Application of Seed Miss Prevention System for a Spoon-Wheel Type Precision Seed Metering Device: Effectiveness and Limitations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The study acknowledges incomplete elimination of seed misses  but does not 7explore the coupling effects of mechanical design (e.g., spoon-wheel centrifugal force at high speeds) and sensor response delay. Include high-speed camera observations of seed trajectories to identify mechanical improvement directions.
2. The conclusion states the system is suitable for low speeds (3–10 rpm)  , but lacks cr8op-specific recommendations (e.g., optimal parameters for corn vs. beans). Provide a table of recommended operational parameters for different crops to enhance practical utility
3. The study uses DEM to optimize sensor placement but lacks details on parameter sensitivity (e.g., particle count, boundary conditions). For instance, while multi-sphere modeling (40–70 spheres/particle) is mentioned , the impact o2f sphere count on simulation accuracy is unaddressed. Include comparative results for different sphere counts to validate the model’s reliability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript’s technical content is robust, but language refinements will improve readability and academic rigor, ensuring clearer communication of findings to international audiences.

Author Response

Comment 1. The study acknowledges incomplete elimination of seed misses  but does not 7explore the coupling effects of mechanical design (e.g., spoon-wheel centrifugal force at high speeds) and sensor response delay. Include high-speed camera observations of seed trajectories to identify mechanical improvement directions.

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for their insightful feedback and readily agree that the interplay between the mechanical design of the seed metering device and sensor response is a critical area for investigation. The suggestion to use high-speed camera observations to analyze seed trajectories is particularly valuable for identifying potential mechanical enhancements.

In the scope of our current study, we focused on evaluating the performance of our proposed control system on an unmodified, commercially available seed metering device. This approach was chosen to assess the system's effectiveness in a real-world scenario, without altering the fundamental mechanical characteristics of the existing hardware.

Regarding the sensor response delay, we would like to clarify that our system's design intentionally mitigates this factor. The seed miss detection algorithm is designed to complete its analysis well in advance of any corrective acceleration. In fact, the microcontroller unit (MCU) incorporates a programmed delay to ensure that acceleration is applied at the optimal moment for seed correction. This process is detailed in our previous publication Reference №19. Nikolay et al. (Nikolay, Z.; Nikolay, K.; Gao, X.; Li, Q.W.; Mi, G.P.; Huang, Y.X. Design and testing of novel seed miss prevention system for single seed precision metering devices. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022, 198, 107048.), which introduced and tested the foundational concepts of this system. Figure 9 of that manuscript specifically illustrates the sensor's response time, which is well within the operational parameters of our control strategy.

While we concur that high-speed camera analysis would be an excellent next step for refining the mechanical design, this was unfortunately beyond the scope and budget of the current project. We are optimistic that the promising results of our control system will provide a strong foundation for future research that incorporates such advanced imaging techniques to further optimize the seed metering process.

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestions, which will undoubtedly inform the direction of our future work in this area.

Comment 2. The conclusion states the system is suitable for low speeds (3–10 rpm), but lacks cr8op-specific recommendations (e.g., optimal parameters for corn vs. beans). Provide a table of recommended operational parameters for different crops to enhance practical utility.

Response 2.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback. The reviewer noted that the manuscript would be strengthened by including crop-specific recommendations for operational parameters. We agree that this is an excellent suggestion to enhance the practical utility of our work.

In response, we have compiled a comprehensive table outlining these parameters for different crops. This has been added as Table C.1 in Appendix C (lines 515 revised manuscript), and the Conclusion has been revised (lines 482-285 revised manuscript) to direct the reader to this new information, as suggested.

Comment 3. The study uses DEM to optimize sensor placement but lacks details on parameter sensitivity (e.g., particle count, boundary conditions). For instance, while multi-sphere modeling (40–70 spheres/particle) is mentioned , the impact o2f sphere count on simulation accuracy is unaddressed. Include comparative results for different sphere counts to validate the model’s reliability.

Response 3. General parameters used for EDEM are presented in Table 1 of the manuscript. 1125 particles were pregenerated and boundary conditions were defined by imported geometry (metering device) and scanned seeds geometry (seed shape). We agree that multi-sphere modeling count affects the precision of the model. However, the EDEM simulation was intended to provide good visual guidance for determining sensor location, not to get comprehensive DEM study. Despite this, we used best practice available in the literature. For example, we used 3d scanned seeds for particle shape. Literature generally has a logical consensus that the precision of the model increases with increase of number of spheres per particle. We used a bigger number of particles per corn seed than any other literature we reviewed.

(Particle - seed 1, Total number: 96; Particle - seed 2, Total number: 114; Particle - seed 3, Total number:107; Particle - seed 4, Total number: 117; Particle - seed 5, Total number:106; Particle - seed 6, Total number:114; Particle - seed 7, Total number:136; Particle - seed 8, Total number:99; Particle - seed 9, Total number:104; Particle - seed 10, Total number:132. Total: 1125.)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments in letter

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. The Introduction section is more descriptive than critical. It hardly discusses the shortcomings of other scientists' research. In this regard, it is very problematic to determine the SCIENTIFIC novelty of this work. 

Response 1. We are sorry that the scientific novelty was not stated clear enough.  The goal of the research is to work toward the complete seed miss prevention technique, which is not achieved in any of the studies reviewed. The seed prevention system promises theoretical and practical (in the lab conditions, reference №19. Nikolay et al. (Nikolay, Z.; Nikolay, K.; Gao, X.; Li, Q.W.; Mi, G.P.; Huang, Y.X. Design and testing of novel seed miss prevention system for single seed precision metering devices. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022, 198, 107048)) to achieve this. We admit that in this research we did not achieve a desirable outcome, however we consider it as an important milestone towards achieving total seed miss prevention and valuable knowledge for the scientific community. Having clarified this, we added appropriate phrases to clarify scientific shortcoming (not achieving total seed miss prevention) of reviewed literature.

Comment 2. There is no sufficient justification for choosing the values of the seeding disk revolutions in the range of 3-15 rpm. 

Response 2. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. We agree that a clear justification for the experimental range is essential. The selected range of 3-15 rpm was chosen to represent both practical agricultural speeds and the physical limitations of the equipment.

The lower limit (3 rpm) corresponds to the minimum forward velocity that is agronomically practical and economically viable in typical field conditions. Operating at speeds below this threshold is not representative of real-world use.

The upper limit (15 rpm) was determined based on preliminary investigations using both EDEM simulations and experimental test runs. These tests indicated that rotational speeds exceeding 15 rpm led to a significant degradation in seed metering performance, including increased skips and poor seed pickup due to excessive centrifugal forces.

To ensure this rationale is clear to the reader, we have revised the second paragraph of Section 2.5.2 to incorporate this detailed justification for the selected rpm range.

Comment 3. The article's material does not reveal the patterns of the processes being studied. It is of a purely informational and technical nature. For example, line 414 states that "...while other cultivars showed no significant S1-S2 differences". I (and other readers) naturally have a question: WHY? But there is no answer to it.

Response 3.  We appreciate you pointing this out. We structured the paper so that Section 3.3.3 presents only the Tukey test results, while Section 3.3.4 provides the discussion and interpretation, which is where we address the underlying reasons for those results. The specific question of why some cultivars showed no significant S1-S2 differences is answered on lines 443-447 of the manuscript. The core reason relates to the seeds' physical properties. We found that cultivars with more uniform, rounded seeds passed the sensors with greater stability and consistency. Those with irregular shapes had more chaotic trajectories, leading to significant differences in sensor readings. We believe the full explanation in the discussion section will resolve this question.

Comment 4. If I wanted to use formula (7), I would require the authors to provide a clear explanation of the nature of the denominator (5000?). 

Response 4. Thank you for this excellent question. We agree that the origin of the constants in our formulas should be clear. Formula (7) was derived by us using the Sympy library in Python. We did not include derivation of the formula in the manuscript, as it would unnecessarily increase an already big manuscript. The denominator comes from equating tractor RPM and stepper motor RPM expressions. We have revised subsection 2.5.2 included a footnote in the revised manuscript containing the link to the Jupyter Notebook file (page 10 under line 319). We encourage respected Reviewers and other readers to test the formula. We can also include the description of the full derivation in the manuscript if required.

Comment 5. The recommended seeder speed of 4 km/h withstands no criticism. Modern seeding systems operate at a speed of at least 7-9 km/h.

Response 5. We fully agree with this statement of the reviewer. And we share the frustration related to the operation speed of the metering device. Since we did not have a big project budget, we bought the cheapest corn precision seeder available. The performance of the metering device of the seeder was not satisfactory from the start. Originally, we planned to make a whole seeder with a seed prevention system, but the performance and the result related to the type of seed metering device were not satisfactory for us. However, we showed that regardless of the limitation posed by the metering device itself, the system still improves performance in terms of seed misses and the work is scientifically viable. It also highlights some limitations of the system and a need for testing on more performant seed metering devices. We consider it as an intermediate step towards full elimination of seed misses.

Comment 6. The article's conclusions do not contain scientific regularities. The authors of the article reflect only the technical results obtained. In this regard, the article weakly claims to be a scientific work. It could successfully be published in another engineering journal.

Response 6. Thank you for your feedback. While we understand your perspective, we believe our work contains significant scientific merit that complements its engineering innovations. This manuscript is a critical part of a larger scientific investigation into the complete elimination of seed misses—a goal not yet achieved in our field. Our research tests the central scientific hypothesis that a proactive, real-time control system can fundamentally overcome the probabilistic nature of mechanical seed metering. The technical results presented are not the end goal, but rather the empirical evidence used to validate this scientific premise. In applied science, rigorous engineering is the only way to test and measure the real-world performance of a theoretical concept. The patterns and limitations we observed and reported are the data that inform our understanding of this novel approach.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses the issue of inaccurate seed miss detection in precision seeding operations by proposing and implementing a Seed Miss Prevention System (SMPS) based on the fusion of a laser sensor and an ambient light sensor. The system determines whether a seed has been successfully dropped by evaluating both sensor signals, thereby effectively reducing false detections caused by partial obstruction or interference. Experimental results demonstrate that the dual-sensor system significantly outperforms the traditional single-sensor configuration under low-speed conditions (3–10 rpm), especially for seeds with regular shapes. The study provides a feasible solution for improving seed placement consistency in precision agriculture.However, the manuscript still has the following issues that should be addressed to improve its scientific rigor and engineering relevance:

1. The dual-sensor approach has already seen certain applications in agricultural engineering. It is recommended that the authors further emphasize the unique value and engineering innovation of their system within the context of seeding equipment, and conduct a horizontal comparison with existing seed miss detection and reseeding systems (e.g., commercial seeding monitoring devices) to strengthen the novelty and distinctiveness of the study.
2. The sensor installation position was determined primarily through visual observation of EDEM simulation results, which may be subjective and insufficient. It is recommended that the authors utilize the post-processing module of EDEM to define virtual sensor regions and conduct controlled experiments to quantitatively determine optimal sensor placement.
3. Typically, the performance evaluation indicators for seed metering devices include multiple seedrate, miss seed rate, and single seed rate. It is recommended that the authors clarify whether the proposed system is capable of detecting double planting, as existing planter performance monitoring systems are often able to detect not only missed seeds but also the number of multiple seed and the coefficient of variation in seed spacing.
4. In practical engineering applications, system response speed and efficiency are critical. The manuscript should include a quantitative description of the system's detection latency, throughput, or processing speed under different operating conditions to demonstrate its suitability for real-time applications.
5. Several figures contain text that is too small and lacks sufficient contrast with the background, making it difficult for readers to extract information. It is recommended to increase font size and apply background shading or color adjustment to enhance clarity.
6. Some tables exhibit overlapping text or formatting problems. Additionally, certain items are not fully translated or standardized in English. The authors should thoroughly revise the table layouts and ensure all content meets professional formatting and language standards for international publication.

Author Response

Comment 1. The dual-sensor approach has already seen certain applications in agricultural engineering. It is recommended that the authors further emphasize the unique value and engineering innovation of their system within the context of seeding equipment, and conduct a horizontal comparison with existing seed miss detection and reseeding systems (e.g., commercial seeding monitoring devices) to strengthen the novelty and distinctiveness of the study.

Response 1.  We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that a horizontal comparison with existing systems would strengthen the presentation of our study. However, it is important to clarify that our proposed system is fundamentally different from conventional seed monitoring or reseeding systems. While commercial systems typically focus on detecting missed seeds and alerting the operator, our approach aims at actively preventing seed misses by dynamically responding to speed variations. Therefore, a direct comparison is not feasible, as our system is not a seed monitoring or reseeding solution, but a proactive prevention mechanism. For those interested in the original concept and supporting theoretical basis, we refer to the work of Nikolay et al. [19] (Nikolay, Z.; Nikolay, K.; Gao, X.; Li, Q.W.; Mi, G.P.; Huang, Y.X. Design and testing of novel seed miss prevention system for single seed precision metering devices. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022, 198, 107048), which explores the foundational aspects of speed-based seed miss prevention. Our system builds upon and advances this approach by integrating dual-sensor feedback to enhance responsiveness and reliability.

Comment 2. The sensor installation position was determined primarily through visual observation of EDEM simulation results, which may be subjective and insufficient. It is recommended that the authors utilize the post-processing module of EDEM to define virtual sensor regions and conduct controlled experiments to quantitatively determine optimal sensor placement.

Response 2. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and fully agree that a quantitative approach using EDEM’s post-processing module would, in principle, provide a more objective basis for determining optimal sensor placement.

In fact, this was part of our initial experimental plan. However, during implementation, we encountered significant limitations. While defining virtual sensor regions in the post-processing environment allowed us to detect whether seeds passed through a specific area, this alone was insufficient. For our application, it is not only critical to detect passage but also to evaluate the seed’s orientation and motion stability—especially under varying speeds—which could not be reliably captured through virtual regions alone.

Additionally, we faced mechanical constraints related to the metering device that limited how extensively we could modify the system to test alternative placements. As a result, we adopted a practical approach: several observers independently evaluated the EDEM simulations visually, followed by discussions and consensus-based decision-making. This method, while qualitative, allowed us to integrate multiple perspectives and practical considerations. We also experimentally tested multiple sensor locations and confirmed that the final selected position yielded the most reliable performance in our setup.

We appreciate the reviewer’s recommendation and will explore more advanced post-processing tools or customized scripts in future studies to achieve deeper quantitative insights.

Comment 3. Typically, the performance evaluation indicators for seed metering devices include multiple seedrate, miss seed rate, and single seed rate. It is recommended that the authors clarify whether the proposed system is capable of detecting double planting, as existing planter performance monitoring systems are often able to detect not only missed seeds but also the number of multiple seed and the coefficient of variation in seed spacing.

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The proposed system is not capable of detecting multiple seed drops, as the current laser-hole sensor configuration does not allow for distinguishing between single and multiple seeds passing simultaneously. Moreover, even if such detection were possible, the system lacks a physical mechanism to separate multiple seeds once they are in the same metering spoon—unlike in some commercial systems that are designed primarily for monitoring. It is also important to clarify that our system is a control-oriented seed miss prevention system, rather than a monitoring system. While modern planter monitoring devices can measure miss rates, multiples, and seed spacing variation, our system’s purpose is to dynamically prevent misses by adjusting drive speed based on sensor input. That said, we agree that reducing seed misses can have a positive indirect effect on the rate of multiples. By fine-tuning the system to prioritize single seed delivery and minimize skips, the overall planting quality may improve—even if multiples are not directly measured or controlled. Future enhancements could consider integrating more advanced sensors or hybrid approaches to simultaneously address both misses and multiples.

Comment 4. In practical engineering applications, system response speed and efficiency are critical. The manuscript should include a quantitative description of the system's detection latency, throughput, or processing speed under different operating conditions to demonstrate its suitability for real-time applications.

Response 4. We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on system response speed, a critical factor in real-time applications. In our system, the detection latency of the sensor itself (shown in Figure 9 revised manuscript) is negligible compared to the intentionally delayed actuation timing. This is because seed miss detection must occur in advance of the metering system’s physical response window—a design principle detailed in our prior work (Nikolay et al., [19]).

To clarify:

Sensor vs. Actuation Timing: The microcontroller (MCU) deliberately waits to trigger acceleration until the optimal mechanical moment, meaning sensor latency (typically <1 ms) does not bottleneck system performance (lines 360-371 revised manuscript).

Real-World Validation: Both this study and [19] demonstrate the system’s reliability in real-time operation, with no observed delays impacting functionality. The limiting factor is detection accuracy (e.g., minimizing false negatives), not processing speed.

While we did not explicitly quantify latency metrics here (as they were not a constraint), we agree that future work could include formal benchmarks under varying speeds to further generalize the approach. We emphasize, however, that the current implementation’s efficacy is rooted in its accuracy-driven design, as evidenced by the experimental results.

Comment 5. Several figures contain text that is too small and lacks sufficient contrast with the background, making it difficult for readers to extract information. It is recommended to increase font size and apply background shading or color adjustment to enhance clarity.

Response 5. Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the clarity of the figures in our manuscript. We agree that the text in several figures was too small and lacked sufficient contrast, hindering readability. Following your recommendation, we have revised the figures to enhance their clarity. We have increased the font size of the text and adjusted the background to ensure better contrast. Specifically, we have applied these improvements to Figure 11, Figure A1, and Figure B1, as well as other relevant figures, to ensure all information is now easily accessible to the reader. We appreciate your guidance in helping us improve the quality of our paper.

Comment 6. Some tables exhibit overlapping text or formatting problems. Additionally, certain items are not fully translated or standardized in English. The authors should thoroughly revise the table layouts and ensure all content meets professional formatting and language standards for international publication.

Response 6. Thank you for your keen observation and valuable feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate you pointing out the issues with the table layouts, overlapping text, and the need for further translation and standardization. We had also noted some of these formatting errors and, in response to your comments, have conducted a thorough revision of all tables to ensure they meet the professional standards for international publication. To address the formatting problems, we have incorporated a new LaTeX package to improve the table layouts. Specifically, as you noted, we have corrected the issues in Table 2 (experimental data, line 376) and have meticulously reviewed all other tables for similar errors. We are confident that the revised tables are now clear, professionally formatted, and fully translated into English. Thank you once again for your constructive guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments on the corrected version of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript has undergone the necessary revisions and has effectively addressed the previous comments and suggestions. It will make a significant contribution to the academic discussion in the field.