Pots to Plots: Microshock Weed Control Is an Effective and Energy Efficient Option in the Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Pots to Plots: Microshock Weed Control is Effective and Efficient in the Field.”  presents the development and testing of flat plate electrode weeding equipment that applies ultra-low energy electric shocks to seedlings in the field. The results showed over 90% control for all weed species tested. This sustainable farming approach offers manual, robotic, or conventional deployment options without the need for tillage or chemical herbicides.

This paper has made significant contributions to the field. I have two minor suggestions:

1.  In Keywords: It appears that the ten keywords provided do not have significant representation or reflection in your paper. Therefore, I recommend revising and selecting a more focused set of keywords. Generally, it is advisable to include 3 to 6 keywords that accurately reflect the main themes or concepts discussed in your paper.

 

2.  In the Materials and Methods section, I suggest representing the pictures in Figure 1 and Figure 2 as (a) and (b) rather than indicating them as "right" or "left" in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These labeling conventions (a) and (b) will provide clearer and more concise references to the respective figures.

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper. We have provided a smaller number of more specific keywords.

We have changed Figures 1 and 2 as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on their previous indoor works, a flat plate electrode weeding equipment applying ultra-low energy electric shocks was developed. Weed control effects and energy consumed were analyzed in field plots as compared with bagged conditions. This research takes an important step towards field application of microshock weed control method and is of great significance for weed control under sustainable agricultural production.

But there are still several questions need to answer.

1.     The manuscript mentioned that “The flat plate system tested supports sustainable farming by providing ultra-low energy weed control suitable for manual, robotic, or conventional deployment”. Has the team attempted to use this weed control method to develop or applied to any practical field weeding equipment? And what is the actual application effect and practicability if you had?

2. When doing in the field, does this method have certain space requirement around the weed plant?

3.     Does it need to keep a certain "safe distance" between weed and crop plant when using this method? Will it cause some damage to the crop plant if the weed is quite nearer to the crop?

 Suggestions for improvement

1.     Add discussion about "practical application" of this method in field production.

2.     Position of figures and tables should be arranged in order, e.g. Figure 6 and 7, 9 and 10, 12 and 13; Table 3 and 4.

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper.

We have added a sentence in a revised Discussion section about practical application and robotic deployment and a statement and a time series of photos showing the neighbouring plants are unaffected when weeds are treated this way.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, entitled "Pots to Plots: Microshock weed control is an effective and energy efficient option in the field" explores a very promising topic.  Low energy, non-chemical weed control methods offer a serious future alternative for sustainable agriculture.  
The authors conducted their experiments with two broadleaf weeds (Lepidium didymum and Amaranthus powellii) and a grass weed (Lolium multiflorum).   
The setups were done in greenhouse, container and field conditions. Using PMS (Pulsed Electric Microshocks) technology, adequate weed control was achieved with very low energy investment, using 3 and 4.5 kV direct current (DC).

Descriptions of treatments are sufficiently detailed and reproducible. It provides adequate methodological guidance for carrying out similar experiments. The materials and methods used are adequately described.

The presentation of results is also well structured. Very informative figures and tables have been compiled.

The summary evaluation and conclusion are sufficiently detailed. It critically analyses other academic work on the subject and is moderate in its own findings.

Regarding the typos in the text, I suggest correcting the text in lines 361 and 362 of the manuscript: 'Figure 12Error Reference Source Not Found'

Following the corrections suggested above, I recommend publication of the manuscript as a scientific article.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper.

We have made the correction as you identified. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is interesting and has a certain degree of innovation. Despite this, some revisions are required.

The introduction is a bit long but exhaustive. An effort to summarise could improve it.

Materials and Methods are quite good, but a couple of crucial aspects need to be clarified.

The first concerns the calculation of the vigour score. In the various points where the calculation of the score is described (line 170, line 183, line 186, lines 201-203), only the list of analyzed traits is given without specifying which scores were assigned. The indices may have a subjective scale but must be explained. Three different species are involved, and the structure of the indices should probably vary for each species.

The second aspect relates to soil moisture. The calculation of moisture should be better clarified by giving details of the measurements (were they replicated? How many replications for each test?). Only two soil moisture values are given in the text, with no indices of variability or statistical analysis. But great importance is (rightly) given to this factor in the discussions. Therefore, the authors should indicate well the moisture measured in each trial for each species and discuss the results considering these values.

Additional tables, as supplementary material, for the vigour score of the species and the moisture content would be very useful.

Discussion can be improved. The part between lines 402 and 441 takes up concepts already set out in the results. It could be summarised and ordered better. It would be useful to mention any practical applications (e.g. integration of the system into existing equipment) mentioned in the conclusions.

The conclusions also need revision. Some concepts have already been stated. The authors should report what can be concluded about the initial hypothesis/objective on the basis of the results of the tests.

Some references should be checked.

Other indications:

·         Useful the summary in Table 1.

·         Standardise the units of measurement of volts (V or kV?).

·         The figures should be revised in form, order and for the information provided. For example, the text below the x-axis of figures 4, 5, 11 is not very clear. The readability should be improved. Some figures are not in the correct order.

·         There are some editorial oversights in the text.

 

Further comments can be found in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English appears correct.

Author Response

Thank you for your time reviewing our paper and for your very detailed comments. We have given considerable attention to amending the paper in light of your review. We have amended figures as recommended, and added detail on the soil moisture assessments and on the binary logistic regressions. We have restructured several sections including adding a new section on Environmental data, and deleted two figures that were not essential for the narrative and were causing confusion.

We have adapted the discussion and condensed the conclusions. Our amendments have seen inclusion of alternative and additional references and (after another reviewer's comments) added a new figure showing the application of treatments does not appear to affect neighbouring plants.

We attached a pdf with your review comments and our more detailed responses.

Thank you again for your assistance improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf