Design and Spray Performance Evaluation of an Air–Ground Cooperation Stereoscopic Plant Protection System for Mango Orchards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Reviewed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for elaborate reviewing our paper and giving this opportunity to refine the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your professional evaluation and guidance. For this revision, we have made the following improvements: we have identified a significant flaw in the introduction section of the manuscript, where the purpose and significance of the study were not clearly demonstrated. Therefore, we have extensively revised the introduction to better emphasize the research focus of the paper. Additionally, we have made corresponding revisions throughout the text to ensure consistency. We will go through each comment and make changes accordingly, and improve every detail of the article again, includes the touching up of the language of the essay, the correctness of the vocabulary expression, to ensure that the logic in the essay is coherent. Words in red are the changes I have made in the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your feedback, and please feel free to reach out to us if you have any further suggestions.

 

Best regards,

Yangfan Li

School of Science, China Agricultural University

18 July 2023

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

(1) The paper lacks a clearly defined state of scientific knowledge in this area. The ACSPPS system has already been studied. However, it has not been optimised. Was optimisation therefore to be the aim of the work? If optimisation then a criterion for optimisation needs to be defined.

(2) Therefore, the last section of the introduction to the paper should be revised. In it, the research problem of the article should be formulated. The hypothesis should be stated, the aim and scope of the paper should be formulated.

(3) The last task from the introduction: " This could be a new idea for mango orchard plant protection and provides a technical solution to improve spray uniformity in the canopy of fruit trees " could be the last conclusion. However, conclusions should follow from the results of the study.

(4) The above comment also applies to the last sentence of the abstract. It is only a presumption.

(5) In the formulation "Vertical direction droplet deposition model", I consider the term model to be inappropriate. It is better to call it a distribution index.

(6) I have no comments on the other parts of the publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions on our paper. We highly appreciate your comments and have made the necessary revisions and improvements based on your recommendations. Please find below our response to your comments and the corresponding modifications. (The blue text is the content of our response to reviewer’s comment, and the red text in the manuscript is our corrected content. )

Comment 1:  

The paper lacks a clearly defined state of scientific knowledge in this area. The ACSPPS system has already been studied. However, it has not been optimised. Was optimisation therefore to be the aim of the work? If optimisation then a criterion for optimisation needs to be defined.

Response:

This is a very constructive opinion, we lack of knowledge about the research basis of this field. After a systematic understanding of the current research for air-ground cooperative system is mainly used in engineering mapping, vehicle navigation and multiple machine tool cooperative control algorithms. In the field of agriculture, the resurch mainly concentrat on the construction of remote sensing information acquisition platforms as well as the field of pesticide spray technology.

Current research mainly focuses on the control and improvement of equipment parameters of the cooperation plant protection  system. When pesticides are sprayed using two different types of equipment, it is necessary to ensure the behavior of droplet deposition and the spraying ratio (such as the spraying volume of the two devices and the type of pesticide used) in order to achieve uniform distribution of pesticides in the canopy of fruit trees. This will help us reduce pesticide usage while achieving a uniform dopsition of pesticides. The relevant expressions have been changed in the manuscripts.

After careful consideration, we believe that the aim of the study in this paper is to derive the optimal application ratio of the two spray units through numerical calculations. Therefore the relevant statements about optimisation in this paper have been changed and the method is further shown to be feasible by calculating droplet deposition destribution unifomity (CV, %) in vertical direction of mango canopy by different application ratios.

 

Comment 2:

Therefore, the last section of the introduction to the paper should be revised. In it, the research problem of the article should be formulated. The hypothesis should be stated, the aim and scope of the paper should be formulated.

Response:

After careful consideration, we found that the introduction part of this paper has significant problems, and the research objectives and research ideas of the article are not clearly expressed. Therefore, the introductory part of our paper has been substantially revised, and the revision includes:

1) re-describing the relevant background of the study, and the problems of the two application machines in the current orchard spraying operation.

2) the research significance of the study: Current research mainly focuses on the control and improvement of equipment parameters of the cooperation plant protection system. When pesticides are sprayed using two different types of equipment, it is necessary to ensure the behavior of droplet deposition and the spraying ratio (such as the spraying volume of the two devices and the type of pesticide used) in order to achieve uniform distribution of pesticides in the canopy of fruit trees. Rational distribution ratio of pesticide solution on two types of spraying units will help us reduce pesticide usage while achieving a uniform dopsition of pesticides.

In the last part of the introduction, we refine the purpose and scope of the thesis, We conducted a study to evaluate the deposition performance of the system in the mango tree canopy using a tracer method. Additionally, we tested the droplet deposition distribution of the two spray units when applied separately to analyze the composition of droplet deposition for the ACSPPS. This analysis was done to establish a deposition index for the system. Finally, the optimal spraying ratio (the proportion of fixed doses of pesticide spray by two devices) of two spraying units was expected to be determined across the result of droplet deposition index distribution. We expect to provide data support and practical guidance for green, precision and intelligent plant protection in orchards.

 

Comment 3:

The last task from the introduction: " This could be a new idea for mango orchard plant protection and provides a technical solution to improve spray uniformity in the canopy of fruit trees " could be the last conclusion. However, conclusions should follow from the results of the study.

Response:

Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments, which are important for our writing ideas and for further improving the integrity of the article. Indeed, this section should not have appeared in the introduction of the article as the conclusion of the article, so we have modified the statement, that is we expect to provide data support and practical guidance for green, precision and intelligent plant protection in orchards.

 

Comment 4:

The above comment also applies to the last sentence of the abstract. It is only a presumption.

Response:

Similar to the previous comment, we should modify this part of the statement about the speculative nature to be of practical relevance as follows: This study presents promising data that support the innovative integration of drones into crop protection programmes for large canopy crops (e.g., mango) and provides guidance for the ACSPPS system in reduction and precision application research. Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments again. This section is derived from our experimental results and data calculations.

 

Comment 5:

In the formulation "Vertical direction droplet deposition model", I consider the term model to be inappropriate. It is better to call it a distribution index.

Response:

Indeed, the amount of data and the results of this experiment are not sufficient for modelling, and much appreciated for the reviewer's sugestion. We have changed all references to the model in the full text to droplet deposition distribution index.

 

Comment 6:

I have no coment on the others parts of the publication.

Response:

Thank you very much for recognising our work. We will go through each comment and make changes accordingly, and improve every detail of the article again, includes the touching up of the language of the essay, the correctness of the vocabulary expression, to ensure that the logic in the essay is coherent.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. We hold your professional insights and suggestions in high regard and will make every effort to incorporate your recommendations for further improvement and refinement of the paper. If you have any additional comments or suggestions, we would be more than happy to consider them.

 

Thank you very much for your invaluable contribution.

 

Best regards,

Yangfan Li

School of Science, China Agricultural University

18 July 2023

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper presents the pesticide deposition performance on mango canopies by combining an aerial and a ground spray system.

The paper should propose an innovative methodology which is then tested in a control experiment and finally in the field. Moreover the introduction does not present similar methodologies and does not justify the new proposed method.

 

Only minor editing required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for elaborate reviewing our paper and giving this opportunity to refine the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your professional evaluation and guidance. We have carefully revised our manuscript, further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. Words in red are the changes I have made in the manuscript. Now I response the reviewers’ comments with a point by point and highlight the changes in revised manuscript. Full details of the files are listed. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication. (The blue text is the content of our response to reviewer’s comment. )

Comment 1:

The paper presents the pesticide deposition performance on mango canopies by combining an aerial and a ground spray system.

The paper should propose an innovative methodology which is then tested in a control experiment and finally in the field. Moreover the introduction does not present similar methodologies and does not justify the new proposed method.

Response:

The comments made by the reviewers were very pertinent. Indeed, this study lacks innovation in its methodology and it should be interesting to have those analysis for applications in an experiment with control of environment. Therefore, we have made extensive changes to the introductory section of the manuscript, we re-describing the relevant background of the study, and the problems of the two application machines in the current orchard spraying operation and we also highleight the research significance of the study which will complete the logic of the manuscript .

Furthermore, the innovation of this paper lies in the establishment of a set of Air-ground Cooperation Stereoscopic Plant Protection System (ACSPPS), and the application scenarios and basic ideas of this system are presented. Current research of ACSPPS mainly focuses on the control and improvement of equipment parameters of the cooperation plant protection system. When pesticides are sprayed using two different types of equipment, it is necessary to ensure the behavior of droplet deposition and the spraying ratio (such as the spraying volume of the two devices and the type of pesticide used) in order to achieve uniform distribution of pesticides in the canopy of fruit trees. Rational distribution ratio of pesticide solution on two types of spraying equipment will help us reduce pesticide usage while achieving a uniform dopsition of pesticides. We computed and finally proved that the pesticide active ingredients were almost uniformly distributed in the vertical direction when the application ratios (ground-base device/plant protection drones) were 8/2 and 7/3, offering a promising protocol for reduced pesticide application in mango orchard, the results in this area are also innovative.

As the research of air-ground synergy in the field of plant protection is in its infancy, there is still a lack of relevant research methods, this paper provides a reference basis and new ideas for ACSPPS in how to achieve a uniform distribution of fruit tree canopies, and in the 3.3 part of the paper discusses the applicability of the method, which, despite the existence of errors but the part of the error for did not have a greater impact on the results. This assumption was found to be acceptable.

In addition to its potential to reduce pesticide usage, the ACSPPS also has the capability to increase spray volume (without altering the total amount of pesticide used) in situations where there is a higher level of pest and disease infestation or when treating large canopies of fruit trees. Therefore, the treatments in which the misters were sprayed individually with the plant protection drone can be considered as the control group for this experiment.

Thank you very much for your invaluable contribution, we sincerely appreciate your time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. We hold your professional insights and suggestions in high regard and will make every effort to incorporate your recommendations for further improvement and refinement of the paper. If you have any additional comments or suggestions, we would be more than happy to consider them.

 

Best regards,

Yangfan Li

School of Science, China Agricultural University

19 July 2023

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with this interesting manuscript. The authors touched upon the very urgent problem of developing the technology for the most efficient distribution of pesticides using unmanned devices, which is currently one of the rapidly developing areas of plant protection science. The authors analyzed a sufficient amount of literature, identified problems in modern scientific knowledge in this area. A detailed study of the design of the study and its scrupulous presentation in the article could be an example for young scientists when the article is published! The results of the study have been subjected to a rather serious analysis, their reliability is beyond doubt. The conclusions are well founded. Undoubtedly, this work will be of great practical importance. We can advise the authors to explain what exactly is meant by the term "vegetation index of the crown", according to which formula this parameter is calculated. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for elaborate reviewing our paper and giving this opportunity to refine the manuscript. Many thanks to the reviewers for recognising the content of our research! Your comments are the greatest encouragement to us and very helpful to our writing experience! We sincerely appreciate your professional evaluation and guidance. We have carefully revised our manuscript, further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. Words in red are the changes I have made in the manuscript. Now I response the reviewers’ comments with and highlight the changes in revised manuscript. Full details of the files are listed. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication. (The blue text is the content of our response to reviewer’s comment. )

 

Comment 1:

       Thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with this interesting manuscript. The authors touched upon the very urgent problem of developing the technology for the most efficient distribution of pesticides using unmanned devices, which is currently one of the rapidly developing areas of plant protection science. The authors analyzed a sufficient amount of literature, identified problems in modern scientific knowledge in this area. A detailed study of the design of the study and its scrupulous presentation in the article could be an example for young scientists when the article is published! The results of the study have been subjected to a rather serious analysis, their reliability is beyond doubt. The conclusions are well founded. Undoubtedly, this work will be of great practical importance. We can advise the authors to explain what exactly is meant by the term "vegetation index of the crown", according to which formula this parameter is calculated.

Response:

Thank you for the reviewer’s reminder. The "vegetation index of the crown"  in the text was intended to describe the growth condition of fruit trees with small canopy volume and low leaf density. However, it is incorrect to apply the concept of vegetation index in this context. Canopy vegetation index is a specialized term in the field of remote sensing in agriculture. It is a simple, valid, and empirical measure used to monitor the growth condition of crops, and it includes indices such as NDVI, EVI, and DVI. Relevant content has been changed in the manuscript. In addition, the introduction has been improved in this revision to include

1) re-describing the relevant background of the study, and the problems of the two application machines in the current orchard spraying operation.

2) the research significance of the study: Current research mainly focuses on the control and improvement of equipment parameters of the cooperation plant protection system. When pesticides are sprayed using two different types of equipment, it is necessary to ensure the behavior of droplet deposition and the spraying ratio (such as the spraying volume of the two devices and the type of pesticide used) in order to achieve uniform distribution of pesticides in the canopy of fruit trees. Rational distribution ratio of pesticide solution on two types of spraying units will help us reduce pesticide usage while achieving a uniform dopsition of pesticides.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. We hold your professional insights and suggestions in high regard and will make every effort to incorporate your recommendations for further improvement and refinement of the paper. If you have any additional comments or suggestions, we would be more than happy to consider them.

 

Thank you very much for your invaluable contribution.

 

Best regards,

Yangfan Li

School of Science, China Agricultural University

19 July 2023

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The author improved the article following the suggestions indicated.

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

I am suggesting some revision by authors in order to clarify the information on paper for the readers. 

Keywords: avoid using the same words from title.

Introduction: the state-of-art regarding local applications and its benefits can be improved over the text. Also, explain how your methodology can contribute with the agricultural sector.

Objective: clarify better your goals or split it on specific objectives.

line 24: means of CV?

line 27: which basis?

line 40: "application equipment" twice.

line 61-63: some terms were repeated.

Methodology: Describe better the agronomical features of mango orchard used on experiment (variety, phenological stage during applications, etc.). Also, includes some information about the terrain of the area.

Table 2: how did you ensure the same flow rate for both equipment?

Figure 4: specify better the planning for UAV routes? eg: did you use RTK or control points?

Figure 5: specify the local humidity and wind speed during applications (as it can influence on results).

Results: it should be interesting to have those analysis for applications by equipment without mango canopy, such as an experiment with control of environment. It isn't clear if your results were influenced by canopy or associated with the setting of each equipment. Also, the terrain adaptability of the system (a proposal of your paper) isn't well discussed on text.

Discussion: add some information regarding the amount of water that could be reduced using the strategy of cooperation. Is there any influence of weeds at the experimental area?

Conclusion: focus on answering your goals.

Please, review the use of commas for English language.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

 

We would like to thank Agronomy for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.

Thank you for editor’ and reviewers’ opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript, further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. Words in red are the changes we have made in the manuscript. Now I response the reviewers’ comments with a point by point. Full details of the files are listed. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Note: Annex 1 is our comment respond for reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper studies the pesticide deposition performance by combining an aerial and a ground spray system.

In general the paper is missing references to similar or comparable articles.

The introduction does not introduce the main topic and the techniques used in this field of application.

The methodology is not clear and the experiments are not supported by complete explanations on the choices made.

There are minor spelling mistakes. The sentences are too long and not always clear. 

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewer,

 

We would like to thank Agronomy for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken the comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments. Words in red are the changes we have made in the manuscript.

 

Note: Annex 1 is our respond for comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments.

No comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version does not present substantial improvements in the methodology approach and explanation which are the most critical aspect for the study. 

The corrections in the revised version regarding the articles "the" and "a"/ "an" in most cases are unnecessary.