Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film based on Small Soil Trough System
, Zhengxin Xu 1,3, Xufeng Wang 1,3,*, Long Wang 1,2,3, Jianfei Xing 1,3 and Wensong Guo 1,3
Abdollah Golmohammadi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
If possible: Compare the results obtained from this method with other modeling methods.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled "Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film basedon Small Soil Trough System"(Manuscript ID:agriculture- 1790752). We have studied the comments carefully. Those comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provide important guiding significance to our researchers.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.. In addition to the suggestions and problems put forward by experts, we have also modified and identified other problems found during the review.
The main correction in the paper and the responds to reviewer’s comments are as following:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors：
If possible: Compare the results obtained from this method with other modeling methods.
Response: Thanks for your careful comment for details. The main advantage of uniform test design over orthogonal test design is to greatly reduce the number of tests and shorten the test cycle. We have added the sentence “Due to many test factors, compared with the orthogonal test design adopted by Xue-nong Wang[26] and the response surface regression test method adopted by Jianhua Xie[27], the uniformity test method adopted in this paper reduces the number of tests and shortens the test cycle.”(Line 458-461) in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for article “Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film based
on Small Soil Trough System”
Manuscript ID: agriculture- 1790752
Title: Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film based on Small Soil Trough System
Authors: Can Hu, Zhengxin Xu, Xufeng Wang, Long Wang, Jianfei Xing and Wengsong Guo
The article is written very fluently. Sufficient research has been conducted. However, there are the following drawbacks.
The article is written very fluently. Sufficient research has been conducted. However, there are the following drawbacks:
1. 6th line: “College of Mechanicaland Electrical Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China;” The words “Mechanical” and “and” should be written separately. I think it is technical mistake;
2. The words «Film mulching» should be added into Key words.
3. 111-112th lines should be changed as a form “The morphological characteristics of residual membrane are shown in Figure 2, а.”
4. In 129 and 137 lines “λ - to the lifting angle of soil”, in 141st line “λ - is the lifting film angle”, which one is correct? It is misunderstandable.
5. In figure-3, “3. residual membrane debris” should be written with capital letters, like “3. Residual membrane debris”.
6. In 183-184th lines sentences “Inlet of dry and wet circulating water and fertilizer pipe 2. residual film 3. soil 4. sensor bracket 5. sensor display 6. sensor external wiring 7. film surface 8. drip irrigation belt 9. sensor and wall fixing point” would have been more correct if they had been written with commas: like “Inlet of dry and wet circulating water and fertilizer pipe 2, residual film 3, soil 4, sensor bracket 5, sensor display 6, sensor external wiring 7, film surface 8, drip irrigation belt 9, sensor and wall fixing point”.
7. SPATO micro sensor range: was 0~10N enough for determination lifting force of lifting film? Because, in 2nd table it is mentioned film lifting force is up to 15.386 N.
8. The definition was given for 2nd table, in 286-288th lines “Table 2 shows the results of uniformity experiment. Obviously, in the 50 preembedded residual mulch film samples, the mean lifting force of residual mulch film force all changed from 5.553N to 13.313N, showing an increasing trend.” had been mentioned , but in the table 5.665 N and 15.386 N were shown. Which one is more correct?
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled "Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film basedon Small Soil Trough System"(Manuscript ID:agriculture- 1790752). We have studied the comments carefully. Those comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, and they provide important guiding significance to our researchers.
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.. In addition to the suggestions and problems put forward by experts, we have also modified and identified other problems found during the review.
The main correction in the paper and the responds to reviewer’s comments are as following:
Reviewer: 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors：
Review for article “Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film basedon Small Soil Trough System”
Manuscript ID: agriculture- 1790752
Title: Experimental Study on Optimal Recycling Mechanical Parameters of Cotton Field Mulch film based on Small Soil Trough System
Authors: Can Hu, Zhengxin Xu, Xufeng Wang, Long Wang, Jianfei Xing and Wengsong Guo
The article is written very fluently. Sufficient research has been conducted. However, there are the following drawbacks:
We would like to express our gratitude to you for your critical reading of our manuscript and valuable comments. Your constructive comments are very valuable for the improving of our researches and the revising of our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
- 6thline: “College of Mechanicaland Electrical Engineering, Tarim University, Alar 843300, China;” The words “Mechanical” and “and” should be written separately. I think it is technical mistake;
Response: We are very sorry for our unclear writing about the words “Mechanical” and “and”.We have carefully corrected this phrase according to your comment.(Line 6)
- The words«Film mulching» should be added into Keywords.
Response: Thank you for the useful comments about the keywords. We have added "film mulching" into Keywords and revised it as follows: “Keywords: film mulching; residual mulch film recycling; film lifting force; dry-wet cycle;”(Line 29)
- 111-112thlines should be changed as a form “The morphological characteristics of residual membrane are shown in Figure 2, а.”
Response: Special gratitude for your careful examination. We have corrected this unclear antecedent according to your comment with “The morphological characteristics of residual membrane are shown in Figure 2а. Figure 2b depicts main forms of residual film in soil. ” in the manuscript.(Line 111-113)
- In 129 and 137lines “λ - to the lifting angle of soil”, in 141st line “λ - is the lifting film angle”, which one is correct? It is misunderstandable.
Response: Thank you for your comment about details. We have examined and corrected the format of the errors in 129 and 137 lines. “λ” should be the lifting film angle. We have changed the sentences to “When the mechanical force Fz of residual mulch film fragments worked upward according to the lifting film angle λ of mechanical film lifting device, the mechanical pulling force of residual mulch film itself must overcome soil pressure and adhesion force to complete film lifting and realize effective recycling of residual mulch film.”(Line 128-131) and “When the mechanical force Fz of residual mulch film fragments worked upward according to the lifting film angle λ of mechanical film lifting device, it should be satisfied the following condition:”(Line 136-138) in the manuscript.
- In figure-3,“3. residual membrane debris” should be written with capital letters, like “3. Residual membrane debris”.
Responsse: Thanks for your comment about details. We apologize for the mistake of writing lowercase letters. We have changed “3. residual membrane debris” to “3, Residual membrane debris”. And we have written they with commas with “ 1, Drip irrigation belt 2, Upper soil 3, Residual membrane debris 4, Soil 5, Lower soil” (Line 134)
- In183-184th lines sentences “Inlet of dry and wet circulating water and fertilizer pipe 2. residual film 3. soil 4. sensor bracket 5. sensor display 6. sensor external wiring 7. film surface 8. drip irrigation belt 9. sensor and wall fixing point” would have been more correct if they had been written with commas: like “Inlet of dry and wet circulating water and fertilizer pipe 2, residual film 3, soil 4, sensor bracket 5, sensor display 6, sensor external wiring 7, film surface 8, drip irrigation belt 9, sensor and wall fixing point”.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the sentences to “1, Inlet of dry and wet circulating water and fertilizer pipe 2, Residual film 3, Soil 4, Sensor bracket 5, Sensor display 6, Sensor external wiring 7, Film surface 8, Drip irrigation belt 9, Sensor and wall fixing point”.(Line 183-185)
- SPATO micro sensor range: was 0~10N enough for determination lifting force of lifting film?Because, in2nd table it is mentioned film lifting force is up to 15.386 N.
Response: Thanks for the expert's careful review. We apologize for the mistake of writing the sensor range. The range of SPATO micro sensor used in our experiment is 0-20N. We have changed the sentence to “(SPATO SBT630 micro S-shaped tension pressure sensor, produced by Guangzhou SPATO Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., range: 0~20N, accuracy: ±0.001N)”.(Line 175-176)
- The definition was given for2nd table, in 286-288th lines “Table 2 shows the results of uniformity experiment. Obviously, in the 50 preembedded residual mulch film samples, the mean lifting force of residual mulch film force all changed from 5.553N to 13.313N, showing an increasing trend.” had been mentioned , but in the table 5.665 N and 15.386 N were shown. Which one is more correct?
Response: Thanks for the expert's careful review. We apologize for the mistake of writing the mean lifting force of residual mulch film force. We have changed the sentence to “Obviously, in the 50 pre-embedded residual mulch film samples, the mean lifting force of residual mulch film force all changed from 5.665N to 15.386N, showing an increasing trend”.
Many typographical or numerical errors have been revised. All the lines indicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thanks the reviewers for the kind advice.
Best regards,
Can Hu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
