Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is a valuable review dealing with the application of smart agriculture. It reviews the development of the of machine vision technology in the production of tea, with emphasis on China production. The paper discusses challenges that need to be overcome to extend the technology of vision to harvesting. The paper has nice presentation and the language is mostly good, requiring only little improvements.

A list of corrections is suggested below.

1. Line 70: instead of "Figure 1", it is "Figure 2".

2. Table 2: replace the abbreviation "svm" by the name in extent.

3. Line 107: replace "methods, The average" by "methods, the average".

4. Lines 124-126: the sentence starting “In order to avoid…” and ending “it is not obvious” has no clear meaning; it is recommend to rephrase the sentence.

Figure 3. it is convenient to add markers on both images of the figure; for example, add (a) for PMS and (b) for TPCS; the legend should mention the markers and associate them to the respective image. It is recommended to proceed just as has been done in Figure 7.

Lines 272-275: the text is confusing; the idea conveyed is not easily grasped; it is recommended to rephrase the text.

Table 2: interspace 90 and FPS; interspace also 30 and FPS.

Conclusions – a final section “Conclusion” is expected to be a short text, with no reiteration of comments made before. Items i-iv in the present Conclusion have been dealt with in previous sections. A revision of this section is recommended.

 

List of References: The format of the references lacks uniformity and adhesion to the norms of the journal. Family names of authors must have uppercase only on the initial letter.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Lines 178, 218, 289, 389, 391 – after semicolons, words do not start with uppercase initials; either replace comma by a full stop or replace uppercase by lowercase initials.

2. Line 289: replace comma by a full stop.

3. Line 421 – before “In the future”, replace comma by a full stop.

4. Lines 424-426 – change “has focus” by “has focused”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) This review topic is interesting. However, my major concern is about the quantitative information and insights about the production in other countries besides China. If the authors prefer keeping the current manuscript title, thus the readers' expectation for information abour general tea production (and not ony in China) will be kept as well. Thus, I recommend updating the introduction and the other manuscript sections to highlight better information in a broader context (in the world, not only in China).

1.1 When the authors mention the word "foreign" (lines 341 and 347), it sounds like the manuscript theme focuses exclusively in China production. It would make sense within a context of special issue or title focused in only one country. Please be careful about that. Maybe excluding "foreign" would be interesting to keep the focus in plant production in the world.

 

2. Some minor recommendations: the sentence "Because individuals have inconsistent definitions of the degree infection" (lines 65 and 66) should be incorporated in the rest of the paragraph;

The authors may consider citing references to the sentence "However, current research on tea is still concentrated in the laboratory stage" (lines 145 and 146).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

6.9.2023

 

The review article “Application Status and Trend of Machine Vision in Tea Production” was reviewed.

 

The review article bout machine vision in tea production is well organized. However, it has major drawbacks:

1. You need to cite the following similar review and indicate the importance and uniqueness of your review:

- Wang, H., Gu, J., & Wang, M. (2023). A review on the application of computer vision and machine learning in the tea industry. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1172543.

2. Several related recent literature NEED to be cited and incorporated (see below list 1-3, and 4-8), they cover multispectral cameras, machine learning and 3D localization, … ect.

3. Author CRITIC should be expressed at the end of each section if possible. It was almost absent.

4. You need to add a major paragraph about “Farm Management Information System” in tea production based on machine vision.

5. And finally the language need some corrections (please see below).

Therefore, I do not recommend the publication of the manuscript in “Applied Sciences” unless these comments and corrections are applied (please see also below).

 

1. General:

- The Language is good. However, please correct for common grammar mistakes and incorrect sentence phrasing. Few examples are shown for the “Abstract” (please see below), please correct accordingly for the entire manuscript.

- You need to wright down all abbreviations in full the first time they are mentioned, e.g. RGB, HSV, HIS, .. etc, the reader may not know all of them!

 

2. Abstracts:

- Line 15: remove “the” form “the specific”.

- Line 16: replace “production. For example, this …” with “production; for example, this …”.

- Line 17: replace “interference from natural environments” with “weather interference”.

- Line 20: remove “needs”.

- Line 21: remove “focus on the”.

- Line 21: replace “optimize” with “optimized”.

- Line 22: replace “pay more attention to the promotion and utilization” with dissemination”.

- Line 23: remove “achieve”.

 

3. Introduction:

- Lines 29-31: you need to cite an authenticated reference for this data.

- Line 34: remove “the”.

- Line 36: replace “short and concentrated in harvesting time” with “limited harvesting window.

- Lines 37-40: you need to support this conclusion by related articles!

- Lines 42-47: again you need to support this classification by solid references.

- Lines 50- 55: again you are presenting review paper and you need to cite authenticated references for each and every piece of information you present!

- Line 52: you said “Machine vision mainly relies on RGB cameras to obtain tea garden images … etc.” this is not correct! There are other recent options like multispec cams that you mentioned later on. Please see the following articles and also incorporate them in you review for maltispec cams for tea production:

1. Chen, L., Xu, B., Zhao, C., Duan, D., Cao, Q., & Wang, F. (2021). Application of multispectral camera in monitoring the quality parameters of fresh tea leaves. Remote Sensing, 13(18), 3719.

2. Wickramasinghe, W. A. N. D., Ekanayake, E. M. S. L. B., Wijedasa, M. A. C. S., Wijesinghe, A. D., Madhujith, T., Ekanayake, M. P. B., ... & Herath, H. M. V. R. (2021, August). Validation of Multispectral Imaging for The Detection of Sugar Adulteration in Black Tea. In 2021 10th International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability (ICIAfS) (pp. 494-499). IEEE.

3. Cao, Q., Yang, G., Wang, F., Chen, L., Xu, B., Zhao, C., ... & Yang, H. (2022). Discrimination of tea plant variety using in-situ multispectral imaging system and multi-feature analysis. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 202, 107360.

 

- Line 57: remove “Because”.

- Line 57: remove “the growth environment of”.

- Line 58: replace “this characteristic also” with “which”.

- Line 60: replace “distributed in the” with “infecting”.

- Line 61: replace “if not” with “any disease occurrence should be”.

- Line 61: replace “it often” with “otherwise, it”.

- Line 67: replace “obvious. Before the disease was discovered, a” with “obvious until”.

- Lines 61-67: again you are presenting review paper and you need to cite authenticated references for each and every piece of information you present!

- Lines 71-73: reference citation is needed.

- Lines 117-123: reference citation is needed.

- Lines 149-150: this is incorrect; there are plenty of related articles covering both pest and diseases of tea in China!

 - Line 182: what is the difference between left and write panels? indicate that in the figure caption (A, B) or left, right).

- Line 255: replace “Different tea bud” with “Tea bud images with different light regimes”.

 

4. Conclusions:

- Good but very lengthy, please make it brief.

 

5. References:

Recent and in the field, nonetheless, several other important references need to be cited, e.g. see above mentioned references 1. 2. and 3. In addition, here are some more:

4. Chen, Z., Chen, J., Li, Y., Gui, Z., & Yu, T. (2023). Tea Bud Detection and 3D Pose Estimation in the Field with a Depth Camera Based on Improved YOLOv5 and the Optimal Pose-Vertices Search Method. Agriculture, 13(7), 1405.

5. Li, Y., He, L., Jia, J., Lv, J., Chen, J., Qiao, X., & Wu, C. (2021). In-field tea shoot detection and 3D localization using an RGB-D camera. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 185, 106149.

6. Guo, S., Yoon, S. C., Li, L., Wang, W., Zhuang, H., Wei, C., ... & Li, Y. (2023). Recognition and Positioning of Fresh Tea Buds Using YOLOv4-lighted+ ICBAM Model and RGB-D Sensing. Agriculture, 13(3), 518.

7. Zhang, J., & Li, Z. (2021). Intelligent tea-picking system based on active computer vision and internet of things. Security and Communication Networks, 2021, 1-8.

8. Yashodha, G., & Shalini, D. (2021). An integrated approach for predicting and broadcasting tea leaf disease at early stage using IoT with machine learning–a review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 37, 484-488.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The Language is good. However, please correct for common grammar mistakes and incorrect sentence phrasing. Few examples are shown for the “Abstract” (please see below), please correct accordingly for the entire manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

As I mentioned in the first reviewer report, the manuscript needs to be updated to include more information on tea production in other countries. In the current version, there is still a lack of information regarding some tea-producing countries (for example, India, which is not even mentioned). Therefore, the manuscript still needs major changes to provide information about these other tea-producing countries. Alternatively, the manuscript title should mention China, instead of keeping the reader’s expectation towards a broader tea production context.   I recommend the authors to read articles regarding this issue. I mention some articles as follows (there are several other articles, these are only some examples):   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10206575/  

Monitoring tea plantations during 1990–2022 using multi-temporal satellite data in Assam (India)

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538180/   United States tea: A synopsis of ongoing tea research and solutions to United States tea production issues     https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10213625/   Genetic and morphological characterization of United States tea (Camellia sinensis): insights into crop history, breeding strategies, and regional adaptability   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852985/  

Plants used for making recreational tea in Europe: a review based on specific research sites

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

19.9.2023

 

The revised review article “Application Status and Trend of Machine Vision in Tea Production” was reviewed.

 

The revised review was tangibly improved as most important questions and comments were answered and accordingly corrected. Also I want to thank the authors for their efforts to improve the review. Therefore, I recommend the publication of the review in “Applied Sciences” in its revised form.

 

Author Response

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, And hope that the review can create value for related research directions. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions！