Next Article in Journal
Searching for Novel Oat Crown Rust Resistance in Diploid Oat Avena strigosa Schreb. Reveals the Complexity and Heterogeneity of the Analyzed Genebank Accessions
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Humic Substances on the Meat Quality in the Fattening of Farm Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Design and Experiment of Real-Time Grain Yield Monitoring System for Corn Kernel Harvester

Agriculture 2023, 13(2), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020294
by Shangkun Cheng 1, Huayu Han 1, Jian Qi 1, Qianglong Ma 1, Jinghui Liu 1, Dong An 1 and Yang Yang 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agriculture 2023, 13(2), 294; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020294
Submission received: 28 December 2022 / Revised: 19 January 2023 / Accepted: 24 January 2023 / Published: 26 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Technology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a real-time monitoring system for corn yield by adding three pairs of photodiodes to a corn grain harvester elevator. In addition, the accuracy of the system was tested in a field. Without a doubt, this is a interesting and practical study. However, it is disappointing that the manuscript was not thoroughly proofread before submission, resulting in some avoidable errors. Despite this, I still believe that the manuscript is acceptable after moderate revision.

Other comments:

1.   Line 80-90: The content of this section more closely resembles an abstract rather than an introduction. It is suggested that the author concisely present the main points of this article, rather than providing a detailed overview of the work. The author does not need to introduce what has been done in the article, but rather should simply list the problems addressed in the paper one by one.

2.  It is suggested that the author change Figure 2 to a schematic diagram of the monitoring system, rather than a circuit diagram. To be honest, Figure 2 is quite vague and I cannot obtain any useful information from it. Perhaps those involved in hardware development would find this figure more interesting. If this article must include Figure 2, it is suggested that it be moved to the supplementary materials.

3.    Line 275: I was unable to locate Figure 6.

4.    The bars in the bar chart in Figure 7 are too wide, making the text and error bars appear small. In addition, the y-axis in Figure 7 is labeled in units of %, but the numbers are not in units of %. This is a major error.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please read the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.In abstrct, the error of measured yield of the existing methods and products should be given so that the error of the authors’ method, less than 5% and 3.72%, can be compared with easily.

2.Although the methods such as remote sensing, UAV hyperspectral and modeling of crop growth conditions have some limitations as the authors said, their efficency is very high and this cannot be reached till now by the method of install sensors used in the process of crop harvesting.

3.The simulation model experiment and the field test are different and they have not enough comparability about the model coefficients, k.

Others:

1.The symbol ρ should be used in the same form in row 208 and 209.

2.The form of the unit, hm2, is not correct in row 268 and 269.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please read the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop