Crop Root Rows Detection Based on Crop Canopy Image
, Yanchao Guo 2, Xiaole Wang 1,3, Yang Yang 1,3,*, Jincheng Zhang 1, Dong An 1, Huayu Han 1, Shaolin Zhang 1 and Tianyi Bai 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have presented the detection of the actual position of crop rows using the position of the crop root rows to extract the navigation paths. The article is well-written and in detailed form. However, some of the observations are as follows:
1. The introduction is fine but I don’t think so numbering is required under the introduction section. Moreover, some of the abbreviations missed to be specified before its utilization such as HSV. Also, check for others throughout the manuscript.
2. Fig. 2 must be part of the methodology section instead of the introduction section.
3. In Fig. 3, please recheck the angle size. Are you sure about the 30 degrees? Can you define the speed of the vehicle?
4. Can you define the function/meaning of the demarcate as utilized in Figure 12?
5. In Figure 13, the legend is missing.
Overall, results are well presented with the help of figures. However, the count of figures is high. Please reduce it if possible.
Author Response
Dear Professor and Reviewer, Thanks so much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions! We have corrected relevant contents according to your valuable suggestions. My responses are listed below. The resubmitted manuscript contains my revisions and corrections. We sincerely hope you will take the time to check. Thanks again!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors and Editor,
Following the evaluation of the manuscript “Crop root rows detection based on crop canopy image information and representation learning method” here are my considerations:
Overview: I believe the subject of the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and aligns well with Agriculture-MDPI. However, the manuscript lacks refinement and does not adhere to MDPI’s standards. The text is poorly written and unstructured. The paragraphs do not connect, and there is no coherence between the topics discussed, making the reading very tedious. The references used are insufficient and lack quality, as many are outdated and from sources that have not undergone peer review, weakening the manuscript. The references are also incorrectly cited in the text and do not match those listed in the references section at the end of the manuscript. Corn images are presented repeatedly throughout the manuscript, some of which could be combined to reduce the number of figures.
Title: The title is confusing and needs improvement to convey the study’s subject matter more clearly.
Keywords: Do not repeat terms in the keywords that are already in the title.
Abstract: The abstract exceeds the 200-word limit and must be rewritten and better structured. It should include one or two sentences presenting the problem, followed by the objectives, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclude with conclusions and recommendations. A graphical abstract should also be prepared to enhance the study's understanding.
Introduction: The introduction should present the problem, justify the study, and outline the hypothesis and objectives. This manuscript does not follow these guidelines, as materials and methods are introduced within the introduction. The introduction is lengthy and tiring, not contributing to the understanding of the work. The justification does not provide a basis to convince the reader of the research's relevance. The authors discuss other methods for identifying plant rows, but their opinions on existing problems are not referenced, weakening the study. Why focus on corn? In short, the introduction does not sufficiently explain the study's objective. Additionally, the study's hypothesis is not clearly presented, hindering a deeper analysis of the manuscript's objectives.
Materials and Methods: The methodology is incomplete and needs more detailed explanations of the proposed procedures. Many basic details are missing, and as presented, the reader would be unable to replicate the study. It is difficult to understand if the methodology meets the study's objectives. Provide the specifications of the machine (computer) used for processing and the time spent on the analyses. What statistical methods were used to analyze the data obtained during the tests? To evaluate the machine's performance, statistical metrics that assess (i) precision and (ii) accuracy are needed. Do the authors agree? I would like the authors to explain the statistical metrics used to meet these criteria. This information should also be included in the materials and methods section of the manuscript. There are results presented in the materials and methods section, which should be relocated to the results section.
Results: There is methodology in this section, which should be moved to the materials and methods section. The true results are well presented. However, there is no discussion of the results! The results are not discussed or justified scientifically. A discussion section should be added to the manuscript, and the results discussion should be based on pertinent literature. The authors do not present any research weaknesses, of which there are many. Comparisons with relevant previous studies should also be included in the discussions. This can help contextualize the results within the broader field and highlight the unique contributions of the research. I also suggest including suggestions for future research based on the current findings. This can pave the way for new investigations and improvements in the proposed methods.
Conclusions: In this section, the authors should provide answers to the study's objectives only.
References: They are insufficient and not presented in the format required by the journal.
Additional issues identified:
Line 2: The first letter of each word in the title should be capitalized.
Line 11: What is this current algorithm? Is it well known?
Line 30: Do not repeat terms in the keywords section that are already in the title.
Line 84: Gee [14] is incorrectly referenced.
Line 150: Figure 1 is unnecessary in the introduction. Additionally, the presentation of figures in articles published by Agriculture-MDPI is uncommon.
Line 152: From here, it is materials and methods, and this should be moved to that section. Replace this text with the study's hypothesis and objectives.
Line 172: This flowchart can be improved and serve as a graphical abstract.
Line 175: What are the dates of the images? In which agricultural year was the study conducted? Also, characterize the plant, such as varieties, plant height, sowing density, spacing between plants and rows, cultural management, etc. Also, characterize the climate and soil.
Line 209: This information was already presented in line 179.
Line 341: This is a result and should not be in the materials and methods section.
Line 365: This is materials and methods and should be in that section.
Line 372: This is also materials and methods.
I encourage the authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript and, if they agree, I would like to receive responses to all the considerations they disagree with or do not address!
Good work.
Ad hoc Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Professor and Reviewer, Thanks so much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions! We have corrected relevant contents according to your valuable suggestions. My responses are listed below. The resubmitted manuscript contains my revisions and corrections. We sincerely hope you will take the time to check. Thanks again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research paper entitled “Crop root rows detection based on crop canopy image information and representation learning method” is interesting in general, investigating the relative position relationship between crop canopy and root rows so as to develop an algorithm based on crop canopy image information and Representation Learning Method so as to accurately detect crop root rows in maize fields under shaded environment.
Some comments deriving from studying the paper are as follows:
- The introduction section is solid and supported by the overview of the recent state-of-the-art so as to effectively showcase the innovative aspects of this approach and underscore its focus on addressing an existing gap in the field of forecasting crop yields. For the benefit of the readership, it is suggested to include a paragraph describing the structure of the article in the end of the introduction section.
- The methodology used in this study is clearly described and evaluated through various experiments, producing interesting results. These findings may inspire other researchers to replicate aspects of this approach for detecting crop root rows in maize fields under shaded conditions.
- The conclusions section is somewhat concise and should be further developed to thoroughly discuss the research findings and their implications in a broader context. Adding a dedicated Discussion section could help achieve this objective.
- Finally, the paper is well-structured and written in appropriate English, adhering to the standards of the Journal. However, conducting minor spell-checking is recommended. Additionally, the reviewer suggests that the authors avoid using the first-person plural.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor spell-checking might be of need.
Author Response
Dear Professor and Reviewer, Thanks so much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions! We have corrected relevant contents according to your valuable suggestions. My responses are listed below. The resubmitted manuscript contains my revisions and corrections. We sincerely hope you will take the time to check. Thanks again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the queries.
Author Response
Dear Professor and reviewer, Thank you very much for taking the time to be interviewed. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions! At the same time, thank you very much for your affirmation of the article, thank you again！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors and Editor,
First, I would like to thank you for your responses, which were essential for improving the understanding of the research. I notice that the second version has been greatly improved, but it is still not sufficient for publication.
The current version still lacks robust discussions of the results obtained in the study, as pointed out in the first review. The "Discussion" section of a scientific article should briefly summarize the main results, interpret them in the context of the research question or hypothesis, and compare them with findings from previous studies (using current references and articles published in high-impact journals). The implications of these results for theory and practice should be discussed, the limitations of the study should be acknowledged, and directions for future research should be suggested. Additionally, it is important to include a brief synthesis of the discussion, emphasizing the significance of the findings and their contributions, and, where relevant, to offer practical recommendations or discuss future perspectives in the research area. I also suggest that the authors consult articles published in Agronomy (MDPI), where they can see examples of how to discuss the results of a scientific article.
I encourage the authors once again to submit a revised version of the manuscript.
Good work.
Ad hoc Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Professor and reviewer: Thank you very much for your time. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions! According to your valuable suggestions, we break it down into two points for reply, and correct the relevant content in the article. My answer is as follows. The resubmitted manuscript contains my revisions and corrections. We sincerely hope that you will take the time to review. Thanks again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
