Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted article examines the effect of soaking pretreatment on seed germination of C. esculentus and utilizes rubber-based seed suction holes to enhance adsorption performance. The article is interesting, and the topic is highly relevant for the proposed journal. I would like to suggest that the authors enhance the discussion section by including some literature comparisons; otherwise, I do not have significant remarks.

Suggestions for the authors:

Page 1, line 29, avoid using abbreviations in the keywords.

In the material and methods section, specify the version of the software used.

Page 7, Check the caption of Figure 5.

Page 7, The 72 h treatment showed a significant drop in all indicators. The missing value for "Germination Period" (Table 7) should be explained.

Pages 10-11, The physical dynamic angle of repose value is not explicitly stated in the text; only the final relative error (1.89%) is given. The physical dynamic angle of repose value and the simulated dynamic angle of repose value using the optimal parameters must be reported and compared.

Page 12, Table 7: Standard deviations are missing for 48h and 72h germination delays.

Page 15, line 426, check the numeration of the equation.

Pages 15-16 include relevant references and discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies, also highlighting potential limitations of the study.

Pages 16-17, make the conclusions more concise.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an approach to deal with the precision seeding of Cyperus esculentus seeds. Here are some considerations.

1. The abstract properly frames the problem and highlights the contribution.
2. Please provide further references for the claims between lines 61-75 to benefit a generic audience.
3. The rationale and the motivations are also well described in the introduction. However, I suggest providing a bullet point list of the contributions proposed by the paper at the end of the introduction.
4. The data gathering method is well described and can be replicated. However, I'd suggest the authors openly and freely provide the dataset, even if they stated it can be provided upon reasonable request, if there aren't issues related to funding or digital property. For example, the authors can also provide raw data (e.g., the unprocessed images cited in Section 2.4.1) to allow other researchers to propose modified, and possibly improved, pipelines.
5. The authors can provide further details on some experimental choices (e.g., further details on the processing pipeline for images in 2.4.1, further details on experimental design in Sections 2.5/2.6/2.7/2.8, and more). Also, more descriptive captions on Tables can greatly benefit the overall quality of the work.
6. Please provide further discussion on regression fitting in Section 3.7. Highlight which methods were tested, why more advanced regressors based on ML and DL were left out, and so on.
7. Conclusions and discussion clearly frame the contribution, highlighting its limitations and potential future aspects.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf