Validation of Criteria for Predicting Tractor Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions When Ploughing Fields of Different Shapes and Dimensions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article studies the relationship between farmland efficiency, fuel consumption, and plot shape during the cultivation process, and conducts relevant experiments and analysis, which has certain significance.However, there are still some questions and suggestions that the author needs to modify and explain:
1. Lines10-25:Clearly state the purpose of the research in the introduction. Specify why understanding the influence of the cultivated plot's configuration is essential for achieving economic and environmentally friendly tillage practices.
2. Lines10-25:Provide more details about the methodology used for predicting tractor fuel demand and CO2 emissions. Highlight the steps involved in the prediction process and how the suitable variable was confirmed.
3. Lines10-25:Emphasize the significance of the findings, particularly the 15% increase in time efficiency leading to a 5.5% decrease in fuel consumption per unit area during plowing stubble plots.
4. Lines 23-25: Suggest to express your thoughts smoothly in the sentence."After increasing the time efficiency of plowing stubble plots with an area of 6 hectares by 15% and adjusting the plot dimensions, the fuel consumption per unit area decreased by approximately 5.5%."
5. Lines106:Please provide the basis for selecting the shape of the plot, or in other words, why were these shapes chosen?
6. The clarity of Figure 5 is insufficient, and there are two images in Figure 5. Please add captions separately for each image. Also, check other unclear Figures in the document and make corrections.
7. It is suggested to include a schematic diagram illustrating the approximate trajectory of the tractor's operations in different plots. This may also have an impact on power consumption.
8. Before analyzing the results, please describe the graph or table first. For example, in lines 283-284, the statement 'a significant difference in tractor field time and fuel consumption values' refers to what specific differences?
Author Response
Response to Reviewers' comments
We are grateful to the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions who made a significant contribution to the improvement of the manuscript. All reviewers' notes and comments have been carefully analysed and evaluated during revision of the article. The paper was supplemented and corrected after considering all the comments of the reviewers. Additions to the article, revised and corrected parts of article highlighted in yellow. In the same way, all the figures were corrected taking into account the reviewers' comments.
Sincerely,
Paper Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewers' comments
We are grateful to the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions who made a significant contribution to the improvement of the manuscript. All reviewers' notes and comments have been carefully analysed and evaluated during revision of the article. The paper was supplemented and corrected after considering all the comments of the reviewers. Additions to the article, revised and corrected parts of article highlighted in yellow. In the same way, all the figures were corrected taking into account the reviewers' comments.
Sincerely,
Paper Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
Deal authors, please consider revising the title to be more assertive. For example, various configurations...
I would advise the authors to revise the language used in the article. For example, this expression means exactly what in the context of a scientific article?
As several others.
I would like to see more quantitative data expressed in the abstracts, which should end in an impactful way that is with strong practical implications.
It is my perspective that the captions need to be self explanatory Also see that in this case you have six different figures grouped. So each one must correspond to a different letter. Here you you used Roman numbers and then a subcaption bar letter after the main caption.
“Figure 1. Schemes of 6 ha plots of different shapes and dimensions.”
It seems to me that some similarity present in this table needs to be reference. That is, where did this data came from?
“Table 1. Massey Ferguson MF 6499 tractor basic technical data.”
Basic data...
Once again looking at the caption, it is not clear what is being presented, nor in what context I think.
“Figure 2. Scheme of X-turn manoeuvres in headland.”
There are several comments in this case. Is the vehicle really necessary? Is the table really necessary? Why present a table under the form of a figure So in every case, you have three grouped figures. So you need to identify H1 by letter as above, and specify. and specify what is being presented in each case after the main caption by letter, by subcaption.
“Figure 3. The image of report of engine load in histogram and table transferred from MF 6499 tractor ECM to computer.”
There is some similarity here that needs to be addressed. The necessary reference must appear before each known equation too:
“2.2. Data collection and calculations”.
Limited to a minimum...
Why repeat a figure I have already seen if I’m not mistaken? In any case, check the comments above too.
“Figure 4. Histogram of field time distribution of ploughing activity according to tractor engine speed-fuel quantity modes when ploughing 6 ha trapezoidal field plot "I".”
Every column needs a heating, so the left column needs a heading.., parameter, whatever.
Table 2
No plural here please. “4. Discussions”
Please do not use we also.
Please consider every comments before also these figures have a very low quality. They need to. be enlightened and they they need to be worked also in terms of scholar and style.
The XX axis also needs a legend.
“Figure 5. Variation of tractor field time and fuel consumption when ploughing 6 ha field plots with different configurations.”
The style should be similar throughout the same manuscript...
“Figure 6. Field ploughing time efficiency values for ploughing 6 ha field plots with different config- urations: dark bar graphs show results calculated by Equation 5, white bars show experimental re- sults.”
Units in the legend must be presented inside curved brackets.
“Figure 7.”
Please consider that if it is a discussion separated from the results, then authors should rely on recent relevant and international references to support or oppose the findings. Consider that.
In the case of the conclusion section, authors should consider starting by a brief contextualization where it is clear the need to perform this study, followed by brief methodology, main findings, practical implications, limitations and future prospects.
After extensive data being presented in the text data presented here is the same as in the abstract consider. revising this aspect.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Response to Reviewers' comments
We are grateful to the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions who made a significant contribution to the improvement of the manuscript. All reviewers' notes and comments have been carefully analysed and evaluated during revision of the article. The paper was supplemented and corrected after considering all the comments of the reviewers. Additions to the article, revised and corrected parts of article highlighted in yellow. In the same way, all the figures were corrected taking into account the reviewers' comments.
Sincerely,
Paper Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
In the next time, please do answer in detail to all my detailed comments. This is the way to do it. Not like this.
