Variable-Rate Irrigation in Diversified Vegetable Crops: System Development and Evaluation
, Marinaldo Ferreira Pinto 2, Marcus VinÃcius Morais de Oliveira 2 and Daniel Fonseca de Carvalho 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.In the calibration experiment of the pulse controlled depth system, Figure 5 is not clear and the content is too messy. The names of the components and main operating parts in the figure are not labeled. The intended content of the entire image is not prominent.
2.The article mentions that different plants have different application depths, so how can we overcome this problem? Collecting the application depth of all products is not an easy task. And there is no discussion here on whether the depth of application for each plant is a fixed value, and whether it will change and affect the operation of the system. Causing the original purpose of saving to be disrupted.
3.The article mentions how to make systems or machines adapt and change to meet the water needs of plants. However, it did not take into account whether plants would adjust their physiological needs due to the environment when the water supply is constant, as well as the genetic mutations that may occur during the process of re survival.
4.Is the conclusion too simplistic and unable to effectively summarize the main content, research object, research purpose, and application scope of the entire article, as well as whether it can truly solve some substantive problems.
5.In the textual annotations, the entire article, images, and tables do not provide basic conclusions, but are only used as evidence, and these contents do not clearly prove which part of the argument is referred to as this article. There is something independent and there is no central focus to argue.
6.Will the potential irrigated area mentioned in the article become a waste if it is not utilized?
7.The abstract and introduction sections still need to be revised. The abstract should be concise and clear, while the introduction section can supplement the latest relevant literature background and provide as detailed a description as possible. From big to small, point to surface or from surface to surface, there is a certain degree of logic.
8.The conclusion section still needs to be more detailed.
Author Response
COMMENT 1:
In the calibration experiment of the pulse controlled depth system, Figure 5 is not clear and the content is too messy. The names of the components and main operating parts in the figure are not labeled. The intended content of the entire image is not prominent.
Response: The Figure was modified and adapted for better understanding of the text. Thank you.
COMMENT 2:
The article mentions that different plants have different application depths, so how can we overcome this problem? Collecting the application depth of all products is not an easy task. And there is no discussion here on whether the depth of application for each plant is a fixed value, and whether it will change and affect the operation of the system. Causing the original purpose of saving to be disrupted.
Response: There are different methodologies for defining the crop water requirements, which are well known in the literature. The depth applied by the irrigation system must meet this demand, which varies according to the species and throughout the vegetative cycle. For monocultures, where only one species is grown, applying this irrigation depth is easy; however, in diversified systems, irrigation becomes a problem, which motivated us to carry out this study. Therefore, our study reveals that the drip line applies water individually to the crops, whose depths are controlled by the speed of movement and by adjusting the time of the electrical pulses to activate the flow control valves. This was precisely the objective, which was successfully achieved.
COMMENT 3:
The article mentions how to make systems or machines adapt and change to meet the water needs of plants. However, it did not take into account whether plants would adjust their physiological needs due to the environment when the water supply is constant, as well as the genetic mutations that may occur during the process of re survival.
Response: Managing an irrigation system requires the irrigator to constantly monitor the field. As per the previous answer, the amount of water applied is directly related to the crop water requirements, which is influenced by their physiological characteristics and interactions with the environment. Therefore, all of this is considered when applying water to the system.
COMMENT 4:
Is the conclusion too simplistic and unable to effectively summarize the main content, research object, research purpose, and application scope of the entire article, as well as whether it can truly solve some substantive problems.
Response: In fact, the conclusions were presented in a simplified way. New text is presented. Thank you for the suggestion.
COMMENT 5:
In the textual annotations, the entire article, images, and tables do not provide basic conclusions, but are only used as evidence, and these contents do not clearly prove which part of the argument is referred to as this article. There is something independent and there is no central focus to argue.
Response: The text has been completely revised and changed to improve the contextualization of the data presented in the Figures and Tables with the discussion of the results, in order to meet the objective. We hope to have met your request.
COMMENT 6:
Will the potential irrigated area mentioned in the article become a waste if it is not utilized?
Response: The information on a potentially irrigated area of ​​up to 360 m² day-1 is only to indicate the operating capacity of the prototype developed. Under field conditions, it would certainly operate according to the available cultivation area, without causing any type of water waste.
COMMENT 7:
The abstract and introduction sections still need to be revised. The abstract should be concise and clear, while the introduction section can supplement the latest relevant literature background and provide as detailed a description as possible. From big to small, point to surface or from surface to surface, there is a certain degree of logic.
Response: Changes have been made to both the Abstract and the Introduction of the manuscript.
COMMENT 8:
The conclusion section still needs to be more detailed.
Response: The conclusion section has been changed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Variable-rate irrigation in diversified vegetable crops: system development and evaluation” aimed to develop and evaluate an automated irrigation system and a variable-rate water application for areas with diversified vegetable crops.
The study is well designed and well-conducted. The study provides interesting and important results. The results revealed that the drip line individually drips water on crops, whose depths are controlled by the displacement speed and by adjusting the timing of the electrical pulses to activate the water flow control valves.
Moreover, the drip line was assessed and irrigation depths were developed for some crops, followed by performance assessments, that included evaluating the uniformity of the line under constant and variable rates.
The study also calculated the potential irrigable area. The obtained potential irrigable area was 360 m² day-1.
The study also concluded that the developed drip line meets the spatial variability of water requirements for crops by adopting the variable-rate irrigation technique.
Though the study is important and provides important findings that enhance this field of study, few shortcomings should be addressed by the authors as follows;
Introduction: The introduction is well-written; however, the novelty of the present study should be better highlighted. Write a short paragraph to reveal the novelty of this study.
Methods: The measurements in the methods section should include the related references such as,
Lines 117-122 (include the reference)
Lines 124-126 (include the reference)
Mention the number of the replications assayed for each measurement.
Line 138, write the reference.
Figure 3: write the reference if any.
- Results: the results are well-represented; however, Figure 11 should be explained in detail to highlight such correlation.
- Discussion:
Please discuss the application uniformity under a variable rate in more details to highlight its importance.
Lines 366-369, include the references and compare the results with other relevant findings to reveal the importance of your study.
Lines 402-410, include the references and compare the results with other relevant findings to reveal the importance of your study.
- Conclusions: the conclusion section needs some revisions to highlight the most important findings of the present study and to recommend the future work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
GENERAL COMMENT
The manuscript entitled “Variable-rate irrigation in diversified vegetable crops: system development and evaluation” aimed to develop and evaluate an automated irrigation system and a variable-rate water application for areas with diversified vegetable crops. The study is well designed and well-conducted. The study provides interesting and important results. The results revealed that the drip line individually drips water on crops, whose depths are controlled by the displacement speed and by adjusting the timing of the electrical pulses to activate the water flow control valves. Moreover, the drip line was assessed and irrigation depths were developed for some crops, followed by performance assessments, that included evaluating the uniformity of the line under constant and variable rates. The study also calculated the potential irrigable area. The obtained potential irrigable area was 360 m² day-1. The study also concluded that the developed drip line meets the spatial variability of water requirements for crops by adopting the variable-rate irrigation technique. Though the study is important and provides important findings that enhance this field of study, few shortcomings should be addressed by the authors.
Response: Thank you for recognizing the importance of our project.
COMMENT 1:
Introduction: The introduction is well-written; however, the novelty of the present study should be better highlighted. Write a short paragraph to reveal the novelty of this study.
Response: The Introduction has been changed to address this suggestion, as well as those of the other reviewers.
COMMENT 2:
Methods: The measurements in the methods section should include the related references such as, Lines 117-122 (include the reference); Lines 124-126 (include the reference); Mention the number of the replications assayed for each measurement; Line 138, write the reference; Figure 3: write the reference if any.
Response: The texts in lines 127-132, 134-136 and 149 describe the procedures adopted in the development of the project and did not precisely follow any previously published methodology. Therefore, no related references were provided. In several parts of the text the number of repetitions (5) is mentioned (Lines 144, 210 and 243). Figure 3 presents the specific flowchart of the programming developed in this project and, therefore, no bibliography was consulted. Line numbers refer to the new version.
COMMENT 3:
Results: the results are well-represented; however, Figure 11 should be explained in detail to highlight such correlation.
Response: At the beginning of item 3.4, text has been added to better explain the information presented in Figure 11. Therefore, the text was reformulated to improve clarity, as can be seen between lines 357 and 360. In addition, the title of the figure was also changed and the description of the test was presented in more detail in the material and methods section (lines 143 to 145).
COMMENT 4:
Discussion: Please discuss the application uniformity under a variable rate in more details to highlight its importance.
Response: In order to clarify uniformity over variable rate, the objective of using CUC for variable rate application was added in material and methods, line 266. Additionally, a paragraph was added on the use of the indicator to assess the quality of irrigation under variable rate (item 4.3).
COMMENT 5:
Lines 366-369 and Lines 402-410: include the references and compare the results with other relevant findings to reveal the importance of your study.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion, however, references have already been presented in the original text, regarding lines 381-384 ([28] – Oliveira, H. F. E., Colombo, A., Faria, L. C., & Prado, G. (2012). Effects of wind speed and direction on the uniformity of water application in self-propelled systems. Agricultural Engineering, 32, 669-678) and 425-433 ([3] – Hernández-Guzmán, V. M., Silva-Ortigoza, R., Muñoz-Carrillo, D. (2015). Speed ​​control of a brushed DC motor driven by a DC to DC buck power converter. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, v.11, n.2, p.509-521).
COMMENT 6:
Conclusions: the conclusion section needs some revisions to highlight the most important findings of the present study and to recommend the future work.
Response: The conclusions of the manuscript were modified, following the suggestion. Thank you.
COMMENT 7:
Moderate editing of English language required.
Response: The text was translated by a native-speaking professional and we believe that there is no point that compromises the full understanding of its content. In any case, we are at your disposal. Thanks for the comment and suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript (agriengineering-3140468), the authors designed and introduced a variable irrigation system to help agriculture save irrigation water and promote food problem. The system has good practical value and application prospect. Considering that automatic irrigation technology is already a very mature technology worldwide, the system designed in this study lacks innovation and is difficult to arouse readers' interest. As a research article, these findings seem not a sufficiently striking advance in agriculture. So I would like to reject this manuscript to be published in AgriEngineering.
Some detailed information can to be improved:
1. This article is only conducted in the laboratory, and the effect of the system in practical application can be increased as appropriate.
2. In the correlation graph(figure1,figure7), the author should provide error bars for each point, and R2 should be the corrected value.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
GENERAL COMMENT
In this manuscript (agriengineering-3140468), the authors designed and introduced a variable irrigation system to help agriculture save irrigation water and promote food problem. The system has good practical value and application prospect. Considering that automatic irrigation technology is already a very mature technology worldwide, the system designed in this study lacks innovation and is difficult to arouse readers' interest. As a research article, these findings seem not a sufficiently striking advance in agriculture. So I would like to reject this manuscript to be published in AgriEngineering.
Response: We appreciate the considerations given and the time spent reviewing our manuscript. In fact, there are many technologies available associated with the automation of control systems, but they are usually applied or intended for monoculture systems. The innovation of this project is precisely to allow automatic management of supervision through diversified crops, for which there is no methodology developed so far.
COMMENT 1:
This article is only conducted in the laboratory, and the effect of the system in practical application can be increased as appropriate.
Response: Yes.
COMMENT 2:
In the correlation graph (figure1, figure7), the author should provide error bars for each point, and R2 should be the corrected value.
Response: The Figures have been changed. Thank you.
COMMENT 3:
Minor editing of English language required.
Response: The text was translated by a native-speaking professional and we believe that there is no point that compromises the full understanding of its content. In any case, we are at your disposal. Thanks for the comment and suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript (agriengineering-3140468-peer-review-v2) has been improved. For the questions about this work, the authors have made careful revisions and supplements, and the responses are reasonable. Thus, I would like to recommend this paper to be published in AgriEngineering.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
