Does the Soil Tillage Affect the Quality of the Peanut Picker?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of mechanized peanut pickers in the three soil tillage systems (Conventional Tillage, Rotary  Tillers and Rotary Hoe)  using Statistical Quality Control tools.

Based on this, I can conclude that the problem is topical. Overall, I think the authors study is interesting, but I think there are a few points that need to be revised before adoption.

In my opinion, soil cultivation systems are, for example: conventional, reduced and strip. In the research presented, we only have the usage of additional treatments with rotary tools (tillers and hoe). Therefore, the use of the term soil tillage systems is not understandable to me here.

The work lacks information on the plant protection products and fertilization used.

Line 203 - Pimentel-Gomes and Garcia [40]) – in References is Pimentel-Gomes, F.

Line 260 and  297 - citation Rós [40] – in References is 42

There are 42 citations in the References section and 41 in the text.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 (line numbers from original manuscript)

 

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of mechanized peanut pickers in the three soil tillage systems (Conventional Tillage, Rotary Tillers, and Rotary Hoe) using Statistical Quality Control tools. Based on this, I can conclude that the problem is topical. Overall, I think the authors study is interesting, but I think there are a few points that need to be revised before adoption. In my opinion, soil cultivation systems are, for example: conventional, reduced and strip. In the research presented, we only have the usage of additional treatments with rotary tools (tillers and hoe). Therefore, the use of the term soil tillage systems is not understandable to me here.

Thank you for your consideration and comments, and the review has been accomplished. We agree with you because we include two rotary tools (tillers and hoe). This way, we had three operations treatments: conventional, rotary tillers, and hoe. Therefore, we replaced the "soil tillage system" with "soil tillage operations."

 

The work lacks information on the plant protection products and fertilization used.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of mechanized peanut pickers in the three soil tillage operations using Statistical Quality Control (SQC) tools. This way, we focused on to write according to our objective.

 

Line 203 - Pimentel-Gomes and Garcia [40] – in References is Pimentel-Gomes, F.

Thank you for your consideration and the review has been accomplished.

 

Line 260 and 297 - citation Rós [40] – in References is 42 - There are 42 citations in the References section and 41 in the text.

Thank you for your consideration and the review has been accomplished.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research could be meaningful, the experimental design and the statistical analysis are reasonable , but the experimental data not always are detailed.  Minor spells check only required.

The article has scientific and practical significance. However, in the Introduction chapter the authors mention the problem of soil compaction affecting production areas and negatively influence peanut pods, but no study, in Materials and Methods chapter, has been conducted on the degree of compaction of the test soil, before and after tillage. In addition, lacks an accurate description of the experimental area and the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soil.

Abstract need a partial revision to improve the comprehension of the work.

Several acronyms appear in the Discussion chapter that are not explained in the text.

Conclusion chapter is too short and needs improvement. Conclusions should be written comparing objects of the study and the results obtained but the authors reported the same considerations made in the abstract.

More future developments and conclusions should be considered

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2 (line numbers from original manuscript)

 

The research could be meaningful, the experimental design and the statistical analysis are reasonable, but the experimental data not always are detailed. Minor spells check only required. The article has scientific and practical significance. However, in the introduction chapter the authors mention the problem of soil compaction affecting production areas and negatively influence peanut pods, but no study, in Materials and Methods chapter, has been conducted on the degree of compaction of the test soil, before and after tillage. In addition, lacks an accurate description of the experimental area and the physical-mechanical characteristics of the soil.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. We will do this in future works and compare different soil types evaluating soil compaction according to soil tillage operations, including these variables. However, for this work, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of mechanized peanut pickers in the three soil tillage operations using Statistical Quality Control (SQC) tools. This way, we focused on writing according to our objective.

 

Abstract need a partial revision to improve the comprehension of the work.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. We revised and improved the abstract. You can see that below.

“Machine harvesting is the essential step of crop production, considering a dynamic operation, and is subject to losses due to several factors that affect its quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of mechanized peanut pickers in the three soil tillage operations using Statistical Quality Control (SQC) tools. We conducted in a peanut field located 21°20’23” S and 47°54’06” W in Brazilian peanut farmers. We used Statistic Control Quality (SQC) experimental design to monitor peanut losses during machine harvesting. The treatments evaluated were three soil tillage operations: conventional (CT), rotary tillers (RT), and hoe (RH). The quality indicators were collected inside the picker’s bulk tank. Statistical analyses used were descriptive statistics and SQC tools (run charts, control charts, and the Ishikawa diagram). The process was considered stable for indicators: whole pods (CT, RT, RH), broken pods (CT, RT, and RH), and hatched pods (CT, RT, and RH), while the other indicators showed points that were out of control. With the application of SQC’s tools, it was possible to identify the factors that caused the increase of variability in peanut harvesting, listing the points to be improved to support decision-making, always aiming to increase this operation’s quality.”

 

Several acronyms appear in the Discussion chapter that are not explained in the text.

Thank you for your consideration and the review has been accomplished.

 

Conclusion chapter is too short and needs improvement. Conclusions should be written comparing objects of the study and the results obtained but the authors reported the same considerations made in the abstract. More future developments and conclusions should be considered.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. We revised and improved the abstract. You can see that below.

“Soil tillage operations influence the quality of mechanized peanut harvesting. From the process control charts, it was possible to verify that most of the indicators analyzed in this work showed less variability for the treatment with a rotary hoe. Thus, our results show that rotary hoe presents higher quality than other treatments. In addition, we observed that some indicators were under the effect of special causes that tend to decrease the quality of the process. With this, we observe a gap that can be explored and further improve the results' response. In the present study, just one soil type was evaluated. In future works, we need to explore more compounds (soil compaction, soil types, and characterize soil parameters). Field behavior observation is needed to explain better the complex interaction between soil and soil tillage operations. Our study will undoubtedly be helpful for better mechanized agricultural production. Our results offer a new understanding of the application of SQC’s tools and guidance for selecting factors that caused the variability in peanut harvesting, listing the points to be improved to support decision-making, always aiming to increase this operation’s quality.”.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript discussed the feasibility of SQC method in evaluating the peanut harvest quality by comparing and analyzing the components of peanut harvest mixture under different planting modes. The authors presented the study methods and results pretty well, but the conclusions and discussion of the study seem to have little guiding suggestions for the above problems. It is suggested that the author supplement the relationships of planting mode, cultivation quality and crop growth, so as to improve the guidance value of this study on peanut planting.

 

1. Due to the great differences in farming in different regions, the experimental equipment and the comparative pictures of effects after land preparation need to be supplemented to help readers understand the different farming patterns in the text.

 

2. Figure 1 and the followed table were presented at the same time, I suggest the charts be deleted as these data are not complicated.

 

3. Too many abbreviations were used in the full text. It is better to use complete phrases for some phrases that appeared infrequently, so as to avoid reading difficulties for readers, such as PR, PRE, PER et al.

 

4. More discussion is expected to focus on the causes of differences in harvest quality caused by soil tillage methods, such as the impact of soil compaction, organic matter, water and fertilizer retention capacity on peanut growth, and the impact of these factors on yield formation and mechanized harvesting.

 

5. In addition, the discussion on the differences of indicators was insufficient, for example, what is the reason for the differences in WP and WC? What is the impact of WC on other indicators? These need to be supplemented.

Author Response

Reviewer #3 (line numbers from original manuscript)

 

This manuscript discussed the feasibility of SQC method in evaluating the peanut harvest quality by comparing and analyzing the components of peanut harvest mixture under different planting modes. The authors presented the study methods and results pretty well, but the conclusions and discussion of the study seem to have little guiding suggestions for the above problems. It is suggested that the author supplement the relationships of planting mode, cultivation quality and crop growth, so as to improve the guidance value of this study on peanut planting.

 

1. Due to the great differences in farming in different regions, the experimental equipment and the comparative pictures of effects after land preparation need to be supplemented to help readers understand the different farming patterns in the text.

 Thank you for your consideration and the review has been accomplished.

 

2. Figure 1 and the followed table were presented at the same time, I suggest the charts be deleted as these data are not complicated.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. However, the intuition of using the box plot was to visually facilitate the reader's understanding. In addition, these analyses help to complement our table and help us have a more in-depth view of our results.

 

3. Too many abbreviations were used in the full text. It is better to use complete phrases for some phrases that appeared infrequently, so as to avoid reading difficulties for readers, such as PR, PRE, PER et al.

Thank you for your consideration and we appreciate many of your comments and suggestions. We have reviewed and corrected those acronyms that appear in the Discussion chapter that are not explained in the text.

 

4. More discussion is expected to focus on the causes of differences in harvest quality caused by soil tillage methods, such as the impact of soil compaction, organic matter, water and fertilizer retention capacity on peanut growth, and the impact of these factors on yield formation and mechanized harvesting.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. We will do this in future works in which we will address this information. However, for this work, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of mechanized peanut harvesters in the three soil preparation operations using Statistical Quality Control (SQC) tools. In this way, we focus on writing according to our objective.

 

5. In addition, the discussion on the differences of indicators was insufficient, for example, what is the reason for the differences in WP and WC? What is the impact of WC on other indicators? These need to be supplemented.

Thank you for your consideration, and we appreciate a lot of your comments and suggestions. We do not comment on the interaction between WP and WC because they are not correlated. WP is an indicator related to the predetermined growth habit of the crop, as well as to poor flower fecundation or nutritional deficiencies, such as calcium. Therefore, we did not need to get deeper into the discussion with this indicator (WP). At the same time, the other variables follow the same thought since the indicator pod water moisture has a stronger relationship with the indicators WHP, BP, and LG.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has been revised.

I make no further comments.

I wish you success.