A Highly Accurate Detection Platform for Potato Seedling Canopy in Intelligent Agriculture Based on Phased Array LiDAR Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article proposes a platform for accurately detecting potato canopy height using phased array LiDAR technology, which can scan and obtain canopy information of potato plants. However, there are still some issues in the article, especially in terms of writing logic and the arrangement of the chapter structure. The chapter structure of the article is unreasonable, the content organization is chaotic, and the details are insufficiently explained. The main issues are as follows:
1、 It is recommended to check each subheading and its corresponding content, rearrange the subheadings in order, and check the spelling of words throughout the article to improve its fluency and readability. For example, after "3.3.3. Dynamic data analysis" comes "3.4.3. D data reconstruction after correction," followed by "3.5. Manual measurement of actual canopy height." The subheading order is chaotic, and there are spelling errors.
2、 The writing logic of the article is unreasonable, and the framework is chaotic. For example, the third chapter of the article, "Conclusion and Discussion," includes "3.3. Data Calibration" and "3.5. Manual Measurement of Actual Canopy Height," which are related to experimental data. It is not appropriate to place them in the conclusion and discussion section. It is recommended to add a new chapter on the experimental area and data, detailing the setup of the experimental area, the data collection process, and the data processing.
3、 It is recommended that the sections "3.1 Principle of Planar Array LiDAR Monitoring and Determination of Installation Height" and "3.2 Extraction of Potato Seedling Canopy Height Information" in the third chapter, "Conclusion and Discussion," be moved to the methods section for detailed description, ensuring logical coherence.
4、 The main purpose of the conclusion and discussion section is to summarize the research results, discuss the significance of the findings, and propose future research directions and application suggestions. In the article, the third chapter, "Conclusion and Discussion," piles up data and research methods in this section, such as the principle of LiDAR monitoring, the method for determining installation height, the method for extracting seedling canopy height, data calibration, etc. The content distribution is unreasonable, and the readability is poor. It is recommended to reconsider the framework of the article and rewrite the conclusion and discussion section.
5、 In section 3.1, the radar installation height is 950 mm. Is this the optimal installation height? Is this installation height only effective for potato plants within a certain height range? Does it have general applicability? It is recommended to supplement the article with comparative experiments and explanations.
6、 Section 3.3.2 introduces the method of finding fault points in the equipment. It is recommended to supplement the article with specific methods for repairing these fault points.
7、 Irregular vegetation surfaces may cause certain areas to be obscured, preventing the laser from directly reaching these areas or partially blocking it. This can result in voids and abnormal points, increasing data noise and leading to inaccurate height measurements. Will the monitoring method used in the article also produce noise? If so, please supplement the article with specific methods for noise removal.
8、 The references cited are insufficient. For example, regarding the description of the importance of potatoes in global agriculture and their growing environment, the history of potatoes in helping alleviate food insecurity and increase household income, and the fact that potatoes are now the world's third most important food crop after wheat and rice, relevant references can be cited, such as:
Gil, J.D.B., Reidsma, P., Giller, K., Todman, L., Whitmore, A., van I., M., 2019. Sustainable development goal 2: Improved targets and indicators for agriculture and food security. Ambio. 48(7), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1101- 4.
Wang, L., Ma, H., Li, J., Gao, Y., Fan, L., Yang, Z., Yang, Y., Wang, C., 2022. An automated extraction of small- and middle-sized rice fields under complex terrain based on SAR time series: A case study of Chongqing. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 200, 107232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107232
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is necessary to revise and optimize the grammar of the whole article.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer again for providing valuable comments on the manuscript. The corresponding comments are replied in the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an innovative platform for the precise and accurate detection of potato canopy height, utilizing phased array LiDAR technology. The designed platform features a suite of components, including a high-precision rotary encoder, a reliable motor, a robust frame, an inclinometer for precise angle measurements, a computer for data processing, a height adjustment mechanism for adaptability, and an advanced LiDAR system. The proposed algorithm accounts for a multitude of variables, ensuring a high degree of precision and reliability in assessing the dimensions of the potato canopy.
Overall, the contributions are good, but the paper would benefit from more detailed and comprehensive results. It is suggested to review relevant literature and compare with existing models/methods to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed model. Additionally, there are a few comments that could enhance the paper, as follows:
1. The abstract is relatively long. I will suggest revising it with clear and concise contributions with brief results.
2. Please, add a reference for the ante-and-ante-dip measurement algorithm.
3. Put a space after “S2” on line 255 and “H1” on line 256 on page 8. There are so many places that have similar issues, please review and update all.
4. The fort size of Equation 12 and Equation 13 is relatively big. Please make sure to use similar font size for all equations.
5. In section 3 (Results and Discussion), there are several sub-sections that should not be in this section. Some sub-sections mostly talk about theory and experimental setups. I will suggest separating the results into different sections and opening another section to explain the experimental setup and theoretical background.
Thank you so much for your contributions.
Good luck
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease, make sure to review the manuscript for typos and few grammatical errors.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer again for providing valuable comments on the manuscript. For your suggestions, we have made corresponding modifications, please refer to the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHow the proposed work is different than "https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10246064/" and "Insights for River Restoration: The Impacts of Vegetation Canopy Length and Canopy Discontinuity on Riverbed Evolution". Mention in the introduction section.
Use of grammar is very weak. Also there is more than 15 times use of our/we is done in the manuscript. Authors should avoid this throughout the paper.
Prove the authenticity of data considered. Are the images validated from any organization? Mobile images are normally not much clear to identify the correct disease. State the novelty and inventiveness of the proposed work also. Introduction part needs to be enhanced in the paper
Compare your work with similar kind in related work, like a) Evaluation of regional estimates of winter wheat yield by assimilating three remotely sensed reflectance datasets into the coupled WOFOST–PROSAIL model. b) Multiscale 3-D–2-D Mixed CNN and Lightweight Attention-Free Transformer for Hyperspectral and LiDAR Classification
No opening sentences of sections are found here. It's very basic. Please double check the confusion matrix formed as the quality to check them is not as appropriate to me. The formatting of references is not same.
Authors are suggested to use some flow diagrams, include some CNN layering structure used here. Authors can include contributions in their work at the end of introduction section. The Quality of first 3 figures is not appropriate.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish needs to check thoroughly for this, minor edits are required at some places.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer again for providing valuable comments on the manuscript. For your suggestions, we have made corresponding modifications, please refer to the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article proposes an algorithm to automatically detect the canopy height of potato seedlings, which can quickly and accurately obtain the canopy information of potato seedlings. However, there are still some problems that need to be solved, specifically including the following:
1. The expression and organization of the paper need to be improved. The connection between some sentences is not smooth enough, which may affect the reader's understanding of the paper's content and reading experience. For example, lines 38-43, lines 57-65, and lines 108-111.
2. In the conclusion and discussion section, despite the description of the platform's features and benefits, there is a lack of exploration of the challenges and potential limitations in practical applications. Examples include equipment cost, operational complexity, and dependence on environmental conditions. In addition, suggestions for future research should be added, e.g., how to further optimize the algorithms to improve the measurement accuracy and speed of the system, or to explore the application possibilities for other crops.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe expression and organization of the paper need improvement. Some sentences do not transition smoothly, which may affect the reader's understanding and overall reading experience.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We would like to thank the reviewer again for providing valuable comments on the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to accept this paper.
Good Luck!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments
Author Response
We thank you again for your comments and are very pleased that you have agreed to accept our revised manuscript.
