Determining the Vibration Parameters for Coffee Harvesting Through the Vibration of Fruit-Bearing Branches: Field Trials and Validation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The selection of keywords is inappropriate. Please re select the keywords. High speed cameras are a universal tool, and your research direction is based on dynamic detection systems using high-speed cameras; Field experiment, this is just a field experiment you conducted. What are the characteristics of this?
2. Please label your manuscript with line numbers for review purposes;
In section 3.2.1, the physical properties of coffee branches were measured. The author randomly selected 50 branches for the experiment and divided them into multiple groups for testing; Meanwhile, the bottom diameter, end diameter, and density of subsequent branches are 13.67mm, 6.82mm, and 6.82g/cm3, respectively. Is the data of each branch equal in this way? These data should be a range. Similarly, the data processing in section 2.2 should also be consistent.
4. Some of the images in the article have low clarity, please replace them with high-definition images.

5. In the first paragraph of section 4.1.1, the author conducted theoretical research on energy transfer under vibration excitation. The description of this part is unclear, and what is approximated as a cone? What is the fitting effect after approximation like this?

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Hello!

Thank you for the valuable comments you have provided for this research. We have already revised the article according to your suggestions. The specific responses are as follows (the revisions made in response to your comments are marked in red in the text):

1. Comment 1: The selection of keywords is inappropriate. Please re select the keywords. High speed cameras are a universal tool, and your research direction is based on dynamic detection systems using high-speed cameras; Field experiment, this is just a field experiment you conducted. What are the characteristics of this?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the issue that "the selection of keywords is inappropriate". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have replaced the two keywords of high-speed photography and field experiment with vibration excitation and energy transfer. The specific revised content can be found in lines 27 to 28.

2. Comment 2: In section 3.2.1, the physical properties of coffee branches were measured. The author randomly selected 50 branches for the experiment and divided them into multiple groups for testing; Meanwhile, the bottom diameter, end diameter, and density of subsequent branches are 13.67mm, 6.82mm, and 6.82g/cm3, respectively. Is the data of each branch equal in this way? These data should be a range. Similarly, the data processing in section 2.2 should also be consistent.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the issue that "the material parameters in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 should be in a range". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, based on the original measurement data, we have provided the standard deviation of each parameter and added a data table. The specific revised content can be found in lines 95-97 and Table 1.

3. Comment 3: Some of the images in the article have low clarity, please replace them with high-definition images.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the issue that "the clarity of the pictures in the article is relatively low". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have checked all the pictures in the article and replaced those that are blurry or have unclear handwriting to ensure that the pictures are clearly visible.

4. Comment 4: In the first paragraph of section 4.1.1, the author conducted theoretical research on energy transfer under vibration excitation. The description of this part is unclear, and what is approximated as a cone? What is the fitting effect after approximation like this?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the issue that "the description of what is approximated as a cone is unclear". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have clarified the idea of simplifying the coffee branch into a conical cylinder. The coffee branch has an elongated structure, with the diameter of the root being larger than that of the end, and the diameter changing uniformly. In order to conveniently express the mass equation of the coffee branch, the coffee branch is simplified into a conical cylinder with the diameter of the root larger than that of the end. The specific revised content can be found in lines 231-236.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editor,

I have completed my review of the paper. The authors study addresses a critical issue in coffee production by focusing on enhancing harvesting efficiency. The findings of this research could significantly impact labor costs and the overall sustainability of coffee farming practices.
I have attached comments and suggestions for the authors on copy-paper PDF. paper need improve with experimental setup and data analysis techniques, discuss the statistical significance of the results, and comparison with existing studies

Bw,

Dr. Gatea,

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Hello!

Thank you for the valuable comments you have provided for this research. We have already revised the article according to your suggestions. The specific responses are as follows (the revisions made in response to your comments are marked in red in the text):

1. Comment 1、re-write

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the issue that "the abstract is not clearly expressed and needs to be re-written". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have re-written the unclear sentences, and the specific revised content can be found in lines 13 to 16. 

2. Comment 2: Briefly summarize key findings from these studies to highlight gaps in the existing research that your study addresses.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the issue that "Briefly summarize the key findings of these studies to highlight the gaps in existing research that your study aims to address". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have re-summarized the studies in the literature and found that the existing literature mainly focuses on the research of one-time picking machines for forest fruits and the working parameters of the machines, and there is no research on the selective picking of forest fruits with different degrees of maturity and random distribution on the branches. Coffee berries are shrubs with flowers and fruits at the same time, and their characteristic is that coffee berries with various degrees of maturity will be randomly distributed on the branches during the picking season. Manual picking of coffee berries mainly focuses on picking ripe fruits. For machine picking, it is necessary to improve the picking rate of ripe fruits as much as possible, reduce the picking rate of semi-ripe and unripe fruits, and avoid waste. This study starts from the differences in the bonding force of coffee berries with different degrees of maturity. By adjusting the combination of vibration frequency and amplitude parameters, a parameter combination that can meet the requirement of a high picking rate of ripe fruits and a low picking rate of semi-ripe and unripe fruits is obtained, and finally the purpose of selective picking of coffee berries is achieved. Currently, there are few studies on the selective picking of coffee. This study establishes a mathematical relationship between the movement parameters of coffee and the bonding force, and obtains the optimal combination of vibration parameters that meet the requirements of selective picking of coffee berries through theoretical analysis and field experiments, expanding the methods and theories of the research on selective picking of coffee. The specific revised content can be found in lines 60 to 65.

3. Comment 3: How your research aims to improve the efficiency and selectivity of coffee harvesting.! please

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the point of "how the research aims to improve the efficiency and selectivity of coffee picking". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have clarified the research methods for improving the picking efficiency of coffee berries and the effect of selective picking. In this study, an integral formula for the vibration energy of coffee branches is established, and a quantitative study is conducted on the kinetic energy of coffee branches at different vibration positions. Furthermore, the kinetic energy transfer effect of coffee branches at different vibration positions is obtained. During the picking process, the greater the kinetic energy transferred to the coffee fruits, the greater the inertial force of the coffee fruits, and the easier it is for the coffee fruits to fall off. Therefore, based on the criterion that the maximum kinetic energy indicates the best transfer effect, the optimal vibration position is obtained, achieving the goal of improving the picking efficiency of coffee berries. By studying the mechanical model between the motion parameters of coffee berries and the bonding force, the influence of different combinations of vibration frequencies and amplitudes on the effect of selective picking is obtained. According to the principle of maximizing the picking rate of ripe coffee berries and minimizing the picking rates of semi-ripe and unripe coffee berries, the optimal combination of vibration frequency and amplitude is obtained, achieving the goal of improving the effect of selective picking of coffee berries. The specific revised content can be found in lines 66 to 82.

4. Comment 4 : descriptions of the measurement techniques used

Response 4：Thank you for pointing out the issue of "the description of the measurement techniques used". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have provided the measurement technique for coffee branches during the sample processing. We use a ruler to measure the length of the branches. The specific revised content can be found in lines 91 to 94.

5. Comment 5: Were any statistical tests applied to determine if differences in kinetic energy across vibration positions were significant?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the issue of "whether any statistical tests were applied to determine if the differences in kinetic energy at different vibration positions are significant". We have accepted this revision suggestion. We have carefully examined the research content regarding the kinetic energy transfer of the branches. In the corresponding paragraph of lines 281-288 in this article, the results of the significance test of the velocity equation in Table 6 are presented. The above velocity equation was obtained through binomial fitting regression analysis in Matlab using the experimental data in Table 5. The kinetic energy of the branches was calculated using the kinetic energy integral formula (6) that contains the velocity equation (Table 6) and the mass equation (5). Therefore, the differences in the kinetic energy of the branches at different vibration positions are also significant.

6. Comment 6 : How was high speed camera calibrated to ensure accuracy in measuring velocities parameters?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the issue of "how the high-speed camera was calibrated to ensure the accuracy when measuring the velocity parameters". We have accepted this revision suggestion. During the experiment of dynamic analysis using high-speed photography, we carried out size calibration and distortion calibration. The specific operation of size calibration is as follows: Select the bearing block of the branch pressing device within the shooting range of the high-speed photography as the size calibration object, and set the actual size of the calibration object in the high-speed video processing software to complete the goal of size calibration. The specific content can be found in lines 200-203. Distortion calibration: Add distortion calibration to the entire captured image during the high-speed video processing. Since distortion calibration falls within the scope of post-processing, it has not been described in detail in the article.

7. Comment 7 : Compare your findings with previous studies on vibration harvesting

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the issue of "comparing your research results with previous studies on vibration parameters". We have accepted this revision suggestion. In the early stage of this study, we conducted literature review and preliminary research, and found that the physical properties of coffee berries of different varieties vary greatly, mainly reflected in the bonding force between the coffee berries and the fruit stalks. The bonding force is the technical entry point for selective coffee picking. By changing the combination of vibration frequency and amplitude parameters, the force applied to the coffee berries can be changed, thus achieving the goal of selective picking. In the study of "Design and Operation Parameters of Vibrating Harvester for Coffea arabica L", the bonding force of Catimor coffee was measured, and the coffee berries were divided into two degrees of ripeness: ripe fruits and unripe fruits. The bonding force of ripe fruits is 3.56-5.82 N, and the bonding force of unripe fruits is 9.89-11.92 N, with a minimum difference in bonding force of 6.06 N. In this study, the picking rate of ripe fruits is 92.22%, and the picking rate of unripe fruits is 8.33%. In this study, the bonding force of Arabica coffee was measured, and the coffee berries were divided into three categories: ripe fruits, semi-ripe fruits, and unripe fruits. The bonding force of ripe fruits is 2.41-3.27 N, the bonding force of semi-ripe fruits is 3.09-4.33 N, and the bonding force of unripe fruits is 4.26-5.28 N. There is an overlapping phenomenon in the bonding force ranges of coffee berries with the three degrees of ripeness. In this study, the picking rate of ripe fruits is 89.65%, the picking rate of semi-ripe fruits is 35.17%, and the picking rate of unripe fruits is 15.86%. By comparing the bonding forces of the above two coffee varieties, it is found that there are significant differences in the bonding forces. The smaller the difference in bonding force, the more difficult it is to achieve selective picking. In this study, the bonding force range of coffee has an overlapping part. Therefore, the research on achieving selective picking of Arabica coffee is more difficult, and there is a higher requirement for the matching of vibration frequency and amplitude parameters,The specific modification content can be found in lines 464-504. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses the Investigation of vibrational parameters for coffee selective harvesting, which is significant in practical applications and theoretical innovation. However, some points require clarification to enhance the paper's quality.

• It is suggested to emphasize the so-called selective harvesting in the abstract.
• In lines 55-57, Hendrawan et al. [13]; Its main focus is on the quality of the coffee beans after harvest, not mechanical harvesting or vibration parameters! If the authors are looking for a study that examines the relationship of vibration parameters to coffee harvest, they should cite other sources. Such as Coelho et al. (2015) who analyzed the mechanical properties of the coffee fruit-branch system; and Buitrago-Osorio et al. (2022) who studied the relationship of fruit color to mechanical strength in Arabica coffee.
• In section 2.1: It would be better to mention the physical characteristics of the branch that affect vibration harvest. For example, the conical structure of the branch
• The description of most figures needs to be revised.
• In lines 85-89: A) Please specify the standardized measurement protocol used (e.g., number of replicates, sampling positions along branches). B) Include the manufacturer and model of the vernier caliper and densitometer to ensure reproducibility. C) The reported branch density (6.82 g·cm⁻³) appears anomalously high compared to typical wood densities (0.4–0.8 g·cm⁻³ for most species). Please verify the value or provide methodological justification.
• In Table 1; revising the caption to: "Physical characteristics of coffee fruits (Coffea arabica L.) across maturity stages: (a) unripe (green), (b) semi-ripe (yellow-orange), and (c) ripe (red)." Suggest including this footnote for clarity: "Maturity stages were classified visually based on pericarp color using standardized color charts”
• In section 3.1.1: Please, provide technical specifications for the horizontal and vertical movement of the device.
• In line 228, I noted a discrepancy between the density value used in line 228 (740 kg/m³ from [25]) and your measured value (6820 kg/m³; maybe 682 kg/m³). Could you discuss the rationale for this choice and how the measured properties informed your models?
• Comment on Tables 7–9: The manuscript does not explicitly define the criterion for determining "Theoretical detachment quantity (n1, n2, and n3)" in Tables 7–9. While the detachment logic appears to compare theoretical forces (Equation 11) with empirical force ranges (Table 2), the thresholds for counting a fruit as "detached" are not stated. Please, add the necessary explanations.
• The graph presented in Figure 17 has major flaws, including a lack of clarity in the vertical (Shedding force?) and horizontal axes; the text refers to an important conclusion: "The best parameters: frequency 55 Hz and vibration amplitude 10.10 mm", but this point is not highlighted in the graph (for example, with an arrow or colored circle). Lack of standard error: There are no error bars to show the standard deviation of the data.
• No comparison with related research has been made in the results and discussion section. This section could benefit from a comparative analysis with prior studies on vibrational harvesting (e.g., [8,9,10,13]).
• Optimization methods are not used in the article. Is the word optimization justified in the title?
• Also, pay attention to the comments on the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Hello!

Thank you for the valuable comments you have provided for this research. We have already revised the article according to your suggestions. The specific responses are as follows (the revisions made in response to your comments are marked in red in the text):

1. Comment 1: It is suggested to emphasize the so-called selective harvesting in the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the issue of " It is suggested to emphasize the so-called selective harvesting in the abstract.". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, We have refined the elaboration on the selective harvesting of coffee. The specific revised content can be found in lines 68 to 84.

2. Comment 2: In lines 55-57, Hendrawan et al. [13]; Its main focus is on the quality of the coffee beans after harvest, not mechanical harvesting or vibration parameters! If the authors are looking for a study that examines the relationship of vibration parameters to coffee harvest, they should cite other sources. Such as Coelho et al. (2015) who analyzed the mechanical properties of the coffee fruit-branch system; and Buitrago-Osorio et al. (2022) who studied the relationship of fruit color to mechanical strength in Arabica coffee.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the issue of " In lines 55-57, Hendrawan et al. [13]; Its main focus is on the quality of the coffee beans after harvest, not mechanical harvesting or vibration parameters! If the authors are looking for a study that examines the relationship of vibration parameters to coffee harvest, they should cite other sources. Such as Coelho et al. (2015) who analyzed the mechanical properties of the coffee fruit-branch system; and Buitrago-Osorio et al. (2022) who studied the relationship of fruit color to mechanical strength in Arabica coffee." We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have replaced Document 13. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 58-61.

3. Comment 3: In section 2.1: It would be better to mention the physical characteristics of the branch that affect vibration harvest. For example, the conical structure of the branch

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " In section 2.1: It would be better to mention the physical characteristics of the branch that affect vibration harvest. For example, the conical structure of the branch" to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have analyzed and described the physical characteristics of coffee branches. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 104-107.

4. Comment 4: The description of most figures needs to be revised.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the two issues: " The description of most figures needs to be revised.". We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have made modifications to the unclear charts.

5. Comment 5: In lines 85-89: A) Please specify the standardized measurement protocol used (e.g., number of replicates, sampling positions along branches). B) Include the manufacturer and model of the vernier caliper and densitometer to ensure reproducibility. C) The reported branch density (6.82 g·cm⁻³) appears anomalously high compared to typical wood densities (0.4–8 g·cm⁻³ for most species). Please verify the value or provide methodological justification.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " In lines 85-89: A) Please specify the standardized measurement protocol used (e.g., number of replicates, sampling positions along branches). B) Include the manufacturer and model of the vernier caliper and densitometer to ensure reproducibility. C) The reported branch density (6.82 g·cm⁻³) appears anomalously high compared to typical wood densities (0.4–0.8 g·cm⁻³ for most species). Please verify the value or provide methodological justification." to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have provided the specific manufacturers, models, and accuracies of the measuring instruments. The value of the density of coffee branches was a writing error, which has been corrected in the text. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 99-102 and Table 1.

6. Comment 6: In Table 1; revising the caption to: "Physical characteristics of coffee fruits (Coffea arabica L.) across maturity stages: (a) unripe (green), (b) semi-ripe (yellow-orange), and (c) ripe (red)." Suggest including this footnote for clarity: "Maturity stages were classified visually based on pericarp color using standardized color charts”

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " In Table 1; revising the caption to: "Physical characteristics of coffee fruits (Coffea arabica L.) across maturity stages: (a) unripe (green), (b) semi-ripe (yellow-orange), and (c) ripe (red)." Suggest including this footnote for clarity: "Maturity stages were classified visually based on pericarp color using standardized color charts”" to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have revised the title of Table 2 and added a caption to it. The specific modification content can be found in lines 129-130.

7. Comment 7: In section 3.1.1: Please, provide technical specifications for the horizontal and vertical movement of the device.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " In section 3.1.1: Please, provide technical specifications for the horizontal and vertical movement of the device. "Maturity stages were classified visually based on pericarp color using standardized color charts”" to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have added the technical specifications of the abscissa and ordinate of the two-axis adaptive vibration test bench in the text. The specific modification content can be found in lines 167-169.

8. Comment 8: In line 228, I noted a discrepancy between the density value used in line 228 (740 kg/m³ from [25]) and your measured value (6820 kg/m³; maybe 682 kg/m³). Could you discuss the rationale for this choice and how the measured properties informed your models?

Response8: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " In line 228, I noted a discrepancy between the density value used in line 228 (740 kg/m³ from [25]) and your measured value (6820 kg/m³; maybe 682 kg/m³). Could you discuss the rationale for this choice and how the measured properties informed your models?" to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have checked the specific details of the two data values, 740 kg/m³ and 0.682 g·cm⁻³. The data of 740 kg/m³ was used in the preliminary plan. Later, the density of coffee branches was re-measured, and the data used in the calculations of this article is 0.682 g·cm⁻³. The appearance of 740 kg/m³ in the text was a writing error. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 253-255.

9. Comment 9: Comment on Tables 7–9: The manuscript does not explicitly define the criterion for determining "Theoretical detachment quantity (n1, n2, and n3)" in Tables 7–9. While the detachment logic appears to compare theoretical forces (Equation 11) with empirical force ranges (Table 2), the thresholds for counting a fruit as "detached" are not stated. Please, add the necessary explanations.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " Comment on Tables 7–9: The manuscript does not explicitly define the criterion for determining "Theoretical detachment quantity (n1, n2, and n3)" in Tables 7–9. While the detachment logic appears to compare theoretical forces (Equation 11) with empirical force ranges (Table 2), the thresholds for counting a fruit as "detached" are not stated. Please, add the necessary explanations." to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have carefully reviewed the article and explained the relationship between the theoretical detachment force and the threshold in lines 392-402 of the article.

10. Comment 10: The graph presented in Figure 17 has major flaws, including a lack of clarity in the vertical (Shedding force?) and horizontal axes; the text refers to an important conclusion: "The best parameters: frequency 55 Hz and vibration amplitude 10.10 mm", but this point is not highlighted in the graph (for example, with an arrow or colored circle). Lack of standard error: There are no error bars to show the standard deviation of the data.

Response10: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " The graph presented in Figure 17 has major flaws, including a lack of clarity in the vertical (Shedding force?) and horizontal axes; the text refers to an important conclusion: "The best parameters: frequency 55 Hz and vibration amplitude 10.10 mm", but this point is not highlighted in the graph (for example, with an arrow or colored circle). Lack of standard error: There are no error bars to show the standard deviation of the data." to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have optimized Figure 17. The expression of "Theoretical Detachment Force (%)" on the ordinate was incorrect, and we have corrected it to "Theoretical Detachment Rate (%)". Also, the optimal vibration parameters have been highlighted. Due to the huge amount of experimental data, when processing the data, only the data graph of the average value is shown in the figure. For the specific modification content, please refer to Figure 17.

11. Comment 11: No comparison with related research has been made in the results and discussion section. This section could benefit from a comparative analysis with prior studies on vibrational harvesting (e.g., [8,9,10,13]).

Response11: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " No comparison with related research has been made in the results and discussion section. This section could benefit from a comparative analysis with prior studies on vibrational harvesting (e.g., [8,9,10,13])." to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have conducted a comparative analysis between this study and previous studies. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 464-504.

12. Comment 12: Optimization methods are not used in the article. Is the word optimization justified in the title?

Response12: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " Optimization methods are not used in the article. Is the word optimization justified in the title?" to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have revised the title of our article. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 2-4.

13. Comment 13: Also, pay attention to the comments on the attached file.

Response13: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding " Also, pay attention to the comments on the attached file." to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, We have made modifications to the content related to frequency in the attachment one by one. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 10-11, 13-14 and 17-18.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In all the text:

My suggestion is to use one term for one thing. For example: coffee fruit (see section 4.2.1) or coffee cherry (see Figure 13 in the same section).

 

Page 2, last paragraph:

“… 0.01-0.05 g/cm³ … 6.82 g·cm⁻³.”

Please unify the dimension designation!

 

Table 1:

My suggestion is to include in the caption “at each maturity stage – unripe (a), semi-ripe (b), and ripe (c)”

 

Table 4:

“Average speed of speed marker point”

Average velocity of velocity marker point, I presume.

The same in the paragraph after Figure 14 (speed-marked point). See the paragraph after formula (10), too.

Check please in all the text: velocity marker point, velocity marked point, or velocity-marked point?

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Hello!

Thank you for the valuable comments you have provided for this research. We have already revised the article according to your suggestions. The specific responses are as follows (the revisions made in response to your comments are marked in red in the text):

1. Comment 1: My suggestion is to use one term for one thing. For example: coffee fruit (see section 4.2.1) or coffee cherry (see Figure 13 in the same section).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the issue of "one object corresponds to one term". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, we have checked the entire article and uniformly replaced all the terms of "coffee fruits" in the text with "coffee berries".

2. Comment 2: Page 2, last paragraph: “0.01-0.05 g/cm³，82 g·cm⁻³.” “0.01 - 0.05 grams per cubic centimeter, 6.82 grams per cubic centimeter (6.82 g·cm⁻³).” Please unify the dimension designation!

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the issue of "inconsistent data dimensions." We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, we have checked the entire text and unified the dimensions of all the data in the article. For the specific modification content, please refer to lines 99-100 and Table 1.

3. Comment 3: My suggestion is to include in the caption “at each maturity stage – unripe (a), semi-ripe (b), and ripe (c)”

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the issue of adding "at various ripening stages - unripe (a), semi-ripe (b), and ripe (c)" to the table title. We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, we have changed the title in the table. For the specific modification content, please refer to Table 2. Meanwhile, we have also revised the terms in the text, and the specific modification content can be found in lines 106-108.

4. Comment 4: “Average velocity of velocity marker point” Average velocity of velocity marker point, I presume. The same in the paragraph after Figure 14 (speed-marked point). See the paragraph after formula (10), too. Check please in all the text: velocity marker point, velocity marked point, or velocity-marked point?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the two issues: "The average velocity of the velocity marking points should be the average speed of the velocity marking points" and "Whether it is 'velocity marking points', 'points with marked velocity' or 'points with already marked velocity'". We have accepted this modification suggestion. Therefore, we have revised the average velocity of the velocity marking points to the average speed of the velocity marking points. For the specific content, please refer to Table 4 and Formula (10). We have checked the entire text and unified the expressions of the velocity marking points throughout the text. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered all the ambiguities and points raised. Only one issue remains: Please review the label (legend) of Figure 17 and correct the wording used.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Hello!

Thank you for the valuable comments you have provided for this research. We have already revised the article according to your suggestions. The specific responses are as follows (the revisions made in response to your comments are marked in red in the text):

1. Comment 1: Please review the label (legend) of Figure 17 and correct the wording used.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the issue of "Please review the label (legend) of Figure 17 and correct the wording used.". We have accepted this revision suggestion. Therefore, We have made modifications to the labels in Figure 17. The specific modification contents are shown in Figure 17.

hank you for your help.

 

Sincerely yours

 

Zhou shenwgwu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf