Development and Experimental Analysis of a Pneumatic Based Dibbling Machine for a Forestry Nursery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the idea of this paper is good, but the writing fails to highlight the key points, there are big logic problems, it is suggested to make an overhaul before submission.

 1. In line 9, "It is estimated that about 22% of seedling rejection (approximately 220,000 per year) is due to poorly dibbled holes." What is the basis for this? Please indicate your source.

 2. The content of "1. Introduction" is not closely related to this paper, so it is suggested to modify it and add content.

 3. "2. Literature Review" is not rich and has little relevance to this paper. It is suggested to merge "1. Introduction" and "2. Literature review".

 4. This paper describes each mechanism in detail in "The Dibbler", but does not introduce the size and performance of the whole machine, and also lacks an overview of the working principle.

 5. The drilling power is provided by two hydraulic motors in this paper. Why is the dibbling mechanism not also hydraulically driven? This operation reduces the complexity of the machine.

 6. When the tractor is working forward, how to ensure that the hole drilled by the machine is perpendicular to the ground? How to achieve this action? Please elaborate and theoretical analysis.

 7. What does this passage mean on line 337? Please give a reasonable explanation.

 8. The same content appears in line 396 and line 337. Please explain and correct it.

 9. This paper lacks the performance evaluation index of "The dibbler ", which can´t measure the real performance of the machine.

 10.Lack of comparison with manual drilling effect, and can´t reflect the superiority of machine drilling effect quality, it can only show that mechanical efficiency is higher than manual.

 11. Failure to explain the success rate of drilling, lack of relevant test verification, please provide additional explanation.

 12. The size of pictures should be consistent, and the formula numbers suggest alignment, please modify the format problem.

 13. The quantity of references is less and most of them are relatively old, which is not of great reference significance. It is suggested to reorganize and increase the number of references.

 14. The article is not particularly focused, especially in the "The Dibbler" and "Dibbler Programming" sections, it is recommended to add content that highlight the theme and integrate them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper can be accepted for possible publication. The authors have accepted all suggestions and revised the manuscript, accordingly.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback