Research on a Machine–Tractor Unit for Strip-Till Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments: This study investigated the machine-tractor unit for strip-till technology. After carefully reading, the authors stated that they proposed a developed combined unit based on a wheeled tractor to implement strip-till technology for cultivating row crops. However, both the tool geometrical parameters and the combined methods of various tillage implements were not novel in this manuscript.

Specific comments:

(1)  Novel idea should be clarified specifically.

(2)  Benefits of this research work was not clearly mentioned.

(3)  Abstract section: the authors of the manuscript stated that strip-till occupies an intermediate position between conventional tillage and no-till technologies. In fact, both no-till and minimum tillage before sowing belong to the conservation technology system and above statements are misleading.

(4)  Figure 1: The main geometrical parameters of both the disc harrow and chisel plough should be provided as they can significantly affect the soil disturbance. Please supplement them.

(5)  Figure 3: The basic theory and method for measuring the tillage depth should be clarified specifically.  Please supplement more descriptions to explain it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

General comments: This study investigated the machine-tractor unit for strip-till technology. After carefully reading, the authors stated that they proposed a developed combined unit based on a wheeled tractor to implement strip-till technology for cultivating row crops. However, both the tool geometrical parameters and the combined methods of various tillage implements were not novel in this manuscript.

The article's authors did not set out to substantiate the geometric parameters of the machines' working bodies used. As for the unit design, we are convinced that it is new. The difference is that the disc harrow is used in a "push" mode rather than a "pull" one. The authors would be very grateful to the Reviewer for specific information about a known unit for a similar purpose.

Specific comments:

(1)  Novel idea should be clarified specifically.

The novelty of the idea is clarified and stated in lines 120-121

(2)  Benefits of this research work was not clearly mentioned.

According to the authors' opinion, the advantages of the proposed machine-tractor unit are quite fully outlined in lines 121-131.

(3)  Abstract section: the authors of the manuscript stated that strip-till occupies an intermediate position between conventional tillage and no-till technologies. In fact, both no-till and minimum tillage before sowing belong to the conservation technology system and above statements are misleading.

Conventional Tillage (CT), as is known, provides for soil subsoiling (loosening) in a continuous strip. No-till (NT) technology eliminates soil subsoiling completely. Strip-till (ST) involves soil subsoiling in separate strips. From this follows an entirely logical conclusion that ST occupies an intermediate position between CT and NT. Many scientists around the world think so.

(4)  Figure 1: The main geometrical parameters of both the disc harrow and chisel plough should be provided as they can significantly affect the soil disturbance. Please supplement them.

Disc harrow and chisel-plough working devices' parameters have been added to Table 1

(5)  Figure 3: The basic theory and method for measuring the tillage depth should be clarified specifically. Please supplement more descriptions to explain it.

In accordance with the Reviewer's comment, Figure 3 has been changed, and lines 169-171 describe the methodology for its use.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The description of process 1 and process 2 in the Strip-Till technology method must be added to the Material and Methods.

Author Response

- The description of process 1 and process 2 in the Strip-Till technology method must be added to the Material and Methods.

In the Materials and Methods section, a link is given to the methodology for performing Process 1 and Process 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of technical improvement in the agriculture science is important, the publication would have a chance go on, but the authors should review the whole work - reveal its purpose, objectives, formulate solid conclusions.

The problem that is considered in this work is not presented.

If the problem is expensive machines, then the price should be discussed.

The authors worry that expensive machines are used as implement at the strip-till technology practically. They state that presented machines as disc harrow and Chisel plough are simple and cheap. By the way, simplicity is repeatedly emphasized, should we expect a good depth support from cheap machines if it is studied as object.

The title of paper needs to be changed - From many resources the disk harrow and chisel with roller is not a Strip till Implements.

Figure 2 does not include roller as in figure 1. The roller of chisel plough is levelling  the surface of field.  

Depth deviation is discussed extensively in the results section. What problem causes the working depth deviation by ±2 cm, when working deep is 25 cm?

Does it cause draft instability or soil structure unevenness, is not given in conclusions.

It is determined that the uneven surface of the soil causes fluctuations in the working depth, which, was measured by a device whose reliability and measurement error is unclear. Maybe it's just a measurement error of device.

What is soil texture, percentage of clay and sand?

The conclusions do not reveal the reasons for the variation in working depth.

From figure 1 it  is already harrowed field as background.

The authors note what need to use a 6-row seeder, which raises doubts about the existence of such seeders - is the study applicable?

The results do not provide a solution to the problem: what cause the depth to fluctuate, did the tractor fluctuate because the soil was uneven, and because the support wheel of chisel plow rolled on uneven soil.

Basically, the front working implement changes the draft conditions of the tractor - it causes skidding in loose soil, the question how the constant working speed was maintained?

Did the authors manage to avoid modern machines or not?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comments.

Author Response

The topic of technical improvement in the agriculture science is important, the publication would have a chance go on, but the authors should review the whole work - reveal its purpose, objectives, formulate solid conclusions.

The problem that is considered in this work is not presented.

In our opinion, the essence of the problem is stated in some detail in lines 61-117. Its central meaning is to implement 5 tasks of two-pass Strip-till technology in practice machines that are highly specialized in purpose (only one technological operation), rather complex in design and metal-intensive.

To solve this problem, we have proposed a combined unit of simple design and universal machines (see lines 118-130).

 

If the problem is expensive machines, then the price should be discussed.

It would be appropriate to give the price of machines for the conditions of one country. At a broad global level, this indicator is difficult to operate. But in response to the Reviewer's comments, the authors removed from the text the mention of the high cost of machines for implementing Strip-till technology.

The authors worry that expensive machines are used as implement at the strip-till technology practically. They state that presented machines as disc harrow and Chisel plough are simple and cheap. By the way, simplicity is repeatedly emphasized, should we expect a good depth support from cheap machines if it is studied as object.

Lines 233-239 of the article show the stability of the tillage depth in strips with the new unit. It is indicated that a deviation of this parameter by 2 cm occurs once over a length of 7.1 m, and this occurs with a frequency of 0.05 Hz. These are pretty good indicators for deep loosening of the soil.

The title of paper needs to be changed - From many resources the disk harrow and chisel with roller is not a Strip till Implements.

Research has shown that our proposed unit allows for implementing two-pass Strip-till technology. The fact that it is not specialized does not diminish its merits. In this regard, the article's authors consider it advisable not to change its title.

Figure 2 does not include roller as in figure 1. The roller of chisel plough is levelling  the surface of field. 

To the Reviewer's very fair remark, we respond that Figure 2 is intended only to demonstrate a new diagram of the chisel-plough working devices. Since the presence of the roller in Figure 2 does not affect this diagram, the authors of the article considered it possible not to show it.

Depth deviation is discussed extensively in the results section. What problem causes the working depth deviation by ±2 cm, when working deep is 25 cm?

It is well known that the higher the stability of the tillage depth, the better the conditions for the high-quality performance of the subsequent operation. There are agronomic requirements for almost every agricultural operation. Since there are no agrotechnical requirements for the stability of the soil loosening depth when cultivating strips in strip-till technology, we have accepted the requirements for the stability of the ploughing depth (i.e. 2 cm) as such.

Does it cause draft instability or soil structure unevenness, is not given in conclusions.

Unfortunately, the authors have not yet conducted research in this direction.

It is determined that the uneven surface of the soil causes fluctuations in the working depth, which, was measured by a device whose reliability and measurement error is unclear. Maybe it's just a measurement error of device.

The device for measuring tillage depth uses an ultrasonic sensor US-025 with a measurement error of no more than 3 mm. This information has been added to the article (lines 166-167).

 

What is soil texture, percentage of clay and sand?

The soil characteristics determined during the research are presented in the article in lines 214-218.

The conclusions do not reveal the reasons for the variation in working depth.

The main reason for fluctuations in the depth of soil cultivation by one or another machine is fluctuations in the soil structure. And since it (the structure) cannot be absolutely uniform, there will always be fluctuations in the depth of tillage. The measure of these fluctuations is another matter. But we have assessed it and outlined it in detail in the conclusions.

From figure 1 it  is already harrowed field as background.

Figure 1 shows a unit photographed in a field adjacent to the control section.

The authors note what need to use a 6-row seeder, which raises doubts about the existence of such seeders - is the study applicable?

To a remark that is not entirely pleasant for the article's authors, we respond that the world-famous company Elvorti (Ukraine) produces 6-row seeders VEGA-6 Profi and VESTA-6 Profi, which are successfully sold on the European market.

The results do not provide a solution to the problem: what cause the depth to fluctuate, did the tractor fluctuate because the soil was uneven, and because the support wheel of chisel plow rolled on uneven soil.

During the unit's movement, vertical oscillations are carried out by all its links: tractor, chisel-plough, etc. These oscillations are IMPOSSIBLE to exclude! This work does not consider the dynamics of vertical movements of the unit. As we have already noted, the stability of the soil loosening depth in strips is assessed here. According to the data we received, this stability is quite acceptable. Otherwise, we would additionally look for the source that generates unacceptable oscillations in the depth of soil loosening in the strips. Considering the above, the authors believe their research objectives have been entirely resolved.

Basically, the front working implement changes the draft conditions of the tractor - it causes skidding in loose soil, the question how the constant working speed was maintained?

It is quite natural that the tractor had a particular wheel slip during the unit's movement. The magnitude of this slippage was not assessed in this study. There were no prerequisites for this. Our practice of using the KhTZ-16132 tractor with a chisel-plough has shown that when the unit moves at a speed of 2.0-2.4 m/s, the wheel slip of this tractor does not exceed 15%. This level of slipping is quite acceptable from the point of view of the impact of wheels on the soil structure.

Did the authors manage to avoid modern machines or not?

The chisel-plough used in research is a serial machine. The front disc harrow is partially modernized. However, the authors do not believe this can doubt their research results.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Quality article on an interesting topic.

Author Response

Thank you for your review

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of the comments and suggestions have been addressed. The manuscript has been improved and currently can be considered to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

We would like to thank our esteemed reviewer for his detailed analysis of our article

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors added the type of soil, and changed the aim of research from "the strip-till technology without using expensive specialized machines" to "have high metal consumption" (line 119)

if the consumption of metal is the purpose of the article, it is needed to compare the metal output, and justify it by presenting the weight of the machines, etc. - weight is not given in table No. 1. What name of serial implements?

and why they have different working width? Disc harrow operating width 3500 mm, but Chisel-plow operating width 4200 mm. What influence to the results of the unequal working width, are only such widths are suitable?

From Abstract –   “…expensive machines are used to implement the strip-till technology.”

From abstract, we see what the authors want to avoid  a new specialised machines for a new strip till technology, they proposed a combined unit, including a tractor and two cheap machines: as  a  disc harrow and a chisel plough: –  A global knowledge this is not a strip till technique.

 The authors agree that these are old serial machines, - The term strip till is not suitable for such machines when they were created in ancient times, when such technology did not exist in principle, the authors agree, but they do not change the title of the article. So, what year of manufacture are these serial implements? Maybe you don't need to research something that has been researched for a long time.

The authors agree that the figure 1 and the figure 2 do not match, but they do not correct, so the purpose of soil surface leveling of roller of chisel plough is unclear.

 

The authors agree that Figure 1 shows a unit photographed in a field adjacent to the control section - authors do not show the research demonstration: - it is obviously the study has inaccuracies.

 From the answers of authors, we understand that the study investigated only the working depth of chisel. Why not working depth of disc harrow?  Other tasks were not studied, the conclusions not presented.

Author Response

We are grateful to the esteemed reviewer for the detailed analysis of our article. Please find answers to the comments in the appendix

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The improvement of machines in agriculture is welcome in principle - it promotes less environmental pollution, saving energy resources, and for this purpose a new advanced machines are created.

Dear authors, you don't have to explain to me what your problem is that you solve in the article, you must edit your paper so that the readers understand what the purpose of the research was, and what new results were obtained. How different or similar are they from studies done by other researchers. The authors do not review the paper – not presented the problem, its purpose, objectives, firm conclusions.

Your publication must provide the reader with new knowledge that has not been studied so far, which is exactly what in your publication is missing. Your work and your results could be used by other authors in the future for the research and application of Strip till machinery, so you must clearly present what you have discovered.

I see that you corrected the aim of research in line 118-120, but the abstract remained unchanged. The aim in the Abstract is: to change expensive machines to cheap ones, as you explain to me earlier, you cannot justify the prices of the machines.

You must make sure that the purpose of your research and the methodology of the work are clear, and whether relevant scientific results have been obtained.

 Authors can't submit a photo of the test (figure 1), they submit machine unit from somewhere else, that's why there is uncertainty about the performance of the test.

All the photos do not correspond to the research described in paper: figure 4 shows that it measures a flat field - we do not see the furrows, but in figure 9 we can already see the furrows in the spring.

Author Response

We would like to thank the esteemed reviewer of our article. We would also like to make some comments

I see that you corrected the aim of research in line 118-120, but the abstract remained unchanged. The aim in the Abstract is: to change expensive machines to cheap ones, as you explain to me earlier, you cannot justify the prices of the machines.

Abstract is corrected

All the photos do not correspond to the research described in paper: figure 4 shows that it measures a flat field - we do not see the furrows, but in figure 9 we can already see the furrows in the spring.

The studies assessed the field profile BEFORE, and not AFTER, the operation of the machine-tractor unit. The authors wanted to show a close correlation between oscillations in the initial field profile and oscillations in the depth of soil loosening. This connection is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. Figure 9 shows the background of the PROCESSED field. Really, the authors of the article should have included just one photograph of the profilometer against a new background. Due to the frequent use of this device in other studies, the authors could not provide its photo and method of use at all but refer to previous publications. Nevertheless, the article's authors consider the presence of Fig. 4 and the method of using the profilometer in this work to be appropriate.