Next Article in Journal
Mathematical Modeling of Heat and Mass Transfer during Moisture–Heat Treatment of Castor Beans to Improve the Quality of Vegetable Oil
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Tillage Methods on Crop Root Growth Trend Based on 3D Modeling Technology
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing Different Methods for Wheat LAI Inversion Based on Hyperspectral Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis and Experiment of Dynamic Picking Process of Spindle of Cotton Picker
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Cutting Mechanical Properties of Pumpkin Grafted Seedling Investigated by Finite Element Simulation and Experiment

Agriculture 2022, 12(9), 1354; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091354
by Daipeng Lu 1,2, Wei Wang 1, Encai Bao 1, Shilin Wang 1, Xue Wu 1, Zongchun Bai 1 and Yuxin Tang 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Agriculture 2022, 12(9), 1354; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091354
Submission received: 15 August 2022 / Revised: 24 August 2022 / Accepted: 29 August 2022 / Published: 1 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The cutting device in the seedling grafting process was studied, which provided a reference for optimizing the structural parameters and working parameters of important shearing components in the seedling grafting line, thereby improving the performance of the cutting device.The dynamic cutting process of the cutting device was numerically simulated. This research could prolong the service life of the cutter, improve the cutting quality, and finally provide a reference for the design and improvement of vegetable seedling grafting line cutting equipment.

The author has conducted a large number of surveys and summaries of the global research status.The literature and research status are comprehensively grasped.The writing content of the thesis is more logical, the writing is more standardized, and the literature annotation style is unified.The research plan of this paper is reasonable, the content is complete, the arguments are prominent and clear, and the arguments are reliable.

 I personally think that the full text of this article is well-arranged, the levels are clear, the language is fluent, and the expression is accurate; there is no suggestion for further revisions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the author described The cutting device in the seedling grafting process was studied, which provided a reference for optimizing the structural parameters and working parameters of important shearing components in the seedling grafting line, thereby improving the performance of the cutting device.The dynamic cutting process of the cutting device was numerically simulated. The effects of four factors, the average cutting speed (X1), the sliding angle (X2), the cutting edge angle (X3) and the cutter clearance (X4), on the cutting force were studied. The optimal combination of structural parameters and working parameters of the cutting device was determined. A high-speed cutting device for grafted seedlings was built and the cutting experiment was carried out. The experiment results showed that the simulated values fit well with the experimental data.The finite element simulation of the seedling grafting cutting device reduces the experiment cost and provides a reference for the development of the seedling grafting line.

The manuscript is innovative, the parameter optimization method is unique, the mechanism design - parameter optimization - simulation analysis - test verification ideas are clear, strong logic; The research content of this manuscript has good guidance to the design and research of the actual prototype.

However, the manuscript has the following contents that need to be modified:

1. There are many instances where language need to be polished. For example, it's better to rephrase the descrption of vegetable grafting cultivation in Line 31-34 to make it read more smoothly. Please supplement some relevant references to the introduction of vegetable grafting cultivation in the first paragraph.

2. Line 51.Therefore, the structural parameters……” rewrite. Write in passive tense, rather than active.

3. Keep your writing in the same verb tense. For instance, the Line 60-62 shoud be in the past tense.

4. Delete the extra blank between 40 and the sign of unit in Line 88.

5. Please explain the difference between "stem height" and "stem length" in Line 353-354.

6. Updated and relevant reference need to be used.

7. English need to improve as there are many grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for your comments and we have carefully revised the manuscript following the comments and suggestions raised by reviewers. Following is the response list.

Comments from reviewers

1. There are many instances where language need to be polished. For example, it's better to rephrase the descrption of vegetable grafting cultivation in Line 31-34 to make it read more smoothly. Please supplement some relevant references to the introduction of vegetable grafting cultivation in the first paragraph.

The authors’ Answer: We greatly appreciate the comments. We have rewritten these sentences and supplemented some relevant references to the introduction of vegetable grafting cultivation in the first paragraph. (Line 33-35, see the modified version of manuscript).

2. Line 51.“Therefore, the structural parameters……” rewrite. Write in passive tense, rather than active.

The authors’ Answer: We have changed the active tense to passive tense as “Therefore, the cutting mechanical properties could be influenced by the structural and working parameters of the cutter, and the cutting operation mode”. (Line 55-56, see the modified version of manuscript).

3. Keep your writing in the same verb tense. For instance, the Line 60-62 shoud be in the past tense.

The authors’ Answer: Thanks for your reminding. We have checked and revised the verb tense throughout the full manuscript.

4. Delete the extra blank between 40 and the sign of unit in Line 88.

The authors’ Answer:Done.

5. Please explain the difference between "stem height" and "stem length" in Line 353-354.

The authors’ Answer:Thank you very much for your reminding. We have supplemented the information about the “stem height” and “stem length”.(Line 360-361, see the modified version of manuscript).

6. Updated and relevant reference need to be used.

The authors’ Answer:We greatly appreciate the comments and have updated some relevant references. (see the modified version of manuscript).

7. English need to improve as there are many grammatical mistakes.

The authors’ Answer:Thank you very much for your reminding. We have revised all the  grammatical mistakes in the manuscript and the manuscript was checked by a native English-speaking colleague.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Back to TopTop