Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigated the spray deposition performance using a UAV in a redgram field. The paper studied especially the uniformity and penetration of the spray deposition. The authors also explored the comparison of spray deposition between target area and non-target area, this will normally call as drift. 

All results derived from the measurements look very good and same as our expectation. However, in that sense, I'm a bit curious how these good data were taken. In general, spray deposition measurement has a very large deviation; sometimes more than 100% deviations between replications. it is because there are many disturbances in every replication, such as wind condition, UAV path and operation, plant reaction (movement) to the downwash, etc. Sometimes, a WSP is covered by a leaf and nothing is marked on the WSP..   To remove these disturbances, replication tests have to be conducted.

How many replication tests were conducted? Since the field is not a well-established lab, I think the replication test is important and the deviation between replication tests must be provided.

Application rate is typically provided in a unit of L per ha. Please provide this and compare this with the instruction for use of the pesticide. This will show whether a spraying rate of the study is within practically feasible ranges.

Regarding the section 3.2, experimental procedure is not clear. Where was the data of target and non-target taken? in redgram field? Then, where or what height were WSPs located? What was the wind condition? Was there any cross wind?

There are some minor questions:

Line 145: What height was the wind speed measured at?

Table 3: Height of spray: spraying height above the ground? or above the crop top? Since the height of the plant is greater than 2 m, 1.6 m is confusing..

Line 281-282: how was it determined? can the authors provide any documents or measured data?

Line 287: "distances": distance from the spraying center line?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting paper that deals with very topical and specific issues for rather limited territorial realities, considerations are affirmed that should be deepened related to the use of terrestrial conceptual sprayers where we talk about damage without specifying types, connections or methods of use, they do not sell indicated parameters of work such as yields, times and operational capabilities.

The paper should better justify its statements either through references or indicating minimum technical parameters to understand the citations described, the applicability of the proposed solution should also be deepened with technical and economic insights.

In this format there are several rather obvious statements about the interactions of the propellers on the distribution, regularity and ability to penetrate the canopy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for revising the manuscript. Most points were resolved well. However, one still remains unresolved.

I was curious about deviations between replication tests because spray deposition measurement in the field always includes a lot of disturbances. The authors only provided the averaged value but not any variations.. This will be very important for future following researchers..

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the suggestions. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments received from you. Please find the spray deposition annexure results tables contains with standard deviation and per cent of deviations between each replication. We conducted this spray deposition and drift experiment during the morning hours with less environmental disturbance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf