the tomatoes was a vegetable chosen to prove the effectivity of the ‘equipment development’.
This is the strongest point of this article, which should be improved and described in the right order.
Response: The article was very well organized. We described the performance of the seed drill in seeding rye, the performance of the crimper in terminating the rye, and the performance of the no-till transplanter in uniformity spacing of the tomato and the tomato yield. And how these three components of the CFS (‘equipment development) as a system can benefit small and urban conservation farming systems. Again the article’s intent is NOT to develop each equipment, the development of each equipment is already done, the equipment are already patented; but the ‘equipment development’ is the conservation farming system developed from the three equipment that will benefit small and urban vegetable producers engaged in sustainable food production.
There are many threads in the article that deviate from the main purpose of the work. This should be reduced or deleted.
Response: The reviewer did not relay those threads, specifically. What threads, please specify. The article is quite logical, it was a step by step description of the CFS and the equipment for each step. Each step and the logic for each step are clearly explained … so what are the many threads. What will we reduce or delete, the reviewer should specify them? Again, the article and the threads in the article are woven very well, it is very logical. PLEASE SPECIFY WHAT THREADS IN THE ARTICLE WERE WOVEN ILLOGICALLY.
Presented conclusions are not conclusions and do not respond to the stated purpose of the work, they are too general and contain general known statements. This is not acceptable in scientific articles.
Response: The reviewer is not clear on what is the stated purpose of this article. We are answering the hypothesis on whether the systems of three equipment we developed will be good for application by small urban conservation farming systems. We showed it clearly: The CFS composed of drilling a cover crop seed (equipment was a no-till powered coulter drill), terminating, or crimping the cover crop (equipment was a roller crimper) and transplanting tomato seedlings in no-tillage (equipment was a no-till transplanter for walk behind tractor). Three equipment were used as a system and our data showed the robust performance of each equipment for each step: and the performance of the developed three equipment system. Our methodology and steps were very specific and not general (i.e. lifted from the paper, “Table 1. Analysis of variance results for cereal rye termination rates (%) and soil volumetric water content (VMC %) during the three weeks of evaluation period,” and many more specific scientific methodology and data presentation) and are acceptable in scientific articles. The reviewer did not specifically point out what those general known statements were and why they are NOT acceptable in scientific articles. Relaying in a review that the methodology, discussion and conclusion are not science based is a very strong critique, the reviewer must clearly show how s/he made that critique and decide that a paper is not of publishable quality. The authors of this article have peer-reviewed countless articles and we know that providing such a strong statement that an article is not scientific needs strong justifications. Why is our article not scientific? The reviewer did not even point out the why by giving examples from the article that s/he is reviewing that shows the validity of his/her critique.
The article cannot be based on the description of the machine and its qualities only on the experiment carried out, where the machine was used.
Response: Again, the reviewer misunderstood the article. The three machines are already developed. They have been tested and are already patented. We need to describe each machine and then show their performances individually and how they contribute to a robust conservation farming system for small urban farms.
Reading this article, I had the impression that the authors want to boast about the machine, patent....a does not solve the scientific problem.
Response: This targets the motive of the authors – ‘boasting’. This is below the below. Reviews must be profession and looks at the contents of the paper, not the motives of the authors. In no way did we intend to brag on a patent or on the machines. I do not know how the reviewer read this from the article. We are scientifically showing that we developed, tested and concluded (base on the scientific method) that combining these three equipment as a system will benefit small urban farms engaged in conservation agriculture.
The article is valuable from the point of view of the conducted research, but it should be thoroughly rewritten with emphasis on a detailed description of the experience and the influence of external factors on the results achieved.
Response: Let me reiterate, the reviewer is misreading the goal of this article. What does s/he mean by a ‘detailed description of the experience and the influence of external factors on the results achieved’? We clearly stated our methodology, our data collection, tabulated and statistically analyzed our results, and concluded from the data we measured.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the proposed Manuscript titled “Equipment development for small and urban conservation farming systems”, the Authors have described three innovative operating machines coupled to a walking-tractor, applied to cover crops cultivation. The Authors have also evaluated the effects of the proposed machines on the seeding and termination of secale cereale used as cover crop, and on the production of tomatoes, seeded after the cover crop termination.
The study is interesting and take in account different important mechanical, agronomic and productive aspects, but requires some improvements.
Specific comments (noted in the manuscript)
Introduction
Lines 39 - 40: what is the productive context which was referred to by the Authors? USA, World? Please specify.
Line 46 - 48: The Authors wrote: “To optimize these benefits, cover crops must be managed appropriately, which involves flattening down and crimping with rollers/crimpers as a preferred method of mechanical termination”. Please justify, by adding one or more scientific references, this affirmation.
Line 87: “small farms”: how many small? Please indicate an average size.
Line 102 - 105: please specify what are the “evaluations” objective of the study: agronomic, mechanical, productive, others?
Materials and Methods
Line 113: together with the engine power of the walking tractor, from the mechanical point of view it is important to know its weight.
Line 121: what is the “low weight” of the planter?
Lines 123 – 126: please recheck the calculation about the transmission ratio: if the ratio is 2:1 and the PTO rotates at 940 rpm, the 90-degree gearbox must rotate at 460 and not at 420 rpm.
Line 123:- what is the working width of the no-till powered coulter drill?
Line 126: please specify the seed hopper capacity.
Line 127: the seed hopper metering units, since works through an electric engine, is independent from the tractor’s working speed or not?
Line 136: please add the working width of the roller/crimper and the crimper bar’s frequency of alternate movement.
Lines 154 – 180: it has been very difficult for me to understand how the no till transplanter works. I suggest the Authors to insert, together with the photo of the operating machine (Fig. 3), also a scheme in which the various mechanical components are indicated.
Line 186: please specify what is the rye seeding rate and the number of rye plants for m2, both for experimental fields and for the control cover crop parcel. Furthermore: how many square meters (or hectares) is the cultivated surface?
Line 187: please specify in this paragraph what are the years considered in this study.
Line 189: is the dried temperature 550 C?
In this paragraph it could be useful to mention (better with a little table) what are the working speed of the used operating machines and their field capacity (ha/h). This in order to allow the reader to make a comparison with traditional operating machines normally used in small farms.
Line 216: please explain the VWC acronym.
Results and Discussion
Lines 257 - 260: the type of soils was the same for 2017, 2018 and 2019. Why the Authors imputed to the type of soil the minor production observed in 2019? In my opinion, a strange phenomenon is related to 2018 year, in which the rye biomass production is about the same for clay and sandy loam soils.
Lines 290 – 291: the Authors wrote: “Comparing termination rates from this experiment, the powered roller/crimper generated comparable termination rates obtained by larger heavy rollers crimpers”. What is the termination rate obtained in this study, and what is the value normally obtained using heavy rollers crimp? (Please add one or more references).
Line 360: it would be interesting to know the average production of tomatoes in the same area cultivated using a classic agronomic approach, and what was the treatments applied on the tomatoes crop (fertilization, agrochemical treatments, etc.).
Conclusions
Lines 381 – 382: the Authors wrote: “Biomass production was at levels as normally encountered by heavy no-till drills”. This consideration must be argued and discussed in the “Results and discussion” chapter, also by adding one or more scientific references.
Line 385: I do not understand, from the methodological point of view, why the authors have considered as control, in order to evaluate the termination capacity of the patented roller, the standing rye cereal. In my experience, in similar studies, the best control is a crop (in this case rye cereal) terminated with an herbicide (i.e. glyphosate), that is capable to eliminate practically the 100% of plants. I asked the Authors to explain - in a convincing way - the reasons of this choice (obviously not in the “Conclusions” but in “Materials and Method” chapter.
In conclusion this manuscript is interesting and well-written but, because of the many aspects considered, in some parts resulted a bit confused. As a consequence, it needs a focused review to clarify the critical aspects.
Author Response
Reviewer 3.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the proposed Manuscript titled “Equipment development for small and urban conservation farming systems”, the Authors have described three innovative operating machines coupled to a walking-tractor, applied to cover crops cultivation. The Authors have also evaluated the effects of the proposed machines on the seeding and termination of secale cereale used as cover crop, and on the production of tomatoes, seeded after the cover crop termination.
The study is interesting and take in account different important mechanical, agronomic and productive aspects, but requires some improvements.
Specific comments (noted in the manuscript)
Introduction
Lines 39 - 40: what is the productive context which was referred to by the Authors? USA, World? Please specify.
Response: On line 40. We specified that this productive context refers to USA local markets.
Line 46 - 48: The Authors wrote: “To optimize these benefits, cover crops must be managed appropriately, which involves flattening down and crimping with rollers/crimpers as a preferred method of mechanical termination”. Please justify, by adding one or more scientific references, this affirmation.
Response: On line 48. Two references were added to justify statement on lines 46-48.
Line 87: “small farms”: how many small? Please indicate an average size
Response: On line 87 we added information about an average farm size: (less than one hectare of cultivated land).
Line 102 - 105: please specify what are the “evaluations” objective of the study: agronomic, mechanical, productive, others?
Response: On lines 109-112: we specified that evaluations were “mechanical and agronomic” nature.
Materials and Methods
Line 113: together with the engine power of the walking tractor, from the mechanical point of view it is important to know its weight.
Response: On line 126 we specified the weight of the BCS 2-wheel tractor: 111 kg.
Line 121: what is the “low weight” of the planter?
Response: On line 140 we specified the low weight of the planter was 120 kg.
Lines 123 – 126: please recheck the calculation about the transmission ratio: if the ratio is 2:1 and the PTO rotates at 940 rpm, the 90-degree gearbox must rotate at 460 and not at 420 rpm.
Response: On lines 143 - 146 we corrected the transmission ratio (2:1) 940 RPM at PTO, 470 RPM at gearbox output, and additional reduction (1.3:1) ~360 RPM for powered coulters.
Line 123:- what is the working width of the no-till powered coulter drill?
Response: On line 157 (Figure 2) we specified that working width was 0.6 m and row (coulter) spacing was 0.2 m.
Line 126: please specify the seed hopper capacity.
Response: Line 146. We modified Gandy hopper due to space constraints. Modified seed hopper capacity was 0.021 m3.
Line 127: the seed hopper metering units, since works through an electric engine, is independent from the tractor’s working speed or not?
Response: Lines 146-150 We confirmed that the electric drive of the hopper is constant.
Line 136: please add the working width of the roller/crimper and the crimper bar’s frequency of alternate movement.
Response: Line 164-166. We added working width of the roller/crimper (0.9 m) and provided crimping frequency (7 crimps per one sec).
Lines 154 – 180: it has been very difficult for me to understand how the no till transplanter works. I suggest the Authors to insert, together with the photo of the operating machine (Fig. 3), also a scheme in which the various mechanical components are indicated.
Response: Lines 210-212. We added figure 5 with isometric view of the transplanter showing every component and its function.
Line 186: please specify what is the rye seeding rate and the number of rye plants for m2, both for experimental fields and for the control cover crop parcel. Furthermore: how many square meters (or hectares) is the cultivated surface?
Response: Line 215. The seeding rate was 101 kg/ha.
Line 187: please specify in this paragraph what are the years considered in this study.
Response: Line 217: 2017-2019 growing seasons for main crop (tomatoes).
Line 189: is the dried temperature 550 C?
Response: Line 218-219: it was oven-dried at 55O C for 72 hours, and added information: using an electric oven (Model No. SC-350; Grieve Corporation, Round Lake, IL) to estimate the amount of dry mass produced in each plot.
In this paragraph it could be useful to mention (better with a little table) what are the working speed of the used operating machines and their field capacity (ha/h). This to allow the reader to make a comparison with traditional operating machines normally used in small farms.
Response: On lines 390-397 we added information as follows: “To evaluate the performance of the transplanter, the first gear of the BCS 583 two-wheel tractor was employed with the no-till transplanter to transplant tomato seedlings. The average working speed of the transplanter was 1.1 km h-1. At this speed and spacing between rows of 1.0 m, the field efficiency was 0.11 ha h-1. Consequently, it would require 9 hours to transplant tomato seedlings on the land area with cover crop residue of one hectare. By comparison, hand transplanting efficiency was about 60 m2 per hour (personal communications), or it would require 163 hours to transplant one hectare, which was 18 times slower than results obtained in this experiment utilizing no-till transplanter.”
Line 216: please explain the VWC acronym.
Response: Line 224: VWC is volumetric water content, we changed this term to volumetric moisture content (VMC) to be consisted.
Results and Discussion
Lines 257 - 260: the type of soils was the same for 2017, 2018 and 2019. Why the Authors imputed to the type of soil the minor production observed in 2019? In my opinion, a strange phenomenon is related to 2018 year, in which the rye biomass production is about the same for clay and sandy loam soils.
Response: Biomass production is related on the particular growing season. The weather, soil and climatic conditions at each growing season always impact rye biomass. This phenomenon can be seen in the long period of time (decades).
Lines 290 – 291: the Authors wrote: “Comparing termination rates from this experiment, the powered roller/crimper generated comparable termination rates obtained by larger heavy rollers crimpers”. What is the termination rate obtained in this study, and what is the value normally obtained using heavy rollers crimp? (Please add one or more references).
Response: on Lines: 325-335 references of termination rates by heavy rollers were added and termination rates were compared with heavy rollers.
Line 360: it would be interesting to know the average production of tomatoes in the same area cultivated using a classic agronomic approach, and what was the treatments applied on the tomatoes crop (fertilization, agrochemical treatments, etc.).
Response It was not addressed as we did not have appropriate data from the similar conventional tilled experiment.
Conclusions
Lines 381 – 382: the Authors wrote: “Biomass production was at levels as normally encountered by heavy no-till drills”. This consideration must be argued and discussed in the “Results and discussion” chapter, also by adding one or more scientific references.
Response: We moved this statement from Conclusions to Results and Discussion and provided references,
Line 385: I do not understand, from the methodological point of view, why the authors have considered as control, in order to evaluate the termination capacity of the patented roller, the standing rye cereal. In my experience, in similar studies, the best control is a crop (in this case rye cereal) terminated with an herbicide (i.e. glyphosate), that is capable to eliminate practically the 100% of plants. I asked the Authors to explain - in a convincing way - the reasons of this choice (obviously not in the “Conclusions” but in “Materials and Method” chapter.
Response: We have been using the control as untreated standing cover crop in multiple field locations and experiments in past studies for two decades. Selecting herbicide as the control is not a real control, as few days after application the cover crop is completely killed. We have been evaluating mechanical termination method of cover crops using roller/crimper during the 3 weeks period between termination and planting a cash (main) crop, (to eliminate competition for water and nutrients between cover crop and the main crop), and this method is not so rapid as chemical treatment. Also, herbicide use on the small farms audience for this article is not common practice, especially for certified organic farming systems where commercial herbicides are prohibited. Thus, applying glyphosate on cower crop would certainly not be a good control.
In conclusion this manuscript is interesting and well-written but, because of the many aspects considered, in some parts resulted a bit confused. As a consequence, it needs a focused review to clarify the critical aspects.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved compared to the first version. I believe it could be published after minor revisions. I have no further observations to make, apart from recommending to mention the method of moisture content determination adopted (L 219). To say that many growing seasons and experiments were made using the same method (55°C for 72 hours on an electric oven) it is not specific enough. In these cases the reference standard should be mentioned.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
As per your suggestion, we provided additional information regarding drying methods to obtain the dry weight of the cereal rye cover crop (lines 219-221).
We explained that the oven we were using was a programmable electric shelf oven, Model No. SC-400 with forced convection air flow for 72 hours at a temperature of 55O C (Grieve Corporation, Round Lake, IL).
To clarify, this same setting was used each growing season to completely remove all moisture from the cover crop biomass sample (dry biomass of cereal rye). We supported this information with reference [19], line 496.
Thank you for valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
They maintain their previous assessment.
The authors did not convince me to change my mind in their answers.
Author Response
In the first report we responded to this reviewer's comments which were too general and negative, not offering specific suggestions as expected from reviewers in order to improve a manuscript.
We are not able to respond to this second reviewer's report, because no useful information is provided or suggested by this reviewer.
