Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Hengshan Zhou 1,2,
  • Fei Dai 1,2,* and
  • Qinxue Zhao 2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Xiaolong Lei Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To address the issues of inadequate seed release and seed blockage during the seeding process, a pendulum lever-type mechanism for hole formation has been designed. Additionally, a depth-adjustment device is proposed to accommodate dibblers of different sizes, meeting various agricultural planting requirements. Simulation tests were carried out by combining the methods of discrete element and multi-body dynamics to optimize the parameters of the hole-forming mechanism of the dibbler, and finally, bench tests and field tests were carried out according to the optimized structural parameters, which are of certain reference value for improving the operational performance of the dibbler. Specific comments are set out below:

(1) In manuscript 2.1.2, the working principle of the dibbler is not sufficiently introduced, and the working process of the research topic the hole seeding devices is only carried over in one sentence, which is too simple, and should highlight the author's research topic, and it is recommended that the author add the complete.

(2) In manuscript 2.2.3, the hole seeding devices adjusts the position height of the dibbler by controlling the stroke of the electric actuator, and it is suggested to further supplement the design purpose and practical significance.

(3) The analysis of response surface in the manuscript is not in place. For example: In 3.5.2, "Interaction between the rotational speed of the moving disk and the number of pendulum bearings." Only describes the changing trend. The cause was not analyzed.

(4) There are errors in grammar, spelling and format in the manuscript content, which need to be carefully corrected. It is recommended that the author carefully check the paper before submission to ensure that the language expression is clear and accurate and in line with academic norms. For example, the a0 format in 2.2.3 is incorrect.

(5) The pictures in the manuscript should be consistent and ensure that there are clear drawings and notes. For example, (a) (b) is not indicated in Figure 2; The thickness of the lines in Figure 12 (c) is obviously inconsistent with that in Figure (a) and (b); FIG. 18 does not have clear and explicit drawing notes for figure (a1) and other figures.

(6) Some professional terms in the manuscript are inconsistent, and it is suggested that the author revise them carefully. For example, the professional terms of the components of "pendulum plate and lever hole seeding device" in 2.1.1 are inconsistent with the professional names of the components in the conclusion (1); 2.2.1 The nouns in the text are inconsistent with the illustrations.

(7) The conclusion is not concise enough on the results and discussion of the manuscript. For example, "The bench test of dibblers with different sizes is carried out." in conclusion (1) does not correspond to the content in the paper; Refine the content of conclusion (2).

(8) The abbreviations of references in journals are wrong. For example, "Trans. Chinese Soc. Agric. Mach" and "Trans. Chinese Soc. Agric. Eng" should be "Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach" and "Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng.".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude for your review of my paper and the valuable feedback provided. I have carefully considered each suggestion and made corresponding modifications and additions according to the recommendations. Below is my specific response to the review comments:

  1. In manuscript 2.1.2, the working principle of the dibbler is not sufficiently introduced, and the working process of the research topic the hole seeding devices is only carried over in one sentence, which is too simple, and should highlight the author's research topic, and it is recommended that the author add the complete.

Response 1: Thank you for the expert's advice. I have supplemented the section on the working principle with the relationship between the pendulum mechanism and the hole-forming mechanism in our study, for example, " the lever slides around the outer circle of the pendulum plate bearing, while the bearing group acts on the upper end of the lever to keep the movable hole-former open. "

  1. In manuscript 2.2.3, the hole seeding devices adjusts the position height of the dibbler by controlling the stroke of the electric actuator, and it is suggested to further supplement the design purpose and practical significance.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have further supplemented the document accordingly. For example: "The adjustment device serves to control and regulate sowing depth and is also adaptable for adjusting the bench height to accommodate different sizes of hole seeder seeding tests."

  1. The analysis of response surface in the manuscript is not in place. For example: In 3.5.2, "Interaction between the rotational speed of the moving disk and the number of pendulum bearings." Only describes the changing trend. The cause was not analyzed.

Response 3: Thank you, expert, for pointing that out. The manuscript has been updated to include the content regarding the interaction between the rotational speed of the moving disk and the number of pendulum bearings and further elaborated on the trend changes of the response surface. This section is now located in Section 4.1.2 of the manuscript, titled "Interaction between the rotational speed of the moving disk and the number of pendulum bearings," positioned at the end of this section.

  1. There are errors in grammar, spelling and format in the manuscript content, which need to be carefully corrected. It is recommended that the author carefully check the paper before submission to ensure that the language expression is clear and accurate and in line with academic norms. For example, the a0 format in 2.2.3 is incorrect.

Response 4: Regarding the language issues in the article, I carefully reviewed the entire text and made comprehensive corrections to any existing grammar, spelling, and formatting errors using appropriate software. Additionally, I thoroughly compared the agriculture paper template and made further modifications to the formatting to ensure the clarity, accuracy, and adherence to academic standards of the article.

  1. The pictures in the manuscript should be consistent and ensure that there are clear drawings and notes. For example, (a) (b) is not indicated in Figure 2; The thickness of the lines in Figure 12 (c) is obviously inconsistent with that in Figure (a) and (b); FIG. 8 does not have clear and explicit drawing notes for figure (a1) and other figures.

Response 5: Thank you for your careful observations, expert. I have made corrections to the issues identified in Figures 2, 8, and 12. Additionally, I have checked the captions and titles of all figures throughout the manuscript to avoid any repetitive errors, thus enhancing the consistency between the text and figures.

  1. Some professional terms in the manuscript are inconsistent, and it is suggested that the author revise them carefully. For example, the professional terms of the components of "pendulum plate and lever hole seeding device" in 2.1.1 are inconsistent with the professional names of the components in the conclusion (1); 2.2.1 The nouns in the text are inconsistent with the illustrations.

Response 6: Thank you for your thorough review, expert. I have also noticed discrepancies in the presentation of certain content in the article. Accordingly, I have meticulously cross-checked the components of the equipment structure based on the content of the paper to ensure consistency between the relevant parts depicted in the images and the corresponding descriptions in the text.

  1. The conclusion is not concise enough on the results and discussion of the manuscript. For example, "The bench test of dibblers with different sizes is carried out." in conclusion (1) does not correspond to the content in the paper; Refine the content of conclusion (2).

Response 7: Thank you for your input, expert. Indeed, there was a descriptive error in Conclusion (1). I have revised Conclusion (1) accordingly and streamlined the content of Conclusion (2), removing some redundant and non-essential information to make the text more concise and precise. Additionally, I have carefully reviewed the logical connections to ensure consistency in viewpoints.

  1. The abbreviations of references in journals are wrong. For example, " Chinese Soc. Agric. Mach" and "Trans. Chinese Soc. Agric. Eng" should be "Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach" and "Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng.".

Response 8: Thank you to the reviewer for highlighting the citation format errors in the references. I will diligently revise the entire bibliography according to the journal's requirements to ensure that the citation format meets the journal's specifications, maintaining accuracy and adherence to standards.

Note: The highlighted sections in the resubmitted manuscript represent the main modifications made to the article this time.

Thank you again for your review, and I wish you a pleasant day.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find this a very interesting manuscript which could be of interest for the readers of Agriculture after some improvements. Please find below some specific comments:

Title: I would remove the word "experiment" from the title. The title could be simply "Simulation and optimization of a pendulum lever type hole seeding device"

Abstract: A small part of introduction-state of the art is required describing the ordinary devices for seeding and why a new device is needed. The term "dibblers" is it only for transplanting or even for seeding? Are you sure it is the correct term? What is the meaning of MBD-DEM? Did you make a prototype for the test bench? Did you also made tests in the field? Why did you not compare you machine with an ordinary one? Please modify the abstract accordingly.

Keywords: please specify DEM-MBD

Introduction: please describe a little bit better the full-film double ridge furrow sowing technique and which crops get the benfits more from this technology. Is it biodegradable film or plastic film? If dibbler is the correct term, may you please explain the meaning and describe it? May you describe better the ordinary dibblers? I did not understand if this is an innovative technique or it is an ordinary technique. In case is it typical in China, only in this part of China or also in other countries? Is it also used in organic crops? Concerning the last part, the aim of the trial, may you specify if you made a prototype or you used an ordinary machine ? I think it is not very clear in this form. Why did you not test it in the field and you made only simulation and test on the bench?

Materials and methods: before the machine structure, I would suggest to clearly describe all the tests you made first (a kind of outline), from simulation to test bench and oder tests, then I would give the detail on the machine. Is this device only for maize? Can be adapted to other crops or can be adapted (maybe with some modification) for transplanting? Concerning the description of the device in my opinion is weel done and the schemes are very clear, however I would specify if it is a completely new technology, an improved technology or only the optimization of a technology already present on the market. I think that part of materials and methods may be moved to results, for example the second part of the simulation tests.

Results: I think the result section is very rich and informative but only on the aprt of simulation, I think it sould be enhanced with some results on test bench and field trials. Moreover I wuol suggest not to mix materials and methods with results. For example the experimental validation reports a part of methology and a very brief part of results. I would separate them and I would improve the results on test bench and field test adding maybe a table each, summarizing the main results.

Discussion: it is completely missing. I would suggest to add a paragraph comparing the main results of this test with the state of the art with proper citations. This would also help to increase a little bit the reference list which is less than 30 articles.

Conclusion: I would suggest to improve this part. This is should not be aonly a summary of the results but should also explain the benefits that this new technologies could give to the farmers and the future perspectives for new research projects.

I hope my comments might help to improve the manuscript. I would thank the authors in advance for taking into account my comments.

Good luck for the publication of your manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for the thoughtful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. I have carefully considered each suggestion and made corresponding modifications and additions according to the recommendations. Below is my specific response to the review comments:

  1. Title: I would remove the word "experiment" from the title. The title could be simply "Simulation and optimization of a pendulum lever type hole seeding device"

Response Title: Thank you for the suggestion. I have removed the word "experiment" from the title, simplifying it to " Simulation and Optimization of a Pendulum Lever Type Hole Seeding Device"

  1. Abstract: A small part of the introduction-state of the art is required describing the ordinary devices for seeding and why a new device is needed. The term "dibblers" is it only for transplanting or even for seeding? Are you sure it is the correct term? What is the meaning of MBD-DEM? Did you make a prototype for the test bench? Did you also make tests in the field? Why did you not compare your machine with an ordinary one? Please modify the abstract accordingly.

Response Abstract: Thank you for your correction. I have made the following four modifications.

(1) I have added a technical introduction at the beginning of the abstract, for instance, "For the process of hole seeding on the mulch of full-film double-row furrow corn planting, issues such as poor seed discharge and seed blockage."

(2) Upon reviewing the literature, While "dibbler" can be used to refer to certain types of planting equipment, "hole seeder" more specifically describes a particular type of seeding machinery, whose primary function is to create seed holes in the soil and place seeds within them. The article would have been more appropriate to use the term "hole seeder", and "dibbler" has been amended throughout.

(3) MBD-DEM refers to "Coupled simulation analysis of the discrete element software EDEM and the multibody dynamics software RecurDy." I have added an introduction to MBD-DEM in the introduction section.

(4) This study focuses on two aspects: the hole seeder's seeding mechanism and the adjustment device, which is applied in the experimental platform. In the "Introduction" section, I analyzed the current research progress and existing issues with seeding mechanisms. Currently, there is more research on seeders, while research on seeding mechanisms is relatively scarce. In the " Results and Analysis " section, I described the content of bench testing and field testing.

  1. Keywords: please specify DEM-MBD

Response Keywords: Thank you for your input. I have supplemented the description of DEM-MBD in the introduction, for instance, "Through co-simulation analysis of discrete element software EDEM [15] and multibody dynamics software RecurDyn [16]", and cited relevant literature. Here, "DEM-MBD" is modified to the more comprehensive "DEM-MBD co-simulation".

  1. Introduction: please describe a little bit better the full-film double ridge furrow sowing technique and which crops get the benefits more from this technology. Is it a biodegradable film or plastic film? If "dibbler" is the correct term, may you please explain the meaning and describe it? May you describe ordinary dibblers better? I did not understand if this is an innovative technique or if it is an ordinary technique. In case it is typical in China, only in this part of China, or also in other countries? Is it also used in organic crops? Concerning the last part, the aim of the trial, may you specify if you made a prototype or you used an ordinary machine? I think it is not very clear in this form. Why did you not test it in the field and you made only simulation and test on the bench?

