PONE-D-21-07010

Designing an Intelligent Monitoring System for Corn Seeding by Machine Vision and Genetic Algorithm-optimized Back Propagation Algorithm under Precision Positioning

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

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 Jun 12 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haibin Lv

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

This paper designs an intelligent system for corn seeding based on machine vision and genetic algorithm. The control index, replay index and missed broadcast index of the system have all reached national standards, and the reliability of the alarm system has reached 100%. On the basis of this, the stability of the seed spacing is ensured. The work efficiency of the intelligent corn planter is improved, which provides a reference for further realization of precise planting operations. Although the viewpoints of this article are novel, the ideas are clear, and the data are reasonable, there are still problems such as unspecific method description and imperfect results.

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 9 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: 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: Based on machine vision and the Genetic Algorithm-optimized Back Propagation (GABP) algorithm, the test platform of seeding effect detection system is designed to provide reference for further accurate seeding operation. Finally, the performance of the intelligent seeder is verified by field experiment. The results show that the deviation between the average value of the six precision positioning seeding experiments of corn under the random disturbance signal and the ideal value of the distance is less than or equal to 0.5cm; the deviation between the average value of the six precision positioning seeding experiments of corn under the sine wave disturbance signal (1Hz) is less than or equal to 0.4cm; the qualified rate of grain distance reaches 100%. The precision control index, replay index, and missed index of the designed corn precision seeding intelligent control system have all reached the national standard. During the operation of the seeder, an alarm of the seeder leaking occurred, and the buzzer sounded and the screen displayed 100 times each; therefore, the reliability of the alarm system is 100%. Therefore, the intelligent corn seeder designed based on precision positioning seeding technology can reduce the seeding rate of the seeder and ensure the stability of the seed spacing effectively, so as to provide a reference for the further realization of precision seeding operations. However, there are still some deficiencies in the current manuscript, which need to be modified before acceptance.

1: in the abstract part of the manuscript, the author should pay attention to the accuracy of language expression, such as “Finally, to verify the accuracy of the intelligent seeding monitoring system, the seeding performance of the precision seeder is verified through field experiments”. Are the quoted sentences repeated? It is suggested to modify.

2: in the third paragraph of the introduction, the authenticity of the contents expressed in several sentences is questionable, such as “The model produced by Heilongjiang Agricultural Machinery Institute, 2BJM-6 no-tillage seeder, is a 6-row sowing seeder, which has a row spacing of 60-70 cm and is suitable for the sowing of corn, soybean and other crops”. Is the sentence a fact? Reference can be added to it to confirm its authenticity. Please add.

3: in the manuscript, reference [9] is not cited. Please check.

4: in the “Experimental Procedure” part of the manuscript, it is mentioned that “It can be proved through mathematical methods that a PID feedback loop can keep the system stable when other control methods cause the system to have a stable error or a process is repeated”. The stability of PID is proved by mathematical methods. What are the mathematical methods? Please explain. It is suggested to add references to the sentence to enhance its readability.

5: Figure 3 in “Experimental Procedure” part is the model of PID control system. What are the marks and numbers in the figure? It is recommended to add a description.

6: In Section 2.2 of the manuscript, the performance test of the intelligent system for corn seeding is completed through field experiment. Is it appropriate for hardware system introduction to appear here? It is suggested to show it in the simulation part.

7: In Section 3.1 of the result part of the manuscript, it is proposed that the stability test of corn grain distance has been carried out six times, and it is suggested to explain it in Section 2.4 of the experimental part.

8: Figure 11 appears in the results section of the manuscript, but there is no Figure 10 in the manuscript. The author should check it carefully. In addition, in this section, it is mentioned that “According to the performance specifications of precision seeders regulated in JBT 10293-2013 Single-Grain (Precision) Seeder Technical Conditions, when the distance between the seeding plant X≥ 20 cm, if the qualified index of plant distance≥ 80%, the re-seeding index≤ 5%, the missed index≤ 8%, the precision performance of the precision seeder has reached the standard”. As a standard, it is suggested to add references to this sentence.

9: Is the first paragraph of the conclusion part the background or the result of this study? If it is the background, some contents should be deleted. If it is the result, it should be simplified to make the details reasonable.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript partly 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 #3: Based on the research on precision positioning seeding technology, comprehensive application of sensors, Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controllers, and other technologies, combined with modern optimization algorithms, the online dynamic calibration controls of line spacing and plant spacing are implemented. At the same time, image processing and GABP algorithm are used to detect the effect of the seeding system to further realize precise seeding. Finally, through field test, the seeding performance of precision seeder is further verified. However, the current content of the manuscript cannot be accepted directly, and the author needs to modify it before submitting a new version. The amendments are as follows:

1. In the abstract of this paper, although the purpose, method and result are listed, the purpose is mixed in the method, which makes me not very clear about the method used in the article. The author needs to further adjust the content in this part to better show the method used.

2. In the introduction of the research background, I don’t see the application of the methods used in this paper in the past research, so it is not appropriate to give the research significance directly. The author needs to add the application of the method used in this paper in the background introduction.

3. In Section 2.3, the related content of seed number recognition based on GA-BP neural network algorithm is described. However, in Figure 5, only the three-layer neural network topology of BP neural network is given, and how to fuse the two algorithms is not described. The author also needs to add the analysis flow chart of GA-BP algorithm in this part to show the hybrid algorithm used in this paper more clearly.

4. The font in Figure 7 conflicts with the block diagram. It is suggested that the author adjust the font or the whole figure to make the chart more beautiful.

5. In the experiment, many methods are used, such as GA, BP and so on. However, there are no training and testing results of this hybrid algorithm in the results and discussion. Why does the author choose these two methods? Compared with other heuristic algorithms, what are the advantages?

6. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show six repeated tests. Since they are repeated tests and other parameters have not changed, why are the results shown in the figure so different? What's more, what do the results of these two figures show? The author also needs to add the related elaboration in the article.

7. Whether Table 2 and Figure 11 express the same content? From the image, the data are almost consistent, and I doubt the result.

8. In the results part, it is mentioned that “During the operation of the seeder, an alarm of the seeder leaking occurred, and the buzzer sounded and the screen displayed 100 times each. Therefore, the reliability of the seeder missed alarm and the overall alarm system is 100%”. How to get the result? The sudden appearance makes me a little confused.

9. In the results and discussion part, the discussion is less. In conclusion, it is inappropriate to completely repeat the previous content. First, the author needs to add the discussion content at the end of the results and discussion, and then re-elaborate the conclusion part. The current expression needs to be simplified. It is only necessary to retain the research content, research limitations and future prospects.

Reviewer #4: The article builds a machine learning-based intelligent corn seeding model, which uses genetic algorithm and GABP algorithm, and finally designs and builds a platform for the seeding effect monitoring system. Through specific experiments, the model proposed in this paper is further developed. The effectiveness of the system. Although the article has clear ideas and fluent writing, there are still problems in the article, such as unclear description and insufficient results. It is recommended to consider accepting it after revision. The following are my specific opinions:

1. In the abstract, it is proposed that the alarm system has been displayed 100 times. What does this refer to? The point is that if there is an inadequate seeding behavior, the machine will give an early warning, and the reliability of the early warning is 100%. This is a theoretical value or a practical result. It is impossible to reach such a high level in agricultural production. Please explain in detail .

2. The author needs to add more other algorithms in the introduction, such as practical examples of genetic algorithms and neural network algorithms in agricultural intelligent seeding. What problems in these cases can learn from, and what deficiencies need to be solved, this part of the content is not seen in the introduction. It is not clear whether these algorithms can actually realize the process of intelligent seeding.

3. How does the genetic algorithm and the BP neural network algorithm combine? This part did not explain whether it is simply a fusion of the algorithms or what kind of algorithm the author uses to connect in series? What index is the input and what is the final output result?

4. The content described in Figure 5 does not involve the issue of seed numbering. From the figure, I cannot see how the author identified and categorized seeds. The description is more conceptual. There is very little space to explain the content, so it is recommended to add more detailed description.

5. It is recommended that the author replace the title of Part 2.3 with system parameters and hardware and software settings. The author has not established a corn seed control system. These are the software and development environment used. Which parts of the system are divided into these parts?.

6. It is recommended to provide photos of the corn intelligent machine for field test, highlighting the structure of the different systems used in the article, such as control systems, operating systems, and what is the final interface for intelligent control? So that readers can be more clearly understand the structure of the system built.

7. The author proposed disturbance signals in section 3.1 of the article. What do these signals refer to? Why is the disturbance signal set? In addition, the author only provided the seeding distance in Figure 9 and did not provide the result of the error between different seeding distances, and how the spacing rate is calculated, these are not explained. The data is incomplete and needs to be supplemented.

8. For the miss rate in the second part of the results, these are national standards. Here is whether the standard is a Chinese national standard or an international standard. It is recommended to use the international seeding standard to determine.

9. The article mentioned in the conclusion section that during the operation of the planter, an alarm of the planter occurred, the buzzer sounded, and the screen was displayed 100 times at a time. The accuracy of the planter’s reliability alarm was 100%, but this is in the result. It is not mentioned, nor focused on the alarm system in the method.

10. The author mentioned the use of machine vision, but the method simply used genetic algorithm and GABP algorithm. Although these methods have been effectively applied in the field of image recognition, based on the current description, this kind of algorithm is more used for seeding prediction, rather than image recognition.

11. The author needs to compare the performance of the algorithm with the previous research algorithm and the latest research algorithm to determine the advantages of the algorithm used in this paper. It is recommended that the author supplement the results of this part.

12. The article proposed the construction of an intelligent control system for corn seeding operations, but the results of the article did not provide a specific system interface, how to control it, and which parameter changes will affect the seeding efficiency. These require specific results.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #4: No

[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.

Designing an Intelligent Monitoring System for Corn Seeding by Machine Vision and Genetic Algorithm-optimized Back Propagation Algorithm under Precision Positioning

PONE-D-21-07010R1

Dear Dr. He,

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):

It's acceptable.

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Based on machine vision and the Genetic Algorithm-optimized Back Propagation (GABP) algorithm, the test platform of seeding effect detection system is designed to provide reference for further accurate seeding operation. Finally, the performance of the intelligent seeder is verified by field experiment. The results show that the deviation between the average value of the six precision positioning seeding experiments of corn under the random disturbance signal and the ideal value of the distance is less than or equal to 0.5cm; the deviation between the average value of the six precision positioning seeding experiments of corn under the sine wave disturbance signal (1Hz) is less than or equal to 0.4cm; the qualified rate of grain distance reaches 100%. The precision control index, replay index, and missed index of the designed corn precision seeding intelligent control system have all reached the national standard. During the operation of the seeder, an alarm of the seeder leaking occurred, and the buzzer sounded and the screen displayed 100 times each; therefore, the reliability of the alarm system is 100%. Therefore, the intelligent corn seeder designed based on precision positioning seeding technology can reduce the seeding rate of the seeder and ensure the stability of the seed spacing effectively, so as to provide a reference for the further realization of precision seeding operations. I read and carefully evaluated the revised version of this manuscript. The authors have deal with the comments and suggestions of reviewers in a highly satisfactory and constructive manner. The revised manuscript clearly meets the standards that have been required by reviewers. I propose the acceptance of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Based on the research on precision positioning seeding technology, comprehensive application of sensors, Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controllers, and other technologies, combined with modern optimization algorithms, the online dynamic calibration controls of line spacing and plant spacing are implemented. At the same time, image processing and GABP algorithm are used to detect the effect of the seeding system to further realize precise seeding. Finally, through field test, the seeding performance of precision seeder is further verified. The author has made the satisfactory modification, conform to the requirements of the published. I agree that published the article.

Reviewer #4: The article builds a machine learning-based intelligent corn seeding model, which uses genetic algorithm and GABP algorithm, and finally designs and builds a platform for the seeding effect monitoring system. Through specific experiments, the model proposed in this paper is further developed. The effectiveness of the system. Although the article has clear ideas and fluent writing, there are still problems in the article, such as unclear description and insufficient results. In this revision, the authors have already addressed all the comments. 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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No