Detection of Scots Pine Single Seed in Optoelectronic System of Mobile Grader: Mathematical Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
!Check the data in line №83
Has a high scientific contribution in the field of theory and applied physics in the development of modern machines for extraction of forest reproductive materials with high sowing qualities.
The development of modern machines with optical devices for cleaning and sorting of viable forest seeds will significantly reduce the costs of greenhouse production of container seedlings for afforestation of forest areas.
At present, there are few theoretical studies in the world dedicated to photo-sensory technologies in the field of forest seed cleaning and sorting.
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for his highly professional comments, which significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
All changes to the manuscript are presented in the PDF-version. Added changes in Word-version marked in green. To track all changes (added and deleted items) please enable the "All changes"-mode on the Review tab.
Response to your comments please see attachment file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is devoted to the practical issue of evaluating the quality of seeds of forest trees, and more specifically to evaluating the geometric and energy models for detecting single seeds in the mobile grader diagnostic system using near-infrared radiation. This is an issue on the borderline between forestry and technology, and I wonder if it would not be better to publish it in a strictly technical journal like „Inventions”. Below is a list of comments on the text.
Keywords
It seems to me that the use of the unexplained abbreviation (NIR) is not correct
Introduction
L40 – it is useful to state what part of the seed is unusable, so that the reader can judge the scale of the problem
L61-63 – problems with sentence construction
L68-70 – no source of information
L70-71 – It would be worth specifying that in their research the authors focus on the measurement of diffuse reflection, as it follows from the rest of the paper. It would also be useful to emphasise the importance of this research, to what extent it can be useful in global forestry.
Materials and methods
Subchapter 3.1 – perhaps it is worth adding an illustrative drawing with marked semi axes a, b and c? How do the seed dimensions of Scots pine from the Voronezh region relate to the average seed dimensions of this species? This would justify the importance of this study for other regions besides Voronezh itself. There is no explanation of where the empirical formulas used to calculate b and c came from
Subchapter 3.2.
Parameters – For the first two parameters references to the literature are given, are there none for the others? are these assumptions made solely for the purpose of this study and not previously formulated?
Figure 1 – check the correctness of the wording "Formation block radiation". How does the beam get through lens 5' to receiver 4 if there is no window in the seed pipe at this point?
L104 – no explanation of the abbreviation VAS
L115 – Why is Windows initialled with a capital letter?
L122-125 – it should be briefly explained how the coefficients R and T are determined
L134 – should it not be '(R) of spectral signals...'?
Table 1 – There is a lack of explanation for the symbols used in Functional groups, especially as the symbols are repeated. The lack of horizontal lines separating the rows makes the interpretation of the table difficult
Results and Discussion
L157 (equation 4) - the final unit is mW/mm2 and not mW/mm
L159 – there should be a colon rather than an opening parenthesis
L162 – Is the L1 mentioned here a term for the first lens (relative to the laser - so it would appear from the context of the sentence) or is it the distance L1 in Figure 1? These symbols should be clarified, as it is confusing. Especially that Fig 2 shares the same numbering as Fig 1 of the element no.3 (window), so you should be consistent in terms of designations
L165 – in L109-110 length of the seed used in this particular study is about 6 mm, not 7 mm… Especially since 2.5*6 is the 15 mm mentioned further in L166 (2.5*7 is 17.5 mm)
Figure 2 – in the description at the end it is worth adding that 3 is the window through which the beam enters the seed pipe
L185-190 – are these formulae necessary if they are not useful according to the authors anyway?
L197 – it is also worth marking in Fig 1 which window is the recording one, because there are two windows in the seed pipe
L200 – no explanation for x and y
Figure 3 – no explanation for the IL symbol. In fact, the seed is moving in the seed pipe and finally also its upper tip (and a fragment of the "eastern hemisphere") will be illuminated by an infrared beam (I assume that it is emitted continuously, the authors did not write that, so the transmission will be through the whole seed) - what is the significance of this for research? Why exactly this fragment at the edge of the seed is marked as being in contact with the beam? Please refer to this in the text (the same applies to Fig. 4)
L215 – in the symbols ls, bs and ss, 's' should be a subscript
L217-218 – by the two extreme rays (1 and 2)…
L223 – „into a photodetector (No 4 on Figure 1)”
L225 – „These two extreme beams (? or rays??)”
How does equations 10 come out of equation 9? I tried to transform this equation and something else came out; additionally: xo = something*xo?
L250 – „average beam (or ray?) 3…”
L253 – is this a task for readers? because it was formulated that way (also L240, L273/274, L297)
L263 – „middle beam (or ray?)”
L270 – on Fig 5 α1 ≠ β1
L277 – rather ray than beam
L290 – „As the third case (…) is most likely a second seed” – not very understandable - do you mean that it is similar to the second case?
L297 – It is also worth referring to Fig 1, where there is a 3' designation (Fig 6 does not have this designation)
L314-315 – check the correctness of the lens symbols in this sentence, because in the Block of receivers of the transmission radiation (Fig. 1) there is a lens 5'', not 5'
L323 – what L1 and L2 lens system? no L1 and L2 markings are visible in Fig 3
L342-348 – this text should have been inserted much earlier, in the description of the device
L367-368 – „A fairly small number of seeds (no more than 10 in each batch) will reduce the separation time of subsequent batches” – It has not been mentioned before that any breaks are needed at all. Basically, the mechanism of the device is too poorly described.
The second part of subsection 3.2. is in no way related to the title of this subsection.
L383 – I think there is a missing symbol iS
L433 – How do you know that these changes are of a magnitude 3-5%?
L439 – „about several percent” – this is not precise information
There is no discussion of the results in this chapter (nor in the article)
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for the compliment.
Added changes in Word-version marked in yellow.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for considering my previous comments. Unfortunately, the revised text at my disposal does not have the changes marked, which makes it difficult for me to find and assess them. For this reason, I suggest for the future to correct in the mode visible to the reviewer of the registration of changes. One last general remark - Forests has a new layout for its articles this year, and I do not know whether you should not improve this as well. Below are my last detailed comments on the text.
Materials and methods
Subchapter 2.1
L109-110 – this sentence (It should...) should be after the sentence from L107-108 (The dimension...), as it also specifies factors influencing the size of the seeds. Additionally, the sources of this information should be added
L108-109 – it is not clear whether quotation No. 27 also refers to the sentence about the size of seeds in the north-eastern regions of Poland. Furthermore, this region of Poland should be given as an example ("e.g. in the north-eastern regions of Poland"), as in the text the authors do not refer to every country where Scots pine grows.
Subchapter 3.2.
Figure 2 – Shouldn't the lower window in the left wall of the seed pipe (because you can see that it is two separate windows) be called "3" because it is rather the window used for "registering transmission"? Maybe the currently described window 3 should be named as further on in the text, i.e. "input recording window" and given a different symbol from the other windows? The most logical would be to name the first window, which has contact with the beam, as 31 and the other windows as 32. In such a situation Figure 3 and its description should be verified
L178-180 – I do not see the information about R and T completed in the text, please add it this way: „As a separation criterion, it is necessary to use the seed absorbance value, A (Table 1), determined by the diffuse reflectance R (the ratio of the radiation flux reflected from the seed surface to the light source flux) or transmittance T (the ratio of the flow passed through the seed to the light source flux) and obtained on the basis of our own experiments…”
Table 1 – I propose to remove (1) in the Table, and under the table instead of "Note: 1." write: Explanations. In fact, it is not clear why the three different abbreviations have this symbol 1 and the other abbreviations have no symbol.
Results and Discussion
L253 – Perhaps a link could be added at the end to Fig. 1, where the axes are shown?
L483 – should be 3.4, not 3.3
L489 – please provide an explanation in the text as to why these 3-5%
The discussion of the results customarily requires literature references, and the current text still does not have this (there are very few). In the whole results the reference to external sources of information is only in L208, L269, L359, L366, L430, L436, L465, L503, in fact it is 5 literature items (33, 39, 40, 41, 42), where it is often difficult to consider it as an element of discussion, i.e. COMMENTARY to the results (e.g. giving laser modul L208 cannot be considered as an element of discussion). This would need to be supplemented, as it is an element of any good article. If there are no literature items that could be used to comment on the results achieved, this should be noted in the text.
Author Response
We are very much grateful for the constructive comments given by the reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
