Digital image processing technology under backpropagation neural network and K-Means Clustering algorithm on nitrogen utilization rate of Chinese cabbages

Qilin Wang; Xinyu Mao; Xiaosan Jiang; Dandan Pei; Xiaohou Shao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248923

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 7, 2021
27 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Haibin Lv, Editor PONE-D-21-00546 The Impact of K-Means Clustering Algorithm-Based Digital Image Processing Technology on Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency of Chinese Cabbage PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mao, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Haibin Lv Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 and 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In this paper, the Chinese cabbage population with different agricultural parameters is constructed through different densities and nitrogen fertilizer application rates based on digital image processing technology, and an estimation Nitrogen Content model is established. The population is classified through the K-Means Clustering algorithm using the feature extraction method, and the Chinese cabbage population quality BPNN model is constructed. The nonlinear mapping relationship between different agricultural parameters and population quality, and the contribution rate of each indicator, are studied. The research results can provide some ideas for research on plant cultivation in modern agriculture. This is a meaningful topic. However, the following modification need to be made before publication. a. In the last paragraph of introduction, the author needs to give the framework of the whole research and give a brief introduction to the following content. Moreover, the research significance should be added. b. In the section of "Population quality evaluation model", for "Figure. 4 Population quality classification process in different periods", the content looks very confusing. The author just put the K-means clustering algorithm next to the classification results, and did not reflect the specific classification process, that is, how the K-means clustering algorithm is used has not been reflected. Therefore, the display of this figure is meaningless. Please redraw Figure 4. c. As for the innovation of the paper, the author mentioned that "the nitrogen utilization is monitored dynamically; the nitrogen prediction ability of the model is improved through rational classification and data learning; the factors affecting plant growth in different stages are effectively classified". The description of the innovation is more like the conclusion of the research. The innovation point should be the differences between this paper and other studies, such as research content, research method, research angle. Please revise the relevant content. d. The author should pay attention to consistency of the use of nouns. Both “K-Means Clustering algorithm” and “K-Means algorithm” appear in the text. Please revise it and check for the same problem. e. As for the deficiency of the research, the author mentioned two aspects. However, I think the author's description of these two aspects is inaccurate and very vague. For example, it is mentioned that "First, there are many image processing methods, such as noise reduction and resolution improvement, which can effectively improve the accuracy of recognition". The deficiency of this research should be that the image processing methods mentioned above are not compared with the method in this paper. Please add relevant content to improve the readability of the article. f. In this paper, English expression should be improved. There are some grammatical mistakes. For example, in the sentence “….showing that the evaluation effect of the PI model is better, which can apply to population quality evaluation”, for the verb “apply”, the passive voice should be used. Moreover, in the sentence “As shown in Figure 15, the four agricultural…. stage also showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing”, since all the other verbs in this paragraph are in the present tense, it is necessary to modify the verb tenses to ensure the consistency of tenses. Some other sentences with grammatical errors are listed. Please revise accordingly and check the same errors. “The number of Chinese cabbage in the field is obtained using image analysis technology.” “In contrast, traditional greenhouse monitoring focuses on humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, light intensity.” “Then the multiple stepwise regression method is used to establish the predictive model of agricultural parameters and verify the pros and cons of the model based on R2 (Coefficients of Determination of Models) and RMSE (Root Mean Square Error).” “Then a detailed economic analysis theoretical model is obtained.” Reviewer #2: To monitor plants’ nitrogen utilization and evaluate their nutrient absorption, the authors took Chinese cabbage populations with different agricultural parameters as research object and constructed a BPNN model to evaluate the object’s quality. Results proved that this BPNN quality evaluation model applies to evaluate the population quality of Chinese cabbage in different growth periods. Agriculture is the fundamental industry of countries across the world, and the research work presented in this paper can contribute to its knowledge system. Before publication, the following issues must be addressed: 1) Conclusions summarized in the abstract are very unclear: “These results can provide some ideas for research on plant cultivation in modern agriculture.” What ideas? How to provide? In what aspect(s)? Such a statement applies to any research. Please be more specific. 2) The research motivation presented in Section 1 is vague. The authors should describe the research motivation and significance more clearly. The authors can also provide the associated research questions. 3) Also, in Section 1, the key ideas, such as “K-Means Clustering” and “Backpropagation Neural Network,” must be discussed clearly. 4) The research gap and the novelty are ambiguous. The authors should compare the proposed models and some state-of-art methods to underline the innovative points of the present paper. As such, including a “Related Work” section can be helpful. 5) The research method is inadequately presented. More details and benchmarks are needed. 6) Similarly, why BPNN and K-Means Clustering are used instead of other algorithms such as GAN that naturally has advantages in image recognition? 7) Figure 6 contains odd noises, which makes it seem a non-original. 8) Please define the abbreviations appearing in figures, especially Figure 7. These undefined short names create barriers for readers. 9) The authors are encouraged to provide the key conclusions that can be important for the decision makers. 10) The authors are encouraged to improve the paper title to make it more attractive and reflects the works presented in it. 11) Some long sentences and paragraphs can be improved. The authors may seek help from a native English speaker. Reviewer #3: Q 1.With the ecological environment continues to deteriorate, the living space of plants is continually being compressed, causing global warming and water pollution, which induces plant growth to be greatly restricted. As a largely agricultural country, China’s agricultural production plays a vital role in its economic construction and social development. Developing technologies that can effectively monitor the growth of plants and analyze the nutritional status of crops is of great significance to the development of the agricultural industry. The research results can provide some research ideas for plant cultivation in modern agriculture. However, there are some problems that need to be modified. Q 2.The number of keywords should be 3-5. However, there are 6 keywords in this paper. Please consider deleting one of them. Q 3.According to the content of the article, "the BPNN (back propagation neural network) is employed to construct the nonlinear mapping of the quality of the Chinese cabbage population and the contribution relationship of each indicator." I think the construction of the model is based on BPNN, and the use of BPNN should be reflected in the title of the paper. Please consider revising the title of the article. Q 4.In the introduction section, the author mentioned that "Finally, nitrogen utilization in Chinese cabbage can be effectively monitored." I think this is the conclusion of the study and should not appear in this section. Please revise the related content carefully. Q 5.The language expression should be concise. For example, “80% of the samples” can be replaced by “80% samples”. Moreover, long sentences should be revised, such as “The sentence “Using modern information technology, including satellite remote sensing, near-ground hyperspectral remote sensing, and image analysis, for non-destructive monitoring of crops (agricultural parameter estimation, nutrition diagnosis, growth analysis, adversity stress diagnosis, and water diagnosis) is beneficial for improving crop production management efficiency and yield prediction, which is also the significant component of modern agriculture [15] ”. Q 6.In the conclusion, the author mentioned that "this model can evaluate the population quality of Chinese cabbages in different periods. It can provide some research ideas for plant culture in modern agriculture." The specific accuracy rate of the model, that is, some data results, can be added to improve the persuasiveness of the conclusion. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Xin Gao [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248923.r001
Revision 1
28 Feb 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: a. In the last paragraph of introduction, the author needs to give the framework of the whole research and give a brief introduction to the following content. Moreover, the research significance should be added. Response: Thanks for reviewing this manuscript. We have explained the whole research framework and research significance in detail in the last paragraph of the introduction section. b. In the section of "Population quality evaluation model", for "Figure. 4 Population quality classification process in different periods", the content looks very confusing. The author just put the K-means clustering algorithm next to the classification results, and did not reflect the specific classification process, that is, how the K-means clustering algorithm is used has not been reflected. Therefore, the display of this figure is meaningless. Please redraw Figure 4. Response: Thanks for commenting. The clustering analysis process shown in Figure 4 is to divide the original data into different categories through the clustering algorithm, and then subdivide them into the third-level indicators by the nature of the secondary indicators. The entire process also reflects the content of clustering analysis. c. As for the innovation of the paper, the author mentioned that "the nitrogen utilization is monitored dynamically; the nitrogen prediction ability of the model is improved through rational classification and data learning; the factors affecting plant growth in different stages are effectively classified". The description of the innovation is more like the conclusion of the research. The innovation point should be the differences between this paper and other studies, such as research content, research method, research angle. Please revise the relevant content. Response: Thanks for your effort in reviewing this manuscript. Since we did not include a section of the literature review, it may cause a deviation in understanding the innovative points of this manuscript. We have discussed the previous research works and proposed the innovative points of this manuscript based on the comparison. d. The author should pay attention to consistency of the use of nouns. Both “K-Means Clustering algorithm” and “K-Means algorithm” appear in the text. Please revise it and check for the same problem. Response: Thanks for your suggestion. All the terms have been unified in this revision. e. As for the deficiency of the research, the author mentioned two aspects. However, I think the author's description of these two aspects is inaccurate and very vague. For example, it is mentioned that "First, there are many image processing methods, such as noise reduction and resolution improvement, which can effectively improve the accuracy of recognition". The deficiency of this research should be that the image processing methods mentioned above are not compared with the method in this paper. Please add relevant content to improve the readability of the article. Response: Thanks for reviewing this manuscript. The shortcoming we mentioned in the conclusion section is that we did not adopt the corresponding data processing method, which might affect the accuracy of our experimental model, and the methods listed below could be added to improve the performance of the model. f. In this paper, English expression should be improved. There are some grammatical mistakes. For example, in the sentence “….showing that the evaluation effect of the PI model is better, which can apply to population quality evaluation”, for the verb “apply”, the passive voice should be used. Moreover, in the sentence “As shown in Figure 15, the four agricultural…. stage also showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing”, since all the other verbs in this paragraph are in the present tense, it is necessary to modify the verb tenses to ensure the consistency of tenses. Some other sentences with grammatical errors are listed. Please revise accordingly and check the same errors. “The number of Chinese cabbage in the field is obtained using image analysis technology.” “In contrast, traditional greenhouse monitoring focuses on humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, light intensity.” “Then the multiple stepwise regression method is used to establish the predictive model of agricultural parameters and verify the pros and cons of the model based on R2 (Coefficients of Determination of Models) and RMSE (Root Mean Square Error).” “Then a detailed economic analysis theoretical model is obtained.” Response: Thanks for your detailed and inspiring comment. The English language has been edited and proofed by a native expert. Reviewer #2 1) Conclusions summarized in the abstract are very unclear: “These results can provide some ideas for research on plant cultivation in modern agriculture.” What ideas? How to provide? In what aspect(s)? Such a statement applies to any research. Please be more specific. Response: Thanks for your effort in reviewing this manuscript. We have supplemented more details to the conclusions in the abstract. 2) The research motivation presented in Section 1 is vague. The authors should describe the research motivation and significance more clearly. The authors can also provide the associated research questions. Response: Thanks for your comment. We have rewritten the introduction section, in which the purposes and significance of this manuscript have been elaborated with more details. The relevant research progress have been explained in the second paragraph of the introduction section. 3) Also, in Section 1, the key ideas, such as “K-Means Clustering” and “Backpropagation Neural Network,” must be discussed clearly. Response: Thanks for commenting. We have rewritten the introduction section and discussed the application of K-Means Clustering and Backpropagation Neural Network in image processing as required. 4) The research gap and the novelty are ambiguous. The authors should compare the proposed models and some state-of-art methods to underline the innovative points of the present paper. As such, including a “Related Work” section can be helpful. Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have introduced the related works and clarified the innovative points of this manuscript accordingly. 5) The research method is inadequately presented. More details and benchmarks are needed. Response: Thanks for your comment. We have improved and provided more details of the research method. 6) Similarly, why BPNN and K-Means Clustering are used instead of other algorithms such as GAN that naturally has advantages in image recognition? Response: Thanks for your comment. We have explained the advantages and the feasibility of using BPNN and K-Means Clustering for modeling in the second paragraph of the research method section. 7) Figure 6 contains odd noises, which makes it seem a non-original. Response: Thanks for reviewing this manuscript. Figure 6 only shows the growth of Chinese cabbage in different periods under different nitrogen treatments. The images obtained can be used by our system. We have modified and improved the description in this revision. 8) Please define the abbreviations appearing in figures, especially Figure 7. These undefined short names create barriers for readers. Response: Thanks for commenting. We have explained and defined all the short names in figures. 9) The authors are encouraged to provide the key conclusions that can be important for the decision makers. Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have provided more details of the key conclusions. 10) The authors are encouraged to improve the paper title to make it more attractive and reflects the works presented in it. Response: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the title to make it more attractive and reflect the works presented in this manuscript. 11) Some long sentences and paragraphs can be improved. The authors may seek help from a native English speaker. Response: Thanks for your comment. This manuscript has been proofread by a native expert. Reviewer #3: Q 1.With the ecological environment continues to deteriorate, the living space of plants is continually being compressed, causing global warming and water pollution, which induces plant growth to be greatly restricted. As a largely agricultural country, China’s agricultural production plays a vital role in its economic construction and social development. Developing technologies that can effectively monitor the growth of plants and analyze the nutritional status of crops is of great significance to the development of the agricultural industry. The research results can provide some research ideas for plant cultivation in modern agriculture. However, there are some problems that need to be modified. Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised it as required. Q 2.The number of keywords should be 3-5. However, there are 6 keywords in this paper. Please consider deleting one of them. Response: Thanks for your effort in reviewing this paper. We have revised the keywords as required. Q 3.According to the content of the article, "the BPNN (back propagation neural network) is employed to construct the nonlinear mapping of the quality of the Chinese cabbage population and the contribution relationship of each indicator." I think the construction of the model is based on BPNN, and the use of BPNN should be reflected in the title of the paper. Please consider revising the title of the article. Response: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the paper title to make it more attractive and reflect the content of BPNN. Q 4.In the introduction section, the author mentioned that "Finally, nitrogen utilization in Chinese cabbage can be effectively monitored." I think this is the conclusion of the study and should not appear in this section. Please revise the related content carefully. Thanks for your suggestion. The above content has been deleted. Q 5.The language expression should be concise. For example, “80% of the samples” can be replaced by “80% samples”. Moreover, long sentences should be revised, such as “The sentence “Using modern information technology, including satellite remote sensing, near-ground hyperspectral remote sensing, and image analysis, for non-destructive monitoring of crops (agricultural parameter estimation, nutrition diagnosis, growth analysis, adversity stress diagnosis, and water diagnosis) is beneficial for improving crop production management efficiency and yield prediction, which is also the significant component of modern agriculture [15] ”. Response: Thanks for your detailed and inspiring comment. The English language has been improved by a native expert. Q 6.In the conclusion, the author mentioned that "this model can evaluate the population quality of Chinese cabbages in different periods. It can provide some research ideas for plant culture in modern agriculture." The specific accuracy rate of the model, that is, some data results, can be added to improve the persuasiveness of the conclusion. Response: Thanks for reviewing this paper. We have added key data results to the conclusion section, further enhancing the persuasiveness of this section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248923.r002
9 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Haibin Lv, Editor Digital Image Processing Technology under Backpropagation Neural Network and K-Means Clustering Algorithm on Nitrogen Utilization Rate of Chinese Cabbages PONE-D-21-00546R1 Dear Dr. Mao, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Haibin Lv Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): This version is accepted. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In this paper, the Chinese cabbage population with different agricultural parameters is constructed through different densities and nitrogen fertilizer application rates based on digital image processing technology, and an estimation Nitrogen Content model is established. The population is classified through the K-Means Clustering algorithm using the feature extraction method, and the Chinese cabbage population quality BPNN model is constructed. The nonlinear mapping relationship between different agricultural parameters and population quality, and the contribution rate of each indicator, are studied. The research results can provide some ideas for research on plant cultivation in modern agriculture. This is a meaningful topic. In this revision, authors explain and discuss my concerns in details. I agree that published the article. Reviewer #2: To monitor plants’ nitrogen utilization and evaluate their nutrient absorption, the authors took Chinese cabbage populations with different agricultural parameters as research object and constructed a BPNN model to evaluate the object’s quality. Results proved that this BPNN quality evaluation model applies to evaluate the population quality of Chinese cabbage in different growth periods. Agriculture is the fundamental industry of countries across the world, and the research work presented in this paper can contribute to its knowledge system. Reviewer #3: With the ecological environment continues to deteriorate, the living space of plants is continually being compressed, causing global warming and water pollution, which induces plant growth to be greatly restricted. As a largely agricultural country, China’s agricultural production plays a vital role in its economic construction and social development. Developing technologies that can effectively monitor the growth of plants and analyze the nutritional status of crops is of great significance to the development of the agricultural industry. The research results can provide some research ideas for plant cultivation in modern agriculture. The article has been greatly improved, and most of my doubts have been answered in the response. Therefore, I am satisfied with their work and suggest to accept the paper in the phase. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Xin Gao https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248923.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Mar 2021 Acceptance Letter - Haibin Lv, Editor PONE-D-21-00546R1 Digital Image Processing Technology under Backpropagation Neural Network and K-Means Clustering Algorithm on Nitrogen Utilization Rate of Chinese Cabbages Dear Dr. Mao: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Haibin Lv Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248923.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .