Canopy Segmentation Method for Determining the Spray Deposition Rate in Orchards
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the setting of the experimental design the percentage of degradation of the BSF is missing and the relief of solar radiation is missing. Furthermore, it would be more appropriate to measure the leaf surface instead of the number of leaves and have the deposit in microliters / square cmAuthor Response
Dear professor,
Thank you for your valuable comments on the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments. The details of modification show in 2.2.3 with red font. According to your specific comments, we reply as follows:
1.The percentage of degradation of BSF：
We cited a paper published in Transactions of the ASABE. The experiment results showed the Photo-degradation of BSF after 120 min of solar exposure was less than 3.1% .
[You, K., Zhu, H., Abbott, J. P. (2019). Assessment of fluorescent dye brilliant sulfaflavine deposition on stainless steel screens as spray droplet collectors. Transactions of the ASABE, 62(2), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.13136].
- The relief of solar radiation:
We point out all the sampling leaves were collected within 1 hour after application and then stored in the dark at -20 °C until analysis to relief the photolysis of BSF.
- Measure leaf surface instead of number of leaves:
You are absolutely right. In fact, a large number of leaves were collected in our experiments, and it would take a considerable amount of time to measure the leaf surface. For this reason, we have to use the number of leaves for the deposition calculation. In order to eliminate the influence of leaf area on the results, leaves of different sizes were randomly selected. We sincerely hope that you will agree with our explanation.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall Comments
I appreciate the work of the authors and I applaud their efforts, but I feel there is more work to be done on this manuscript, and I provide my section-by-section comments below
Abstract
Background/significance of this work/urgency
Not mentioned .. the authors straightaway delve into the technical problem
As a result, the reader is not engaged (why is it important, why should we care?) o
Problem
effective quantification of pesticides deposition rate is vital to determine efficiency
Orchards with dense branches and leaves shading each other make it difficult to quantify spraying efficiency
Solution
developed a canopy segmentation method to determine the spray deposition rate
aside from the name, the inner workings of the method were not explained
method
apply method on 3 sprayer types in 2 different orchids (pear & peach)
Results (raw)
Deposition rates for Mounted, hand-held, gun spray (also hand-held?)
Droplet distribution uniformity & CVs (not introduced or explained)
significance of numbers or percentages not explained
findings
the method can measure DR, DDU, and CVs .. but the significance of these measures is not explained
Also, the authors reported extensive time wasted on measuring these data
and reported further research on solving the original problem
Intro
Chinese Orchard industry is ranked 1 in the world
the disease is controlled through pesticides
3 types of sprays
off-target losses are huge (due to the sheer size of orchards)
also, the negative impact of using pesticides
param 1 = utilization rate (deposition rate) or DR
DR = amount of pesticide deposited on crop / total amount of pesticide
quantification of DR is vital
DR measuring method => deposition volume of a single plant, volume per area, plant density (plants per area)
Problem -
others developed & demonstrated methods to measure DR
Gap = canopy of tree-fruit orchards is large, dense, and leaves shade each other => measuring DR difficult
Review of other efforts to measure DR in orchards
did not specifically measure DR
did not take differences in leaf density
Hypo
Canopy Segmentation method
again, aside from the name, the outline of the proposed method is not explained
when u segment the canopy, what do you achieve? what will that solve? compared to other works
Overall
motivation, significance, and problem are better explained in the Intro than in the Abstract
I suggest you rewrite the abstract to better represent these issues
The proposed hypo (segmentation method) is still not explained or outlined (only the name is mentioned)
and how it is supposed to solve problems other researchers faced.
Materials & Methods
in the abstract, the three types were: Mounted, hand-held, gun spray
but here, the three types are: trailer assisted, mounted, and hand-held
why the differences?
In figure 2, the trailer-assisted & Mounted-assisted pictures (a, b) look identical
what is the difference between these two types?
and, the third type (c) is now called spray gun?
Results
before & After each table in section 3, there is an extensive amount ot writing that can get really distracting
consider reducing the written explanations and let the numbers talk
for example, the very long paragraph after table 4 provides the exact same information as table 4
so there is no need to write that much
similarly to other tables
The term CV is never explained in the paper
Discussion
In your discussion, you are treating the data, such as the Deposition rate percentages, and the CVs (which are still never explained), which you developed (found) using your own method (the segmentation method) as if they were facts, and then you are using this data to analyze and discuss pesticides performance and efficiency in the orchards.
But that is NOT the point of your paper. Instead, your discussion should focus on your method and how it solved the issues faced by others when they attempted to measure the deposition rate percentages ... namely the effect of leave density and the accuracy of your data.
Regarding the issue of counting leaves:
You acknowledge that counting leaves is time-consuming and detrimental to your work
so why count leaves? why not just count leaves in selected area(s) and extrapolate for the whole field >
Yes, there will be some statistical errors, and the leaves count might not be accurate
but you still get a good approximation and save yourself a ton of time ...
perhaps you can attempt this in your next research
Conclusions
Conclusions appear to be a repeat or a summary of the discussion, which is also copied in the abstract
I suggest you rewrite your conclusions to address the paper's main objectives and also break it down into points
each point addresses a specific objective.
You did mention in your discussion that there is a weakness (too much time consumed)
so why did u not add a "future works/recommendation" section?
--------------------------------
Formating and English
there are a lot of formatting issues (not enough spaces between paragraphs & table headers, tables running across two pages, etc.)
There are many English grammar, structure, and writing issues .. while the writing is understood, it is extremely difficult to read.
I would recommend you simplify your writing and make it easier to read. There are also Some spelling and punctuation issues
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you for your valuable comments on the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments. The respond to specific comments are as follows:
- Solution: developed a canopy segmentation method to determine the spray deposition rate aside from the name, the inner workings of the method were not explained
The details of canopy segmentation and calculate of deposition rates are shown in 2.2.2 and 2.3.2 in the modified manuscript with red font.
- Results : Deposition rates for Mounted, hand-held, gun spray (also hand-held?)
Droplet distribution uniformity & CVs (not introduced or explained)
significance of numbers or percentages not explained
The spray gun is a hand-held sprayer.
The CV (coefficient of variation) is explained in the 3.3 with red font. The coefficient of variation (relative standard deviation) is a statistical measure of the dispersion of data points around the mean. The metric is commonly used to compare the data dispersion between distinct series of data. The uniformity of spraying droplet distribution on targets is commonly described by the coefficient of variation (CV). The smaller a CV is, the better is the uniformity of the droplet distribution.
- Findings: the method can measure DR, DDU, and CVs . . but the significance of these measures is not explained.
Amount and uniformity of spray deposition are the most important index to evaluate the quality of application. Deposition rate (%) is used to evaluate deposition efficiency or amount, and the CV (%) is used to evaluate uniformity of droplet distribution.
- Hypo: Canopy Segmentation method again, aside from the name, the outline of the proposed method is not explained. when u segment the canopy, what do you achieve? what will that solve? compared to other works
The detail of the method is shown in 2.2.2and 2.3.2 in the modified manuscript with red font.
5. Overall: motivation, significance, and problem are better explained in the Intro than in the Abstract, I suggest you rewrite the abstract to better represent these issues
I am quite agree with your suggestions. But the abstract has a word limit (a total about 200 words), and we've tried to present as much information as we can within that limit.
- Materials & Methods: in the abstract, the three types were: Mounted, hand-held, gun spray but here, the three types are: trailer assisted, mounted, and hand-held why the differences? In figure 2, the trailer-assisted & Mounted-assisted pictures (a, b) look identical. what is the difference between these two types? and, the third type (c) is now called spray gun?
The differences of these two sprayers are shown in 2.1 in the manuscript. In brief, the trailer sprayer has its own wheels, while mounted sprayers do not. Therefore, they have certain differences in operating methods and requirements on orchard planting conditions.
Yes, the third type is a motorized hand-held spray gun, which is called spray gun for short.
- Results: before & After each table in section 3, there is an extensive amount ot writing that can get really distracting consider reducing the written explanations and let the numbers talk for example, the very long paragraph after table 4 provides the exact same information as table 4 so there is no need to write that much similarly to other tables
We removed some unnecessary information from the original text.
- The term CV is never explained in the paper Discussion In your discussion, you are treating the data, such as the Deposition rate percentages, and the CVs (which are still never explained), which you developed (found) using your own method (the segmentation method) as if they were facts, and then you are using this data to analyze and discuss pesticides performance and efficiency in the orchards.
The CV is not a new defined specialized vocabulary, which is explained in 3.3 in the manuscript. The discussion about the CVs of sprayer is shown in the fifth paragraph of discussion with red font.
- Regarding the issue of counting leaves: You acknowledge that counting leaves is time-consuming and detrimental to your work so why count leaves? why not just count leaves in selected area(s) and extrapolate for the whole field > Yes, there will be some statistical errors, and the leaves count might not be accurate but you still get a good approximation and save yourself a ton of time ... perhaps you can attempt this in your next research.
Because of the canopy profile is not regular, and the leaf density in the upper and bottom layer, internal area and external area. In this case, the error of counting leaves in selected area and extrapolate for the whole field is extremely large. Therefore, we had to adopt the method described in this manuscript to determine the number of leaves in different areas of the canopy. In the following studies, we will look for more efficient and accurate statistical methods of leaf density.
- Conclusions: Conclusions appear to be a repeat or a summary of the discussion, which is also copied in the abstract
I suggest you rewrite your conclusions to address the paper's main objectives and also break it down into points each point addresses a specific objective.
We have rewritten the conclusions.
- You did mention in your discussion that there is a weakness (too much time consumed) so why did u not add a "future works/recommendation" section? According to the Instructions for Authors of MDPI, the Research Manuscript Sections includes introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions. Moreover, the weakness of the method is only two paragraphs, which is not enough of an independent section (future works/recommendation). Therefore, we still put these two paragraphs in the discussion. We sincerely hope that you will agree with our explanation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Hello and congratulations for this paper. However I have some observations:
1 - line 133 - distance of application was really 100 m?
2 - line 143, Table 1- how did you calculate the flow rate for spray gun?
Why did not use the same application volume for all machines? - please explain
3- line 159 - fruit not friut
4 - table 5 - please explain better why the spray gun had such high deposition amount
What was the setup of the spraying machines in terms of flow ? Was the flow calibrated according to canopy spatial distribution?
What nozzles did you used on the trailed, mounted and spray gun ?
There were no differences in the deposition amount
of the spray gun spraying liquid under different canopy heights of pear trees - Top A -176; Middle upper A- 170; Middle lower - 126; Bottom - 140 - there are differences - please explain (this is also valid for peach)
These CV s are so high (92.52% and 94,90%) please explain
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you for your valuable comments on the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to your comments. According to your specific comments, we reply as follows:
- line 133 - distance of application was really 100 m?
Yes, we accurately measure the distance before application.
2 - line 143, Table 1- how did you calculate the flow rate for spray gun? Why did not use the same application volume for all machines? - please explain
The flow rate of spray gun was obtained by measuring the volume of liquid ejected in one minute using a stopwatch and cylinder.
The application volume of sprayers in orchards was determined by calculating the operating time (time is proportional to the spray volume) within 100 meters.
The basic parameters of sprayers were different. In particular, the manual spray gun cannot accurately control its operating speed. Therefore, in the actual application, we cannot guarantee the same application volume of the three sprayers. As a result, we can only select the daily operation parameters of sprayers for application, and calculate the application volume (L/ha) by its specific flow and operating area.
3- line 159 - fruit not fruit
Has been modified.
4 - table 5 - please explain better why the spray gun had such high deposition amount.
What was the setup of the spraying machines in terms of flow? Was the flow calibrated according to canopy spatial distribution? What nozzles did you used on the trailed, mounted and spray gun?
We emphasize the reason of high deposition in the paper: the application volume of the spray gun was much greater than that of the trailer sprayer and the mounted sprayer.
The three sprayers were installed with hollow cone nozzles manufactured autonomous. The setting of sprayer flow rate (spray pressure) refereed to its daily operation parameters, and it did not calibrate with the change of canopy spatial distribution.
- There were no differences in the deposition amount of the spray gun spraying liquid under different canopy heights of pear trees - Top A -176; Middle upper A- 170; Middle lower - 126; Bottom - 140 - there are differences - please explain (this is also valid for peach)
These CV s are so high (92.52% and 94.90%) please explain
We rewrite the sentence: The spray gun had the highest deposition amount of the liquid in the pear canopy, and the deposition amount of the spray gun sprayed in different areas of the pear canopy was relatively uniform.
We explained the high CV in the discussion: Compared with the trailer air-assisted sprayer, the weaker wind speed of the mounted air-assisted sprayer resulted in more concentration of the spraying liquid on the external and lower areas of the fruit tree canopy. Therefore, the CVs of the deposition amount of the spraying liquid in the peach and pear canopy were 92.52% and 94.90%, respectively. The trailer air-assisted sprayer could blow the droplets to various areas of the fruit tree canopy, so the CVs of the pesticide solution deposition in the peach and pear canopy were 35.98% and 26.54% respectively, which was much smaller than the CVs of the mounted sprayer.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for addressing the comments of my first review ... I have reviewed their updated manuscript and I think they successfully address all issues effectively.
As such, I feel the updated manuscript is now ready .. pending some editorial and formatting edits.
Reviewer 3 Report
Hello again
I agree with the revisions.
