Optimized Walking Route Method for Precision Coffee Farming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction. It can be separated into two main parts. Line 1-Line 53 is the first part introducing the importance of precision farming in coffee. Line 54-77 is the second one introducing the available methods for sampling grid. I think it is also important to add more about the disadvantages and advantages of the established and proposed methods to highlight the significance of this current study.

2. Figure 2. There is no label for Figure 2A and Figure 2B.

3. Line 155. Please add the version of the software and other information (developer, country).

4. Table 1. Please put the proper unit (meter?) It is necessary to put a more statistical calculation to test the difference between conventional and proposed methods. The mean reduction of 50.1%?? 

5. Table 2. This table is hard to understand. Please put the necessary information for C0 C1 and the a parameter. I can not see it in the text.

6. The Conclusion is too short. The authors should extend this part. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your detailed and insightful feedback on our scientific article. We have carefully addressed all the requested revisions and incorporated the necessary changes into the manuscript.

Attached, you will find the revised article along with a document detailing our responses to each of your considerations.

Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Q1. The manuscript. Studies  an optimized walking route method for precision coffee farm, However,the manuscript lacks mathematical expression of optimization methods; In the simulation analysis, there is no explanation for the simulation software used and how to establish a route model for a coffee farm.

.

 

Q2. In Figure 11, how is the walking route from one sampling point to the next determined? Especially when walking between adjacent rows trows such as,from the 8th to 9th points, what is the order of walking?

 

Q3.In line 204~205, “The simulation of the conventional method resulted in a mean displacement between sampling points of 263.2 m……”

How is the walking distance 263.2m measured in the simulation?

 

Q4. In Table 1, the traditional method and the proposed method route length were analyzed, but the manuscript did not introduce the traditional method, which lacks persuasiveness?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your detailed and insightful feedback on our scientific article. We have carefully addressed all the requested revisions and incorporated the necessary changes into the manuscript.

Attached, you will find the revised article along with a document detailing our responses to each of your considerations.

Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My understanding of this work is that the authors proposed a method to generate sampling points for coffee plantation areas so that the points are in the same row and the walking distance of the sampling individual can be reduced. The main problem of this work is that the proposed method is explained only in words and is not explained clearly. It should be established as an algorithm which follows a programmatic process. The current presentation fails to serve this purpose. First, how were the sampling grids and sampling points determined in Figure 2. Second, how were the red AB lines determined in Figure 3 and 4? The 35 m, 70 m distances were measured from which point to which point? Also, the walking route (the order of the sampling points) should be generated using a designed algorithm so that the proposed method can be applied for other coffee plantation cases.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your detailed and insightful feedback on our scientific article. We have carefully addressed all the requested revisions and incorporated the necessary changes into the manuscript.

Attached, you will find the revised article along with a document detailing our responses to each of your considerations.

Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting and unique method for route setting and sampling grid determination is proposed. However, there is no description of scientific verification or analysis methods of the proposed idea in the method section, and its verification is insufficient. For example, if authors were to evaluate exploration efficiency through simulation, it would be possible to consider much more coffee farms. Besides the advantages and characteristics of the proposed method would be able to be discussed concerning the effects of area, shape, elevation, and so on. The description of the research background is also inappropriate. The problems as shown in lines 186-187 should be described in the introduction. Also, while discussing verifying route optimization, it needs to be reviewed the scientific background and past efforts in finding the optimal route.

 

There are some descriptions of spatial dependence of yield. However, it is not related to the problem of route detection. I can understand it if authors focus on the method and number of samples including route detection.

The expression “two points per hectare” seems strange. According to Figure 2, it should be one point per 50 a.

The title of the literature has to be translated into English. If the cited document is not in English, it should be written as “in Portuguese” or “in Portuguese with English abstract” with a translated title.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your detailed and insightful feedback on our scientific article. We have carefully addressed all the requested revisions and incorporated the necessary changes into the manuscript.

Attached, you will find the revised article along with a document detailing our responses to each of your considerations.

Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can accept the revised version.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted

Author Response

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ efforts to answer my questions and improve the manuscript. However, I still think the current methodology is problematic and should be improved, not only in word explanation of the principle, but also in presentation forms (flowcharts of the designed algorithm or procedure).

 The authors mentioned “in the current context, implementing an algorithm to automate this process may be complex due to the lack of availability of precise geospatial data allowing for detailed analysis of the coffee plantation.” But I don’t understand how the lines and points in Figures 3-9 were generated if there are no data of the targeted coffee plantation. I think the method itself could be established as a general one which could be applied to any other coffee plantations. It should be described as an algorithm or at least a flowchart. In the current presentation, it is hard to understand how it was processed. If no accurate coffee plantation geospatial data are available, using computer simulated data is also an option.

Author Response

R: Thank you for your valuable feedback and the opportunity to refine our manuscript. Based on your input, we have diligently revised our methodology to enhance clarity and presentation. Specifically, we have incorporated a methodological flowchart (Figure 9) detailing the systematic process for establishing walking routes and sampling points. This flowchart provides a clear visualization of our algorithmic approach, emphasizing the structured delineation of routes and precise allocation of sampling points within the coffee plantation. These improvements are aimed at improving the comprehensibility and applicability of our methodology across varied agricultural settings, ensuring it can be effectively understood and replicated.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the introduction, the first paragraph describes the general mater about precision agriculture. The next paragraph describes the sampling size in coffee farms. Finally, the issue of route setting in ridged coffee farms was mentioned. The first two paragraphs are the general background of this study, and I don't think there is any need to explain them in detail. On the other hand, the third paragraph does not fully explain the necessity of route setting in the furrowing coffee farms. There have been many reports on determining routes for farm work, including orchard management on sloping land. However, there is no mention of these reports, and the paper only develops its own claims without discussing the achievements and problems of previous reports. I understand that this study is a study on route optimization problems, but the failure to mention this point on the grounds that it has no application to coffee farms is a fatal lack of research, and the paper has not been scientifically reviewed at all at present.

 

In my previous reading, I noted that the discussion of sampling size was off the topic of this study, but I have not seen any improvement in that regard. The points of discussion must be organized in the research question setting and method sections. I think the lack of a scientific review is the reason why this point is unclear.

 

I think it is good that consideration has been given to producers in the field, such as citing literature and using sampling grid size. I think it would be better to consider publishing it as a guidebook for farmers, rather than submitting it to an international academic journal.

Author Response

Regarding the introduction, the first paragraph describes the general mater about precision agriculture. The next paragraph describes the sampling size in coffee farms. Finally, the issue of route setting in ridged coffee farms was mentioned. The first two paragraphs are the general background of this study, and I don't think there is any need to explain them in detail. On the other hand, the third paragraph does not fully explain the necessity of route setting in the furrowing coffee farms. There have been many reports on determining routes for farm work, including orchard management on sloping land. However, there is no mention of these reports, and the paper only develops its own claims without discussing the achievements and problems of previous reports. I understand that this study is a study on route optimization problems, but the failure to mention this point on the grounds that it has no application to coffee farms is a fatal lack of research, and the paper has not been scientifically reviewed at all at present.

R: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for highlighting the unique nature of our study. We appreciate your perspective on the need to fully contextualize the rationale behind establishing walking routes in terraced coffee farms. Our methodology indeed represents a novel approach within the realm of precision agriculture, specifically tailored to optimize sampling efficiency and ensure data representativeness in coffee cultivation. While previous literature may not directly address route setting in terraced coffee plantations, our work draws upon principles from orchard management on sloping terrain, adapted to suit the nuances of coffee farming. We will further enhance the discussion on the practical significance and application of our method, emphasizing its innovative contribution to the field of precision agriculture.

In my previous reading, I noted that the discussion of sampling size was off the topic of this study, but I have not seen any improvement in that regard. The points of discussion must be organized in the research question setting and method sections. I think the lack of a scientific review is the reason why this point is unclear.

R: Regarding the points raised about the sampling size, we have addressed this concern by clearly situating it within the context of precision coffee farming, which has been extensively supported by existing literature. As mentioned in the manuscript, the use of two points per hectare is well-established in precision agriculture for coffee cultivation, as validated by optimal grid index studies. This methodological choice ensures that sampling points are approximately 70 meters apart, as detailed in our proposed methodology, aimed at optimizing sampling efficiency and accuracy in coffee fields.

 I think it is good that consideration has been given to producers in the field, such as citing literature and using sampling grid size. I think it would be better to consider publishing it as a guidebook for farmers, rather than submitting it to an international academic journal.

R: We sincerely appreciate your feedback and consideration of our manuscript. This scientific study represents a unique and significant contribution to the scientific community, distinguished using robust methodologies supported by classical statistical and geostatistical analyses. In addition to its intrinsic value, this work holds potential applicability across various row-planted crops such as grapes, olives, and dragon fruit, thereby enhancing its global impact and relevance. We firmly believe it can benefit researchers and producers in different parts of the world.

We kindly request reconsideration of your suggestion to publish this study solely as a guide for farmers, as its contribution to international scientific literature is substantial and can enrich discussions and advancements in the field. We deeply value your comments, critiques, and suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining our work.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.