Study on the Method and Mechanism of Seedling Picking for Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Plug Seedlings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author proposed a new method for picking pepper plug seedlings, and designed the key component of fully automatic transplanting of peppers - the pepper plug seedling picking mechanism. The research content is innovative, and the argumentation method is scientifically rigorous. However, this work has some weaknesses, in my opinion, that require a revision.

1、What are the advantages of a probing seedling picking mechanism compared to other types of seedling picking mechanisms?

2、How to ensure assembly accuracy during the assembly process of non-circular gear systems?

3、How to avoid interference between the seedling picking arms during the rotation and seedling picking process of the double arm seedling picking mechanism? Suggest providing additional explanations.

4、In the seedling experiment section, what is the age of pepper seedlings? What is the average seedling height? Suggest providing additional explanations.

5、The font size in the image should be consistent, and the font size in Figure 1 should be the same as other images.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved. There are some minor problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.

1.The font and size of the text used in the image annotations in the paper should be consistent. For example, the font size in Figures 1 and 2 is inconsistent with the font size in the following images, and the font in the legend of Figures 14 and 16 is inconsistent.

2.The expression "Rice Seeding Angle" in Table 2 is incorrect. It is recommended to make corrections.

3.The Latin format in the title is not standardized and should be in italics. It is recommended to modify it.

4.What is the frame rate for high-speed camera shooting seedling experiments? Suggest providing additional explanations.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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 thesis proposes a new fully mechanized pepper transplanting method, which has certain research value. In order to realize the method, the thesis designed the corresponding mechanism and optimization software, and carried out experiments to verify the ideal results.

However, if you want to publish this thesis, there are still the following problems that need to be further solved in order to improve the content of the article and enhance the rigor and readability of the article:

1. Abstract

The abstract is too descriptive, not refined enough, and seriously lacks quantitative description. I suggest that the authors focus on the background of the study, significance of the study, research methodology, major findings and conclusions, and rewrite the abstract section.

2. Introduction

(1) For the introduction part, this thesis is more of a simple pile of previous scholars' research results, elaborates many redundant contents and does not categorize them reasonably, and needs to streamline the language and sort out the logic.

(2) The introduction of this paper is rather lacking in the review of references. In the introduction, you need to correlate the references to your paper topic. Please provide a clear and concise analysis of the state of the art based on the literature review, identify the shortcomings of these studies, and relate them to your dissertation research objectives by showing the relevance of this literature to your research objectives as well as the innovative nature of your article.

3. Illustrations

(1) The illustrations in this dissertation are all not accurate and exquisite enough, and even some of them can't let the readers visualize the meanings they express, such as Fig. 1 and Fig. 6.

(2) The illustrations in the whole paper are basically flat illustrations, if the expression of spatial trajectory, should we consider increasing the spatial coordinate system or using three-dimensional illustrations to express, such as Figure 7, Figure 9.

(3) Some illustrations are drawn by engineering drawing software, but it is obvious that the line thickness, line type, labeling font size and font are not uniform or not standardized enough, it is recommended to redraw, such as Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3.

(4) Figure 3 in the spring section of the expression is wrong, it is recommended to amend.

(5) Figure 6 partial enlargement of the expression is not standardized, it is recommended to amend.

(6) Figure 8 can be considered for deletion, if retained, please clearly express the serial number designation, the original expression is not clear.

4. Text

(1) In the first paragraph of Part 2.2.1, can the 11 optimization objectives be presented in a list, the existing expression is not intuitive enough.

(2) In the second paragraph of Section 2.2.1., can the optimized parameters also be presented in a list.

(3) Table 1 can be transformed into a data graph, which is more intuitive.

5. Discussion

(1) The discussion should preferably be listed as a separate section, and the discussion should be relevant to the theory, but the relevance of the research results to the current state of the art in the original article is not sufficiently demonstrated.

(2) The discussion should summarize the technical advantages of the study to reflect the innovative and scientific value of the thesis. It should also point out the stages and limitations of the paper in order to lead to future follow-up research and show that the research is sustainable. 

6. References

(1) The small number of references indicates that the synthesized argument in the introduction is not sufficient.

(2) The number of references in the last three years is small, which needs to focus on the latest research results.

(3) Check the reference format.

7.

The paper should supplement the experimental comparison and effect analysis with similar institutions to show the superiority and innovation of the proposed method.

To sum up, this paper needs a lot of revision, focusing on illustrations, abstracts and discussions, especially the comparison of relevant studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pepper seedlings are quite specific, long and limp. This is probably where the idea for this research came from. The issue that needs to be clearly stated here is how to avoid "stress" on the seedlings during pickling.
The shape of the eagle beak's trajectory is known in technology, e.g. excavator shears have this shape, considered optimal for crushing and cutting structures during recycling - eagle beak shear machine.
It is customary to include the Latin name of the plant and its variety in the title.
I suggest rounding the angles from table 1 to whole degrees. Such precision brings nothing to practice because it is impossible to enforce.
Check and correct the way measurement results are recorded throughout the manuscript. According to SI, there should be a space between the numerical value and the unit of measurement (e.g. 300-304).
Drawings should be inextricably linked to the text. Therefore, Figure 4 should be immediately below the paragraph ending on line 141, not later. Figure 6, in turn, anticipates the content of the manuscript.
The bibliography is quite modest. It is worth enriching it with the work of scientists from other continents. Such work is carried out, for example, on tree seedlings, e.g. by Polish scientists from the center https://pit.lukasiewicz.gov.pl/en/o/center-of-agricultural-and-food-technology/
No information on who did what? (line 468)

Further field research, including reliability research, is recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

"Seedling Picking" may be mistranslated, but it is agronomically correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A seedling picking method with the ʺeagle beakʺ shaped motion trajectory based on non-circular gear planetary gear train was proposed, and a pepper plug seedling picking mechanism was designed in this manuscript, which has important theoretical significance and application value.

However, this work has following weaknesses.

1. What is the basis for designing the seedling harvesting mechanism? It should be clearly stated in the paper.

2. What are the design requirements for the seedling extraction device? What are the advantages?

3. Figure 3 should be represented by a stereoscopic view, otherwise figure 4 is not easy to understand. The corresponding key components should also be marked in figure 4.

4. Is the phase angle of non-circular gear installation considered in the kinematic model of the seedling picking mechanism in Figure 5? What factors need to be considered for actual assembly?

5. What machining method is used for non-circular gear trains and can they meet the design and assembly accuracy?

6. The ω, t in formula 1 and λ in formula 14 need to be defined.

7. The forward direction of the unit needs to be marked in figure 7.

8. Figures 8, 11b, 12b are not clear, and the serial number marking in Figure 8 is chaotic.

9. Putting the data of line 307-310 in a table will be more clearly.

10. The curve is chaotic in figure 12.

11. “2.2.2” lacks the law analysis of the change of each parameter. It is suggested to add it to the “Result” part.

12. Some sentences in the article are lengthy, such as 76-80 lines, 94-98 lines, 100-105 lines, etc. It is recommended to arrange the sentence length reasonably.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences that are not smooth need to be polished to make sure they are read smoothly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf