Discrete Element Simulation Modeling Method and Parameters Calibration of Sugarcane Leaves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have take into account the requested changes.
Minor form corrections can be found in the attached document.
My only minor regret will be to have in the conclusion one sentence concerning the potential use this research will or could have on the design of future more performant harvesters.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript improved a bit from last time, however many typos are present, to understand the research a careful revision of the writing is needed. The Authors must make very clear the objectives and the possible benefit of the research carried out.
More information is needed from the experimental point of view, more evidences of the augmented profit after the application of the model-procedure.
Lietrature must be review and language needs a carefully revision form a native speaker with knowledge in agronomy,
Kind regards
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting work on modeling the behavior of sugar cane leaves, a large part of the application possibilities or advantages that a good knowledge of this topic can bring remains uncovered. These aspects should be investigated in order to prevent that it remains a research that is only an end in itself and of little support to the state of the art of the topic. For example, in the discussions the results should be linked to the evolutions that they bring to the phases directly involved, eg collection, post-harvest management. Overall, we ask to consider more the application implications for harvest and logistic chain
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
I appreciate all the explanation (responce letter)
very good work
kind regards
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work deals with issues of interest given the importance of the crop and the study is detailed and in-depth, some aspects remain uncovered which are however of not negligible importance linked to the applicability of these results on the cleaning systems adopted on the main types of harvesting machines in order to provide useful hints also for manufacturer, in particular in addition to the only leaf element, the influence of the presence of impurities of another nature, always present, and how these affect the cleaning process at least as regards traditional cleaning systems should also be investigated. Even just identifying some prevalent typologies to apply the developed model, also integrated by external elements or not leafe, would be very useful
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
My apologies for the late and for my inadequacy to review this paper.
I thought the paper was about modelling yield or other agronomic related properties,
unfortunately I did not get the clue of the paper, because I am from other sub-domain.
I think it is well done, but, from my perspective I do not see the need of such study.
The text has many acronyms, to avoid them will make the read easier and will not generate misunderstandings with other communities of researchers (e.g statisticians)
Kind regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript is well written the introduction provides enoughs references on the really technical part of the method is going to be developped but miss as well as the conclusion of a wider view of the problem.
You state that we need this to improve the mechacnical harvesting of sugarcane, but nothing is stated before about which are the porbems encountered during the harvest, and then conclude about the progress your research has made on this problem.
The objectifs problems stated are only mathematical, not agronomical ones.
I have made more minor comments on the document attached.
Another thing you should correct if about the vegetal material, how do you collect, show the difference with a real harvest situation a discuss this on the quality of the results.
In the discuss section you make general comments, but there is no relationship with other research or previous publications
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Despite of the structure and contents of the MS being acceptable, I don't quite understand what is the purpose of such simulation. What would be the contribution of such modelling? Why should I use this approach instead of assessing my own results?
Also, introduction still need a more deep review of similar works.
The sample size seem quite small (only 30 leaves). Can the authors make sure that this small sample won't impact the results?
