Design and Experimentation on a Pneumatic Corn Seed Metering Device with Assisted Seed-Filling and Airflow-Guided Seed Release

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Before the publication of the work, I would recommend the following improvements:

 

Expand the methods section to include more specific details about the experimental setup, materials used, and testing procedures.

Include a more comprehensive discussion on the limitations of the study, such as potential biases in field tests, the choice of tested parameters, and how these factors may influence the generalization of the results.

Conduct a more detailed comparison with existing seed planting devices and other innovative seeding technologies.

Add a section that analyzes the costs of implementing the new device versus the economic benefits, such as expected increases in productivity and reductions in seed costs due to wastage.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript, we have made changes in the new manuscript based on your suggestions and have described the changes in the enclosed response letter.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction: Some literature is unrelated to corn sowing. In addition, the authors should further highlight the necessity and importance of this study in order to clarify its academic contribution.
2. Section 2.5.2: The description of the experimental method is not detailed, and indicators such as qualified seed spacing index, missed sowing index, resowing index, and coefficient of variation of qualified seed spacing are not defined. How were the above parameters measured and calculated in the experiment?
3. Line 463-464: What are the technical requirements for precise sowing? 
4. Conclusions: What are the performance improvements of the devices developed by the authors compared to existing devices? If it is only to meet the needs of precision sowing, what are the advantages compared to existing machines? This article lacks corresponding comparative data to demonstrate the contribution of this research.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript, we have made changes in the new manuscript based on your suggestions and have described the changes in the enclosed response letter.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' responses to my comments 2 and 3 did not address my concerns:
1. Section 2.5.2: The seeding performance indicators should be given in the form of formulas. Based on the existing descriptions provided by the authors, we are unable to determine how these indicators were calculated or statistically analyzed. Moreover, the experimental methods are still not described in detail, such as the model and specifications of the equipment used, sampling methods, etc.
2. Section 3.1.2: " Under these conditions, ..., the resowing index was 3.33%, and the coefficient of variation for qualified seed spacing was 17.37%. According to GB/T 6973-2005 "Test Methods for Single Grain (Precision) Seeders," ... the resowing index should be below 3%. All indicators met the technical requirements for precision single-seed corn sowing. "
The test results of resowing index (3.33%) do not meet the requirements of GB/T 6973-2005 (＜3%); The requirement for "coefficient of variation for qualified seed spacing" was not provided, so it is impossible to determine whether the test results meet the requirements of GB/T 6973-2005.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"According to GB/T 6973-2005 "Test Methods for Single Grain (Precision) Seeders," precision seeding generally requires that the qualified seed spacing index should exceed 90%, the missed sowing index is typically required to be less than 3% to 5%, the resowing index should be less than 3% to 5%, and the coefficient of variation of qualified seed spacing should generally be less than 25%."

My question regarding the revised text by the authors mentioned above is as follows: I have carefully read GB/T 6973-2005, and its correct translation should be "Testing methods of single seed drills (precision drills)". What confuses me is that this standard document only involves experimental methods and does not provide specific requirements for each indicator. Therefore, what is the source of the quality requirements claimed by the author? If the citation is incorrect, please correct the mistake.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns have been addressed.