Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the review comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

comments are in the attached file (see docx document). 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  The article mentions evaluating weed control efficacy through visual observation. Was this machine vision or human vision? If it was machine vision, please specify the software and detection method used. If it was human vision, it lacks scientific objectivity. Although reference 24 is cited, it is from 1981, a time when machine vision was not yet mature. However, today's machine vision technology is capable of visual assessment. It is recommended to re-measure using a machine vision approach and elaborate on the specific algorithm used.

2.  The authors correctly note that the alternative methods require 3-4 applications to achieve results still inferior to two glyphosate applications. A critical missing point is a basic economic viability assessment. While the environmental footprint was evaluated, the direct costs of these different strategies (fuel, labor, machine depreciation, herbicide cost) are crucial for farmer adoption and should be discussed, even if not formally calculated.

3.  The conclusion is comprehensive but somewhat repetitive. It could be streamlined to more forcefully present the key take-home messages: the trade-offs between efficacy, frequency, environmental footprint, and the potential for integrated strategies.

4.  The article states, "differences in environmental footprint between different treatments were not significant (lines 25-26)," yet the conclusion says, "alternative methods cannot be considered more environmentally sustainable than glyphosate application (lines 632-633)." These two statements appear contradictory. How can this be explained?

5.  The description of the tractor's control console and terminal, while detailed, is excessive and not critical to the study's findings. This section could be significantly shortened. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

comments are in the attached file (see docx document). 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the format and layout according to the requirements of the journal carefully, especially in the reference section.