Digital Technologies Determination Effectiveness for the Productivity of Organic Winter Wheat Production in Low Soil Performance Indicator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

no comments

Author Response

Answers to Editor and Reviewers

We sincerely thank the respected Editor and Reviewers for especially useful expertise, their time and helpful comments and assistance in improving the scientific article. All comments were corrected and answers provided in the text below.

 

Reviewer 1:

No comments.

 

Answer:

We sincerely thank the esteemed Reviewer for especially useful expertise, time and helpful comments and assistance in improving the scientific work. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting piece of work. After the first revision, the current version seems to be much better. It is noticed that the experiments, as well as the whole work are based on "low performance soil". It will be useful to clearly define the level of "low performance soil" and include "high performance soil" in the experimental design.  The meaning of "smart harvester" is not clear at all. 

Author Response

Answers to Editor and Reviewers

We sincerely thank the respected Editor and Reviewers for especially useful expertise, their time and helpful comments and assistance in improving the scientific article. All comments were corrected and answers provided in the text below.

 

Reviewer 1:

No comments.

 

Answer:

We sincerely thank the esteemed Reviewer for especially useful expertise, time and helpful comments and assistance in improving the scientific work. 

 

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Very interesting piece of work. After the first revision, the current version seems to be much better. It is noticed that the experiments, as well as the whole work are based on "low performance soil". It will be useful to clearly define the level of "low performance soil" and include "high performance soil" in the experimental design.  The meaning of "smart harvester" is not clear at all. 

 

Answers:

According to Reviewer comment manuscript was fulfilled. Low-performance soil points and high-performance points were added to the chapter Experimental Design and Execution Plan. “Low-performance soils dominate from 27 to 37 points, high-performance soils from 47 points”.

Smart harvester is harvester in which is an application helping a centralized, intelligent, and intuitive to monitor harvester activities and grain yield. This point was added to chapter 2.1.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

• I went through the manuscript. The English need to be proofed.
• In abstract, the discussion is prominent, and the results are not presented properly. Try to add certain results in numeric form instead of text only. Add more key words.
• There is transitional gap between paragraphs especially in Introduction section.
• Fig 1, showed that the management practices for both seasons were different. How can you compare the results for both seasons?
• The technique, adopted in this study for comparison of crop yield need to be revisit. If the management practices are not similar in both seasons/field than the yield may differ by some factors other than soil factors. Or you must determine prominent factor by using some techniques like ANN etc. that can nullify minor factor.
• Try to add more reference in discussion to support the results of your study.
• The conclusions are not written as per objects of the study. Please re-write this section.
• References are written well. However, please double check the reference style and their citation in text.
• Good luck

Author Response

Answers to Editor and Reviewers

We sincerely thank the respected Editor and Reviewers for especially useful expertise, their time and helpful comments and assistance in improving the scientific article. All comments were corrected and answers provided in the text below.

 

Reviewer 1:

No comments.

 

Answer:

We sincerely thank the esteemed Reviewer for especially useful expertise, time and helpful comments and assistance in improving the scientific work. 

 

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting piece of work. After the first revision, the current version seems to be much better. It is noticed that the experiments, as well as the whole work are based on "low performance soil". It will be useful to clearly define the level of "low performance soil" and include "high performance soil" in the experimental design.  The meaning of "smart harvester" is not clear at all. 

 

Answers:

According to Reviewer comment manuscript was fulfilled. Low-performance soil points and high-performance points were added to the chapter Experimental Design and Execution Plan. “Low-performance soils dominate from 27 to 37 points, high-performance soils from 47 points”.

Smart harvester is harvester in which is an application helping a centralized, intelligent, and intuitive to monitor harvester activities and grain yield. This point was added to chapter 2.1.

 

Reviewer 3:

Comments:

• 1. I went through the manuscript. The English need to be proofed.
• 2. In abstract, the discussion is prominent, and the results are not presented properly. Try to add certain results in numeric form instead of text only. Add more key words.
• 3. There is transitional gap between paragraphs especially in Introduction section.
• 4. Fig 1, showed that the management practices for both seasons were different. How can you compare the results for both seasons?
• 5. The technique, adopted in this study for comparison of crop yield need to be revisit. If the management practices are not similar in both seasons/field than the yield may differ by some factors other than soil factors. Or you must determine prominent factor by using some techniques like ANN etc. that can nullify minor factor.
• 6. Try to add more reference in discussion to support the results of your study.
• 7. The conclusions are not written as per objects of the study. Please re-write this section.
• 8. References are written well. However, please double check the reference style and their citation in text.

Answers:

1. According to the note in English has been viewed throughout the manuscript.
2. We added certain results in numeric form: " Studies have shown in the first field grain yield dominated from 3.68 to 6.21 t ha^-1 calculating according to soil maps, and from 3.78 to 6.52 t ha^-1 determining using smart harvester. In the second field dominated respectively from 5.26 to 6.95 t ha^-1, and from 4.33 to 6.89 t ha^-1." We added “productivity” and “soil texture” keywords.
3. Transitional gap between paragraphs was corrected.
4. A different treatment has been chosen for the prevention of micronutrient excess. Yields did not differ significantly between years, so it was compared.
5. Crop yield was similar in both seasons.
6. It was added more reference in discussion to support the results of study.

• Sirikun, C.; Samseemoung, G.; Soni, P., Langkapin, J. and Srinonchat, J., A Grain Yield Sensor for Yield Mapping with Local Rice Combine Harvester. Agriculture, 2021, 11(9),897.
• Kayad, A.; Sozzi, M.; Gatto, S.; Whelan, B.; Sartori, L.; Marinello, F. Ten years of corn yield dynamics at field scale under digital agriculture solutions: A case study from North Italy. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2021, 185,106126.
• Guerrero, A.; De Neve, S. and Mouazen, A.M. Data fusion approach for map-based variable-rate nitrogen fertilization in barley and wheat. Soil and Tillage Research. 2021, 205, p.104789.

7. The conclusions were rewritten.

Conclusions

It was determined digital technologies (soil maps and smart harvester) complex effectiveness on assessment of the dynamic of soil pH, P₂O5, K₂O, humus and organic winter wheat (variety Skagen) productivity and grain crude protein dependence on low-performance soil texture.

Crude protein of winter wheat grains was significantly difference in the first field and variate from 9.70 to 13.34%. The crude protein content in the second field was similar and variate from 10.71 to 10.91%. In the sandy areas of Haplic Arenosols and in the lower parts of the field – Eutric Gleysols, interfered in predominant Haplic Luvisols soils, winter wheat crude protein content and grain yield were lower. The biggest grain yield was obtained in Haplic Luvisols soils and variate from 4.8 to 6.52 t ha^-1 in the first field, and variate from 6.04 to 6.95 t ha^-1 in the second field. Experimental research has established that harvesting with a smart harvester in Haplic Luvisols soils showed a little bit bigger or similar yield compare with grain yield obtained from samples collected from fields broken down according to soil maps. Both digital technologies well reflected of the yields content but the information on the field soil cover allowed better explaining the reasons for lower yields. The application of the digital technologies complex has been proved to be addictive beneficial for the correct yield and justifying its variation in addressing changes in yields due to the improvement of low-performance soils in the future.

The complex use of the technologies (soil maps and smart harvester) allows saves labor time and efficiently identifying the reasons for the harvest changes, which can increase farm incomes and reduce costs. Moreover, the complex use of the technologies can be utilized at the national level to prepare strategies to maintain and restore land productivity.

 

8. References were rechecked according to the reference style and their citation in text.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments