Development and Evaluation of a Prototype Self-Propelled Crop Sprayer for Agricultural Sustainability in Small Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper carried out both design and experiment of a narrow width self-propelled crop sprayer. The aim is to ensure the spraying efficiency of small farms and the effective application of agrochemicals. Although the system designed in this paper is not complex, it has strong practicability. However, there are some questions as followed. I recommend major revision.

1. In the key sections 3.2 and 3.3, the discussion is only discussed from the same point of view as the previous research results, but the particularity of this paper is not discussed, which leads to the lack of depth of discussion.

2. What is the relationship between laboratory test and field test? Please explain in the article.

3. The turning mode and turning radius of the sprayer is not mentioned in this paper, which has great influence on the operation efficiency of small plots. It is suggested to add verification test on turning radius of the sprayer.

4. The R² corresponding to 3.5 bar in P12 line 314 should be 0.92.

5. Pay attention to the correct use of punctuation marks. For example, the comma of P17 Line 423 '[37],' should be deleted; P21 Line 509 is missing a full stop.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

Dear Editor: Thanks for providing the reviewer comments. All the words and concerns were addressed. The detailed response to each reviewer’s concerns is presented below. The manuscript was modified based on the comments.

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of the English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper carried out both the design and experiment of a narrow-width self-propelled crop sprayer. The aim is to ensure the spraying efficiency of small farms and the effective application of agrochemicals. Although the system designed in this paper is not complex, it has strong practicability. However, there are some questions as followed. I recommend major revision.

Comment 1: In the key sections 3.2 and 3.3, the discussion is only discussed from the same point of view as the previous research results, but the particularity of this paper is not discussed, which leads to the lack of depth of discussion.

Answer 1: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 2: What is the relationship between laboratory tests and field tests? Please explain in the article.

Answer 2: Thanks for your comment. In laboratory tests, we just ensure the good performance of the nozzle before field testing. As we know improper volume distribution can affect the field results accuracy. That’s why we test the spray symmetry of the nozzle. And yes, as such there is no direct relation between laboratory and field testing, but indirect relation exists as we point out above. The explanation has been added to the manuscript (Manuscript section 2.2)

Comment 3. The turning mode and turning radius of the sprayer are not mentioned in this paper, which has a great influence on the operation efficiency of small plots. It is suggested to add a verification test on the turning radius of the sprayer.

Answer 3: Thanks for your suggestion. This issue has been addressed (Section 2.1.3).

Comment 4: The R² corresponding to 3.5 bar in P12 line 314 should be 0.92.

Answer 4: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed

Comment 5. Pay attention to the correct use of punctuation marks. For example, the comma of P17 Line 423 '[37],' should be deleted; P21 Line 509 is missing a full stop.

Answer 5: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been removed

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

I appreciate the way the whole manuscript has been constructed. There remain some gaps if curated can help in making the manuscript error free. These are

The stand units have not been used in explaining different numerical values, like for are, better to use ha, rather than an acre

In the introduction, please make this part more acceptable among all the readers across the globe, instead of focusing on every problem in Pakistan-centric, better to analog the agro-climatic condition around the world and explain its usage in similar conditions elsewhere. 

The biggest concern lies with methodology, the combination of treatments and experimental design, needs to be properly explained. It seems three factors and their different combinations were tested under a single experiment. 

Some of the general statements have been given without their source. This has been highlighted in the manuscript for further correction. 

The presentation of the references can be further improved, some of the references have not been adequately written, please revise these and present them. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for providing valuable comments. All your concerns were addressed

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I appreciate the way the whole manuscript has been constructed. There remain some gaps if curated can help in making the manuscript error-free. These are

Comment 1: The stand units have not been used in explaining different numerical values, like for are, better to use ha, rather than an acre.

Answer 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The issue has been addressed.

Comment 2: In the introduction, please make this part more acceptable among all the readers across the globe, instead of focusing on every problem in Pakistan-centric, better to analog the agro-climatic condition around the world and explain its usage in similar conditions elsewhere. 

Answer 2: Thanks for your suggestion. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 3: The biggest concern lies with methodology, the combination of treatments and experimental design, needs to be properly explained. It seems three factors and their different combinations were tested under a single experiment. 

Answer3: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 4: Some of the general statements have been given without their source. This has been highlighted in the manuscript for further correction. 

Answer 4: Thanks for your comment. A reference has been provided for the statement that you highlighted in the manuscript in line 489.

Comment 5: The presentation of the references can be further improved, some of the references have not been adequately written, please revise these and present them. 

Answer 5: Thanks for your correction. This issue has been addressed.

Reviewer comments in the manuscript file

Comment 1: Please do not restrict the article to one country, instead define agro-climatic conditions and accordingly explain its relevance under similar ecologies or other conditions. The viewership of the journal is global; hence the perspective should also be global.

Answer 1: Thanks for your suggestion. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 2: This much power is required for this self-propelled crop spryer, how it is different and better than drone-based applications, and what may be cost, and practicality consideration.

Answer 2: Thanks for your comment. This was not our objective to make the comparison between these two sprayers and yes, we will consider it in future research. It is much cheaper than a drone sprayer and as we all know, smallholdings farmers cannot purchase or afford drone sprayer technology.

Comment 3: Please rewrite the abstract, it’s too lengthy and repeats some of the sentences.

Answer 3: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 4: This is an ambiguous sentence, please rewrite it.

Answer 4: This issue has been solved.

Comment 5: check this data, the value seems at a very low level

Answer 5: Data has been verified and the issue has been resolved.

Comment 6: There are many common grammatical mistakes, need to improve your English to a greater extent.

Answer 6: Thanks for highlighting mistakes. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 7: This sentence can be presented in a better way, with clear meaning, please rewrite it.

Answer 7: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 8: Whether the self-propelled sprayer is economically viable compared to another available sprayer.

Answer 8: Thanks for your comment. This sentence has been rewritten.

Comment 9: Have very serious objections about experimental design, please make it clear and explain with proper scientific backing.

Answer 9: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed.

Comment 10: One replication of 27 treatments ??? it is not clear from the experimental layout, what were the treatments, please present them in a better way.

 

Answer 10: Thanks for the comment. No, it is 27 different treatments in one block and four blocks represent four replication for each of the 27 treatments. Actually, in each block, there are 27 plots which means one plot for one treatment.  In Table 2, we were given the name of the treatment as T1, T2, T3…, and in the layout, we also mention the treatment as T1, T2, T3….

 

Comment 11: The treatments have not been randomized in RCBD design, these have been imposed in the experimental field, and the biasness was not removed.

 

Answer 11: Thanks for your comment. We mistakenly add the wrong figure thanks for highlighting and yes, all treatments are randomized within the blocks and between the blocks in the experimental field. As you can see in the experimental layout Figure 7a.

 

Comment 12: These three variables are not separate factors and will impact the effect if compiled. If there is an interaction effect of these variables in combination, cannot analyze the three-factor statistical design.

 

Answer 12: Thanks for your comment. In each treatment, these three variables are used in combination. The interaction effect is also discussed in the results and discussion section.

 

Comment 13: These are 3 factors, then the authors have used different combinations, this can be better studied in other three-factor factorial RBD or SPD.

 

Answer 13: Thanks for your comment. In the future, this can be considered.

 

Comment 14: Can we include these number of treatments in RCBD, it will not impact the precise statistical analysis.

 

Answer 14: Thanks for your comment. Can you explain more because we couldn’t understand? And we think all issues have been addressed.

 

Comment 15: Please give optima for all these combination, a regression analysis can also be done with better results interpretation.

 

Answer 15: Thanks for your suggestion and yes, regression analysis can also be considered in the future. On the other hand, we obtained good results and parameter optimization is given in section 3.3.  

 

Comment 16:  Please make conclusion in a sentence not in port-wise. rewrite the conclusion.

 

Answer 16: Thanks for your comment. This issue has been addressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

According to the reviewer's comments, the paper mentioned the improvement of the discussion part of the article, and added the theoretical analysis content about the turning radius of the sprayer, etc. In general, the quality of the article meets the requirements for journal publication. We agree to accept it.

Author Response

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: According to the reviewer's comments, the paper mentioned the improvement of the discussion part of the article, and added the theoretical analysis content about the turning radius of the sprayer, etc. In general, the quality of the article meets the requirements for journal publication. We agree to accept it.

Answer 1: Thanks for your acceptance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Thanks for incorporating most of the suggestions in the final MS but regarding a number of treatments, which in this case were 27, at the most 20 treatments can be examined in RCBD. A number of treatments beyond 20 will negatively affect the statistical analysis and further interpretation. And the accuracy of the results will be compromised.  R.B.D. is not suitable for large number of treatments because in that case the block size will increase and it may not be possible to keep large blocks homogeneous

 

Author Response

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

 

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of the English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Comment 1: Thanks for incorporating most of the suggestions in the final MS but regarding the number of treatments, which in this case were 27, at the most 20 treatments can be examined in RCBD. A number of treatments beyond 20 will negatively affect the statistical analysis and further interpretation. And the accuracy of the results will be compromised.  R.B.D. is not suitable for a large number of treatments because in that case the block size will increase, and it may not be possible to keep large blocks homogeneous.

Answer 1: Thanks for your comment. Different opinions are available in the literature regarding the large number of treatments in RCBD, most opinions are saying there is no restriction on the number of treatments. And yes, your opinion is also true where there is a large variation between experimental units within a block, but in our case, plant height was the only source of variation within a block, and all plants were almost equal in height within the block, and we placed the water-sensitive paper on top of plant canopy so there was less variation in the data. Dear reviewer it is an open discussion suggest to me what further analysis can be performed on the data? The experiment has already been done and it is impossible to change for us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf