Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

 

1. This manuscript provides design and evaluation details of a picking mechanism using four-fingers.
2. Sufficient technical indicators are used to evaluate the performance of the designed mechanism.
3. Authors may maintain consistency in using terms “picking” or “pick-up”.
4. Language of the manuscript is in general alright, however, it still needs edit. It is suggested that the authors may consult a professional English editor for improving the clarity/readability.

Title:

Title is appropriate and defines clearly the scope of work.

Abstract:

Line 16:  Grammatical editing needed.

Introduction:

Lines 49-87: A nice review has been done by the Authors. However, the authors may also provide key technical details and specific performance (very briefly) of existing machines/methods of seedling pick-up. This can be used to compare the performance of the developed mechanism later on.

Lines 88-90: These sentences may be strengthened by providing some quantitative values. As this prepares the basis of the current research.

2. Requirements and scheme design for seedling picking

Line 107-109: It would be safe to call these values as “average” values as the range is already given.

Line 113: “force compression” à “compressive force”

Line 154, 156, 362:  Grammatical editing needed.

Figure 2: Figure caption may include captions for (a) to (d) as well.

 

Line 252: “trust force” à “thrust force”

Author Response

Please see the attachment：Response to review agriculture-1972702- peer review 1.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The core of the research in this paper is based on the characteristics of pepper seedlings and the requirements of seedling picking, and the clamping scheme was determined. A four-finger tensioning manipulator for seedling pickup was designed. The finger-end motion trajectory curve and optimal parameters of the pepper pot were calculated with the best force transfer efficiency and low loss as constraints. Simulation tests were carried out in a virtual prototype and practical operation was carried out. The pot water content , seedling picking frequency and mechanical finger material were selected as the test factors, and the test results showed that these three factors had highly significant effects on the success rate of seedling picking, and the designed four-finger picker had good practical performance.

In summary, the paper is well written, logical and detailed. The experimental results have some practical guidance significance for the development of the four-finger seedling extractor.

 

1. The core of this paper is to design a four-finger seedling picker with good performance, and the introduction part spends a lot of words to state the research status of the domestic and foreign teams, which makes the whole introduction part too lengthy. It is suggested that the introduction section be streamlined and refined so that the reader can quickly capture the core of the paper.

 

2. When describing the main morphological parameters of peppers in line 109 of part 2.1 of the text µ is not labeled nor explained in the figure.

 

3. What specific literature is used to know the clamping capacity of potted largemouths in lines 121 to 123 of section 2.1?

 

4. Part 2.3 of the text states the design of the clamping scheme, where two clamping schemes are mentioned: clamping while inserting and clamping after inserting. Why is clamping while inserting less disturbing to the substrate? Is there a theoretical or experimental basis for this conclusion?

 

5. In Table 6, can you mark the factors represented by A, B and C?

 

6. Section 5 'Picking seedling experiment' is a relatively simple experiment in terms of design process. The results of each set of experiments seem to be the average of the data taken from 20 samples. However, the text of this manuscript does not give the 20-sample data for any set of trials. This would be very helpful in determining and analyzing whether a 20-sample data average can be used for each set of trials. For example, the scientific validity of orthogonal tests from an overall perspective may be questioned if the 20-sample data deviate significantly.

 

7. The research method of orthogonal test with variance analysis is too traditional and classical. The authors are suggested that some bench tests and analysis should be added. Currently, readers may get less information and less interest from this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment：Response to review agriculture-1972702- peer review 2.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered most of the questions. However, there may still be some problems with the response to Comment 7. Throughout the text, the central theme seems to be in the mechanical design section as well as in the analysis (e.g., the constraint condition of optimum force transmission efficiency and low damage picking up seedlings). This is also evident from the title of the article (original and current title). Therefore, it is natural for the reader to think that Section 5 (i.e., Picking seedling experiment) should be a test of the actual prototype to verify the correctness of the previous theoretical analysis and ADAMS simulation results on the one hand, and to further improve the product performance from the structural design point of view on the other. However, the research content of this paper seems to change from the bench test to the effect of the pot moisture content, seedling frequency and finger material on the pot damage rate and the success rate of seedling pick-up. Moreover, the test was conducted using traditional and classical methods. The conclusions drawn from this experiment may cause little interest to the reader. Therefore, this manuscript is more like a report.

Moreover, the study in this manuscript seems to be missing comparisons. Thus, there may be a slight lack of proof regarding the superiority of such designs.

The reviewer team hopes that these suggestions will provide some effective assistance to the authors and their team.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf