Problems of Sustainable Agriculture with Regard to the Destruction of the European Corn Borer in Maize Plantations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the "Problems of sustainable agriculture with regard to the destruction of the European corn borer in maize plantations." The paper is impressive and could be of interest to researchers and journal readers. However, some revisions are necessary before making a final decision.

 

- The abstract requires revision to clearly convey the study's background, including the rationale for conducting the research. Most importantly, it should introduce the study's global significance and contribution.

- The content in lines 42–48 and 87–92 should not be presented as mere lists. These sections should be rewritten into cohesive sentences or paragraphs. Please reorganize the language for better flow.

- The introduction should highlight the novelty of the research and emphasize the gaps in previous studies that this work addresses.

- In the “Materials and Methods” section, the statistical methods and mapping tools used should be clearly explained.

- In lines 97–98, the coordinates for "Bydgoszcz University of Technology (53.173581, 17.746191)" need clarification. What do these numbers refer to in the context of the study?

- The third section, labeled “Results,” should focus solely on presenting the research findings. Any discussion of these results should be moved to a separate “Discussion” section to avoid confusion.

- The findings from this research should be compared with those of previous studies to provide context and support the discussion.

- In lines 183–186, the discussion appears incomplete. If there is no need to elaborate further on the results in this paragraph, consider removing it along with any related figures.

- In the “Patents” section, the authors introduce patents they have developed. Please clarify the scientific significance of these patents by presenting data on how they improve related work, comparing them to previous studies, and providing actual case studies where applicable.

- Check the paragraph indent in line 258 for consistency with the rest of the document.

- The ‘Conclusions’ section is overly complex and should be simplified to emphasize the scientific contributions of the paper. It should also address the limitations of the current study and provide suggestions for future research.

- Avoid listing the conclusions one by one; instead, synthesize them into a coherent narrative.

 

- The text in all figures is difficult to read. Please increase the font size to ensure that the information is clearly legible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your in-depth review. All the suggested changes have been taken into account. A response to each of the comments has been included, or changes have been made directly in the text. Thank you for stating that the article is impressive and interesting for readers. All the more reason to apply the reviewer's suggested changes so that the text of the article is even better.

Comments 1: The abstract requires revision to clearly convey the study's background, including the rationale for conducting the research. Most importantly, it should introduce the study's global significance and contribution.

Response 1: The authors made changes directly to the text of the article.

Comments  2: The content in lines 42–48 and 87–92 should not be presented as mere lists. These sections should be rewritten into cohesive sentences or paragraphs. Please reorganize the language for better flow.

Response 2: The authors made changes directly to the text of the article.

Comments 3: The introduction should highlight the novelty of the research and emphasize the gaps in previous studies that this work addresses

Response 2: The authors made changes directly to the text of the article.

Comments 4: In the “Materials and Methods” section, the statistical methods and mapping tools used should be clearly explained

Response 4: The program Statistica 13 has been used to perform the calculations. As a result of the analysis of the data, we have obtained for individual repetitions - which are presented in the form of graphs:

•  the height of the larvae residence
• cutting height of the stem
• the diameter of the maximum stem at the height of the insect's presence

For both variables studied, that is, corn cultivation for grain as well as for green fodder, the average line was marked.

In the next step, correlation of the following variables was conducted:

• the height of the stem cut relative to the larvae residence height
• the larvae residence height relative to stem diameter at insect residence height
• the height of the stem cut relative to the insect's larvae residence height in the stem
• the larvae residence height relative to stem diameter at larvae residence height

For all the above, Pearson's correlation coefficient R was performed and then the coefficient of determination R2  was calculated.

Comments 5: In lines 97–98, the coordinates for "Bydgoszcz University of Technology (53.173581, 17.746191)" need clarification. What do these numbers refer to in the context of the study?

Response 5:Entomological surveys were carried out in a field belonging to the Bydgoszcz University of Technology at the Research Station in Minikowo, Kujawsko-PomorskieVoivodeship, Poland (53.168 N; 17.745 E) while laboratory tests were set up at our University (53.143 N; 18.129 E).

Comments 6: The third section, labeled “Results,” should focus solely on presenting the research findings. Any discussion of these results should be moved to a separate “Discussion” section to avoid confusion.

Response 6: In order to avoid confusion, the authors of the paper have proposed changing the name of the chapter to Results and Discussion, so as to clearly indicate the content of this part of the article.

Comments 7: The findings from this research should be compared with those of previous studies to provide context and support the discussion. In lines 183–186, the discussion appears incomplete. If there is no need to elaborate further on the results in this paragraph, consider removing it along with any related figures.

Response 7: The results included in the paper constitute novel material and it is difficult at this stage of knowledge to compare them with other research results in the available literature. The authors have presented a very broad review of the literature so as to give a picture of the problem, which is the occurrence of the pest in corn plantations. Other authors in their papers also see this problem, but do not present such detailed research results as in this reviewed text of the article. Others mainly address the issue of chemical control and the problems of its application. In our text, you can find a detailed analysis of the places where the pest occurs in the plant, so that the process of protecting corn plantations in subsequent years can be carried out mechanically.

Comments 8: In lines 183–186, the discussion appears incomplete. If there is no need to elaborate further on the results in this paragraph, consider removing it along with any related figures.

Response 8: According to the authors, the paragraph in lines 183-186 should remain in the article, as in the course of the study, relationships were found between the thickness of the corn stalk and the residence height of the European corn borer in stubble.

Comments 9: In the “Patents” section, the authors introduce patents they have developed. Please clarify the scientific significance of these patents by presenting data on how they improve related work, comparing them to previous studies, and providing actual case studies where applicable.

Response 9: Patents that are designs for new machinery or equipment are not by their nature scientifically significant, but have a utilitarian meaning, i.e. the presented machine design solution is to contribute to the destruction of the European corn borer in a mechanical way. It is to be an alternative to the use of chemical plant protection products, so that growers have the opportunity to cultivate crops in an ecological manner.

Comments 10: Check the paragraph indent in line 258 for consistency with the rest of the document.

Response 10: The authors made changes directly to the text of the article.

Comments 11: The ‘Conclusions’ section is overly complex and should be simplified to emphasize the scientific contributions of the paper. It should also address the limitations of the current study and provide suggestions for future research. Avoid listing the conclusions one by one; instead, synthesize them into a coherent narrative.

Response 11: In the opinion of the authors of the article, conclusions should always be bulleted, which can refer to individual sections of the article, and this makes it easier for readers to perceive the text.

On the other hand, if the editor of the journals indicates such an arrangement as required the authors will adapt to this.

Comments 12: The text in all figures is difficult to read. Please increase the font size to ensure that the information is clearly legible.

Response 12: Of course, if during the final work in the editorial office it turns out that drawings and diagrams are not very legible authors will provide them in the required size and quality.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the significant harm caused by corn borers and investigates the real occurrence of the pest in corn stubble. The authors compared the average stubble height harvested at different stages and the parasitic height of European corn borer at different stages. The author proposes a machine structure design intended for destroying residual corn stalks and roots to disrupt the parasitic environment of corn borers.

There are some problems with the paper:

The paper as a whole is too simplistic, with simple investigations and statistics on corn harvesting height, corn borer parasitism height, etc., lacking detailed experiments and statistical analysis, also lacking actual pictures and other data. The author has only proposed a preliminary plan for a machine to remove corn residues, and has not yet conducted processing design and experimental verification, so the practical effect of the machine is unknown.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your in-depth review. All the suggested changes have been taken into account. A response to each of the comments has been included, or changes have been made directly in the text.

Comments 1: The paper as a whole is too simplistic, with simple investigations and statistics on corn harvesting height, corn borer parasitism height, etc., lacking detailed experiments and statistical analysis, also lacking actual pictures and other data. The author has only proposed a preliminary plan for a machine to remove corn residues, and has not yet conducted processing design and experimental verification, so the practical effect of the machine is unknown.

Response 1: The studies presented in the paper are at an early stage and will be continued in a research project or in future publications. Currently, the authors are at the stage of filing a protective application for the new original machine design proposed in the paper. At the next stages of the studies, a prototype machine will be constructed and the studies will be continued under field conditions. At the same time, continuous field research is being carried out to observe the movement of the pest in the corn stalk in terms of different cultivation methods, as well as the intensity of its occurrence in successive years of field use.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: “Problems of sustainable agriculture with regard to the destruction of the European corn borer in maize plantations” fits well into the aims and scope of Sustainability.

 General:

This manuscript presented the design of machine construction for destroying the European corn borer mechanically without using crop protection chemicals. The conclusion covered the most important points mentioned in the article. References with no self-publication. The article handles an important point and is well-written however, some corrections are required in the comments for authors:  

Comments:

1- Some abbreviations are missed so please add a list of abbreviations.

2- The aim of the work in the abstract and at the end of the introduction sections should be the same. Please unify.

3- The Results section should be “Results and Discussion”. There is no separate discussion section because the authors merged Results and Discussion in the Results section.

4- Recent reference 2024 should be added.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your in-depth review. All the suggested changes have been taken into account. A response to each of the comments has been included, or changes have been made directly in the text.

Comments 1:  Some abbreviations are missed so please add a list of abbreviations.

Response 1: The authors of the article are willing to respond to the reviewer's remark, however, they do not understand what the point is. The article does not present abbreviations that require explanation. Possible chemical designations are explained in the body of the article and are generally known.

Comments 2: The aim of the work in the abstract and at the end of the introduction sections should be the same. Please unify.

Response 2: The authors have made changes to the abstract and introduction according to the comments of the other reviewers.

Comments 3: The Results section should be “Results and Discussion”. There is no separate discussion section because the authors merged Results and Discussion in the Results section.

Response 3: The authors of the paper applied the correction directly in the text of the article.

Comments 4: Recent reference 2024 should be added

Response 4: The authors are still looking for matching articles from 2024. However, of the available publications that are thematically related to the article, we suggest items from 2023.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The original review comments did not receive appropriate responses, and the improvements in the revised paper were not significant enough.

Possible areas for improvement in the paper:

1) In terms of existing research statistics, it is necessary to add some suitable on-site images, such as field images for maize harvested for green fodder and for grain, to display the height of maize stalk residues. It is better to show pictures of maize stalks with different stem diameter, and comparison images of European corn borers infestations at different positions on maize residues at different times. It is also possible to add statistical analysis of results from different perspectives.

2) It is better to evaluate the performance parameters of the designed machine or conduct simulation analysis, such as analyzing the required cutting blade speed and power. If there are corn stalks with different inclination angles and thicknesses, how to ensure complete cutting and ensure that the cutting residue height meets the requirements?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful review and re-assessment of the article.

Comments 1: In terms of existing research statistics, it is necessary to add some suitable on-site images, such as field images for maize harvested for green fodder and for grain, to display the height of maize stalk residues. It is better to show pictures of maize stalks with different stem diameter, and comparison images of European corn borers infestations at different positions on maize residues at different times. It is also possible to add statistical analysis of results from different perspectives.

 

Response 1: In response to this remark, the text of the article includes photos and additional text explaining the issue. The photographs present the crop field on which the studies were conducted. The photographs included show the condition of the field after harvesting corn for green fodder and harvesting corn for grain. The photographs clearly show that the part of the field where the harvest of corn for green fodder was carried out is cleaner, i.e. there is no visible residue of shredded material, as this directly goes to farm trailers and is transported to silos. This shredding takes place about one month sooner than harvesting corn for grain. In the second photograph, the shredded remains of stalks, leaves and threshed corn cobs are characteristic. In the part of the field where the grain was harvested, the remaining parts of the stalk are shredded and left in the field.

In the field photographs, the invasion of the pest cannot be depicted as the reviewer suggests, since the pest resides inside the stem and this is the problem of its control. In addition, at different periods of plant growth, the Omacnica larvae reside at different heights of the stem, counting from the ground level.

The main problem is in corn plantations for grain. At that time, the pest resides below the cut line of the stalk, so that it remains in the intact part of the stalk after the combine has passed. The corn borer, moving toward the root, prepares for the winter period (diapause), and the only possible tool at that time to break the overwintering period is the mechanical destruction of the stalk residue, which is what the authors suggest.

 

Comments 2: It is better to evaluate the performance parameters of the designed machine or conduct simulation analysis, such as analyzing the required cutting blade speed and power. If there are corn stalks with different inclination angles and thicknesses, how to ensure complete cutting and ensure that the cutting residue height meets the requirements?

 

Response 2: The machine described in the article for destroying corn stubble and, as a final result, the European corn borer, is presented in the form of a drawing, which is required by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland, as well as in the countries of the European Union. It is an original, author's solution. Once the patent number is assigned, the authors will make a proper design of the structure with its detailed dimensions and materials used, as well as parts. Based on this, a prototype of the machine will be constructed on a real scale, and only then can measurements be made of the machine's resistance to motion, power requirements and permissible speeds of use. These aspects and, in particular, the results of simulation and experimental studies of the new machine design will be addressed and described in the following publications.

Conducting a simulation analysis of a machine without knowing its detailed dimensions would not add much to the case and can always be challenged. The material from simulation calculations for a real-scale machine can provide material for the next publication. The authors of this paper would like to mention that they are aware of this fact and have many years of experience in developing and studying the design of agricultural machinery for cutting plant materials and have presented this in various types of publications, below are some of them:

1. Zastempowski, M., Bochat, A., Wachowicz, M., Tanaś, W. Studies on the Energy Consumption of Material Cutting in the Onion Peeling Process. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 2023, 13(22), 12276
2. Hujo, Ľ., Janoušková, R., Simikić, M., Zastempowski, M.... Michalides, M., Hajdáková, M. Characteristics of Ecological Energy Carriers Used in Agricultural Technology. Processes, 2022, 10(9), 1895

3. Zastempowski, M., Bochat, A., Hujo, L., Jablonicky, J., Janiec, M. IMPACT OF CUTTING UNITS' DESIGN ON BIOMASS CUTTING RESISTANCE. Acta Mechanica et Automatica, 2022, 16(3), pp. 259–265
4. Bochat, A., Zastempowski, M., Wachowicz, M. Cutting tests of the outer layer of material using onion as an example. Materials, 2021, 14(9), 2360
5. Bochat, A., Zastempowski, M. Comparative studies on the cutting process. Transactions of the ASABE, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Vol. 63(2), 2020, 345-350.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Provided appropriate responses to the previously raised questions

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall evaluation is to reject the manuscript in its current form. I recommend resubmission after rewriting. The manuscript is not clearly designed to reflect the aims. There is insufficient supporting literature to back up the results, the discussion is poorly written, and the conclusions do not accurately represent the study's findings.

Here are remarks that will help the authors improve their manuscript.

 

1- In the Abstract, lines 15-16, the statement "the analysis...the world" should be moved to the Introduction section, before the aims, where you discuss the research gap your study addresses.

2- The aim of this manuscript is not correctly stated as it is mentioned in the Materials and Methods section.

3- Does the 20% mentioned in line 17 refer to the authors' work? If so, it is incorrect to include it in the Abstract.

4- The abstract as a whole does not accurately reflect the results of the study, nor does it clearly state the aims or how they relate to what was actually done.

5- Lines 29-39 need to be cited.

6- All scientific names must be written in italics.

7- In the Introduction, there are no previous studies reported on the effect of European corn borers and their relation to the gap this research aims to fill.

8- In the Materials and Methods section, correct the chemical notation, for example, K₂O.

9- Line 167, replace in “own studies”

10- Add the “P” values to Figures 4 -7.

11- Line 209 “In my opinion”?

12- The new design of the working unit of the machine for effective control of the European corn borer is not mentioned in the Materials section.

13- The Conclusions section does not properly reflect the main results and their applications, particularly in regard to point 3.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs extensive corrections in academic English.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on writing this paper. Although the topic is interesting, it is out of the scope of this journal. 

General comments: The paper focuses on the case studies that have successfully treated pest control in corn production. The knowledge regarding the growth and development of the pest is interesting. The experiment conducted by the authors looks ambiguous. If the experiment is done as mentioned in the paper, it would be crucial to disclose all the details of the experiment. That will give more authenticity to the paper. However, the term “Sustainability” is used loosely and in a general manner. Kindly read the scope of the journal and make sure that your paper is suitable.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "Problems of Sustainable Agriculture with regard to the Destruction of the European Corn Borer in Maize Plantations"

Introduction:

The article discusses a timely and important topic related to sustainable agriculture, specifically the control of the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) in maize plantations. The authors aim to address the issue of pest management while aligning with the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Overall, the article presents an interesting and timely study on the control of the European corn borer in maize plantations. The development of a new mulching device aligns with sustainable agriculture principles and has the potential to improve pest management. However, with some revisions to address the weaknesses identified above, the paper could make an even stronger contribution to the field.

1. Consider reorganizing sections to enhance readability and flow, for example, by combining related material and clarifying section headings.
2. While the authors mention that they conducted a literature review, more details on the key findings and how they relate to the current study would strengthen the paper. Consider expanding this section to provide a more comprehensive background.
3. Comparing the proposed device directly with existing methods in terms of efficiency, cost, and environmental impact would improve the persuasiveness of the arguments.
4. The proposed device is still in the design phase. There is no empirical validation or testing presented to demonstrate its effectiveness in the field. Further research is needed to validate the performance of the new machine.
5. More details on the statistical analysis of the field survey results would add rigor to the study. Consider including measures of variability (e.g., standard deviation) and conducting statistical tests to support the conclusions.
6. The article lacks a detailed comparison with existing methods and devices for corn borer control. Such a comparison would strengthen the arguments for the novelty and advantages of the proposed solution.
7. The figures are useful in illustrating the proposed design and findings. However, adding captions and axis labels to the figures would improve clarity.