Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: Little effect of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip quality

Alessandro Suardi; Sergio Saia; Vincenzo Alfano; Negar Rezaei; Paola Cetera; Simone Bergonzoli; Luigi Pari

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261810

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 10, 2021
20 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Yongbo Li, Editor PONE-D-21-04650 Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: scarce role of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip quality PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Saia, 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 04 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, Yongbo Li 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: to follow correct English language usage, the title should read "Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: little effect of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip quality". Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission information. 4. We note that Figure 1 includes an image of individuals. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for these individuals. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: This paper presents a research on pruning harvesting based on the modular chipper prototype PC50. A statistical analysis was conducted to find out the best combination of knife type, unloading system and speed of the feeding system of the mentioned prototype. This paper is good. However, in my opinion following changes are necessary before publication: 1. Please clarify more why author specifically choose this particular prototype. If possible, present a comparison with existing other modular chipper. 2. Please try to improve the English language. 3. Correct the headings number ? 4. Reference citation should be consistent throughout the paper. 5. Conclusions are needed to be more specific and concise. Reviewer #2: Some comments are given as follows: (1) Lack of significant contributions: The contribution of this paper is not significant. The proposed methodology has limited novelty, and the overall impact is not significant enough; (2) Clarity and Presentation: the paper is not well presented, and there are quite some English writing errors/typos. The authors are suggested to check the whole paper carefully to avoid such errors. ****** 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 [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments for plos one journal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261810.r001
Revision 1
11 Jun 2021 Author Response Response Reviewer #1: This paper presents a research on pruning harvesting based on the modular chipper prototype PC50. A statistical analysis was conducted to find out the best combination of knife type, unloading system and speed of the feeding system of the mentioned prototype. This paper is good. However, in my opinion following changes are necessary before publication: R: thanks for the good evaluation of the ms. Please clarify more why author specifically choose this particular prototype. If possible, present a comparison with existing other modular chipper. 1. Please clarify more why author specifically choose this particular prototype. If possible, present a comparison with existing other modular chipper. R: The prototype has been developed within the European project "Europruning". The peculiarity of the prototype was certainly its versatility and ability to adapt to different farm contexts. This feature of the machine makes it unique and as suggested it has been emphasized in the lines 117-121 of the manuscript (lines refer to the tracked change mode). The most important trait of the modular prototype is that it could be modified at farm level in order to adapt it to different harvesting logistic, allowing the unloading of the chipped product on a wagon towed by a tractor at the back or at the side of the prototype, unloading the chopped product on big bags, or in the container that can be installed on top of the prototype. To the best of our knowledge, there are no modular machines in the market or other similar prototypes. However, there are various commercial non-modular shredders on the market that were mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the manuscript. From this point of view, we regret to say that we could have not test other similar prototypes since there is scarce information on the availability of similar prototypes and, at the one time, the project would have not funded a work on other tools. 2. Please try to improve the English language. R: Thanks for the suggestion. English has been revised and improved in many lines of the ms. 3. Correct the headings number ? R: Done 4. Reference citation should be consistent throughout the paper. R: thanks for the suggestion, the reference were double checked with Mendeley and corrected, where relevant 5. Conclusions are needed to be more specific and concise. R: thanks for the suggestion. Extensive and redundant part of the conclusions were deleted. Some additional parts were clarified and the fuel consumption per unit yield highlighted at the light of the energy production. Reviewer #2: Some comments are given as follows: (1) Lack of significant contributions: The contribution of this paper is not significant. The proposed methodology has limited novelty, and the overall impact is not significant enough; R: We regret to say that the reviewer evaluation is not fit for either the ms and the journal. In particular, with regards to the ms topic, the work is not based on the application of an innovative methodology, but on an overall study of the performance and quality of work of a prototype of modular chipper for the collection of pruning residues, using a well-established methodology already applied in countless studies. In addition, the tool studied here is not under a commercial production and the potential impact of the implementation of its modularity (either here or in other tools) may boost the sustainability of the use of similar devices. In addition, this study fills a gap in the chipper sector by describing the performance of an innovative machine that does not exist on the market: a modular chipper capable of adapting to different harvesting logistics, and with a chipping system based on helical knives, which has been scarcely investigated in the literature. Therefore, the study represents an innovation. Finally, the study applies a complex statistical analysis to compare the data collected in different cropping seasons, on different types of prunings (in term of plant species), various machine settings and different harvesting logistics of the chopped product, reaching a considerable complexity of analysis. This analysis allow to provide a reliable and robust result on the treatments applied. With regards to the journal, we would like to pinpoint that Plos1 does not take into account the perceived novelty of the work and accepts manuscripts as a publication given that the methodology is correct, as also clearly indicated in the journal website (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information). Nonetheless, additional comments throughout the ms were provided to highlight the novelty of the study. (2) Clarity and Presentation: the paper is not well presented, and there are quite some English writing errors/typos. The authors are suggested to check the whole paper carefully to avoid such errors. R: Thanks for the suggestion. English has been revised and improved and various sentences were made clearer. Please check the ms in the tracked change mode. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261810.r002
4 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-21-04650R1Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: little effect of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip qualityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Saia 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 Dec 19 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: https://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, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ******** 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 #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 #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: This manuscript can be accepted. All the questions were answered satisfactorily. I have no further comments. Reviewer #3: The work done are appreciable. The manuscript is written in good fashion but few things need to be added. The study does not include effect generated by the wear of knives and the influence of the hardness of different woods processed. In my opinion without these results the study is not complete. Another thing, the data and study plan is too small in the MS. If possible, Please include more data in the study ****** 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 [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.0261810.r003
Revision 2
14 Nov 2021 Author Response Rebuttal letter for PONE-D-21-04650R1 Reviewer #1: This manuscript can be accepted. All the questions were answered satisfactorily. I have no further comments. Authors: thanks for your positive comments, that helped us to improve the ms. Reviewer #3: The work done are appreciable. The manuscript is written in good fashion but few things need to be added. The study does not include effect generated by the wear of knives and the influence of the hardness of different woods processed. In my opinion without these results the study is not complete. Another thing, the data and study plan is too small in the MS. If possible, Please include more data in the study Authors: firstly, we would like to thanks for the positive comments, that helped us to improve the ms. Regarding the additional comments received, we would like to pinpoint to both the reviewer and editor that the work indirectly took into account the hardness of different woods processed, since we used woods from different species and growing seasons. In addition, studying the role of the hardness of different woods processed was not a direct aim of the study. Also, the study of the wear of knives was out of the scope of the present work. Indeed, it may have add interesting information, but the aim of the study was acquiring information on the efficiency of the system in term of time needed, fuel and quality of the product. These aspects will likely be included in other works, but not in the present work. We’d also like to pinpoint that the completeness of a study is achieved when the methods respond to the aim and not to the number of topics dealt. We thus disagree the opinion of the reviewer that the study is not complete since she/he is proposing us another different study. Regarding the data and study plan, all the information to reproduce the work were provided and the complete raw dataset was provided in the supplementary material. We avoided providing other data in the main ms since this would have inflated uselessly the ms. The ms presently have 7 big-sized tables. Nonetheless, all the data produced were included in the supplementary material, including the covariance parameter estimates. We thus fear that the reviewer may have inadvertently missed part of the results provided. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: R2 rebuttal letter .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261810.r004
13 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: little effect of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip quality PONE-D-21-04650R2 Dear Dr. Sala 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, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261810.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-21-04650R2 Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: little effect of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip quality Dear Dr. Saia: 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. Tunira Bhadauria Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261810.r006

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 .