Design and Experimental Study on a New Horizontal Rotary Precision Seed Metering Device for Hybrid Rice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a review of the paper (Manuscript ID：agriculture-2115178), Design and Experimental Study on Horizontal Rotary Precision Seed Metering Device for Hybrid Rice. This is very meaningful study, which deserves to be published. However, I think the paper still needs to be improved, and it can be published after modification.

1. The paper "proposes a horizontal and rotation motional seed metering device with low sowing rate”. I think that's an interesting and innovative "first proposal" of the device in the field of rice precision sowing technology. Therefore, you could revise the title of the paper. The keyword "precision seed metering device" seems not adequate to describe the work. Probably "a new precision seed metering device" would be most fitting.

2. To better describe the method, you should show a workflow illustrating the steps and the verification processes.

3. The paper is interesting because it touches on key aspects of precision seed metering device. It would be useful to add a section on possible applications or practical contributions derived from the results obtained.

4. In addition, the email address of qq.com or 163.com is not allowed. Please provide another enterprise mailbox address for every author.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper (Agriculture-2115178, Design and Experimental Study on Horizontal Rotary Precision Seed Metering Device for Hybrid Rice) studies a horizontal rotary precision seed metering device for hybrid rice, the motor speed, eccentric distance of disk and seed layer thickness are taken to optimize the qualification rate, repetition rate and miss-seeding rate of the device. The results may be valuable for some practical applications, and it is acceptable after minor revision.

1.  line 106，coordinate (a, b) should be a point, this paper did not specify which point. Or should be specify any point.

2.  Line 122-123, it is better to give a figure to show what is lying flat, lying on the side and upright.

3.  Fig. 4 should be clear: Top view, Side view and so on.

4. Fig.5 (b) and (c) is just one figure.

5.  Line 172: “theshaped” should be “the shaped”

6.  Line 188-192, this paragraph is not clear, maybe “width of fence hole w1= 14mm” is clearer than “width of fence hole is 14mm”.

7.  What is motion of these three plates? Up plate is fixed? Middle plate is a linear motion? Low plate is a circular motion?

8. Fig. 10(b) is not a stress analysis of the seed, it is a force analysis. And it is necessary to clear which position of this point is.

9. F1 and F2, what is the difference? What is the value of γ ? line 298-299, “coding coefficient γ is 1.682”, is this “coding coefficient” same as the “specific gravity” line 266?

10、In section 4.4.4, why there is no interaction between disc eccentricity and seed layer thickness?

11.  Fig 14, the title of the figure is wrong.

12. Line 375, I don’t understand “low sowing rate”, maybe “higher sowing rate”?

13.  In the Discussion section please add two mores discussions with other researchers (compare findings).

14. The contact information of each author should be given, not just the email address of the corresponding author.

15. The meaning of each sentence in the abstract should be clear. Like this sentence, “The p value of the model was less than 0.01”, what does “P” stands for.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript showcased a horizontal rotary seed metering device for hybrid rice. The experimental results showed that the developed device worked well. As a result, I think it worth of publishing in the journal of Agriculture. However, some concerns remain need to be fixed.

(1) The Introduction part can be further strengthen from the development of seed metering device.

(2) It is better transfer the “note” into “where” in L143, 185, 214, 244, 266, 296.

(3) L237, the word “have” maybe replace by “achieve”.

(4) The “4. Working performance test” part lacks of a comparison between this work and other existing state-of-art studies.

(5) The style of references needs to be standardized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf