Mechanical Harvesting Line Setting of Giant Reeds
, Giuseppina Caracciolo 2, Maura Sannino 3,* and Salvatore Faugno 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have tried to explore a really interesting topic on the possibility to adopt the haymaking farming machinery in giant reed (Arundo donax L.) harvesting. This study can contribute towards exploring machinery requirements and limitations for harvesting A. donax, and improve the current agriculture situation in the world. However, I would like to provide a few suggestions to the author, which I believe could improve the paper.
· The paper is written incoherently with many awkward sentences throughout the manuscript. I tried really hard to understand the manuscript. Substantial revision (more than 80%) is necessary before it can be in a readable form. Thus, I would strongly suggest the authors take more time and review the entire manuscript thoroughly using the help of a native English speaker before submitting again.
· The research gap has not been clearly established as to why the line setting of harvesting is important. The scientific contribution of the manuscript is not very clear. It is crucial for the article to show that it addresses a knowledge gap with this work.
· There are formatting issues throughout the paper. Such errors could be removed by proofreading the manuscript.
· At many instances, the methodology is not properly described. For example, there is no explanation on why the moisture content was reduced to 6%? Was it field dried. How many days did it take to dry the biomass?
· Some of the methodology section is mixed with results, which makes the results section very difficult to follow. Are the results for 1 year of data?
· The methodology adopted while looks interesting fails to explain properly what was done and how the “line setting” of harvesting have impacts on the harvesting of A donax and the machinery efficiencies and harvesting losses.
· Conclusions of the paper is missing.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1:
The authors have tried to explore a really interesting topic on the possibility to adopt the haymaking farming machinery in giant reed (Arundo donax L.) harvesting. This study can contribute towards exploring machinery requirements and limitations for harvesting A. donax, and improve the current agriculture situation in the world. However, I would like to provide a few suggestions to the author, which I believe could improve the paper.
1) The paper is written incoherently with many awkward sentences throughout the manuscript. I tried really hard to understand the manuscript. Substantial revision (more than 80%) is necessary before it can be in a readable form. Thus, I would strongly suggest the authors take more time and review the entire manuscript thoroughly using the help of a native English speaker before submitting again.
2) The research gap has not been clearly established as to why the line setting of harvesting is important. The scientific contribution of the manuscript is not very clear. It is crucial for the article to show that it addresses a knowledge gap with this work.
The research line setting aims to supply ready and simultaneously also storable biomass according to available technologies, while the fresh biomass line is already acquired, such as for biogas feed.
3) There are formatting issues throughout the paper. Such errors could be removed by proofreading the manuscript.
We proofread the manuscript and removed the errors
4) At many instances, the methodology is not properly described. For example, there is no explanation on why the moisture content was reduced to 6%? Was it field dried. How many days did it take to dry the biomass?
Yes, it was dried in the field without turning or windrowing, the days necessary to dry the biomass are given by the difference between bailing date and shredding date.
5) Some of the methodology section is mixed with results, which makes the results section very difficult to follow. Are the results for 1 year of data?
The data are entered in the right section. Yes, the results are of one year.
6) The methodology adopted while looks interesting fails to explain properly what was done and how the “line setting” of harvesting have impacts on the harvesting of A donax and the machinery efficiencies and harvesting losses.
The adoption of round balers was chosen to avoid further biomass condition treatments and for the regularly feed of the machine. For the setting of the construction sites, regulatory tests were carried out on the nearest plot which made it possible to identify the setting considered most suitable by the researchers for the test conditions.
7) Conclusions of the paper is missing.
The Conclusions were insert in the paper
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
interestig study for the diffusion of giant reed in representative agricultural area for other agricoltural crops.Author Response
REVIEWER 2:
Interesting study for the diffusion of giant reed in representative agricultural area for other agricultural crops.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper consists the results of experimental investigations on application of haymaking farming machinery in giant reed harvesting.
The topic is appropriate for the journal and it is of practical interest. The work may be considered original and the results may be potentially used in real engineering applications.
The used experimental methods are suitable, and the presentation of the results is clear.
Although I am not a native English speaker, in my opinion, the manuscript needs to be proofread properly to avoid the some grammatical errors
I recommend the publication of this paper in the journal “Applied Sciences”.
Some small mistakes are as follows:
The number of references in the text should be separated by comma not dash. See, for example, lines 40and 41.
Line 75: preparated (?)
Line 78. The density is not specified clearly. ... a planting density of 1 rhizome per 1 m2?
Table 1. What is the unit of the plants density?
Table 1. Where on the shoots the diameter of shoots was measured?
Author Response
REVIEWER 3:
This paper consists the results of experimental investigations on application of haymaking farming machinery in giant reed harvesting. The topic is appropriate for the journal and it is of practical interest. The work may be considered original and the results may be potentially used in real engineering applications. The used experimental methods are suitable, and the presentation of the results is clear. Although I am not a native English speaker, in my opinion, the manuscript needs to be proofread properly to avoid the some grammatical errors. I recommend the publication of this paper in the journal “Applied Sciences”.
Some small mistakes are as follows:
1) The number of references in the text should be separated by comma not dash. See, for example, lines 40and 41.
The number of references in the text now are separated by comma.
2) Line 75: preparated (?)
The phrase was modified
3) Line 78. The density is not specified clearly. ... a planting density of 1 rhizome per 1 m2?
Yes, now I specified the planting density, that it is 1 rhizome per 1 m2
4) Table 1. What is the unit of the plants density?
The unit of plants density is number of plants per hectare
5) Table 1. Where on the shoots the diameter of shoots was measured?
The basal diameter was measured, at the cutting point
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the concept, work, and data for the manuscript are good, the revised version of the manuscript still requires a substantial improvement in the area of presentation of information for readers to understand the message the authors want to convey.
Since this is an international journal, the author should refrain from using latin acronyms wherever possible and try to use simple phrases understood by everyone.
Also, there are numerous errors in the manuscript which needs to be addressed before it can be published.
I have worked on the previous two versions and have attached the copies with my comments. Some of the comments should have been already addressed. I would like to share this with the authors so that it would help them improve the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
1 st Round
Dear Editor in the first step from Reviewer 1 we have received and we have answered only this observation and question:
The authors have tried to explore a really interesting topic on the possibility to adopt the haymaking farming machinery in giant reed (Arundo donax L.) harvesting. This study can contribute towards exploring machinery requirements and limitations for harvesting A. donax, and improve the current agriculture situation in the world. However, I would like to provide a few suggestions to the author, which I believe could improve the paper.
1) The paper is written incoherently with many awkward sentences throughout the manuscript. I tried really hard to understand the manuscript. Substantial revision (more than 80%) is necessary before it can be in a readable form. Thus, I would strongly suggest the authors take more time and review the entire manuscript thoroughly using the help of a native English speaker before submitting again.
RESPONSE: the manuscript was checked and improved by MDPI English service, as suggested.
2) The research gap has not been clearly established as to why the line setting of harvesting is important. The scientific contribution of the manuscript is not very clear. It is crucial for the article to show that it addresses a knowledge gap with this work.
RESPONSE: We clarified these aspects in the text. The research line setting aims to supply ready and simultaneously also storable biomass according to available technologies, while the fresh biomass line is already acquired, such as for biogas feed.
3) There are formatting issues throughout the paper. Such errors could be removed by proofreading the manuscript.
RESPONSE: We proofread the manuscript and removed the errors
4) At many instances, the methodology is not properly described. For example, there is no explanation on why the moisture content was reduced to 6%? Was it field dried. How many days did it take to dry the biomass?
RESPONSE: Yes, it was dried in the field without turning or windrowing. In the manuscript (table 1) we have indicated the dates of shredding and baling, being the days necessary to dry the biomass given by the difference between bailing date (13 April) and shredding date (12 March). It takes 32 days.
5) Some of the methodology section is mixed with results, which makes the results section very difficult to follow. Are the results for 1 year of data?
RESPONSE: Thank you for the observation. The data have been moved and entered in the right section. Yes, the results are of one year.
6) The methodology adopted while looks interesting fails to explain properly what was done and how the “line setting” of harvesting have impacts on the harvesting of Arundo donax and the machinery efficiencies and harvesting losses.
RESPONSE: The observation has been acquired and entered in the text. The adoption of round balers has been chosen to evaluate the most widespread technologies and to make the best use of company equipment, to avoid all treatments that are not strictly necessary on the condition of the biomass and to guarantee regular feeding of the car. For the setting of work sites, regulatory tests have been carried out which have allowed us to identify the setting considered most suitable by the researchers for the test conditions.
7) Conclusions of the paper is missing.
RESPONSE: The Conclusions were together with the discussion. Now they are improved and insert in the section “Conclusions”.
2nd round
REVIEWER #1,
Dear Editor in 2nd round we have received by mail the file “Applsci–510364–peer–review–V1” checked from line 1 to line 223 and the file “Applsci-510364-peer-review-V2” checked from line 186 to end of paper; in the MDPI site we think from mistake that the file indicated “Applsci-510364-peer-review-V2” was in reality the file “Applsci–510364–peer–review–V1” received in the mail of the 28/08/2019, we started over by comparing the different versions and trying to answer every question in detail. Hoping to have satisfied the requests, we provide the detailed answers:
1) Upon reviewing the manuscript, there are many comments that have not been addressed. There are still spelling errors (eg. 'haymaching' in the first sentence of the abstract, 'storage thank' in line 57). Moreover, there is negligence in preparing the manuscript (eg. Table 1 is provided twice in the manuscript). I saw that a paragraph was removed from an earlier version without any mentioning about it to the reviewer. Based on these issues, I think that the manuscript is not yet ready for publication and request a thorough revision. I would suggest the author go through each comment in the manuscript and address the comments or provide a suitable explanation for the comments.
RESPONSE: We apologize for the oversight, now we have checked and answered to all the comments.
We apologize for the spelling errors, unfortunately we have read the manuscript several times but we have missed them anyway. We proofread again the text and have corrected them, as suggested. Table 1 was inserted twice because we wanted to move it to the sub section 2.1 but then we kept it in the initial subsection (2.2), and by mistake it remained in both sub sections.
We apologies for the removed paragraph (lines 70-74) but we during proofreading we were modified some words and we unintentionally eliminated it completely it. We insert the modified paragraph (now lines 82-85). Thank you very much for the observation.
All the changes we have made are marked in the text as in revision mode, they concern the requests of the reviewers and of the editor and have been communicated. We apologize if we have omitted answers and / or modified something without communicating it.
During the new proofreading, we changed the sub section 2.4 “Statistical analysis” in 2.5, because the sub section 2.4 was already used in the previous sub section. We modified the paragraph, lines 111-119 now lines 118-126.
Observations in the text
Lines: 24-26: are these dry tons or wet tons?
RESPONSE: Thank you for the observation these are wet tons add in the text
Lines 25-26: This will depend on field conditions and weather. What climatic conditions are considering?
RESPONSE: The climatic condition are those of the Mediterranean area as specified in the Material and Method
Line 42: these are not field operations
RESPONSE: Thank you for the observation, we modified the sentence according to your advice.
Line 45 please revise this sentence. Also, provide citation for the claim that baling permitted to cut down harvesting cost.
RESPONSE: We modified the sentence and added two references.
Lines 45-48: Please revise this sentence. This statement needs citation too. Line 51: what test was done? this is not clear.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the observation, the same test is filed shredding of dry biomass with self propelled forage harvester, updated in the text
Lines 60-62 Please explain what that information was.
RESPONSE: We have insert other information for cited reference
Lines 66-68 If you mention these here you will need to provide a succinct information on these too in the same paragraph.
RESPONSE: Thank for the observation, as required, we have improve the sentence
Lines 74-76: this is part of methodology and the table can be put as supplementary material or provided as text information
RESPONSE: We removed the table 2 and inserted the citation and the data in the text
Line 87: this term is not common for plants
RESPONSE: As required we have accepted the observation and changed the term with “data”
Lines 87-88: were there any fertilizer inputs in the year 2008 to 2015? how was it managed? it is not clear in this paragraph.
RESPONSE: The difference of manage are only at the plant year.
Lines 88-90: Not clear. Usually plants need to be dried to 105C to determine dry matter content. Was this based on any protocol or standard?
RESPONSE: We apologies, the plants were been dried at 105°C, as reference 35
Line 99 : This is not very clear. A figure might be helpful
RESPONSE: we inserted the picture, as you requested
Line 106: Please explain what are these and how are they different. Line 111: what is this?
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation we are rewritted the paragraph
Line 113 :what are the four thesis? Also, please use another term for this.
RESPONSE: We apologies the theses are eight, sorry for the mistake.
Lines 125-127: This sentence is not clear
RESPONSE: The phrase was rewritten
Line 137: What is this? Lines 144: this is not clear Lines 166-169: This is not clear. Are the plants collected from the field for this? How are samples collected. How is CRD used for sampling? Are the seven samples seven A. donax plants?
RESPONSE: We have rewritten the sentence, as suggested
Lines 170-173: this is methodology
RESPONSE: We have translated in material and method
Lines 176: I am not sure if this is a good type of bag for performing weighing of samples Lines 203-204: this is methodology Lines 210-211: provide explanation on why lower moisture content was chosen? Lines 2012-215: this is methodology
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation but this is the first test of adoption pick-up system for shredder Arundo Donax biomass
Line 218: what is step 2? Provide name of the step rather than step 2
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation, we have updated
Table 3: Ha or ha? please be consistent throughout the manuscript.
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation, we have updated throughout the manuscript
221: what is "more than 30 seconds"?
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation, is the binding time defined by number of bale turns, we have rewritten the sentence, from 14 to 30 s
Line 227: What consumption, not clear? fuel, labor, time, consumables, etc.
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation, the hourly consumption is only fuel consumption, we have updated the text
Lines 261-262: Please check the Table and verify this. Currently, this is not true.
RESPONSE: We apologies, they are average values
Line 267: How did you get this number? it is not clear
Lines 287-290: These need citation
RESPONSE: Thank for the observation, we have inserted the reference
Lines 297-303: This paragraph is not clear.
RESPONSE: Thank for observation we have improved the text
Line 304: this is different from Table values. Also, please combine the results and discussion into one "results and discussion: section. If this is discussion section, you will need to mainly discuss the implications of the results rather than presenting results itself.
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation and we apologize for the mistake, we have corrected the values and as requested we are combined the two section in one "results and discussion"
Line 308: what is this?
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation and we apologize for the mistake, this are the total number of bales, we have removed
Somewhere Arundo is used whereas somewhere Arundo donax is used. Please be consistent. Line 317: is this the lowest value or which thesis is this value for?
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation, this value is average of four thesis, we have clarify
Line 319-321: this is not clear
RESPONSE: Thank you for observation we have rewritten the sentence
Lines 322-337: Please rewrite the conclusions. Currently, it is very difficult to read and comprehend what the authors are trying to say. Also, the reference might not be needed for last sentence.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the observation, we have rewritten the conclusion and we agree to remove the final reference
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has improved considerably compared to the earlier version. The authors have done a good job of addressing most of the concerns. However, with improved clarity in the manuscript, I noticed that there are still issues that need to be addressed before it can be published in the journal. I also feel that the information in the Results and discussion section needs to be rearranged for a better flow of information.
Please see my comments and suggestions in the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER #1:
3rd Round
1 - What is this term?
RESPONSE - We Apologies, the correct term is thermo valorization. Thank you for the observation.
2 - This sentence is not related with the environmental aspects of the experimental site and thus, should be somewhere else in the manuscript. A figure of the experimental plot would help us better understand this sentence. 85-88
RESPONSE - Thank you for the observation, we put this sentence in next section (2.2. Crop management ) and we added a figure of the experimental plot (Figure 2).
3 - Why is this information relevant for this paper? Are the data/results collected at the 3rd and 4th cropping cycles presented or discussed. Does this information presents any basis for why the harvesting was done in 2015 (7-8 years after transplanting)?
RESPONSE - Thank you for observation, this information is important because it also characterizes the cultivation technique followed in the first years from planting before the ordinary production started and, in order not to take the first year of production, it was chosen some years later.
4 - This information is already in earlier paragraph and might not be required here (table 1, Latitude and Longitude).
RESPONSE - Thank you for the observation, we deleted these information from the text and we kept them in the table.
5 - This is confusing. Line 103-105 mentions that windrowing was not included whereas this line 105-108 gives the impression that windrowing is also included.
RESPONSE - The machine used in the test is a Shredder series WS (Windrower Shredder) able to windrower or spread the biomass crop. The windrower system can be inserted only if necessary and as we say in the line 103-105, it was declutched.
6 - Does this also perform cutting operation? (108-109)
RESPONSE - Yes, of course.
7 - Combine this sentence with earlier paragraph.
RESPONSE - We have combined the two sentences as you suggested.
8 - This figure should be put way earlier, after mentioning Figure 2 in the manuscript.
RESPONSE - Thank you very much, we have moved the picture in the section (2.3. Machine characteristics and performance.
9 -Please be uniform. this or r.p.m. Might be a good idea to provide full form at first occurrence.
RESPONSE - Thank you for the observation, we provided the full form at the first occurrence and then uniformed the other ones, using abbreviation.
10 - bale?
RESPONSE - Yes, thank you for your observation. We modified the sentences.
11 – The TA (tempus adiuvardi) is this the same as working time or operating time? This is not clear
RESPONSE - The TA is the accessory time and it is a part of the Operating time (Tempus Operandi TO), that is given by TE (Tempus Efficientiae) and TA, we express them as % of operative time.
12- Could you use effective field capacity instead of this term? Are these the same? I would think that they are the same based on this sentence.
RESPONSE - Effective field capacity (EFC) is the area capacity (Ca). In case of surfices the Effective field capacity is the area Capacity (ha h-1), in the case of production is called effective material capacity(t h-1).
13 - I am not sure you can do this. You are calculating EFC using Ef in earlier equation. Now you are calculating Ef using EFC. Please check this
RESPONSE - Effective field capacity (EFC) is the area capacity (Ca) that is the Theoretical field Capacity (TFC) per the field efficiency (Ef) divided 100. The TFC is (W x S)/10, so EFC=Ca=TFC x Ef (%) and Ef (%) is EFC/TFC x 100.
14 – This is not clear lines 223-225
RESPONSE - We modified the sentence, thank you very much.
15 - You will need to explain the term thesis and what the different thesis are before you start using them.
RESPONSE - We have changed the term "thesis" with "treatment" and we added the figure 3, as you suggested, thank you.
16 - Combine this paragraph with paragraph 1 of 'Quality of work' section.
RESPONSE - Thank you for your observation, we modified the sentence combining the two ones (lines 392-394)
17 - Try avoiding one sentence paragraphs (lines 205-206).
RESPONSE - Ok, thank you for your observation.
18 –TE: This has not been explained or used earlier
RESPONSE - We inserted the explanation in lines 157-162, as you suggested.
19 – Material Capacity: Is this the material harvested and baled?
RESPONSE - The material capacity is an Effective Field Capacity of the harvesting machine and it is measured in t ha-1 .
20 - This is not clear (lines 223-225).
RESPONSE - Thank you, for your observation, we modified the sentence
21 - This is method (lines 234-235).
RESPONSE - We put it in Material and Methods as you suggested
22 - This terms seems to be 0 all the time. Do you really need it for the analysis? Also, readers will appreciate if you could provide English terms for TE, TA, TAV, TAS, TAC rather than Latin. One of the main objective of the paper should be making the information easier to understand as much as possible. These terms may distract the readers from the main science.
RESPONSE - As you suggested we changed the terms, from Latin to English language.
23 - I am not sure which time are you explaining here. Try using the same term throughout the manuscript or provide more explanation. When you mix different terms, it is very hard to follow (line 241).
RESPONSE - It is the time need to tie the bale.
24 - This does not seem to be right. what speed are you taking here? (lines 244-245).
RESPONSE - We apologies for the mistake. Now, we have modified the data. Thank you for your observation.
25 - How does this information fit here? There is no information about moisture content in Table 3 (lines 245-247).
RESPONSE - We have included information on the moisture content to explain the good performance of the machine. A possible explanation, indeed, could be the low moisture content of the harvested biomass, which facilitates the correct functioning of the machine.
26 - bring Table 4 after this paragraph (line 248).
RESPONSE - We bring the table 4 after line 254, as you suggested, thank you.
27 - I think that under high yield scenario, you will have higher biomass from the same area. Thus, to bale higher quantity of biomass, you might need higher fuel consumption. Let us know if there are any other variables affecting this case (line 269).
RESPONSE - For the yard used, the consumption is very low, plus the tractor used is oversized and at mixed transmission and it is therefore hardly influenced by the affective amount collected.
28 - Combine this sentence with earlier paragraph (Lines 286-287).
RESPONSE - Thank you for your observation, we combined the sentence of lines 286-287, with the previous paragraph
29 - Take this information to where Table 7 is or bring Table 7 earlier. Don't start discussing Table 7 results before discussing table 5 and 6. This would make more confusions.
RESPONSE - Thank you for the observation, we changed the order of the last three tables.
30 - Check this. Seems different than in table (line 295).
RESPONSE - Thank you very much, we apologies for the mistake
31 - This should be only 1.11 t (line 306).
RESPONSE - Thank you for the observation, we modified the data.
32 - Most of this information needs to be with Table 7 later (lines 304-307).
RESPONSE - Thank you, we moved these data with table 7
33 - Combine this sentence with other relevant paragraph (line 309).
RESPONSE - We combined the sentence with the most relevant paragraph
34 - Might be good to include some of these information in Table (lines 332-334).
RESPONSE - We apologies for the mistake, we deleted the data. Thank you for the observation
35 - This information should be together with Table 4 (lines 357-359).
RESPONSE - Thank you, we moved this information near table 4, as you suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Please remove B1, B2 and B3 in Figure 3 or provide an explanation for them.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. B1, B2 and B3 are replicates, but we removed them from figure 3.
