Enhancing Silvicultural Practices: A Productivity and Quality Comparison of Manual and Semi-Mechanized Planting Methods in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall Comments：
The study aims to evaluate and compare the productivity issues of manual and semi-mechanized planting methods, which holds a certain degree of scientific significance. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and the references cited are relevant to the research topic. Additionally, the tables and figures seem to provide some data support. For instance, Table 1 offers detailed information about the study locations, while Figures 3 and 4 visually present the comparisons between the different methods. These tools help the reader better understand the study's findings.
Detailed Comments：
However, the figures and tables in the manuscript lack specific statistical data, such as error bars representing standard deviation or standard error, or indications of statistical significance. In scientific papers, it is generally expected that figures clearly display data distribution and statistical relevance to allow readers to understand data variability and the comparison results between groups. This omission is the most apparent flaw in the manuscript, as most of the data is presented descriptively, without the necessary statistical analysis. This is the main reason why I think the manuscript should be carefully considered.
Author Response
Please see the attachment with responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presented by the authors is done on an interesting topic aimed at increasing the efficiency of eucalyptus planting due to partial mechanization of the process.
Unfortunately, the authors do not disclose the relevance of this work in terms of numerical measurable indicators, description of possible dangers, etc.
A positive aspect of the work is the description of the conditions for conducting experimental studies and the methods for processing the results.
As comments, I would like to note the following:
1. The relevance of the study is not sufficiently substantiated.
2. It is not clear what regulates the planting process.
3. The disadvantages of manual planting are not described in terms of measurable indicators.
4. The indicators of efficiency and quality in terms of soil characteristics and the planting site are not considered.
5. It is worth adding synthetic parameters describing a comprehensive description of the planting efficiency.
6. The conclusions do not reflect a numerical reflection of the degree of the achieved result.
7. Directions for further research look like tasks for this study, not disclosed by the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see marked-up pdf for more detail.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment with detailed responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and constructive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work presented by the authors is done on an interesting topic aimed at increasing the efficiency of eucalyptus planting due to partial mechanization of the process.
A positive aspect of the work is the description of the conditions for conducting experimental studies and the methods for processing the results.
The explanations given by the authors greatly facilitate the perception of the material.
The authors made an attempt to expand the possibilities of mechanization of planting in the conditions of South Africa.
As comments, I would like to note the following:
1. The significance of the plants under consideration for the economy and population of the region under consideration is unclear.
2. The significance of the release of human resources through mechanization is unclear from the point of view of the development of the region under consideration.
3. The conclusions made by the authors indicate the advantage of manual planting and it is not clear why it is necessary to study the unmechanized method.
Author Response
Please see the attachment with responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
