A Method to Study the Influence of the Pesticide Load on the Detailed Distribution Law of Downwash for Multi-Rotor UAV
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article contributes to the Agriculture journal, however is important to add some comments that I already did to the article body.
In Figures 4 and 5 please add the titles for Y and X axis.
Figures from 4 to 9 move to respective place (view the article body).
Generally, in the manuscript first is the paragraph that describe the figure and then the figures.
In the Discussion section please add two o mores discussions with other researchers (compare findings).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the manuscript shows important aspects that investigate the relationship of load and wind on the likely distribution of pesticide application from a UAV, it is not well structured and does not adequately describe the methods used, especially concerning the experiment where various weight loads are tested with different wind speeds. It is suggested to organize the methodology in such a way that the activities performed can be tracked. For example, it may be useful to use a flow chart to show all the steps performed as well as the software and materials used.
The paper is interesting because it touches on key aspects of pesticide application from UAVs that are little known so far. It would be useful to add a section on possible applications or practical contributions derived from the results obtained.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, thank you so much for your work. The aims are interesting and innovative. Overall, the paper is redacted adequately. The introduction provides a complete overview of the frame. However, some minor revisions are necessary.
1) the paper " suggests a method to study the influence of the pesticide load on the detailed distribution law of downwash for a six-rotor UAV". I think that's an interesting and innovative "first proposal" of the method. Therefore, you could revise the title of the paper. The keyword "experimental verification" seems not adequate to describe the work. Probably "Controlled testing" would be most fitting.
2) To better describe the method you should show a workflow illustrating the steps and the verification processes.
Another minor comment:
Row 45: please use the metric system.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although this version of the manuscript was corrected and essential improvements were added, such as the flowchart of activities performed, a section on the potential applications of the results obtained, which would be necessary for future work, is still not observed. It is suggested to move the flowchart to the methods section and add a brief description of potential applications at the end of the results chapter.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
