Research on a Sowing Depth Detection System Based on an Improved Adaptive Kalman Filtering Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Kalman filter is a very known and establish technology. It exists since 1960s and have been used extensively in industry and other fields.

The paper is an application type, rather than new developments of the field.

The flow of information needs a bit of organisation. 

section 3.1, there is no need for figure 3, it is very simple filter.

Section 3.2, the section starts with Bayseian, it is better to start with description of the filter.

lines 158, 162 166, etc, add a space: step1 should be step 1

line 266, Where --> where

Table 1, what is Measre value, it should be Measured value

Title of figures, sometime Capital letters are used, other times, not. Be consistent and follow the journal instructions. e.g. Figs 7 and 8.

line 336, font size is not consistent

Figure 10, I cannot see the yellow like (IAKF). Other figure have the same problem (11, 12, 13, 15).

 

 

.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript’s (MS) topic deals with detection of the rotation angle of the parallel four-bar linkage of the seeding row using the MPU6050 angle sensor for the detection of the seeding depth. The topic of the manuscript falls within the general scope of the journal and contains potentially useful information for readers. 

Although I don't feel myself qualified to judge about the English language and style, I found so many basic grammar mistakes. English of MS is so poor.

The introduction part of the article is quite weak, there is no subject integrity. It should definitely be improved. I don’t understand what the relation between the sentences in the lines between 30-37 and subject of MS is.

The other specific comments are:

Line 16: Avoid using abbreviation in abstract

Line 17: what is “, 0.0189”?

Line 25: “sowing depth” or “seeding depth”? Use the same technical term throughout the MS.

Line 26-27: “It is beneficial to kill weeds in the field...” How the proper sowing depth kill weeds? Needs more explanation.

Lines 95, 99, 115, 174, 179: It is not clear that why you need these citations.

Line 111-112: What is H in Eq1? H should be shown in Figure 2

Figures 5, 6, 7 …: Explain the abbreviation on the charts.

Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13: Are some data in these charts presenting  data again in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8? If yes, one data should be presented only one time.

Table 2: I understand from Table 2 and Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13, you made the same experiments with IAKF again and presented similar data again for mean, PF and KF. If yes, I think no need for Table 1 and Figures 5, 6, 7, 8.

Line 371: How did you applied the percussion vibration?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, researchers have studied the method of seeding depth detection, and the data filtering algorithm on the data acquisition of the attitude angle of the seeding monomer and the rotation angle of the parallel four-bar linkage. I think that the work described in the manuscript is interesting. In general the work is well structured; however, I believe that the some details in the study need to be given before the manuscript can be published. The authors presented a work with a clear methodology of system development and implementation. The study mostly explains the processing of collected data with different filtering methods. However, the technical details of how the data were collected and the data collection system were not included. The sentences of the article, including the punctuation marks, need to be checked.

 

Comments:

1.      What are the technical data of the MPU6050 sensor used? Also, can it respond instantaneously to the responses coming from the surface of the agricultural land? If you can add these information in the article, I believe that the readers will be able to get information about the structure of the Data Acquisition System.

 

2.      Although the authors presented good detail about the development process in the methodology section, the material and result section lacks essential information.  What was the sensor response time during validation? Sensor data accuracy? What driving speed the system was tested? Effect of forward speed to sensor response time? Response time caused any sync problems? What are the key contributions of this paper? Any loss of sensor data? Any faults and warnings indicated by the system? Limitations of this study? As a suggestion, I think the article will be enriched if a small paragraph is added to the article as an answer to the above questions.

 

3.      Sentences need to be revised. There are errors in punctuation. The English of the article can be improved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made some important revisions on manuscript but some of the my following revision notes are not considered in revised version:

1) The introduction part of the article is still weak, there is no subject integrity. It should be improved. 

The sentences of "The protection of land resources can be improved to a certain ................." in lines 30-37 of old version is still in revised version, although the authors write that "..... we have deleted lines 30-37 of the introduction to enhance the integrity of the article" in authors' reply letter.

2) In my first review, I suggest in Point 6: Line 26-27: “It is beneficial to kill weeds in the field...” How the proper sowing depth kill weeds? Needs more explanation.

Response 6: We have deleted the "It is beneficial to kill weeds in the field..." here, it is indeed a question of expression, not related to the content of the article.

But this sentence is still in line 30.

3)  In my first review, I suggest in Point 9: Figures 5, 6, 7 …: Explain the abbreviation on the charts.

Response 9: We have explained the algorithm abbreviations in the picture in lines 270-273. 

I believe that the all abbreviations on a figure should be expained either on that figure or in its caption.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf