Structure from Linear Motion (SfLM): An On-the-Go Canopy Profiling System Based on Off-the-Shelf RGB Cameras for Effective Sprayers Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Q1. In the abstract, the expression is not clear enough and the information provided to the readers is incomplete, so that the readers can not see what is the author's specific contribution to the research in this field? What are the existing problems? Which blade recognition systems are compared and analyzed by the author? What kind of computer vision algorithm is introduced? What are the advantages of the research results compared with the existing technology? What efficiencies have been improved? The author is advised to rewrite the abstract.

Q2. In the introduction, lines 33-48, the author failed to clearly state the author's specific contribution to the research in this field. In lines 50-204, the author describes the technical progress of existing research, which belongs to the content of introduction. There is no need to list the Only Title "1.1. Related works". I suggest removing this title.

Q3. In the materials and methods, it takes up most of the space of this paper, and the content needs to be further simplified. Some contents in each section that are not closely related to the research content of this paper can be deleted.

Q4. In lines 293-295, how does the author recognize the green area from the HSV color space? What is the threshold set? What is the original image? The identified leaves are not all. Why do each leaf only identify some areas?

Q5. An RGB original image should be placed in Figure 8, figure 9 and figure 10 for comparison, so that the reader can clearly judge whether the method used in the text is effective.

Q6. In 2.5 In system based on structure from linear motion (sflm), where are formulas (4), (5) and (6) applied and what is the value of putting forward them in this paper?

Q7. In 3.1 Proposed control system based on sflm: Analysis on video sequences, there are two stems and leaves hanging down in the input frame in Figure 15. Why only the stems and leaves on the right can be divided, and the stems and leaves on the left can not be recognized? In Figure 16, there is the same question: why can only one area be identified for so many leaves?

Q8. In line 715-724, what is the value of failing to clearly analyze the data in the histogram in Figure 17 and Figure 18? The data of each histogram can not be seen in figures 17 and 18, so it is difficult for readers to clearly judge the advantages.

Q9. In 3.3 Development of prototype, the author only shows the results in the simulation scenario. What effect will it have when applied in the real vineyard? The author is suggested to supplement this part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) In the "Summary" chapter – there is no summary of results and summary conclusions, in fact. The summary should contain an overview of the most important results obtained and a summary of the findings but not only a description of the course of the research, as it is there.

2) Figures 17 and 18 show theoretical savings of the product (the reader has to guess that it is a plant protection product because it was not written). In this case, the reviewer cannot agree with such calculations resulting from the figures because they are not consistent with the physical phenomena occurring during crop spraying. A better description would be to write that this is the actual leaf area ratio to the total area, as this ratio was counted. It should be remembered that the switching on or off of the nozzles is also associated with losses of spray liquid due to the inertia of the control system and the inertia of the flow of liquid in the hydraulic system of the sprayer.

3) In the chapter "Results and Discussion", the authors did not refer to the results of any of the previously cited scientific papers. They only conducted a discussion of the effects of their technical solutions. This chapter should be improved and enriched by comparison with the results of at least some of the previously cited papers on similar subjects.

4) "Conclusions" would not to be a summary of the course of the research described, as it is, in fact  - so none of the conclusions in this manuscript are actually conclusions, only a short description of the course of research. "Conclusions" should refer, most of all, to the results obtained from the experiments - this chapter should be completed.

5) The authors did not perform error analysis in any study of the results, which means that only single measurements were performed without repetition. This ultimately undermines the objective reliability of the results obtained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf