Vegetation and Dormancy States Identification in Coniferous Plants Based on Hyperspectral Imaging Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript targets at an interesting development of analytical tools related to plant responses and their survey using Remote Sensing techniques.
The experimental design, data analyses, and overall contribution are suited and promissing.
There are a few issues that ay improve the message. The structure and writing are rather narrative. Sometimes paragraphs no needed ore misplaced. Some examples are:
Lines 94-96 move to methods.
Objectives better expressed:
To correlate spectral responses and climatic adaptations of species of the genus Thuja.
To develop RS HSI tools to assess species adaptations to climatic stress.
Methods must be written straight forward and less narrative.
Fig 1, 2 and 4 to supplementary data.
Fig 3 no needed.
2.3 object of study must be replaced by the targeted species
Results as well, less narrative and focus on the objectives.
Fig 6 and 7 together a and b
Fewer tables to include in supplementary outcomes.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English and structure are my main constraints.
Paragraphs must be shorter, linked and compile a specific message.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Authors are grateful to you for a careful and helpful positive analysis of our manuscript. Undoubtedly, due to your remarks/comments, the manuscript has been significantly improved. All remarks are reasonable, and we have corrected the MS in accordance with the comments and suggestions. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version. The authors hope, the current version of the manuscript will meet your expectations regarding clarity and quality of presentation.
The structure and writing are rather narrative. Sometimes paragraphs no needed ore misplaced. Some examples are: Lines 94-96 move to methods.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. Lines 94-96 moved to methods. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Objectives better expressed: To correlate spectral responses and climatic adaptations of species of the genus Thuja. To develop RS HSI tools to assess species adaptations to climatic stress.
Response: Following your comments, the objectives have been changed. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Methods must be written straight forward and less narrative.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Conditions, Objects and Methods section has been revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Fig 1, 2 and 4 to supplementary data. Fig 3 no needed.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Figure 2 has been removed. Figures 3 and 4 combined. We have decided to keep Figure 1 in the manuscript because we believe that these data are important for readers. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
2.3 object of study must be replaced by the targeted species
Response: Thank you for your comment. Three plant species from the genera Thuja and Platycladus were the objects of the study. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Results as well, less narrative and focus on the objectives.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Results section has been revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Fig 6 and 7 together a and b
Response: Thank you for your comment. Figures 6 and 7 combined. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Fewer tables to include in supplementary outcomes.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Tables 4 and 5 combined. Tables 6 and 7 combined. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
English and structure are my main constraints. Paragraphs must be shorter, linked and compile a specific message.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The manuscript has been revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
Please define all abbreviations at first appearance, abstract and text.
“PRI”, etc
Check if to use italics in variables.
It would be important to better contextualize the findings and end with practical implications in the abstract.
I would suggest the authors not to use the first person.. We, etc
Either write it under the form or research questions were presented as a single paragraph, because you call it objectives of the study. So do not “lisT2:
“to determine informative VIs to describe the phenological cycle of Thuja occidentalis, T. plicata and Platycladus orientalis; • identify «Vegetation» and winter «Dormancy» states of conifers.”
I would suggest not to use this kind of language to study this. The study did that.
“The study used”
In such cases, because this is methods, it would be more important to clearly address why is the reference there, citing it directly. Authors, reference number.
“For many temperate tree species, 12 °C is the temperature threshold below which acclimatisation occurs in au- tumn and above which deacclimatisation occurs in late winter [47].”
It happens in several other cases.
Just as example
“high summer temperatures [49].”
Upper letter is not the common pattern to be used. Also, temperature needs to be in upper letter. Also add a legend to the X axis. Besides the date.
“Figure 1. Seasonal dynamics of air temperature. A: The entire study period. B: Deacclimatization period in spring 2022. C: Acclimatization period in autumn 2022. D: Deacclimatization period in spring 2023. Min – minimum temperature per day; Mean – average temperature per day; Max – maximum temperature per day.”
Looking at the figure alone, it is not clear if this is a mathematical pattern being used, and then the equation should be there. Or if this is experimental docs also, please add the daily length in either hours or minutes, not both. Again, add a legend to access Also include units inside curve brackets.
“Figure 2. Dynamics of daylight hours at the latitude of Rostov-on-Don.”
There is some similarity in the text that should be revised. This is just an example.
“The spectral range of the camera is 450-950 nm, the number of spectral bands (SB) is 125, the spectral resolution is 4 nm.”
Please compare the font size with the rest of the text. Please check the italics. Please also see that the absence of any reference means absolute originality.
“2.6. Calculation of vegetation indices PRI, CCI, and NDVI were calculated from hyperspectral imaging data for plant phe- nology analysis. It is important to note that these VIs have been traditionally used to de- scribe the growth and development of plants. The formulas for calculating these vegeta- tion indices are provided below. NDVI = 𝑅900 −𝑅680 𝑅900+𝑅680 (1) PRI = 𝑅528 −𝑅570 𝑅528+𝑅570 CCI = 𝑅528 −𝑅645 𝑅528+𝑅645 (2) (3)”
It seems to me there are Russian symbols here, so please check the entire text because the international reader will not understand them.
“These are CCI, PRI, PRI/CI2 и PRI_norm. T”
“are CCI, PRI и PRI_norm (Figure 11).”
Please check them all...
Even in table 1 the units must be present The reader does not have to guess. This is just an example.
“Average daily temperature”
or
“Day length”
Please add definition of each variable or abbreviation again below the table under notes. See that this should, in fact, be italics. And like this, just as example.
“p-value”
Please consider all comments made before also there should be some coherence in the aspects of the graphics either use color every time, never use color. I believe color is important, please. see that this is a set of grouped graphics. So again you have to identify each one by a different letter and add a subcaption to each letter after the main caption.
“Figure 5. Seasonal dynamics of CCI, DPI, PRI, PRI/CI2, PRI_norm and NDVI values compared to the dynamics of the daily temperature.”
or
“Figure 11. Distribution of VIs by contribution to Mean Decrease Accuracy Mean Decrease Gini.”
Try not to list every time, or if you do it, link the text also. That is explained that you are going to present one and two.
“In accordance with the periods of «Vegetation» and «Dormancy» identified by cli- matic characteristics, the HSI data were divided into two classes. 1. «Vegetation» class – HSI data obtained in the interval from April 15, 2022 to Novem- ber 1, 2022. 2. «Dormancy» class – HSI data obtained in the interval from November 30, 2022, to March 24, 2023.”
Please check other cases.
Again, usually the unit in this case, the percentage is presented under the form of curved brackets.
“Testing accuracy, %”
“trees” Says really nothing. So the legend must be self explanatory in figure 10.
While I understand the coherence or the idea behind the appearance of these two graphics, it is very difficult for the reader to find out what is what authors should find an alternative way to present this data.
“Figure 11. Distribution of VIs by contribution to Mean Decrease Accuracy Mean Decrease Gini.”
I see commas being used in values in this in several other cases, so make sure they are correct?
“Table 6. Confusion matrix obtained from the RF pixel-based classification of 4 VIs (PRI, PRI_norm, PRI/CI2 and D2) for two target classes «Vegetation» and «Dormancy» for P. orientalis.”
The discussion section is a very brief one and it relies on a limited number of references In such cases, it would be better to link it to merge it with the results section. So that everything is connected.
Unless the journal demands so I would advise the authors to add fitter prospects to the very end of the conclusions section usually without any reference being presented. Nor. any reference to figures.
“[74,75], but not their frost tolerance – their willingness to tolerate certain negative temperatures. Prospects for solving this problem are given by the presence of correlation between the values of negative temper- atures and the values of PRI and CCI, as well as by the fact that in the frosty period the values of these VIs for highly frost-tolerant T. occidentalis and T. plicata differ significantly in level from those of weakly frost-tolerant P. orientalis (Figure 5).”
It is my perspective that the conclusion section is a crucial section in the manuscript, so authors need to say that the title abstract and conclusions need to support relevance of the manuscript so that the reader wants to read and cite the entire manuscript. So I would advise the authors to start by briefly contextualizing this study. So it is clear why is this manuscript being presented, then briefly, the methodology .Clearly, the main findings, practical implications, limitations and future prospects.
Like this, it is not clear. Why is this study relevant.
I would like to see references from 2024 being cited. It is important to update the manuscript
I hope the authors understand the intention of the above comments, specifically in what relates to abstract conclusions and emerging of the results and discussion sections.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Authors are grateful to you for a careful and helpful positive analysis of our manuscript. Undoubtedly, due to your remarks/comments, the manuscript has been significantly improved. All remarks are reasonable, and we have corrected the MS in accordance with the comments and suggestions. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version. The authors hope, the current version of the manuscript will meet your expectations regarding clarity and quality of presentation.
Please define all abbreviations at first appearance, abstract and text. “PRI”, etc. Check if to use italics in variables.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
It would be important to better contextualize the findings and end with practical implications in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Abstract has been revised. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
I would suggest the authors not to use the first person.. We, etc
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Either write it under the form or research questions were presented as a single paragraph, because you call it objectives of the study. So do not “lisT2: “to determine informative VIs to describe the phenological cycle of Thuja occidentalis, T. plicata and Platycladus orientalis; • identify «Vegetation» and winter «Dormancy» states of conifers.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
I would suggest not to use this kind of language to study this. The study did that. “The study used”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
In such cases, because this is methods, it would be more important to clearly address why is the reference there, citing it directly. Authors, reference number.
“For many temperate tree species, 12 °C is the temperature threshold below which acclimatisation occurs in au- tumn and above which deacclimatisation occurs in late winter [47].” It happens in several other cases. Just as example “high summer temperatures [49].”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been removed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Upper letter is not the common pattern to be used. Also, temperature needs to be in upper letter. Also add a legend to the X axis. Besides the date. “Figure 1. Seasonal dynamics of air temperature. A: The entire study period. B: Deacclimatization period in spring 2022. C: Acclimatization period in autumn 2022. D: Deacclimatization period in spring 2023. Min – minimum temperature per day; Mean – average temperature per day; Max – maximum temperature per day.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The figure has been revised based on your feedback. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Looking at the figure alone, it is not clear if this is a mathematical pattern being used, and then the equation should be there. Or if this is experimental docs also, please add the daily length in either hours or minutes, not both. Again, add a legend to access Also include units inside curve brackets. “Figure 2. Dynamics of daylight hours at the latitude of Rostov-on-Don.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Based on reviewers' comments, Figure 2 has been removed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
There is some similarity in the text that should be revised. This is just an example. “The spectral range of the camera is 450-950 nm, the number of spectral bands (SB) is 125, the spectral resolution is 4 nm.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been removed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Please compare the font size with the rest of the text. Please check the italics. Please also see that the absence of any reference means absolute originality. “2.6. Calculation of vegetation indices PRI, CCI, and NDVI were calculated from hyperspectral imaging data for plant phe- nology analysis. It is important to note that these VIs have been traditionally used to de- scribe the growth and development of plants. The formulas for calculating these vegeta- tion indices are provided below. NDVI = ?900 −?680 ?900+?680 (1) PRI = ?528 −?570 ?528+?570 CCI = ?528 −?645 ?528+?645 (2) (3)”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Font size and italics fixed, references added. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
It seems to me there are Russian symbols here, so please check the entire text because the international reader will not understand them. “These are CCI, PRI, PRI/CI2 и PRI_norm. T” “are CCI, PRI и PRI_norm (Figure 11).” Please check them all...
Response: Thank you for your comment. All Russian symbols have been replaced. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Even in table 1 the units must be present The reader does not have to guess. This is just an example. “Average daily temperature” or “Day length”.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Units have been added to all tables. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Please add definition of each variable or abbreviation again below the table under notes. See that this should, in fact, be italics. And like this, just as example. “p-value”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The definition of each variable or abbreviation has been added below the table in the notes. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Please consider all comments made before also there should be some coherence in the aspects of the graphics either use color every time, never use color. I believe color is important, please. see that this is a set of grouped graphics. So again you have to identify each one by a different letter and add a subcaption to each letter after the main caption. “Figure 5. Seasonal dynamics of CCI, DPI, PRI, PRI/CI2, PRI_norm and NDVI values compared to the dynamics of the daily temperature.” or “Figure 11. Distribution of VIs by contribution to Mean Decrease Accuracy Mean Decrease Gini.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Try not to list every time, or if you do it, link the text also. That is explained that you are going to present one and two. “In accordance with the periods of «Vegetation» and «Dormancy» identified by cli- matic characteristics, the HSI data were divided into two classes. 1. «Vegetation» class – HSI data obtained in the interval from April 15, 2022 to Novem- ber 1, 2022. 2. «Dormancy» class – HSI data obtained in the interval from November 30, 2022, to March 24, 2023.” Please check other cases.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Again, usually the unit in this case, the percentage is presented under the form of curved brackets. “Testing accuracy, %”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
“trees” Says really nothing. So the legend must be self explanatory in figure 10.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The legend of the figure has been changed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
While I understand the coherence or the idea behind the appearance of these two graphics, it is very difficult for the reader to find out what is what authors should find an alternative way to present this data. “Figure 11. Distribution of VIs by contribution to Mean Decrease Accuracy Mean Decrease Gini.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The figure and its legend have been changed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
I see commas being used in values in this in several other cases, so make sure they are correct? “Table 6. Confusion matrix obtained from the RF pixel-based classification of 4 VIs (PRI, PRI_norm, PRI/CI2 and D2) for two target classes «Vegetation» and «Dormancy» for P. orientalis.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. Fixed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
The discussion section is a very brief one and it relies on a limited number of references In such cases, it would be better to link it to merge it with the results section. So that everything is connected.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Discussion section has been revised. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
Unless the journal demands so I would advise the authors to add fitter prospects to the very end of the conclusions section usually without any reference being presented. Nor. any reference to figures. “[74,75], but not their frost tolerance – their willingness to tolerate certain negative temperatures. Prospects for solving this problem are given by the presence of correlation between the values of negative temper- atures and the values of PRI and CCI, as well as by the fact that in the frosty period the values of these VIs for highly frost-tolerant T. occidentalis and T. plicata differ significantly in level from those of weakly frost-tolerant P. orientalis (Figure 5).”
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Future Prospects section has been removed. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
It is my perspective that the conclusion section is a crucial section in the manuscript, so authors need to say that the title abstract and conclusions need to support relevance of the manuscript so that the reader wants to read and cite the entire manuscript. So I would advise the authors to start by briefly contextualizing this study. So it is clear why is this manuscript being presented, then briefly, the methodology .Clearly, the main findings, practical implications, limitations and future prospects. Like this, it is not clear. Why is this study relevant.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Conclusions section has been revised. The changes are highlighted in yellow in a “HL-version”.
I would like to see references from 2024 being cited. It is important to update the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We were unfortunately unable to find references from 2024.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript looks OK until Section 3, although I did not check all the technical details. Section 4 = "Discussion" is problematic. It is short, and most of the content reviews previous studies. Only the first and last paragraphs are regarded as real discussions based on the results obtained this time. It is not good to have a very short Section 5 either. The content can be included in Section 4.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI think it is readable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Authors are grateful to you for a careful and helpful positive analysis of our manuscript. Undoubtedly, due to your remarks/comments, the manuscript has been significantly improved. All remarks are reasonable, and we have corrected the MS in accordance with the comments and suggestions. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version. The authors hope, the current version of the manuscript will meet your expectations regarding clarity and quality of presentation.
The manuscript looks OK until Section 3, although I did not check all the technical details. Section 4 = "Discussion" is problematic. It is short, and most of the content reviews previous studies. Only the first and last paragraphs are regarded as real discussions based on the results obtained this time. It is not good to have a very short Section 5 either. The content can be included in Section 4.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting research paper. There are some suggestions for revision.
1. The motivation is not clear. Please specify the importance of this paper.
2. The listed contributions are a little bit weak. Please highlight the novelty of this paper.
3. More tecnical details used in this paper should be given.
4. More comparison results with existing solutions should be given.
5. More descriptions of the datasets used in this paper should be given.
6. More details of data preprocessing and processing should be given.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNA
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Authors are grateful to you for a careful and helpful positive analysis of our manuscript. Undoubtedly, due to your remarks/comments, the manuscript has been significantly improved. All remarks are reasonable, and we have corrected the MS in accordance with the comments and suggestions. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version. The authors hope, the current version of the manuscript will meet your expectations regarding clarity and quality of presentation.
- The motivation is not clear. Please specify the importance of this paper.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Introduction section revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
- The listed contributions are a little bit weak. Please highlight the novelty of this paper.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Introduction section revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
- More tecnical details used in this paper should be given.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Conditions, objects and methods section revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
- More comparison results with existing solutions should be given.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Discussion section revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
- More descriptions of the datasets used in this paper should be given.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Results section revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
- More details of data preprocessing and processing should be given.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Conditions, objects and methods section revised. The changes can be tracked in a track-changed version.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present manuscript is significantly better structured than the previous one and makes it easier to focus on the academic contribution. I am still reluctant to see too many tables but it is a minor issue.
English is still narrative, yet I am not fully qualified to assess language style.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved, thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my concerns have been addressed. I recommend this paper for submission.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNA
