Physico-Mechanical Properties of Male and Female Hemp Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Author´s additions and changes based on the review questions, suggestions and remarks resulted in the manuscript clarification, particularly in the Materials and Methods part. However, the usefulness of the tests performed for the stated purpose is questionable  I still believe that cross-sectional dimensions should be used for evaluation of the compression tests results. These comments have not been addressed by the author.

Author Response

The response letter prepared for Review 1 is in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current paper can be accepted.

Author Response

The response letter prepared for Review 2 is in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is within the scope of the Journal. The English language is satisfactory, and readers will comprehend the information presented. The authors evaluated the physico-mechanical properties of male and female hemp plants divided into three sections along their length as lower, middle and upper regions. The data were statistically analyzed by employing ANOVA technique and DMRT. The manuscript is scientifically written and appropriately organized with relevant and considerable in-text citations. The Introduction has 49 in-text citations which thus provide solid background of the study. However, the following comments are necessary for revision.

1. Abstract. Lines 10-17 should be deleted or be part of the Introduction. The Abstract should begin from Line 17. Ensure that the main findings of the study are provided which should not exceed 200 words. Please, refer to the Journal's Instructions for Authors.
2. The objectives of the study in Lines 152-153 should be broadened for clarity. The current form does not provide the specific objectives of the study.
3. If the study was carried out in 2022 then why the data was not published earlier? Please, what happened in 2023 and 2024?
4. Provide a section 2.3 as Statistical Analysis. Describe only the statistical techniques and significance level used. Avoid information about the results of the study and comparison with other works. Put those information in the results description.
5. The data in Table 1 should be means +/- standard deviation since the experiments were repeated 30 times as stated in Line 267. Define LSD below the Table. Define the meaning of the different letters. Eg., different letters are significantly (P < 0.05) different from each other. Provide the the values with the n.s. Also define below the Table that (P <0.05) means significant. n.s not significant (P > 0.05). In addition, CV is in %?
6. Figure 4a and 4b should Force (N) and Deformation (mm), not Force and time. Force and time represent relaxation curve. Even in Line 328...you mentioned deformation, not time.
7. Table 2 should follow comment 5 accordingly.

Author Response

The response letter prepared for Review 3 is in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the paper was to determine the differences in the physical properties of male and female hemp stems. This knowledge should contribute to the design of machines for harvesting the crop. The weak point of the research is the concept of the measurement methodology with respect to these goals.

1. Why did you choose compression tests for measurements and not shear tests? After all, we need shear strength to design the harvesting machine.

2. The preparation of samples is described insufficiently: a. it is not clear how the measurement of samples from the middle and upper part is related to the harvesting properties, b. the method of cutting the samples is not described, while the formation of cracks in stem and fibers can have a significant impact on the compressive strength.
3. The method of measuring and evaluating the dimensions of the samples (number of samples, measuring equipment, measurement locations, statistical processing) is not described. What is axial and lateral thickness?
4. The compression test was supposed to be key to the research. However, the criterion of the highest force is inappropriately chosen for comparison, because it does not take into account the differences in cross-sections of, for example, male and female samples. It is necessary to use standard parameters, such as compressive stress, strain. How can be expressed elongation in compression tests?
5. To expand knowledge about mechanical properties important for harvesting, it would be appropriate to know the influence of cut height, i.e. research of samples in the lower part of the plant. It would be useful to know the influence of plant moisture, harvesting phenophase, strength of external tissues and fibers in shear, etc.
6. The formulation of keywords needs to be adjusted so that they are not repeated, even with the title of the paper, and are simple separate terms.
7. The form of the presented pressure diagrams (Fig. 4) is inappropriate for a scientific article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In order to study the physical properties of cannabis plants, the authors conducted axial and transverse compression tests on the stems of male and female cannabis plants. However, this study has certain limitations and is currently not suitable for publication. For example, (1) although the sample size meets some statistical requirements, no explanation of the randomness of sample selection is provided, and the impact of environmental variables (such as light and humidity fluctuations) on experimental results is not analyzed, which may weaken the credibility of the conclusion. (2) Figure 4 should provide data curves, not photos. (3) The discussion and literature comparison are insufficient, and the limitations of the research have not been fully discussed. (4) The conclusion mentions the need to design harvesting machinery based on gender characteristics, but does not provide specific parameters (such as optimization ranges for cutting height and travel speed) or validation methods, making it difficult to guide engineering practice.