A Marker-Controlled Watershed Algorithm for the Intelligent Picking of Long Jujubes in Trees
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposed a new marker-controlled watershed algorithm for segmentation of mature long jujube images and tree images. Some experimental results indicated the effectiveness of the method. However, there are some issues I think need to be improved.
1. in equation (1), x is normalized brightness, y is convolution coefficient at the corresponding x, please give that what meaning of “convolution coefficient” is?
2. in line 91-92, two terminologies, polarized regions and normal regions, are used, please explain these two terminologies.
3. in equation (7), how to compute K_i, i=3,4,5,…
4. in Figure 4, a histogram specified image is been given, please detail the process of histogram specification, and what benefit will be obtained from this processing?
5. equation (9) is derived from Figure 5, then, how to ensure that this equation is fit to all images.
6. in equation (12), if it is not satisfied during the period of computing, how to improve it.
7. in Table 4, a maximum entropy method is used to compare, please give the visual segmentation of this method, and please give the computing method of segmentation accuracy.
8. it is seem that the proposed method is specially appropriate for some relative simple images, please give more experimental results on some complex images.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter, informing us of the editorial decision on our manuscript (ID: forests-1737325) entitled “Segmentation method based on watershed algorithm for long jujubes and trees". The paper has been duly revised according to the comments made by the Editor and the Reviewers. We would like to resubmit the revised version for consideration of possible publication as a regular paper. The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the Editor for her/his constructive comments and the effort and the time spent helping us to improve the quality of the paper. In the following, we provide a specific response to the comment, explaining how the paper is revised. We have highlighted all the changes in blue color in our revised manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript addressed the reviewers' concerns in a satisfactory way.
The details of our revision, as well as point-to-point responses to the reviewers, are appended below. Thank you very much for the time and effort again.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have carried out an interesting research on image segmentation of tree barks and fruit images. Though I liked the detailed methods section, the authors need to improve their introduction and discussion to improve this work. Please find my detailed comments below:
Title: Title can be improved to better suit the type of research being conducted. Too generic and gives an idea of a review paper.
Abstract: English can be improved. Abstract is confusing. It can be structured better.
Line 3: "Based on watershed algorithm" can be removed.
Line 5: what do the authors mean by it? Better to give a name for the proposed method.
Line 12-15: Too long and deviates from its purpose. Can be made concise.
Line 15: What do that authirs mean by "it"? Too generic.
Introduction: Introduction lacks some research on previous work.
Line 22: Can be explained better. What processing?
Discussion: The paper lacks a in-depth discussion section. More information on the performance of the proposed MCWS method needs to be discussed. Its shortcomings and and improvements have to be detailed. The results need to be compared with previous works.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter, informing us of the editorial decision on our manuscript (ID: forests-1737325) entitled “Segmentation method based on watershed algorithm for long jujubes and trees". The paper has been duly revised according to the comments made by the Editor and the Reviewers. We would like to resubmit the revised version for consideration of possible publication as a regular paper. The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the Editor for her/his constructive comments and the effort and the time spent helping us to improve the quality of the paper. In the following, we provide a specific response to the comment, explaining how the paper is revised. We have highlighted all the changes in blue color in our revised manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript addressed the reviewers' concerns in a satisfactory way.
The details of our revision, as well as point-to-point responses to the reviewers, are appended below. Thank you very much for the time and effort again.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have taken all the comments into account and provided their changes in the manuscript. Although the discussion section is short, the results are well explained in the results section.
My only suggestion is that there is a segmentation algorithm already existing in the name of MCWS- Marker controlled Watershed Segmentation". If the authors are implementing that algorithm, there is no need to change the name. But the authors are proposing a new method for which a small change to the abbreviation or the name of the algorithm will be better as reader will be confused with the current name form. Also, if the authors can provide a flowchart or a pseudocode on the whole process of their segmentation, it will be beneficial for the readers as well. This can be either added into the manuscript or given as supplementary text.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your letter, informing us of the editorial decision on our manuscript (ID: forests-1737325.R1) entitled “Segmentation method based on watershed algorithm for long jujubes and trees". The paper has been duly revised according to the comments made by the Editor and the Reviewers. We would like to resubmit the revised version for consideration of possible publication as a regular paper. The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the Editor for her/his constructive comments and the effort and the time spent helping us to improve the quality of the paper. In the following, we provide a specific response to the comment, explaining how the paper is revised. We have highlighted all the changes in blue color in our revised manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript addressed the reviewers' concerns in a satisfactory way.
The details of our revision, as well as point-to-point responses to the reviewers, are appended below. Thank you very much for the time and effort again.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
