Pollination Parameter Optimization and Field Verification of UAV-Based Pollination of ‘Kuerle Xiangli’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Double-check the grammar and spelling (e.g. space between words in line 62, UAVoperation, and line 67, UAVliquid)  

- Introduction is very short and has to be improved

- Is there any reason (the theory behind it) that you picked the height of 1m, 2m, and 3m? For instance, maybe 0.5 m gives you even better results! 

- Same question about the size of the mist droplet? Also, why did 120 Mm have a better result compared to both smaller and larger sizes of droplets? I know this was experimental research but did you find any theoretical reason behind it?

- Based on figure 1, the distance between trees in the field has to be 1m E-W and 4m N-S (right picture). Why in the oval shape in the same figure the water-sensitive paper extended 3.6m in N-S and 0.9m in E-W (middle picture)? 

- If you add a figure of the real experiment in the field (aerial picture) right after figure 1, that would help a lot for a better understanding.

- What is the difference between a cross and a cross circle in the right picture in Figure 1?

- In Table 2, how many times did you repeat the tests for each case? only one time? or these results in table 2 are an average for each case?

- In figure 2, figure 3, and figure 4 you need to mention what is the meaning of a, b, and ab?

- Any of these results without consideration of wind speed are not correct. Did you have the same wind speed for all cases? If not how you will apply that in your final results? If the wind speed changes how that would affect the results?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an outstanding paper. It focuses on a very relevant and recent issue: the pollinization challenges now a days in large production areas, most probably under monoculture.

 

The experimental design seems very good to me and the results are very well presented.

 

I find it suitable for publication. I have some comments written in the file, among which I would highlight the need of refering the absolute number of flowering and not just the percentages

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I am very grateful for your recognition of my paper, where I have seen all your comments. I agree with the absolute number of flowering, not just the percentages. 

The references in the article change a little, and I need to explain it.

Reference 8 exchanges the order with 9, and a new reference was added, inserted into position 11.