Methodology for Olive Pruning Windrow Assessment Using 3D Time-of-Flight Camera
, Francisco M. Lara 1 and Gregorio L. Blanco-Roldán 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No comment
Author Response
Point 1: Extensive editing of English language and style required

Response 1: Your suggestions are welcome. An extensive edition of English language, and style was performed by a professional reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a good study. In fact, that was showed an alternative, simple and quick tool, 3D Time of flight camera, to determine windrow bulk volume.
The focus of introduction is on the importance of residues, biomass, LCA, carbon footprint and little was written about other detection methods of windrow bulk volume. Carbon footprint is a balance approach considers the sources and sinks of carbon and therefore provides a better reflection of an orchard system's net contribution to climate change and in this study wasn’t considered all the aspect to calculate the carbon model. For example, from 5 categories, 2 have been chosen....
My opinion is to rewrite the introduction, focusing more on the methods or tool to determine windrow bulk volume and the problems observed to evaluate harvest amount tree pruning biomass (porosity, size branches etc...).
Author Response
Point 1: Reading the manuscript reveals the interest in proposing a technology that could favor and accelerate manual practices and measurements, even if an in-depth review of the contents on display is required. First you need to review the English language and the form of the work.
Response 1: Your suggestions are welcome. An extensive edition of English language, and style was performed by a professional reviewer.
Point 2: Specifically, in line 56 regarding LCA, more bibliographic sources are required.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. One more reference was added to complete the background. Please see line 58.
Point 3: In line 90 it is advisable to report the name of the species under study in the correct form and character.
Response 3: Thank you for careful revision. Changes have been done. Please see line 93.
Point 4: It is also important to specify whether the equations used and referred to in the text are taken from the literature or are generated by the authors.
Response 4: Authors acknowledge your comments. All equations are generated by authors, although some of them are present in previous literature, for instance, polynomial equation.
Point 5: In general it is important to explain in more detail the purpose and aims of the work and of the proposed technology, in particular highlighting the applications and uses of the studied measurement method, explaining why it could be of such considerable scientific interest.
Response 5: Your suggestions are welcome; some information was added. Please, see lines 283-287.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reading the manuscript reveals the interest in proposing a technology that could favor and accelerate manual practices and measurements, even if an in-depth review of the contents on display is required. First you need to review the English language and the form of the work. Specifically, in line 56 regarding LCA, more bibliographic sources are required. In line 90 it is advisable to report the name of the species under study in the correct form and character.It is also important to specify whether the equations used and referred to in the text are taken from the literature or are generated by the authors. In general it is important to explain in more detail the purpose and aims of the work and of the proposed technology, in particular highlighting the applications and uses of the studied measurement method, explaining why it could be of such considerable scientific interest.
Author Response
Point 1: Please define what windrowing and windrow is.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. Definitions were added, please see lines 81 – 83.
Point 2: In the abstract you write "to develop, test and validate methodology". Please write validate, because you did it in your research.
Response 2: We highly acknowledge your careful revision of the manuscript. Suggested changes were included, please see line 88.
Point 3: Does exist any current methodology to measure pruning residues? If yes, please describe that methodology and compare to yours.
Response 3: Your comments are welcome, although in this case, there is not another methodology to measure windrow shape.
Point 4: Write in italic (Olea europaea L.)
Response 4: Thank you for your careful revision. Changes have been done, please see line 93.
Point 5: The title of the figure is "Five considered branch categories..." but on the picture is shown four categories of the previously mentioned branch categories. You didn't show secondary branches on the picture a) and instead of that you show trunks.
Response 5: We acknowledge your accurate comments. Figure was completed, please see figure 1.
Point 6: Please write as degrees.
Response 6: Changes have been included. Please see line 138.
Point 7: Figures have different sizes.
Response 7: Changes have been done. Please see figure 3.
Point 8: Please write as p
Response 8: Changes have been written. Please see figure 3, table 3, line 205 and line 243.
Point 9: Please write this reference according to the instruction.
Response 9: Changes have been done, please see lines 401-402.
Reviewer 4 Report
Please make corrections according to the suggestions in the text.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your good valuation of the manuscript. Conclusions were improved to be supported by results.
