Assisted Tea Leaf Picking: The Design and Simulation of a 6-DOF Stewart Parallel Lifting Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. The study proposes an approach to improve tea leaf picking, which aligns with the journal's focus on Farming and Cropping Systems.

2. My primary concern is regarding the novelty of the paper. What research gap are the authors aiming to fill? Given the widespread use of similar technology in various fields, is the design original? If so, what are the main advantages of the suggested design compared to existing robotic tea pickers?

3. Figure 1 appears not to present a diagram as intended.

4. For Figure 2, please add more details about the dimensions and provide a more comprehensive description. Consider splitting it into two subfigures for clearer communication.

5. Although some readers may be familiar with Simulink and ADAMS, a brief description would be beneficial for the journal's general audience.

6. Figure 10: The term “physical image” may not be correctly used.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have carefully considered and addressed each issue.

Reviewer #1 

1. The study proposes an approach to improve tea leaf picking, which aligns with the journal's focus on Farming and Cropping Systems.

Modification instructions: Thank you for your professional and valuable feedback on our research on improving tea leaf picking methods. We greatly appreciate your recognition and alignment of our work with the focus of this journal. We have taken your feedback into consideration and will ensure to further emphasize this alignment in our revised manuscript.

2. My primary concern is regarding the novelty of the paper. What research gap are the authors aiming to fill? Given the widespread use of similar technology in various fields, is the design original? If so, what are the main advantages of the suggested design compared to existing robotic tea pickers?

Modification instructions: Thank you for your feedback and attention to the novelty of our research paper.

Our research aims to fill the research gap in the field of tea harvesting robot-assisted agricultural equipment by proposing a novel design and simulation of a Stewart parallel lifting platform with automatic elevation and leveling orientation functions. Although similar six-degree-of-freedom parallel platform technologies are widely used in various fields, our simulation and design of the 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform are original in the field of tea harvesting equipment assistance.

In comparison to existing tea harvesting equipment, our research introduces, through simulation and design, a novel carrier (6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform) for mounting a tea picking robotic arm, enabling automatic elevation and leveling orientation functions. This platform is adaptable to assistive tea picking robotic arms for harvesting fresh leaves from Yunnan large-leaf, small-arbor tea trees at specified heights. The main advantages include improved accuracy and efficiency in selective tea picking, reduced damage to tea trees, and enhanced productivity through autonomous operations. While the current study has yet to integrate the 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform with tea picking robotic arms and other hardware devices, we believe that the unique features of this research contribute to its novelty and potential impact in the field of robotic tea harvesting.

We greatly appreciate your attention to the novelty of our paper, and we welcome any further feedback or suggestions for improvement.

3. Figure 1 appears not to present a diagram as intended.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. I would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback on my manuscript. Regarding their concern about Figure 1 not appearing as intended, I will carefully review the figure and make any necessary improvements to ensure that it presents the information in a clear and accurate manner. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

4. For Figure 2, please add more details about the dimensions and provide a more comprehensive description. Consider splitting it into two subfigures for clearer communication.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your valuable feedback on Figure 2. We appreciate your suggestion to provide more details about the dimensions and enhance the description. We will revise the figure accordingly to ensure a more comprehensive depiction of the data. Additionally, we will consider the possibility of splitting it into two subfigures to improve clarity and communication. Thank you for your guidance on improving the visual presentation of our findings.

5. Although some readers may be familiar with Simulink and ADAMS, a brief description would be beneficial for the journal's general audience.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to provide a brief description of Simulink and ADAMS for the general audience of the journal. In response to this suggestion, we will add a brief introduction to both MATLAB-Simulink and ADAMS in the revised manuscript to enhance the understanding of these tools for all readers. We believe that this addition will improve the overall clarity and accessibility of the manuscript. Thank you for your valuable input.

6. Figure 10: The term “physical image” may not be correctly used.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback on Figure 10 in our manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail. We have revised the terminology used in the figure caption to accurately represent the content depicted. We believe this enhancement will improve the clarity and accuracy of our research findings. Thank you for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

Lines 77-84 " This Stewart parallel lifting platform is an intelligent agricultural device that assists the picking manipulator in tea harvesting. It ensures that the picking manipulator can continue its operation at another height after picking the tea leaves at a certain height, while maintaining the stability of the manipulator arm during the lifting process. Furthermore, the Stewart parallel lifting platform also features leveling and orientation adjustment functions, automatically adjusting within a certain angle range to ensure the stable operation of the picking manipulator arm, end effectors, sensors, and other components on the platform when the equipment starts or stops." did not include citations to support the statements regarding the technology, its strengths, and its attributes for this respective inquiry. 

Methods

The methods section did not include any citations to substantiate or reinforce the scientific validity of the methodology used. Do not assume readers know and always justify the methods you chose, implemented, and utilized to analyze data. 

Results

The figures and formulas were the greatest assets of the manuscript to help future readers (scholars and practitioners) understand the multidimensional science of the platform. 

Discussion

The inclusions in the Discussion section are not supported/reinforced from the literature provided in the Introduction. The Discussion should more clearly connect to the objective presented earlier "The objective of this study is to cater to the tea picking robot and develop intelligent agricultural equipment for assisting in the operation of the harvesting robotic arm."

Also, the extent the science presented supports or identifies practice improvements was not provided (i.e. how would the science [parallel lifting platform and robotic arm] innovations presented inform tea growers or industry leaders [practitioners] the science helps them with tea leaf harvesting and resulting increased profits and sustainable tea production operations). How the science will be translated to producers is necessary in the innovation-decision process (https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2023.2249501 and https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112208). 

References

Though small in number, 35, the majority of the 35 are from the last 5 years. I suggest expanding your connections to previous scholarship to enhancing the Introduction, Methodology, and Discussion sections. 

Author Response

         Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciateyou’re your comments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.

        1.Introduction：Lines 77-84 " This Stewart parallel lifting platform is an intelligent agricultural device that assists the picking manipulator in tea harvesting. It ensures that the picking manipulator can continue its operation at another height after picking the tea leaves at a certain height, while maintaining the stability of the manipulator arm during the lifting process. Furthermore, the Stewart parallel lifting platform also features leveling and orientation adjustment functions, automatically adjusting within a certain angle range to ensure the stable operation of the picking manipulator arm, end effectors, sensors, and other components on the platform when the equipment starts or stops." did not include citations to support the statements regarding the technology, its strengths, and its attributes for this respective inquiry. 

          Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your constructive feedback. We apologize for the oversight in providing citations to support the statements made in the text regarding the technology, its strengths, and its attributes. We will address this by incorporating relevant references to substantiate the claims made about the Stewart parallel lifting platform in our revision of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail and will ensure that all statements are properly supported in future versions of the paper.

          2.Methods：The methods section did not include any citations to substantiate or reinforce the scientific validity of the methodology used. Do not assume readers know and always justify the methods you chose, implemented, and utilized to analyze data. 

         Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback. In response to your comment, we will include citations in the methods section to provide further validation of the methodology used in our study. We recognize the importance of justifying the methods chosen, implemented, and utilized to analyze data and will ensure that this is clearly articulated in the revised version of the manuscript. Thank you for your guidance in improving the scientific rigor of our research.

        3.Results：The figures and formulas were the greatest assets of the manuscript to help future readers (scholars and practitioners) understand the multidimensional science of the platform. 

        Modification instructions: Thank you for acknowledging the figures and equations in our paper. We strive to present our research on multidimensional science platforms through clear and accurate figures and equations to help future readers (scholars and practitioners) better understand the research in this field. We will further optimize and improve the presentation of figures and equations to ensure that readers can easily access and comprehend the key information in the paper. We appreciate the valuable suggestions of the reviewer, and we will fully consider and incorporate them in the final version.

        4.Discussion：The inclusions in the Discussion section are not supported/reinforced from the literature provided in the Introduction. The Discussion should more clearly connect to the objective presented earlier "The objective of this study is to cater to the tea picking robot and develop intelligent agricultural equipment for assisting in the operation of the harvesting robotic arm."

Also, the extent the science presented supports or identifies practice improvements was not provided (i.e. how would the science [parallel lifting platform and robotic arm] innovations presented inform tea growers or industry leaders [practitioners] the science helps them with tea leaf harvesting and resulting increased profits and sustainable tea production operations). How the science will be translated to producers is necessary in the innovation-decision process (https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2023.2249501 and https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112208).

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and suggestions for improving the Discussion section. In response to your comments, we will revise the Discussion to more effectively connect our findings to the objectives presented in the Introduction. We will also ensure that the relationship between the science presented in our study (parallel lifting platform and robotic arm) and its implications for tea growers and industry leaders are clearly articulated. Specifically, we will highlight how our innovations can assist tea growers in harvesting tea leaves more efficiently, leading to increased profits and sustainable tea production operations. We recognize the importance of translating scientific advancements into practical applications for producers, and we will address this aspect in our revised manuscript. Thank you for pointing out the need for clearer connections between our research findings and their potential impact on practice, and we will take this feedback into consideration as we revise the Discussion section. Thank you again for your valuable input.

5. References：Though small in number, 35, the majority of the 35 are from the last 5 years. I suggest expanding your connections to previous scholarship to enhancing the Introduction, Methodology, and Discussion sections.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion to expand our references to previous scholarship in order to strengthen the Introduction, Methodology, and Discussion sections. We will revise the manuscript accordingly by including a more comprehensive range of relevant literature from previous years to provide a more thorough context for our research.

Thank you for your valuable input, and we will make the necessary modifications to improve the quality and depth of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The document describes the development of a Stewart platform. The platform may get a further attachment of a robotic arm for picking tea leaves. The authors did a great job on the Mechatronics side of the document. Nevertheless, there is no information regarding the agronomical aspects of this work. The authors did not pick actual or simulated tea leaves. In the current writing, this document fits better in a journal about Electronics, Mechanics, or Mechatronics. I understand this type of manuscript is innovative for the agronomic field, but without evidence that the platform works for picking fragile plant structures such as fruits, flowers, or fruits, the document barely fits the scope of this journal. The authors must add an agronomic simulation to the document. I have other comments that I hope will be helpful to improve the text:

-I suggest adding a list of abbreviations at the end of the document. This journal is Agronomy, and not all agronomists will promptly understand the meaning of MATLAB, ADAMS, PD, and other usual terms in Mechatronics.

**Title: OK

**Abstract: OK

**Keywords: OK

1. Introduction:

-The current flow is:

Economic importance of tea and lack of mechanization > Importance of 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform > Limitations and drawbacks of picking robots and how the 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform can solve these problems > Objectives of this work and advantages of the Stewart platform

The flow is not good, and the authors must improve it. I suggest the following writing:

Economic importance of tea and lack of mechanization > Limitations and drawbacks of picking robots > Characteristics of the Stewart parallel lifting platform > Use of the 6-DOF Stewart platform as a viable alternative for tea leaf picking > Objective of this work, without more information about the Stewart platform

-Line 57: All the letters of Knodo are uppercase. Please write it with only the first uppercase letter.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analysis of Tea Planting Environment and Picking Process: OK

2.2. Modeling and Analysis of Stewart Parallel Lifting Platform:

-Figure 4: Please add a picture of the assembly, not only the schematics.

2.3. Extreme Position Motion Interference Analysis: OK

2.4. Kinematic Solutions

2.4.1. Analysis of Spatial Attitude Coordinate Transformation: OK

2.4.2. Position Analysis: OK

2.5. Kinematics simulation: OK

2.6. Dynamic Simulation: OK

3. Results

3.1. Mechanical Mechanism: OK

3.2. Finite Element Simulation of the Whole Machine after Loading: OK

3.3. Experimental Verification: OK

4. Discussion: OK

5. Conclusions:

-There are no conclusions because the information that should be in the Conclusions section is in the Discussion section. Please fix it.

**Author Contributions: OK

**Funding: OK

**Data Availability Statement: OK

**Conflicts of Interest: OK

**References

-Reference 2: Please fix “**gmai” for “Jingmai” in the title

-Please keep consistency in the capitalization of the nouns in the titles of the articles. For example, the authors should write “A lightweight cherry tomato maturity real-time detection algorithm based on improved YOLOV5N” instead of “A Lightweight Cherry Tomato Maturity Real-Time Detection Algorithm Based on Improved YOLOV5n.”

Author Response

        Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciateyou’re your comments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.

1. The document describes the development of a Stewart platform. The platform may get a further attachment of a robotic arm for picking tea leaves. The authors did a great job on the Mechatronics side of the document. Nevertheless, there is no information regarding the agronomical aspects of this work. The authors did not pick actual or simulated tea leaves. In the current writing, this document fits better in a journal about Electronics, Mechanics, or Mechatronics. I understand this type of manuscript is innovative for the agronomic field, but without evidence that the platform works for picking fragile plant structures such as fruits, flowers, or fruits, the document barely fits the scope of this journal. The authors must add an agronomic simulation to the document.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given.Thank you for your comprehensive review of our manuscript on the design and simulation of a 6-DOF Stewart platform lift. Our research aims to develop an intelligent agricultural device to assist mechanical arms in lifting operations. In response to your concern that "there is no evidence to suggest that this platform is suitable for picking fragile plant structures such as fruits, flowers, or vegetables, and the document hardly fits the scope of this journal," our research team has conducted extensive literature review and found that the device has been applied by experts such as Cao, P. for a tomato-assisting lift platform（doi：org/10.3390/agriculture12111945）; Dan, L. for a safflower-assisting parallel mechanism（doi：10.27431/d.cnki.gxnyu.2022.000185）; and Xiaoshu, Z. for seedling transplanting assistance（doi：10.27786/d.cnki.gzjlg.2021.000227）. We have included the relevant information in our paper and cited it accordingly.

2. I suggest adding a list of abbreviations at the end of the document. This journal is Agronomy, and not all agronomists will promptly understand the meaning of MATLAB, ADAMS, PD, and other usual terms in Mechatronics.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. I have carefully considered your feedback and have made the necessary revisions to include a list of abbreviations at the end of the document. Additionally, I have introduced and explained the software, modules, and related terms in each section of the revised manuscript to facilitate understanding for agronomy professionals and readers. Thank you for helping to improve the clarity and accessibility of the content for our target audience.

3. Introduction:

-The current flow is: Economic importance of tea and lack of mechanization > Importance of 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform > Limitations and drawbacks of picking robots and how the 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform can solve these problems > Objectives of this work and advantages of the Stewart platform

The flow is not good, and the authors must improve it. I suggest the following writing: Economic importance of tea and lack of mechanization > Limitations and drawbacks of picking robots > Characteristics of the Stewart parallel lifting platform > Use of the 6-DOF Stewart platform as a viable alternative for tea leaf picking > Objective of this work, without more information about the Stewart platform

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your valuable feedback on the flow of the introduction in our paper. We appreciate your suggestion for restructuring the content in a more coherent manner. We will revise the introduction to better showcase the economic importance of tea, the limitations of current picking robots, and the advantages of the 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform. We will also provide more information on the characteristics of the Stewart platform to enhance the clarity of the introduction. Thank you for your guidance, and we will make necessary improvements to address your concerns.

4. Line 57: All the letters of Knodo are uppercase. Please write it with only the first uppercase letter.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback. We have made the necessary correction to write “Knodo” with only the first letter in uppercase. We appreciate your attention to detail and apologize for any oversight in our initial submission.

5. Figure 4: Please add a picture of the assembly, not only the schematics.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to add a picture of the assembly in addition to the schematics in Figure 4. We will make the necessary revisions to provide a clearer visualization of the assembly in the revised manuscript. Thank you for your guidance.

6. There are no conclusions because the information that should be in the Conclusions section is in the Discussion section. Please fix it.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and have taken them into consideration. We understand the importance of having clear and distinct conclusions in a research paper. We will make sure to revise our Discussion section and clearly present our conclusions in the Conclusions section.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We have made the necessary modifications as per your suggestions. If you have any other thoughts or suggestions, please feel free to let us know.

7. Reference 2: Please fix “**gmai” for “Jingmai” in the title

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback on my article. I apologize for mistakenly identifying “Jingmai” as “**gmai” in the title. We have corrected this error in the revised manuscript. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please provide a professional English translation for this sentence.

8. Please keep consistency in the capitalization of the nouns in the titles of the articles. For example, the authors should write “A lightweight cherry tomato maturity real-time detection algorithm based on improved YOLOV5N” instead of “A Lightweight Cherry Tomato Maturity Real-Time Detection Algorithm Based on Improved YOLOV5n.”

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your suggestion regarding keeping the nouns capitalized consistently in our article titles. We have updated the title to "Tea leaf assisted picking: design and simulation of 6-dof stewart parallel lifting platform". Thank you for your attention to detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

* Figure 1: Consider revising the title from "Diagram of ..." to "Illustration of ...". 

Figure 2: The dimensions of the upper part of the robot are still missing. What do the labels C (in red) and B (in yellow) signify? Additionally, the title of this figure needs to be more detailed, especially concerning the sub-figures.

* References 51 and 52: Clarification is needed on whether these references are introducing ADAMS software or are examples of its application. Please specify whether these softwares are commercial or open source, as this information is vital for the reproducibility of the research.

* Figure 5: This figure is not referenced in the text. 

* Section 2.3: More detail is needed on how the 16 extreme positions were identified. The methodology behind this analysis requires a fuller explanation to ensure understanding and reproducibility.

* Figure 7: Each subfigure should be clearly described. I suggest using English labels for all elements within the figures.

* Figure 10: The caption for Figure 10 has not been updated as indicated in the response to previous reviews. 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciateyou’re your comments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.

1. Figure 1: Consider revising the title from "Diagram of ..." to "Illustration of ...". 

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made the modification to the title of Figure 1 as per your feedback, changing it from “Diagram of …” to “Illustration of …". We hope that this revision will more accurately reflect the content of the chart. We appreciate your valuable input and will continue to strive for improving the quality of the paper.

2. Figure 2: The dimensions of the upper part of the robot are still missing. What do the labels C (in red) and B (in yellow) signify? Additionally, the title of this figure needs to be more detailed, especially concerning the sub-figures.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewer. We have made further modifications to Figure 2, adding dimensions for the upper part of the robot. Additionally, we have rephrased the title of Figure 2 to provide more details, especially regarding the sub-figures. Regarding labels C (red) and B (yellow), we have added further explanations in Figure 2d and in the text to clarify their meanings - the yellow area represents the lower part of the canopy of Yunnan large leaf tea trees in the inter-row planting mode, while the red area represents the upper part of the canopy. The picking robotic arm is set on a 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform, which elevates to achieve the picking operation from the lower part to the upper part of the canopy.

We appreciate the guidance from the reviewer and have made the necessary revisions to the paper before resubmitting. Thank you once again for your review and suggestions!

3. References 51 and 52: Clarification is needed on whether these references are introducing ADAMS software or are examples of its application. Please specify whether these softwares are commercial or open source, as this information is vital for the reproducibility of the research.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you very much for raising important questions. We will further clarify references 51 (now 49) and 52 (now 50) in the paper to specify whether they introduce the ADAMS software itself or its application examples. Additionally, we will note that ADAMS software is commercial software, as this information is crucial for the reproducibility of the research. We appreciate the issues pointed out by the reviewer, and we have fully explained the relevant information in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your review and valuable suggestions.

4. Figure 5: This figure is not referenced in the text. 

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. 

5.Section 2.3: More detail is needed on how the 16 extreme positions were identified. The methodology behind this analysis requires a fuller explanation to ensure understanding and reproducibility.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you very much for your important feedback. In response to your suggestion of “how to determine the 16 extreme positions, the analysis method needs to be fully explained to ensure that the readers can fully understand our analysis method and achieve the reproducibility of the results.”

We have added 16 extreme positional attitudes as shown in Figure 5, including the maximum and minimum rotation angles of roll, pitch, and yaw in the X, Y, and Z directions; the maximum and minimum displacement values in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions in the XYZ three-dimensional space. We have also analyzed and explained the specific solution formulas for the 16 extreme positions in detail in section 2.4. In this study, the kinematic parameters and motion paths of the 3D model were set using the kinematic tools in SolidWorks. Subsequently, motion analysis tools were used to simulate the motion of the Stewart platform, and interference detection tools were used to perform CVS（Collision Visualization System）. The verification results showed that there was no motion interference in extreme attitudes, and the design parameters of the Stewart parallel lifting platform 3D model meet the requirements.

Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewers. We have added the above content to help both you and the readers have a clearer understanding of our research process. Thank you for your review and support once again.

6. Figure 7: Each subfigure should be clearly described. I suggest using English labels for all elements within the figures.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have provided a clear description of Figure 7 to ensure that readers can understand its content accurately. In addition, we will use English labels to identify the elements in the figure to improve its readability and comprehensibility. Thanks to the reviewer’s guidance, we have made adjustments to Figure 7 and ensured that it aligns with your suggestions. Thank you again for your review and support.

7. Figure 10: The caption for Figure 10 has not been updated as indicated in the response to previous reviews. 

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for pointing this out. We realize that the caption for Figure 10 has not been updated as indicated in the previous response to the review comments. We have now updated the title for Figure 10 to ensure it aligns with the previous review comments. We apologize for this oversight and thank you for your patience and guidance. We have corrected this issue and resubmitted the paper. Thank you again for your review and valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The document describes the development of a Stewart platform. The platform may get a further attachment of a robotic arm for picking tea leaves. The authors improved the document, and now it is possible to understand the importance of the work for the tea crop. There are some points the authors must correct. I hope my comment will be helpful.

**Title: OK

**Abstract: OK

**Keywords: OK

1. Introduction:

-The current flow is:

Economic importance of tea and lack of mechanization > Limitations and drawbacks of picking robots > Use of the 6-DOF Stewart platform as a viable alternative for tea leaf picking > Current limitations of the platform > Objective of this work

The general flow improved. I advise removing the information between lines 84 (The Stewart parallel…) and 91 (…startup and shutdown [42].) or moving them to the 3rd paragraph or the Discussion section.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analysis of Tea Planting Environment and Picking Process: OK

2.2. Modeling and Analysis of Stewart Parallel Lifting Platform: OK

2.3. Extreme Position Motion Interference Analysis: OK

2.4. Kinematic Solutions

2.4.1. Analysis of Spatial Attitude Coordinate Transformation: OK

2.4.2. Position Analysis: OK

2.5. Kinematics simulation: OK

2.6. Dynamic Simulation: OK

3. Results

3.1. Mechanical Mechanism: OK

3.2. Finite Element Simulation of the Whole Machine after Loading: OK

3.3. Experimental Verification: OK

4. Discussion:

-The discussion is good, but the authors must reinforce the limitations of their work. Developing an efficient platform is fundamental for future tea leaf picking, but it is just one piece of the puzzle. Future works must be done on the other aspects of the picking system, and the authors must emphasize the importance of developing these technologies.

5. Conclusions: OK

**Author Contributions: OK

**Funding: OK

**Data Availability Statement: OK

**Conflicts of Interest: OK

**Appendix: OK

**References

-Please keep consistency in the capitalization of the nouns in the titles of the articles. The authors must maintain the same capitalizing scheme for all the references. They cannot write part of the references like Reference 1 and other references like Reference 6. Please pick one scheme and follow it. For example, if the authors decide to capitalize not all the nouns in the title, the authors should write “Prediction model for tea polyphenol content with deep features extracted using 1D and 2D convolutional neural network” instead of “Prediction Model for Tea Polyphenol Content with Deep Features Extracted Using 1D and 2D Convolutional Neural Network.” 

Author Response

Thanks very much for your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciateyou’re your comments and suggestions. We have considered these comments carefully and triedour best to address every one of them.

1. Introduction:

-The current flow is:

Economic importance of tea and lack of mechanization > Limitations and drawbacks of picking robots > Use of the 6-DOF Stewart platform as a viable alternative for tea leaf picking > Current limitations of the platform > Objective of this work

The general flow improved. I advise removing the information between lines 84 (The Stewart parallel…) and 91 (…startup and shutdown [42].) or moving them to the 3rd paragraph or the Discussion section.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you to the reviewers for their feedback. We appreciate the suggestions you have provided for our article. We have removed "lines 84 (The Stewart parallel…) and 91 (…startup and shutdown [42].)" as per your advice. Thank you for your constructive feedback, we have made revisions to the introduction section based on your suggestions and resubmitted the manuscript. Thank you once again for your review and support.

2. Discussion:

-The discussion is good, but the authors must reinforce the limitations of their work. Developing an efficient platform is fundamental for future tea leaf picking, but it is just one piece of the puzzle. Future works must be done on the other aspects of the picking system, and the authors must emphasize the importance of developing these technologies.

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you very much for your feedback on our article. We will strengthen the emphasis on the limitations of our work in the discussion section. We are aware that developing an efficient platform for future tea harvesting is crucial, but it is just one component of the entire system. Future work will need to research other aspects of the harvesting system, and we will highlight the importance of developing these technologies. Thank you for your input, we will further improve the discussion section to address the limitations of our work, and continue to focus on this aspect in future research. Thank you for your review and support.

3. -Please keep consistency in the capitalization of the nouns in the titles of the articles. The authors must maintain the same capitalizing scheme for all the references. They cannot write part of the references like Reference 1 and other references like Reference 6. Please pick one scheme and follow it. For example, if the authors decide to capitalize not all the nouns in the title, the authors should write “Prediction model for tea polyphenol content with deep features extracted using 1D and 2D convolutional neural network” instead of “Prediction Model for Tea Polyphenol Content with Deep Features Extracted Using 1D and 2D Convolutional Neural Network.” 

Modification instructions: Have been changed in accordance with the advice given. Thank you for your feedback. I sincerely appreciate your suggestion regarding the consistency of capitalization in the titles of our paper. We highly value your input and will follow your advice to use the same capitalization standard throughout. In future revisions, we will ensure that all reference titles adhere to the same capitalization and punctuation rules to maintain the quality and uniformity of the paper. Thank you for your guidance, and we will strive to make improvements in line with professional standards. We have updated the title to "Tea leaf assisted picking: design and simulation of 6-DOF Stewart parallel lifting platform". Thank you for your attention to detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf