Design of the Mechanical Structure of a Field-Based Crop Phenotyping Platform and Tests of the Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presentation style of the paper needs improvement. Section 2.1 needs to be re-written with more precise and to the point statements. for example Line 193: word 'barycenter' has been used.  

The objectives of the static structural analysis and dynamic analysis are not clear and the results are not significant, especially from a research perspective

what are the limitations and why is there a need for the analysis that is being presented in the paper? no comparison of the analysis is presented with any other system?

Line 163 has some missing text? please give a proper explanation of Equation 1, where this equation has been used?

Line 138: what is ref [27]?

in figure 5: label of 6 circlip is not clear.

line 256:  referring to AISI 1045 steel? Use proper designation

Eq 5. and 6. are basic equations that cannot be considered valid for the assembly

Eq 7 is invalid

Figure 13 is labeled as Figure 14 in the text.

section 2.3.2: information about some sensors has been provided e.g. crop growth sensor, however, they have not been used in the research. What's the point of mentioning these sensors here.

page 17-18 are just curves of raw accelerometer data. they are not revealing any meaningful information. please focus only on meaningful results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, we really appreciate your helpful comments and valuable suggestions. According to your comments, we have made corrections and modifications as follows:

Point 1. The presentation style of the paper needs improvement. Section 2.1 needs to be re-written with more precise and to the point statements. for example Line 193: word 'barycenter' has been used.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. Section 2.1 has been amended.

Point 2. The objectives of the static structural analysis and dynamic analysis are not clear and the results are not significant, especially from a research perspective

what are the limitations and why is there a need for the analysis that is being presented in the paper? no comparison of the analysis is presented with any other system?

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. In Section 3.1, the beam and coupler are the main load-bearing elements. In order to verify whether the designed structure can withstand the working stress and ensure the safe operation of the platform, finite element analysis is carried out. Dynamic simulation is to analyze the dynamic effects of the platform in the process of movement, such as the ability to cross obstacles, climb hills and so on.Since there is no international standard for the phenotypic platform at present, this paper only compares with the use requirements.

Point 3. Line 163 has some missing text? please give a proper explanation of Equation 1, where this equation has been used?

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. The origin and application of this formula (1) are explained in lines 159-161 of the manuscript, and the parameters of the formula are specifically explained in lines 165-167.

Point 4. Line 138: what is ref [27]?

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. It has been corrected.

Point 5. in figure 5: label of 6 circlip is not clear.

Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. Fig.5 has been corrected.

Point 6. line 256: referring to AISI 1045 steel? Use proper designation

Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. The 45 steel has been revised to ASTM 1045 steel and the Q235 steel has been revised to ASTM A283-D steel.

Point 7. Eq 5. and 6. are basic equations that cannot be considered valid for the assembly

Response 7: Since the coupling in this paper is a non-standard part, Eq 5 and 6 is to check whether the stress of the coupling is less than the allowable stress, so as to verify that it can meet the working requirements.

Point 8. Eq 7 is invalid

Response 8：Thanks for your suggestion. Equation 7 has been corrected.

Point 9. Figure 13 is labeled as Figure 14 in the text.

Response 9：Thanks for your suggestion. Fig.13 has been corrected.

Point 10. section 2.3.2: information about some sensors has been provided e.g. crop growth sensor, however, they have not been used in the research. What's the point of mentioning these sensors here.

Response 10: Thanks for your suggestion. The four test devices mentioned in Section 2.2.3 have been fully applied in the test. The platform is designed to provide a mobile carrier for sensors for phenotypic monitoring in the field. The crop growth sensor is mounted on the platform to verify that the platform can acquire crop canopy information without damage and compare it with ASD measurements, as described in 2.2.3.

Point 11. page 17-18 are just curves of raw accelerometer data. they are not revealing any meaningful information. please focus only on meaningful results.

Response 11: Thanks for your suggestion. The vibration acceleration data curve in the manuscript has been filtered, and the acceleration curve can be visually compared between transverse and longitudinal. Moreover, the vibration acceleration value of the platform is much smaller than that of the tractor in reference [35]. This indicates that the vibration of the platform is much smaller than that of the agricultural machinery carrier, which has less negative impact on the sensor monitoring, and is more conducive to the accurate monitoring of crop phenotype in the field. In order to get more intuitive observation data, the vibration acceleration map in the manuscript was further analyzed to obtain the root mean square value.

We hope that the revised manuscript could satisfy you and the requirements for publication in the journal. Thank you again for your help.

Yours sincerely,

Huali Yuan and Jun Ni

Nanjing Agricultural University

No.1 Weigang Road

Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095

P.R.China

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of the work is interesting since outdoor conditions are difficult to deal with, particularly for mobile platforms to carry sensors in order to ensure proper data acquisition. Hence, many research groups have developed ad hoc platforms. In the introduction, it is presented other self-developed mobile platforms, however, in the discussion, it should be outlined the major benefits of the proposed platform in this paper. Furthermore, the crop monitoring appropriateness, i.e. Is this mechanical structure just for cereals or also, woody crops? Which crops does this phenotyping platform suit? Besides, in order to save time, would it be possible that this platform to be towed by a tractor while performing other agronomic tasks?

Line 70. Reference is required to support “more researchers”

Line 143. Table 1. Clarify the concept of “endurance” up to 4 h.

Line 146. What is the range for adjusting the width?

Line 580 – Although it is detailed an illustration showing how the system deal with uneven terrain, when one wheel step and roll over an obstacle, and the platform is tilted would help readers. This is particularly important for LiDAR systems due to their directionality (i.e. the laser beam).

Line 647-649. Reference is required to support “some existing platforms” or more information should be provided.

Line 669-673. Too long sentence, please split it in order to make it clearer.

Line 671 – “wide application scope”. More information is needed to highlight the novelty of the proposed platform with regard to this “wide application scope”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, we really appreciate your helpful comments and valuable suggestions. According to your comments, we have made corrections and modifications as follows:

Point 1. In the discussion, it should be outlined the major benefits of the proposed platform in this paper.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The discussion in the manuscript has been supplemented.

Point 2. Is this mechanical structure just for cereals or also, woody crops? Which crops does this phenotyping platform suit?

Response 2: This platform was mainly suitable for dry field crops with plant height less than 2100mm, such as corn, wheat, soybean，etc. There is no requirement on the row spacing of crops because the wheel spacing of the platform can be adjusted. For details, see 2.1.1 "To meet the Demand for phenotyping of different *dry* crops...".

Point 3. Besides, in order to save time, would it be possible that this platform to be towed by a tractor while performing other agronomic tasks?

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Your suggestion provides a new way of thinking about the use of the platform. In fact, the platform can be towed by a tractor, however，the platform has driving system and can walk autonomously.

Point 4. Line 70. Reference is required to support “more researchers”

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. References have been added to the manuscript.

Point 5. Line 143. Table 1. Clarify the concept of “endurance” up to 4 h.

Response 5: Endurance in Table 1 refers to the battery life of the platform and has been revised to Battery Life.

Point 6. Line 146. What is the range for adjusting the width?

Response 6: The adjustment range of wheel tread is 2400-3200mm, as shown in Table 1.

Point 7. Line 580 – Although it is detailed an illustration showing how the system deal with uneven terrain, when one wheel step and roll over an obstacle, and the platform is tilted would help readers. This is particularly important for LiDAR systems due to their directionality (i.e. the laser beam).

Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. The obstacle-crossing performance here is an important index to characterize trafficability of the platform in the field. Generally, the farmland is relatively flat and the height of obstacles is limited. For the sake of safety, the future research will consider the use of liDAR to detect the attitude Angle of the platform when it crosses the obstacle.

Point 8. Line 647-649. Reference is required to support “some existing platforms” or more information should be provided.

Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. References have been added to the manuscript.

Point 9. Line 669-673. Too long sentence, please split it in order to make it clearer.

Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion. The sentence has been corrected.

Point 10. Line 671 – “wide application scope”. More information is needed to highlight the novelty of the proposed platform with regard to this “wide application scope”.

Response 10: Thanks for your suggestion. The wide application scope means that the platform can adjust the wheel tread and height, can be suitable for a variety of dry field crops with different planting row spacing and different growth periods, and can carry a variety of sensors.

We hope that the revised manuscript could satisfy you and the requirements for publication in the journal. Thank you again for your help.

Yours sincerely,

Huali Yuan and Jun Ni

Nanjing Agricultural University

No.1 Weigang Road

Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095

P.R.China