Evolution and Application of Precision Fertilizer: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Author,

After evaluating the manuscript titled “Evolution and Application of Precision Fertilizer Control Equipment: A Review”, my decision is: Major revision. I would also like to clarify that this is a preliminary review, as the authors need to revise the structure of the manuscript before I can conduct a thorough and detailed assessment.

Overview: The manuscript addresses the evolution and application of precision fertilizer control equipment, focusing on technological advancements and smart control optimizations in precision fertilization. The main objective of the study was to systematically compile technological advances in the field of precision fertilizer application between 2020 and 2025. The manuscript presents several weaknesses that should be improved for potential acceptance. Firstly, I highlight the lack of care and attention by the authors regarding the journal's formatting guidelines. Examples include inconsistent use of uppercase and lowercase letters in author names, an abstract exceeding the word limit, issues with the formatting of keywords (uppercase/lowercase and punctuation), citations not listed in order of appearance, and formatting issues throughout the manuscript and references (e.g., inconsistent font sizes and incorrect spacing). Moreover, the absence of a clearly defined Materials and Methods (or Methodology) section for the review compromises the transparency and reproducibility of the study. The stated period of "2020 to 2025" in the abstract is inconsistent with the use of many references from before 2020 throughout the manuscript. Additionally, the merging of the “Results” and “Discussion” sections may hinder a clear distinction between the presentation of findings from the literature and their critical analysis.

Here are some specific comments on each section of the manuscript:

Title: The current title is not very informative regarding the scope of the review. For example, it does not make it clear that the analyzed period is from 2020 to 2025, nor does it reflect the significant focus on innovations based on intelligent algorithms and computational simulations. Additionally, the term “Control Equipment” is vague and may lead to ambiguity, as it does not specify whether it refers to embedded systems, applicator machines, sensors, or a combination of these elements.

Author Names: Replace “WANG” with “Wang”.

Abstract: The abstract does not comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines (it exceeds 200 words). It suffers from excessive detail, repetition, and lack of logical organization, which compromises clarity and flow. The structure does not follow a clear sequence from introduction, methods, results, to conclusions, and the conclusion itself is vague, failing to objectively highlight the practical implications of the study. There is an overload of technical data and numerical values, such as error percentages, adjustment times, and coefficients of variation, presented without proper logical sequencing or context. Furthermore, the text is redundant in repeating information about DEM and CFD simulations, using space that could be better utilized to explain the review context or selection criteria. At the same time, the authors provide no justification for conducting the study. As a result, the reader is left without understanding why this review was carried out, what gap it intends to fill, or how the articles were selected. Finally, although the abstract states that the work "systematically compiles technological advances in the field of precision fertilizer application from 2020 to 2025", the manuscript includes and cites numerous references published prior to 2020, which creates an inconsistency with the stated focus period.

Keywords: The keywords are not formatted according to the journal’s guidelines, some are capitalized while others are not, and some are separated by semicolons while others are not. Additionally, some keywords are overly broad and generic, such as “intelligent control” and “sustainable agricultural development”, which do not accurately reflect the core aspects addressed in the article. Others, like “CFD Simulation” and “algorithm optimization”, could be better specified to indicate the types of algorithms used (e.g., PSO or RBFNN) and the specific purposes of the simulations. It is also worth noting that more specific keywords, such as “precision fertilizer applicator” or “variable rate technology”, would be more effective for indexing and for helping interested readers locate the article.

Introduction: There is a noticeable lack of attention from the authors regarding the formatting standards required by the journal. Citations should be arranged in the order of appearance in the text. Moreover, figures and tables currently included in the introduction should be removed and placed in a new Materials and Methods section, to be added in the next version of the manuscript. As presented, the introduction is insufficient and does not contribute to a clear understanding of the study. The justification lacks solid grounding and fails to convince the reader of the relevance of the research. The research problem is not clearly defined, which hinders the reader's ability to grasp its significance. Furthermore, the introduction is overly long, disorganized, and filled with technical details and equipment descriptions that should be in the Materials and Methods section. The lack of logical structure, proper thematic division, and clear delimitation of the chronological and technological scope impairs the text’s readability. There is also excessive use of citations without context, as well as the inclusion of unrelated topics, such as soil biodiversity and LIDAR sensors, that divert attention from the main subject. Redundancy of ideas and lack of objectivity in content presentation are also evident.

Materials and Methods: This section is completely missing from the manuscript. For a review that claims to be a “systematic compilation”, the absence of a clear methodology, such as search criteria, databases used, article selection process, and data synthesis approach, is a significant flaw that compromises the validity and reproducibility of the review.

Results: The presentation of the literature findings is merged with their discussion in a single section. This makes it difficult to distinguish between the simple description of the reviewed studies’ results and the authors’ critical analysis or interpretation of those results.

Discussion: The discussion is broad and addresses various aspects of the technology. However, the way the “results” and “discussion” are integrated may limit a deeper and more distinct analysis of the implications of the findings and the existing research gaps in each specific area. Due to these issues, I will wait for a revised version of the manuscript before conducting a more detailed evaluation.

Conclusion: Although the conclusion summarizes the advances and challenges, it includes implementation and policy recommendations that appear to go beyond what can be directly inferred from the literature review findings. Additionally, there is some redundancy in mentioning the contribution to green and low-carbon agricultural development.

References: The references lack proper formatting and organization. The authors should consult recent published articles, as relying solely on a template was insufficient for producing a high-quality manuscript. Moreover, the inclusion and use of references prior to 2020 (e.g., from 2018 and 2019) contradict the period of “2020 to 2025” explicitly stated in the abstract as the scope of the systematic compilation.

Given the above, several inconsistencies are evident, and my recommendation is Major revision.

I encourage the authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript and, if they disagree with any of the comments or choose not to address them, I kindly request a response explaining their reasoning.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The work represents a valuable and relevant contribution, as it compiles and summarizes a considerable amount of very recent research (2020-2025) on a topic of relevance to agriculture. The systematization of advances in actuators, algorithms and control systems provides a useful overview for researchers and developers in the field. However, to elevate its impact and move from being a comprehensive compilation to a fundamental critical reference, the article could delve deeper into comparative analysis. Rather than just describing the findings, it could offer a more in-depth discussion of why certain technological approaches are excelling over others, analyze the cross-over implications of advances in hardware and software, and more explicitly contextualize how the innovations presented directly address the grand challenges of food security and sustainability mentioned in the introduction.
2. The overall structure of the article is logical, with clear sections for introduction, technological advances, existing problems and future trends. However, the internal organization has a major weakness: the persistent division of the research into "China" and "abroad". This geographic separation fragments the narrative and makes it difficult for the reader to get a comprehensive and integrated view of the state of the art for a specific technology. It would be much more effective to organize the content by type of technology and use studies from different regions as examples within that unified structure. In general the figures are of very low quality.
3. Overall, the article appears to be based on findings from the sources cited. The statement in the abstract that the article compiles technological advances from "2020 to 2025" is not entirely accurate, as several references prior to 2020 are cited. To improve robustness, it is crucial that the authors review the text for these discrepancies, explicitly clarify them, and ensure that all general statements are accurate and appropriately nuanced.
4. The article is notable for its extensive and, remarkably, very up-to-date bibliography, with a large number of sources from the last two years (2023-2024) and even some projected for 2025. This is a definite strength for a state-of-the-art review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,

Following a new evaluation of the manuscript entitled “Evolution and Application of Precision Fertilizer Control Equipment: A Review”, my recommendation is: Minor revision.

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the revised version of the manuscript, which showed some improvements. However, there are still adjustments needed that prevent me from recommending the manuscript for acceptance at this stage. My comments are as follows:

(i) Unaddressed Issues:

The title has not been changed and still presents problems. Table 1 should be moved to the Materials and Methods section. The conclusion still contains redundancy regarding the contribution to green and low-carbon agricultural development. The references are not formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

(ii) Inadequately Addressed Issues:

The conclusion in the second version of the manuscript still focuses on general future trends and challenges. The direct and practical implications of the review results should be more explicitly highlighted in this section, instead of merely outlining future directions.

(iii) New Critical Points:

Some in-text citations appear as "Error! Reference source not found" instead of numbered references. The results presented in subsection 2.2 should be moved to the Results section. The "3. Results" section is still essentially a descriptive list of studies and their findings. I recommend that this section present only the results of the review itself without interpretation, which should be reserved for the Discussion section. The Discussion should then connect the review findings to broader implications, identified challenges, and research gaps. In its current form, the discussion is disconnected from the results, with no direct interpretation of the data and trends revealed by the manuscript.

In light of the above, some inconsistencies remain, and my recommendation is Minor revision.

I encourage the authors to submit a new version of the manuscript and, if they agree, I would appreciate receiving responses to all the comments that they disagree with or do not address.

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reviewer considers a minor correction in the quality of the images that was not taken into account in the previous review. I congratulate the authors for their review work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf