Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Many crops worldwide require insect pollination. Therefore, pollination is crucial i.a. for maintain biodiversity and food production. Pollinators are threatened by many factors, such as land use change, climate change, introduction of exotic organisms, modern agricultural practices and pesticide use. The phenomenon of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is currently a global problem. The review discussed a wide range of pollination issues. However, some information should be completed before publishing the article.

Comment 1

There is a lack of general information on the review carried out, e.g. Which databases was the information retrieved? What period does the review include? Does the review only cover a selected region of the world or has research from scientists around the world been taken into account?

Comment 2

The latest research results (within the last 5 years) should be presented. I think that in the review are missing the studies from the last five years. My suggestion is to shorten chapters 2. and 3., and to expand on the issues raised in chapter 4.

Comments 3

Please correct references. All references must be in accordance with the MDPI style.

Author Response

Many crops worldwide require insect pollination. Therefore, pollination is crucial i.a. for maintain biodiversity and food production. Pollinators are threatened by many factors, such as land use change, climate change, introduction of exotic organisms, modern agricultural practices and pesticide use. The phenomenon of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is currently a global problem. The review discussed a wide range of pollination issues. However, some information should be completed before publishing the article.

Comment 1

There is a lack of general information on the review carried out, e.g. Which databases was the information retrieved? What period does the review include? Does the review only cover a selected region of the world or has research from scientists around the world been taken into account?

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the introduction of the new manuscript, we added the general information of the review.

Comment 2

The latest research results (within the last 5 years) should be presented. I think that in the review are missing the studies from the last five years. My suggestion is to shorten chapters 2. and 3., and to expand on the issues raised in chapter 4.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have added the latest research results as much as possible in sections 3.2 and 4.3, and carried out more discussions. However, in order to ensure the integrity of the content and logic of the article, we still retain a few earlier research results. In addition, in the pollination industry, as long as the external environment is relatively ideal, the application scope, effect and potential of bee pollination are better than that of mechanized pollination, with more research results, and mechanized pollination plays a more alternative role. Therefore, it is acceptable that the content of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 is more than that of Chapter 4. In Chapter 4, we added the discussion on the previously unavailable pollen collection and storage technology, pneumatic powder spraying and atomization powder spraying technology to the discussion of conventional technology applied to a large number of different crops and listed their application effects to achieve the purpose of expanding Chapter 4.

Comments 3

Please correct references. All references must be in accordance with the MDPI style.

A： Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract is general, and it is a kind of introduction. I suggest improving it.  In my review, I am highly focusing on the IT-related parts, not the agrobiology.

The structure of the article is confusing, but the agrobiology of bee/ pollination seems to be alright. The IT-related background of bee colonies (life condition, measure, etc.) is the main part of the article. The strictly title-related part (chapter 4) is quite short, and the logical structure of the chapter so hectic. It would be nice to read about the expenses (low , high), or a comparison about the existing/possible technology effectiveness. The conclusion seems to be fair, but the main results are not highlighted well, such a mentioned "big data" does not appear in the text, or possible BI or AI solutions would be nice to mention. Chapter 4 is suggested to expand or the title of the article will differ from the content of the paper.

Figure 6 is hard to read because of the low DPI. Figure 8 It would be nice If the original/ modified image is marked (eg. left original, right algorithm).

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1

The abstract is general, and it is a kind of introduction. I suggest improving it.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have improved the abstract.

Comment 2

In my review, I am highly focusing on the IT-related parts, not the agrobiology. The structure of the article is confusing, but the agrobiology of bee/ pollination seems to be alright. The IT-related background of bee colonies (life condition, measure, etc.) is the main part of the article.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. The author believes that efficient pollination of crops requires bees to actively forage for food. This continuous and active foraging behavior requires a healthy, strong, and stable colony state. The colony state is closely related to bee species and the internal and external environment of the beehive. Therefore, Breeding of high-quality pollinating bee varieties, efficient and continuous monitoring and control of the internal and external environment of beehives and bee colony status is the mainstream direction of efficient bee pollination technology. As for the above technologies, IT and agrobiology are indispensable, promoting each other, and there is no difference between them.

Comment 3

The strictly title-related part (chapter 4) is quite short, and the logical structure of the chapter so hectic. It would be nice to read about the expenses (low , high), or a comparison about the existing/possible technology effectiveness. Chapter 4 is suggested to expand or the title of the article will differ from the content of the paper.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have added the latest research results as much as possible in sections 3.2 and 4.3, and carried out more discussions. However, in order to ensure the integrity of the content and logic of the article, we still retain a few earlier research results. In addition, in the pollination industry, as long as the external environment is relatively ideal, the application scope, effect and potential of bee pollination are better than that of mechanized pollination, with more research results, and mechanized pollination plays a more alternative role. Therefore, it is acceptable that the content of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 is more than that of Chapter 4. In Chapter 4, we added the discussion on the previously unavailable pollen collection and storage technology, pneumatic powder spraying and atomization powder spraying technology to the discussion of conventional technology applied to a large number of different crops and listed their application effects to achieve the purpose of expanding Chapter 4. On the other hand, for different crops, under ideal environmental conditions, the pollination rate of mechanized pollination can only be close to that of bees and artificial pollination. The advantage of mechanized pollination is operation efficiency and adaptability to harsh environment. It is an indispensable backup technology. In the listed literature, we discussed the operation efficiency, pollen loss and other indicators of some technologies as much as possible.

Comment 4

The conclusion seems to be fair, but the main results are not highlighted well, such a mentioned "big data" does not appear in the text, or possible BI or AI solutions would be nice to mention.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we change the “big data”to “massive data”. In the concept of smart agriculture, crops, environment, animals and machines are a system and affect each other. Massive data is conducive to making reasonable decisions. As far as crop pollination is concerned, the massive data of smart agriculture includes massive information about crops, environment, animals and machines, which is conducive to making more efficient pollination decisions. However, the existing research is lacking. It is obvious that we put forward such expectations in the conclusion.

Comment 5

Figure 6 is hard to read because of the low DPI.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Comment 6

Figure 8 It would be nice If the original/ modified image is marked (eg. left original, right algorithm).

A： Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have prepared a good document on the state of the art in technologies to understand the functioning of the world of bees, which are possibly the most important insects in the pollination of outdoor plants. Perhaps it would have been interesting to add something about other insects, such as those of the genus Bombus spp. widely used in greenhouses.

The authors have also reviewed some of the most cutting-edge techniques in mechanical pollination.

The work is well written and presented, and in that sense, I think it deserves to be published.

 

There are some small details that must be corrected, specifically I have detected the following:

1) In general, italics have not been used in the document to write the scientific name of the species, nor has it been done in the bibliography. As it is a recurring error, I suggest the authors review the entire text and correct it.

2) In line 124, the figure of 9-20 Mw/cm2 I think is not correct, since the solar power at the edge of the atmosphere is about 1353 W/m2, equivalent to 0.1353 W/cm2. Please make sure you put the correct number and units. Remember that the abbreviation for 'watt' should be written in a capital 'W'.

3) Line 305, missing a space in 'honeybees', you should put 'honey bees'

4) Line 312, a transposition of terms has occurred, it says 'mites infected by bees' and should say 'bees infected by mites'.

5) Line 326, it says 'RMSE', please write the full name, not the abbreviations.

6) Lines 615 and 616, I don't know what unit 'mu' is, please use SI units.

7) In the references number: 48, 66, 68, 83 and 146, the title or the names of the authors appear in capital letters.

 

8) Reference 103 is incomplete.

Author Response

Comment 1

The authors have prepared a good document on the state of the art in technologies to understand the functioning of the world of bees, which are possibly the most important insects in the pollination of outdoor plants. Perhaps it would have been interesting to add something about other insects, such as those of the genus Bombus spp. widely used in greenhouses.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In Section 3.2 of the new manuscript, the current situation of more pollinating bee varieties has been discussed.

The authors have also reviewed some of the most cutting-edge techniques in mechanical pollination. The work is well written and presented, and in that sense, I think it deserves to be published. There are some small details that must be corrected, specifically I have detected the following:

Comment 2

1) In general, italics have not been used in the document to write the scientific name of the species, nor has it been done in the bibliography. As it is a recurring error, I suggest the authors review the entire text and correct it.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected all the same errors.

Comment 3

2) In line 124, the figure of 9-20 Mw/cm2 I think is not correct, since the solar power at the edge of the atmosphere is about 1353 W/m2, equivalent to 0.1353 W/cm2. Please make sure you put the correct number and units. Remember that the abbreviation for 'watt' should be written in a capital 'W'.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. We have verified the data units in the references and corrected the errors in the new manuscript.

Comment 4

3) Line 305, missing a space in 'honeybees', you should put 'honey bees'

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Comment 5

4) Line 312, a transposition of terms has occurred, it says 'mites infected by bees' and should say 'bees infected by mites'.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Comment 6

5) Line 326, it says 'RMSE', please write the full name, not the abbreviations.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Comment 7

6) Lines 615 and 616, I don't know what unit 'mu' is, please use SI units.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Comment 8

7) In the references number: 48, 66, 68, 83 and 146, the title or the names of the authors appear in capital letters.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Comment 9

8) Reference 103 is incomplete.

A：Thank you for your suggestion. In the new manuscript, we have corrected the error.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took into account all my comments and suggestions.

Author Response

Thanks for taking the time to comment