Towards a Low-Cost Comprehensive Process for On-Farm Precision Experimentation and Analysis^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Comments

 

Dear Editor,

The manuscript entitled “On-Farm Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions” The challenge is to integrate OFPE into applied management with minimal disruption of stakeholder practices while drawing on historic knowledge about the field and economic constraints. However, the authors must address a major concern before the manuscript may be considered for publication. The following are my observations on these topics.

·       Authors should mention the full form in the paper initial appearance.

·       In the Manuscript the figure visibility is less it must be changed.

·       Why the only OFPE framework was used in this study is any other framework which is applied by authors.

Abstract:

·       In the abstract, authors should keep the material flowing. It's also a good idea to highlight the most noteworthy findings and novelties.

·       There is no issue statement or research gap.

Introduction:

·       The introduction portion should be strengthened. The existing research gap and why the study is necessary.

·       Rewrite the line 50 to 56

·       The introduction portion should be strengthened. The existing research gap and why the study is necessary are not mentioned.

·       Why used only OFPE data, are you compare with another framework.

Materials and Methods:

·       Step 3. Data Aggregation rewrite this section

·       Step 5B. Simulation Explain this section again

Results:

·       Explanation of the result should be rewritten concisely.    

·       All the figures must be correct the visibility of the figure is not good.  

Conclusions:

·       The scientific analysis of the difference is insufficient, and it is also necessary to supplement the evidence for the necessity the area.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

The manuscript entitled “On-Farm Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions” The challenge is to integrate OFPE into applied management with minimal disruption of stakeholder practices while drawing on historic knowledge about the field and economic constraints. However, the authors must address a major concern before the manuscript may be considered for publication. The following are my observations on these topics.

• Authors should mention the full form in the paper initial appearance.

The definition of OFPE was added at the first appearance in the text (Line 70).

• In the Manuscript the figure visibility is less it must be changed.

The resolution of the images has been enhanced to as high as possible and the figure moved to the appendix has been recreated for clarity. Please let us know if figures need additional reformatting and enhancing.

• Why the only OFPE framework was used in this study is any other framework which is applied by authors.

The reasoning for only focusing on the OFPE framework in this paper was that it is a novel management strategy developed by the authors with the intent of using this manuscript as an introduction to the methodology behind the approach. At the time of writing to present there is no other management strategy we are aware of that fuses on-farm experimentation with precision agriculture tools and technology into a feasible management approach that farmers can apply.

 

Abstract:

• In the abstract, authors should keep the material flowing. It's also a good idea to highlight the most noteworthy findings and novelties.

Thank you for the advice, the successful implementation of the OFPE framework as a management strategy was added as a key finding for the introduction of readers to the OFPE management approach (Line 27-30).

• There is no issue statement or research gap.

The implicit reference to the research gap in the first line was an oversight on our part and so we have added an explicit statement of the research gap (Line 9-13).

Introduction:

• The introduction portion should be strengthened. The existing research gap and why the study is necessary.

Thank you for noting that we overlooked making the existing research gap clear. The research gap of the need for bridging academic agronomic research with practical management solutions was explicitly added in the introduction prior to introducing the novel OFPE agronomic management strategy (Lines 87-89).

• Rewrite the line 50 to 56

Lines have been rewritten to be clearer for readers (Line 55-61).

• The introduction portion should be strengthened. The existing research gap and why the study is necessary are not mentioned.

The research gap of the need for bridging academic agronomic research with practical management solutions was explicitly added in the introduction prior to introducing the novel OFPE agronomic management strategy (Lines 87-89).

• Why used only OFPE data, are you compare with another framework.

We did not compare with another framework as we have not found any other framework that parallels what has been developed with the OFPE framework regarding the complete lifecycle of utilizing data to decision support application. We believe the OFPE framework is a novel management strategy developed by the author’s and introducing the methodology behind the approach is the main purpose of the manuscript.

 

Materials and Methods:

• Step 3. Data Aggregation rewrite this section

The section on data aggregation was rewritten and reorganized to be clearer for readers (Line 276-304).

• Step 5B. Simulation Explain this section again

The section on simulation was rewritten and reorganized for clarity (Line 430-529). It also highlights how giving farmers the ability to simulate management outcomes under weather and economic uncertainty addresses a gap in PA and simple OFE research.

Results:

• Explanation of the result should be rewritten concisely.

Thank you for the advice, we have condensed the results section (Lines 654-962).

• All the figures must be correct the visibility of the figure is not good.

The figure in the results section was moved to appendix and reworked to make more visible and clearer.

Conclusions:

• The scientific analysis of the difference is insufficient, and it is also necessary to supplement the evidence for the necessity the area.

As the purpose of this manuscript was to introduce the methodology of the OFPE framework we declined to include complete scientific analysis of results as these are subjects of other scientific papers. We decided to reference these case studies in the results as they present the scientific analysis of each topic in detail. However, the discussion and conclusion have been edited to explicitly state the need for research and development in decision support tools, which we believe the OFPE framework satisfies.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

agriculture-2105463-peer-review-v1
On-Farm Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions.

In this paper, author shares a study on-farm precision experiments framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions. The topic seems to be interesting. However, the quality of proposed work is not good according to the following comments:

1.      In introduction section authors do not explain the significance of proposed method.

2.      Novelty of new concept is not enough for publication.

3.      There is a major need to revise the article, because there are several grammatical mistakes in native English writing.

4.      Overall presentation of paper is not attractive. The advantages and disadvantages section is not included.

5.      I feel that although this may be a useful exercise, the paper does not come up to the international standards for publication. There is hardly any original contribution in this paper and it adds very little to the published literature.

***

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

On-Farm Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions.

 

In this paper, author shares a study on-farm precision experiments framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions. The topic seems to be interesting. However, the quality of proposed work is not good according to the following comments:

 

1. In introduction section authors do not explain the significance of proposed method.

Thank you for the suggestion as it was an oversight in the original manuscript. The OFPE framework is a novel approach that combines on-farm experimentation and precision agriculture into a management framework and decision support system. Lines 69-72 have been added to justify the need for on-farm experimentation and use of field-specific knowledge for making decisions on specific fields in a decision support system. Additionally, additions have been made to the introduction to describe the lack of decision support systems for farmers that provide PA management recommendations (Lines 88-93).

2. Novelty of new concept is not enough for publication.

We respectfully disagree as there has been no other methodology published that defines an approach for combining on-farm experimentation and precision agriculture to generate management recommendations for farmers using only data that is available for free or generated on the farmer’s field.

3. There is a major need to revise the article, because there are several grammatical mistakes in native English writing.

We appreciate the attention to detail you have provided and have rectified the grammatical mistakes found in the original manuscript via edits by the six out of seven native English speaking authors.

4. Overall presentation of paper is not attractive. The advantages and disadvantages section is not included.

We admit that the presentation of the original manuscript needed improvement. We hope edits in the structure and conciseness of the material presented help. The advantages of the OFPE framework are addressed via the case studies presented in the results and summarized in the discussion (Lines 973-982). We also address disadvantages in the discussion (Lines 1084-1093).

5. I feel that although this may be a useful exercise, the paper does not come up to the international standards for publication. There is hardly any original contribution in this paper and it adds very little to the published literature.

We appreciate the critique and hope that the revisions provided show more clearly the addition that the work contributes to the literature. We believe the methodology is an original contribution to the published literature as it defines a framework for agroecological adaptive management that can be applied not only to agronomic input management but conservation as well. Decision support systems that aid farmers in making management decisions that increase their profitability and their environmental sustainability are not present in the literature.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

This paper mainly explains what Montana State University’s On-Field Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework is and its capability. Specifically, the OFPE consists of six steps and can be an effective tool for multiple tasks (e.g. sustainable agriculture) with proper optimization modules. This paper highlights the six steps and addresses them in detail, however, the innovation and significance of this framework are not well supported. In general, the research gap is not clear in this paper. The primary concerns are as follows.

1. What are the differences between the framework proposed in this paper and others? Why the framework proposed in this paper is more advanced? It seems those steps are just normal procedures in precision agriculture. If there are no such frameworks before, please address them clearly in the Introduction Section to highlight the innovation of this framework. 
2. The results part contains several case studies that involve different models. How the framework helps improve the results of those models is not clear. It seems like the framework only handling the engineering work since the details of those works are missing. It is hard to connect those applications with this framework, maybe more details provided can help readers understand this.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

This paper mainly explains what Montana State University’s On-Field Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework is and its capability. Specifically, the OFPE consists of six steps and can be an effective tool for multiple tasks (e.g. sustainable agriculture) with proper optimization modules. This paper highlights the six steps and addresses them in detail, however, the innovation and significance of this framework are not well supported. In general, the research gap is not clear in this paper. The primary concerns are as follows.

1. What are the differences between the framework proposed in this paper and others? Why the framework proposed in this paper is more advanced? It seems those steps are just normal procedures in precision agriculture. If there are no such frameworks before, please address them clearly in the Introduction Section to highlight the innovation of this framework.

From our review of the literature there has been no other methodology published that defines an approach for combining on-farm experimentation and precision agriculture to generate management recommendations for farmers using only data that is available for free or generated on the farmer’s field. Additionally, we believe the methodology is an original contribution to the published literature as it defines a framework for agroecological adaptive management that can be applied not only to agronomic input management but conservation as well. Decision support systems that aid farmers in making management decisions that increase their profitability and their environmental sustainability are not present in the literature.

 

The OFPE framework’s key advancement beyond the normal procedures in precision agriculture is the use of simulation modeling to optimize agronomic inputs and provide them to farmers. Much of precision agriculture is limited to the development of tools and technology but falls short of providing decision support systems that translate the data collected from precision agriculture tools into actionable management recommendations for farmers. The introduction has been added to address these highlights.

 

2. The results part contains several case studies that involve different models. How the framework helps improve the results of those models is not clear. It seems like the framework only handling the engineering work since the details of those works are missing. It is hard to connect those applications with this framework, maybe more details provided can help readers understand this.

Thank you for the advice. The results section has been amended to more clearly define the case studies presented in which the OFPE framework has been used and how the results and insights from those studies benefited from the OFPE framework.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Yes the author include all the comments.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you again for the feedback and comments, we appreciate your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

agriculture-2105463-peer-review-v2

On-Farm Precision Experiments (OFPE) framework: tapping local data to optimize crop sub-field scale decisions

 

The revised paper has not been improved, and I think the authors' attitude to the manuscript is rather casual. After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. I do not see anything new such as the appropriateness, novelty and general significance. Contribution seen in the paper is very less.  Section 3, 4, 5 are elementary. There are also several technical content and quality issues. I am mentioning only a few examples below, but the authors should check for all such errors.

a)      I do not agree with the title. The authors did not actually perform any studies on optimization modelling or method.  

b)      Author should avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in title, abstract, headings and highlights.

c)      The structure of the introduction section is not good. It should have two separate paragraphs at its end, one of which presents the contribution and explanations of this work; and the other one outlines the coming sections.

d)      Figure 1 seems not necessary in this paper, and some of the descriptions of figures could be put under the figures as notes, which makes them clearer to understand.

e)      Do not include references, in conclusion section. Remove all citations from the conclusion section. It can't be tolerated.

 

***

Author Response

The revised paper has not been improved, and I think the authors' attitude to the manuscript is rather casual.

We sincerely apologize if our efforts towards editing have come across as casual. We assure you that we are taking them seriously and genuinely appreciate the feedback you are providing. We value your comments and are doing our best to effectively implement them in our manuscript.

 

After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. I do not see anything new such as the appropriateness, novelty and general significance.

As outlined in our response to c) below, we have added a paragraph in the introduction discussing the knowledge gap that this manuscript provides, which includes references to other papers that call for the need for the OFPE methodology that we are providing. We’d like to note that reference [22] is a recent paper that calls for the methodology we are outlining in this paper. We hope that this further aids in making our case for the novelty and significance of this paper.

 

Contribution seen in the paper is very less.  

While we recognize that this manuscript does not present results directly, we have emphasized that the case studies and references in the results section are contributions to the literature specifically by the authors of this paper. We have structure this paper to reference our other papers that use the OFPE methodology because showing the empirical evidence from those papers would increase the length of this paper drastically and we believe would detract from the main purpose of this paper, which is to introduce and outline the OFPE methodology.

 

Section 3, 4, 5 are elementary.

We have added recognition of the fact that steps 1-3 and described in section 2.3-2.5 are common in many PA approaches (Lines 172-174). However, although they are not novel by themselves, we have decided to keep them in the paper because they contribute to the novel OFPE methodology when combined with steps 4-6.

 

There are also several technical content and quality issues. I am mentioning only a few examples below, but the authors should check for all such errors.

a) I do not agree with the title. The authors did not actually perform any studies on optimization modelling or method.  

Thank you for this comment. The title was something that we had neglected to review and iterate on enough. We have modified the title to “Towards a Low-Cost Comprehensive Process for On-Farm Precision Experimentation and Analysis”. We have selected this title because it more accurately reflects that the purpose of the OFPE methodology is to provide an analysis and recommendation framework using data with low-cost requirements and allows users to plug in the appropriate tools for the task at hand.

b) Author should avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in title, abstract, headings and highlights.

We have removed abbreviations from the title, abstract, headings, and conclusion.

c) The structure of the introduction section is not good. It should have two separate paragraphs at its end, one of which presents the contribution and explanations of this work; and the other one outlines the coming sections.

Thank you for this advice. We have included a paragraph that presents the research gap filled by this paper and introduces the methodology as a way to fill that gap (Lines 93-108). We also added a paragraph with an outline of what is to come in the following sections of the paper (Lines 109-130). Additionally, we have consolidated and restructured the first two paragraphs of the introduction to first introduce the broad challenges facing agriculture in terms of balancing production and sustainability, and second to introduce PA and OFE which the OFPE methodology combines to support the framework for decision support systems.

d) Figure 1 seems not necessary in this paper, and some of the descriptions of figures could be put under the figures as notes, which makes them clearer to understand.

Figure 1 was removed from the paper as the steps illustrated in the figure are covered in depth in the text. In lieu of the figure, the steps of the OFPE methodology are presented in a bulleted format on page 3 (Lines 130-164). Text from lines 387-392 for Figure 2 (previously Figure 3) was moved under the figure to make illustration clearer and tie the relevant text to the figure itself. Text from the section on Step 5B (Section 2.8, lines 486-495) was moved to the caption of Figure 3 (previously Figure 4) to describe the concept outlined in the figure more clearly.

e) Do not include references, in conclusion section. Remove all citations from the conclusion section. It can't be tolerated.

We have removed all citations from the conclusion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx