Efficient and Effective Irrigation Water Management Using Sprinkler Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an important study on improving irrigation efficiency using a traveler gun sprinkler robot. The research is well-structured, and the topic is relevant, particularly in the context of sustainable water management in agriculture. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed to improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript.

The manuscript lacks a strong justification of how this study advances beyond existing research. There are several studies on sprinkler irrigation, yet it is unclear what is novel about this specific approach. Please clearly highlight the key technological or methodological innovations compared to previous studies in this field. A comparison with recent advancements in automated irrigation systems would help.

The methodology section provides a detailed explanation of the system components but lacks a clear experimental design. Some descriptions, particularly in Section 2.5 (Theoretical and Mathematical Analysis), are overly complex and difficult to follow. Some equations are presented without sufficient explanation of their real-world applicability. 

Provide a flowchart or a structured explanation of how the experiment was conducted, including site preparation, data collection, and analysis. 

Define all symbols and variables in equations consistently.

Explain the practical significance of the equations in a concise manner.

There is a significant amount of numerical data presented in tables, but no statistical analysis is conducted to determine the significance of differences between different treatments (e.g., nozzle sizes, gun heights). The correlation between forward speed and collected water depth is discussed, but regression statistics (e.g., confidence intervals, significance levels) are missing.

The results are presented with limited critical analysis. Some findings, such as the impact of different nozzle sizes and forward speeds, are discussed in isolation without connecting them to broader irrigation practices. The discussion does not sufficiently compare the results to existing literature—are the findings consistent with or different from prior studies?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study conducted experimental research on the irrigation performance of a sprinkler robot and its influencing parameters to achieve precise irrigation operations based on the actual water requirements of crop growth. The analysis specifically focused on the impacts of sprinkler height, nozzle size, and forward speed on actual wetted diameter and application efficiency. The research holds significant application value for alleviating water scarcity caused by population growth, conserving energy resources, and improving crop yields.

 

Line 81, It is recommended to separate the section introducing the latest irrigation technologies into distinct subsections.

 

For the experimental section, it is suggested to conduct case studies by performing practical analyses based on the actual irrigation demands of specific crop types, thereby determining the optimal combinations of irrigation parameters.

 

The study did not analyze the relationship between energy consumption and various irrigation parameters.

 

It is advised to clearly categorize irrigation performance parameters (Y) and operational parameters (X), followed by providing guidelines for configuring operational parameters according to the required performance metrics.

 

Furthermore, experimental design methods should be employed to investigate multiple operational parameters (X) and performance parameters (Y). Based on irrigation performance requirements, an optimal combination of operational parameters should be identified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the relevant issue of effective water management in agriculture using a robotic sprinkler system. It offers practical insights for precision irrigation. However, the article requires revision according to the comments listed below:

1. Eliminate repetitive phrases such as "one of the most important," "the results showed," and "average applied water depth" by using synonyms or rephrasing sentences.

2. Correct grammatical and stylistic errors, for example, revise "This article presented a mathematical modeling enables…" to "This article presents a mathematical model enabling…".

3. Harmonize verb tenses throughout the manuscript, using present tense for objectives and past tense for experimental results.

4. Simplify complex, lengthy sentences, especially in the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusions sections.

5. Reduce the number of citations in single sentences in the Introduction, grouping sources logically.

6. Move detailed technical descriptions (such as nozzle specifications, pressures) from the Introduction to Materials and Methods.

7. Clearly define the research gap and objectives at the end of the Introduction, highlighting why the robotic sprinkler system is vital for Egypt and similar regions.

8. Specify the statistical methods used, including the number of experimental repetitions and statistical tests applied.

9. Simplify mathematical equations in section 2.5 by removing redundant or overly complicated expressions; consider placing some equations in supplementary materials.

10. Briefly justify the selection of experimental variables (nozzle sizes, speeds, sprinkler heights).

11. Ensure that all referenced tables and figures are explicitly included in the text.

12. Provide information on measurement errors and statistical significance tests (e.g., ANOVA, p-values) in the Results section.

13. Reduce repetitive descriptions of results, especially in subsection 3.4.3 (collected water depth), highlighting only key findings.

14. Strengthen comparisons between the study results and existing research or theoretical predictions with clear citations.

15. Expand the Discussion section significantly, providing deeper interpretation of the results, detailed comparisons with previous studies, and clear practical recommendations.

16. Correct awkward expressions, e.g., replace "the effect of the wind was lost during the experiments" with "Wind conditions were negligible during the experiments."

17. Improve logical flow within the Discussion, clearly dividing it into distinct topics: interpretations, water losses, practical recommendations, limitations, and future research directions.

18. Clearly state the novelty and significance of the study in Conclusions, avoiding repetition of previously stated results.

19. Simplify overly technical language in the Conclusions and emphasize practical implications.

20. Include brief mention of study limitations and propose directions for future research, particularly addressing saline-alkaline soils.

21. Add a concluding sentence in the Abstract clearly stating the practical value and novelty of the work.

22. Improve stylistic quality and readability in the Abstract, e.g., revise "systems accused of wasting water" to "systems associated with significant water losses."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Manuscript can be accepted in current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We all realize that successful work can only be achieved through cooperation and giving, so I repeat my thanks for your efforts in reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We all realize that successful work can only be achieved through cooperation and giving, so I repeat my thanks for your efforts in reviewing the manuscript.