Mechanical Damage in Soybeans by Pneumatic Seeder

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a clear research question and has interdisciplinary value at the interface of agricultural machinery and seed science. The experimental factor design is relatively clear, adopting a framework of five operating speeds × three longitudinal inclinations + one control. However, there are still many problems related to the statistical logic, the accuracy of terminology, and the consistency of language and formatting.

I suggest the following revisions:

1. The title, “Pneumatic seeders do not damage seeds: fact or fiction?”, is a very broad and strongly generalized statement. However, the actual object of study in this manuscript is limited to one pneumatic seeder, one soybean cultivar, and several fixed bench-test conditions. Therefore, the evidence presented can only support a conclusion such as: “under the tested conditions, this pneumatic seeder may cause latent mechanical damage and reduced seedling emergence at certain combinations of speed and longitudinal inclination,” rather than a generalized statement about whether pneumatic seeders damage seeds in general. I suggest either revising the title to reduce its absolute tone, or clearly limiting the scope of the conclusions in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusions.
2. The manuscript contains only tables and not a single figure, which makes the presentation insufficiently intuitive. For example, there are no images showing the experimental bench, the seed spacing measurement device, the soybean seed germination test, the tetrazolium test showing mechanical damage by color differentiation, or the soybean seedling emergence test. The absence of such visual documentation makes it difficult not to question the authenticity and reliability of the experiments.
3. In line 96, the manuscript indicates a 3 × 5 + 1 control design, but the control treatment is not specifically described. Please provide a clear explanation of the control.
4. In line 117, the manuscript does not clearly describe the specific experimental methods or the instruments/equipment used for the variables related to soybean seed damage. Please provide this information in detail.
5. Please explain the purpose and meaning of the lowercase letters and uppercase letters shown in all tables.
6. Some terminology is used inconsistently. For example, the description of inclination is written in some places as “slope / level / uphill” and in others as “downhill / level / uphill.” In addition, there is an obvious wording error in the Conclusions: “The emergence of soybean seedlings was not significantly impacted when sown at a rate of 9 kilograms per hectare using a leveled seeder.” Throughout the manuscript, the discussion refers to 9 km h⁻¹, not 9 kilograms per hectare. There are also inconsistencies in decimals and symbols. For example, in Table 3, “2.0” is written as “2,0”; in the Conclusions, “9 and 13 km-1” is written without the “h”; and the representation of inclination angles is inconsistent, with the Abstract, Methods, and Table 1 using “+11°”, while Tables 2–4 use “11°”. Overall, the manuscript appears rather inconsistent, and I recommend a careful full-text revision to ensure uniformity throughout.
7. There are several inconsistencies in the reference format, and some entries appear to have missing page numbers, volume numbers, or issue information. Please carefully check and revise the reference list in detail.

Author Response

1. The title, “Pneumatic seeders do not damage seeds: fact or fiction?”, is a very broad and strongly generalized statement. However, the actual object of study in this manuscript is limited to one pneumatic seeder, one soybean cultivar, and several fixed bench-test conditions. Therefore, the evidence presented can only support a conclusion such as: “under the tested conditions, this pneumatic seeder may cause latent mechanical damage and reduced seedling emergence at certain combinations of speed and longitudinal inclination,” rather than a generalized statement about whether pneumatic seeders damage seeds in general. I suggest either revising the title to reduce its absolute tone, or clearly limiting the scope of the conclusions in the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusions.

Answer: The title has been changed as suggested by the reviewer. The new title is: Mechanical damage in soybeans by pneumatic seeder.

2. The manuscript contains only tables and not a single figure, which makes the presentation insufficiently intuitive. For example, there are no images showing the experimental bench, the seed spacing measurement device, the soybean seed germination test, the tetrazolium test showing mechanical damage by color differentiation, or the soybean seedling emergence test. The absence of such visual documentation makes it difficult not to question the authenticity and reliability of the experiments.

Answer: We included figures with the pneumatic seeder, the tetrazolium test, and the germination test.

3. In line 96, the manuscript indicates a 3 × 5 + 1 control design, but the control treatment is not specifically described. Please provide a clear explanation of the control.

Answer: We included this explanation to control group:The control group consisted of a 1 kg sample of the cultivar under analysis, maintained in its original integrity (without exposure to the metering mechanism). This experimental design aimed to isolate the seed meter as the exclusive independent variable, establishing the premise that any increase in mechanical damage observed in the other treatments resulted strictly from the additive effect of seed passage through the aforementioned mechanical component.

4. In line 117, the manuscript does not clearly describe the specific experimental methods or the instruments/equipment used for the variables related to soybean seed damage. Please provide this information in detail.

Answer: The explanation was included in manuscript.

5. Please explain the purpose and meaning of the lowercase letters and uppercase letters shown in all tables.

Answer: Lowercase letters compare soybean germination (%) as a function of speed, while uppercase letters compare soybean germination as a function of angle.

6. Some terminology is used inconsistently. For example, the description of inclination is written in some places as “slope / level / uphill” and in others as “downhill / level / uphill.” In addition, there is an obvious wording error in the Conclusions: “The emergence of soybean seedlings was not significantly impacted when sown at a rate of 9 kilograms per hectare using a leveled seeder.” Throughout the manuscript, the discussion refers to 9 km h⁻¹, not 9 kilograms per hectare. There are also inconsistencies in decimals and symbols. For example, in Table 3, “2.0” is written as “2,0”; in the Conclusions, “9 and 13 km-1” is written without the “h”; and the representation of inclination angles is inconsistent, with the Abstract, Methods, and Table 1 using “+11°”, while Tables 2–4 use “11°”. Overall, the manuscript appears rather inconsistent, and I recommend a careful full-text revision to ensure uniformity throughout.

Answer: We have reviewed the text according to the reviewer's suggestions.

7. There are several inconsistencies in the reference format, and some entries appear to have missing page numbers, volume numbers, or issue information. Please carefully check and revise the reference list in detail.

Answer: We checked the references as suggested by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper submitted for review is very interesting and addresses an important topic regarding the quality of the work process of precision seeders. From a careful analysis of the content of the article, we have noted the following issues that should be resolved by the authors for the paper to meet the publication conditions:
- the title of the article is not consistent with its content, the tests were conducted only on soybean seeds;
the abstract does not contain a minimum of 200 words;
- the introduction must be developed to present the current state of research on the subject addressed, and from which the purpose and objectives of the article should result;
- the material and method must be improved with the description and presentation of the test stand, the type and construction of the dosing device, the working parameters, respectively the operating depression/overpressure of the distributor. Field tests are also necessary to validate the results.
- the results obtained must also include microscopic analysis tests of the seeds to determine the degree of their damage;
- some bibliographic references are not related to the topic addressed;
- to validate the experiment, research must be extended to other types of precision seed drills and other crops.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. Our responses are in the text below:

1) The title of the article is not consistent with its content, the tests were conducted only on soybean seeds.

Answer: The title has been changed as suggested by the reviewer. The new title is: Mechanical damage in soybeans by pneumatic seeder.

2) The abstract does not contain a minimum of 200 words.

Answer: We have corrected the abstract. The corrected abstract has 207 words.

3) The introduction must be developed to present the current state of research on the subject addressed, and from which the purpose and objectives of the article should result.

Answer: The changes to the introduction were made as suggested. The changes are from line 74 to 96. The changes to the introduction were made as suggested. The changes are from line 74 to 96. The corrections are in red in the text.

4) The material and method must be improved with the description and presentation of the test stand, the type and construction of the dosing device, the working parameters, respectively the operating depression/overpressure of the distributor. Field tests are also necessary to validate the results.

Answer: We made corrections to the material and methods section. We included figures with equipment, tetrazolium test, germination test. Besides, we described the methodology better. The results obtained will be used to support experiments under field conditions.

5) he results obtained must also include microscopic analysis tests of the seeds to determine the degree of their damage;

Answer: The research used an international methodology for seed germination testing. Future tests will incorporate the reviewer's suggestion.

6) Some bibliographic references are not related to the topic addressed.

Answer: The references have been corrected as suggested by the reviewer.

7) To validate the experiment, research must be extended to other types of precision seed drills and other crops.

Answer: This research is innovative, and based on the results obtained, new experiments will be planned using other seeders for other crops and field tests. Soybeans were chosen for this experiment due to their economic importance to Brazil, which cultivates more than 30 million hectares.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I have some recommendations:

1. In the "Materials and Methods" section, a schematic representation of the laboratory experimental setup should be provided.
2. Please note: Tabela 4.
3.  There are typos: Table 1-4: Km h⁻¹ instead of km h⁻¹; Lane 311: 9 and 13 km-1 instead of km h⁻¹.
4. The "Discussion" section contains an analysis of literary sources, which should be moved to the "Introduction". In the "Discussion" section, it is necessary to leave only those sources where similar results were obtained.
5. It is advisable to display the research results in three-dimensional form as well to ensure clarity.
6. Notes on the methodology. It would be advisable to add vibration to the experimental setup with an amplitude and frequency that correspond to the real conditions of the seeder in the field.
7. The conclusions must be supported by specific numerical data and clearly defined results of the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. Our responses are in the text below:

1) In the "Materials and Methods" section, a schematic representation of the laboratory experimental setup should be provided.

Answer: We made corrections to the material and methods section. We included figures with equipment, tetrazolim test, germination test. Besides, we described the methodology better

2) Please note: Tabela 4. There are typos: Table 1-4: Km h⁻¹ instead of km h⁻¹; Lane 311: 9 and 13 km-1 instead of km h⁻¹.

Answer: We made corrections.

3) The "Discussion" section contains an analysis of literary sources, which should be moved to the "Introduction". In the "Discussion" section, it is necessary to leave only those sources where similar results were obtained.

Answer: We made corrections.

4) It is advisable to display the research results in three-dimensional form as well to ensure clarity.

Answer: Figures of the equipment and tests performed have been included to clarify the results.

5) Notes on the methodology. It would be advisable to add vibration to the experimental setup with an amplitude and frequency that correspond to the real conditions of the seeder in the field.

The suggestion is excellent, but we will only be able to use them in the next laboratory trials.

6) The conclusions must be supported by specific numerical data and clearly defined results of the research.

Answer: We made corrections.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no issues with this paper; it is ready for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their responsiveness in resolving the observations made during the first review.
I have reanalyzed the modified paper and found that the authors have resolved all the issues raised, in these circumstances I consider that the article with the modified title “Mechanical damage in soybeans by pneumatic seeder” meets the conditions for being accepted for publication.
I congratulate the authors for carrying out this research!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.