“We are grateful to the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions who made a significant contribution to the improvement of the manuscript. All reviewers' notes and comments have been carefully analysed and evaluated during revision of the article. The paper was supplemented and corrected after considering all the comments of the reviewers. Additions to the article, revised and corrected parts of article highlighted in yellow. In the same way, all the figures were corrected taking into account the reviewers' comments.”
Every comment needs to be clarified and the changes expressed in the text, then.
Not done:
“Deal authors, please consider revising the title to be more assertive. For example, various configurations...”
Not done:
“I would like to see more quantitative data expressed in the abstracts, which should end in an impactful way that is with strong practical implications.”
General statements at the end
This does not allow to see why is the figure being introduced.
“Figure 1. Schemes of 6 ha plots of different shapes and dimensions:”
Previously:
“It is my perspective that the captions need to be self-explanatory.
“Figure 1. Schemes of 6 ha plots of different shapes and dimensions.””
Not done, it neds to be mentioned at the end of the caption, with the “authors” and reference number
“It seems to me that some similarity present in this table needs to be reference. That is, where did this data came from?
“Table 1. Massey Ferguson MF 6499 tractor basic technical data.”
Basic data...”
The captions need further explanation,
Used?
Carried out in this study?
“Figure 2. Driving sequence scheme in ploughing tests”
No answer:
“There are several comments in this case. Is the vehicle really necessary? Is the table really necessary? Why present a table under the form of a figure So in every case.
Figure 3. The image of report of engine load in histogram (a) and table (b) transferred from MF 6499 189 tractor ECM to computer”
No answer, nor yellows:
“There is some similarity here that needs to be addressed. The necessary reference must appear before each known equation too:
“2.2. Data collection and calculations”.
Limited to a minimum...”
Units to be presented inside ():
“Figure 4. Time distribution histogram of 6 ha irregular quadrangular ploughed field plot I obtained 277 from the ECM data report copied after the ploughing test in plot I minus the analog data of the ECM 278 report copied before the test”
No answer, figures are very poor in aspect and style, they need to be improved. This is not at all a minor aspect of the manuscript when intended to be published in an international index journal. Authors need to change the graphics. They are poor in style.
“Please consider every comments before also these figures have a very low quality. They need to. be enlightened and they they need to be worked also in terms of scholar and style.
The XX axis also needs a legend.
“Figure 5. Variation of tractor field time and fuel consumption when ploughing 6 ha field plots with different configurations.”
Please do not use red lines or text, insulting in many countries
Fig 9 etc
Previously:
The style should be similar throughout the same manuscript...
“Figure 6. Field ploughing time efficiency values for ploughing 6 ha field plots with different config- urations: dark bar graphs show results calculated by Equation 5, white bars show experimental re- sults.”
No answer:
“Please consider that if it is a discussion separated from the results, then authors should rely on recent relevant and international references to support or oppose the findings. Consider that.”
Previously on conclusions:
“... followed by brief methodology, main findings, practical implications, limitations and future prospects.”
Despite the changes made to the conclusions, I am not satisfied with them. The conclusions is written in separate paragraphs, not interconnected to one another. Authors did not answer to my comments, nor commented on them, and they start. speaking about the theoretical analysis revealed without mentioning the methodology.
The language needs revision, as you will see, because you have three separated paragraphs where you mention the theoretics without interlinking them:
“The theoretical analysis revealed,”
“The theoretical value of t”
“It has been theoretically calculated”
No answer:
“After extensive data being presented in the text data presented here is the same as in the abstract consider revising this aspect.”
I must be clear, if I had done the same you did, that is made a general comment about the entire article. You would not know where to act. So I expect from you the same that is clear answers to every comment made by the reviewer.
Authors should consider extending the number of references, particularly in the case of the discussion section, including more relevant, recent and international authors.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
I do not agree with the explanation given by the authors, various is not clear…
“Deal authors, please consider revising the title to be more assertive. For example, various configurations...”
No clarifying answer.
“It seems to me that some similarity present in this table needs to be reference. That is, where did this data came from?
“Table 1. Massey Ferguson MF 6499 tractor basic technical data.”
Basic data...”
“Response: The reference is not given before equations 2-7, because they were compiled by the authors of the paper during the theoretical analysis of this study”
No clarifying answer.
I can see that parameters presented similarity.
Example:
“where Lf is the average length of the ploughed field plot in the ploughing direction (m), v is the actual speed of the tractor during ploughing (m s-1), 𝑊𝑓 is the number of 𝑡𝑤 ploughing strips in the ploughed plot”
“There is some similarity here that needs to be addressed. The necessary reference must appear before each known equation too:
“2.2. Data collection and calculations”.
Limited to a minimum...”
I insist on this aspect:
No answer, figures are very poor in aspect and style, they need to be improved. This is not at all a minor aspect of the manuscript when intended to be published in an international index journal. Authors need to change the graphics. They are poor in style.
“Please consider every comments before also these figures have a very low quality. They need to. be enlightened and they need to be worked also in terms of scholar and style.
“Figure 5. Variation of tractor field time and fuel consumption when ploughing 6 ha field plots with different configurations.”
“Response: In figures where the y-axis variables have no relationship or the relationship to the x-axis variable is unclear, the bar diagram style is most acceptable. Considering this, Figures 5 and 6 were constructed using the conventional bar graph style. Perhaps, the figures look modest, but it is a clear way to present the results of the type mentioned above.
Please use singular in discussion:
“3. Results and Discussions”
Please consider that if it is a discussion then authors should rely on recent relevant and international references to support or oppose the findings. Consider that.
Authors should consider extending the number of references, particularly in the case of the discussion section, including more relevant, recent and international authors.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