Response Introduction: Thank you for your careful review. This section was modified in three main ways：

(1) The full-film double-ridge furrow planting technique is a new drought-resistant farming technology proposed by agricultural departments in Gansu Province, China, to address the characteristics of arid and water-scarce conditions in northwest China. Research has shown that applying this technology in semi-arid regions such as Pakistan can significantly increase crop yields, particularly for crops like corn and potatoes. The introduction section has been supplemented to provide additional description of this technology, for example, "This planting method has been widely adopted in the cultivation of crops such as corn and potatoes. Production practice has demonstrated that the whole film-mulching and double ridge-furrow seeding technique increases crop yields by nearly 30% compared to conventional mulch cultivation".

(2) I have replaced "dibbler" with the more accurately descriptive "hole seeder" in the text, representing a seeder for planting seeds by making holes in the mulch. The main content of this paper involves designing the seed-forming components of a widely used mechanical hole seeder, along with an adjustment device. Additionally, a test bench applying this device has been constructed, and bench tests and field tests using this hole seeding device have been conducted at the end of the paper.

(3) The purpose of the experiments is to improve the operational quality of the hole seeder and promote the development of precision seeding technology. I have made modifications and additions in the last paragraph of the introduction, such as "a pendulum lever type hole seeding device is designed to enhance the operational performance of the seeder and promote the development of precision seeding technology".

  1. Materials and methods: before the machine structure, I would suggest to clearly describe all the tests you made first (a kind of outline), from simulation to test bench and other tests, then I would give detail on the machine. Is this device only for maize? Can it be adapted to other crops or can it be adapted (maybe with some modification) for transplanting? Concerning the description of the device, in my opinion, it is well done and the schemes are very clear, however, I would specify if it is a completely new technology, an improved technology, or only the optimization of a technology already present on the market. I think that part of materials and methods may be moved to results, for example, the second part of the simulation tests.

Response Materials and methods: Thank you for the feedback. I made three modifications to address the issues mentioned.

（1）I added a brief description of the tests conducted at the end of the Introduction section, summarizing the research content, methods, and experimental objectives. For example: "Through co-simulation analysis of discrete element software EDEM and multibody dynamics software RecurDyn, joint simulations are conducted to identify optimal parameter combinations for hole seeders and key components of the hole-forming mechanism. Bench tests and field tests are conducted to validate performance improvements."

（2）While the full-film double-ridge furrow planting technique is applicable to crops such as potatoes and soybeans, its widespread adoption is primarily seen in maize cultivation. Therefore, this study mainly focuses on maize. If other crops are to be used, due to significant differences in seed size, redesign and optimization experiments would be necessary.

（3）I restructured the paper by moving the simulation methodology section to "Materials and Methods" and the analysis of simulation results to "Results and Analysis." I also revised the description of the experimental setup to ensure clearer logical structure of the paper.

  1. Results: I think the results section is very rich and informative but only on the part of simulation. I think it should be enhanced with some results on the test bench and field trials. Moreover, I would suggest not to mix materials and methods with results. For example, the experimental validation reports a part of methodology and a very brief part of results. I would separate them, and I would improve the results on the test bench and field test adding maybe a table each, summarizing the main results.

Response Results: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. I completely agree with your point. The section on the experimental setup in the Materials and Methods got mixed up with the results section. I have now reorganized the structure of the paper, moving the description of the experimental setup to the Materials and Methods section. Additionally, I have included the experimental data results and created a table (Table 7) to enhance the clarity of the data.

  1. Discussion: it is completely missing. I would suggest to add a paragraph comparing the main results of this test with the state of the art with proper citations. This would also help to increase a little bit the reference list which is less than 30 articles.

Response Discussion: Thank you for the suggestions. I have added a discussion section in the paper, located in section "5. Discussion", where I discuss the discrepancies between the simulation data and field test data, along with analyzing the reasons behind them. Additionally, I have compared our findings with the current research progress and outlined potential future research directions. The number of references cited has also been increased to 36.

  1. Conclusion: I would suggest improving this part. This should not be only a summary of the results but should also explain the benefits that this new technology could give to the farmers and the future perspectives for new research projects.

Response Conclusion: Thank you for the expert guidance. In Conclusion (1), I have augmented the benefits that the research brings to farmers, such as "Improve the operational performance of the hole seeder, reduce the rate of empty holes, so as to achieve the purpose of improving operational efficiency and increasing production and income." The prospects of the technology's research are discussed in the "5. Discussion" section, for instance, "Future research could focus on pneumatic seeders capable of accommodating higher speeds." I have streamlined the content of Conclusion (2) and reevaluated the discrepancy between field tests and simulation tests in Conclusion (3).

Note: The highlighted sections in the resubmitted manuscript represent the main modifications made to the article this time.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the editor and reviewers for their valuable comments, suggestions, and meticulous attention to detail throughout the review process. Your expertise has not only helped enhance the quality and clarity of this manuscript but also contributed significantly to my professional growth. The thoughtful constructive feedback have been instrumental in refining the research and its presentation. I am sincerely thankful for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my Manuscript. Thank you once again for your indispensable guidance and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The structure explosion diagram on the right side of Figure 1 lacks clarity.

2. Why is there a front and back distinction in Figure 2?

3. The rotation direction of the seed feeder should be indicated in Figure 2.

4. How does the Seed holding area accomplish the function of seed carrying? In the provided Hole-forming Mechanism, it seems that the seeds may fall down.

5. In part 2.2.1, please provide the design process for d1, d2, and θ or offer an explanation for them. Additionally, how does the size of the Hole-forming Mechanism align with that of the Pendulum Mechanism?

6. In Figure 5, where does the Hole-forming Mechanism open? I am unable to comprehend its operation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some statements need further modification

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for the thoughtful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. I have made comprehensive revisions to the document based on your feedback. Below is my specific response to the review comments:

  1. The structure explosion diagram on the right side of Figure 1 lacks clarity.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. I have adjusted the proportion of the exploded view on the right side of Figure 1 and increased the image resolution to 1200 dpi.

  1. Why is there a front and back distinction in Figure 2?

Response 2: Figure 2(a) illustrates the working principle of the adjustment mechanism, while Figure 2(b) depicts the working principle of the hole seeder. The purpose of Figure 2(b) being opposite to Figure 2(a) is to provide a clearer demonstration of the pendulum lever's operation.

  1. The rotation direction of the seed feeder should be indicated in Figure 2.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. I will make revisions to Figure 2 accordingly. In Figure 2(a), the arrows indicate the direction of the vertical adjustment of the adjustment mechanism, while in Figure 2(b), the arrows represent the rotational direction of the hole seeder during normal operation.

  1. How does the Seed holding area accomplish the function of seed carrying? In the provided Hole-forming Mechanism, it seems that the seeds may fall down.

Response 4: Thank you for your careful review. The seed holding area of the hole seeder is located inside the chamber, where seeds are added through the seed delivery tube and stored within the fixed plate of the hole seeder. Only when the hole seeder is operational, seeds from the seed holding area are released one by one into the seeding discharging wheel. As the machinery rotates, the seeds fall into the hole-forming mechanism. The hole-forming mechanism, in coordination with the pendulum mechanism, opens the movable hole-former, allowing seeds to be discharged. Section 2.1.1 in the document lacks clarity in describing the working principle of the hole seeder, particularly in explaining the functions of the hole-forming mechanism and the pendulum mechanism. I have supplemented this information accordingly.

  1. In part 2.2.1, please provide the design process for d1, d2, and θ or offer an explanation for them. Additionally, how does the size of the Hole-forming Mechanism align with that of the Pendulum Mechanism?

Response 5: Thank you for correctly pointing out the lack of explanation regarding the design process of d1 and d2 in the article. I have provided an analysis of the relationship and function of d1 and d2 at the end of Section 2.2.1, and determined their values. The design process of θ was established through single-factor experiments in simulation at Section 3.3.1, and the optimal value of θ was determined at the end.

  1. In Figure 5, where does the Hole-forming Mechanism open? I am unable to comprehend its operation.

Response 6: The hole seeding device's hole-forming mechanism features a reverse rotation protection function. Figure 5 illustrates the reverse rotation process of the hole seeding device, where the hole-former remains tightly closed throughout the reversal process, aiming to prevent seed wastage. I have added "Pendulum device with reverse rotation protection" at the beginning of the sentence for clarification, and revised the figure caption to describe it as clearly as possible.

Note: The highlighted sections in the resubmitted manuscript represent the main modifications made to the article this time.

Once again, I express my sincere gratitude for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would sincerely thank the authors for addressing all my comments. I find this version of the manuscript suitable for publication.