Analyzing Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Growth Pattern Using High Spatial Resolution Images: A Case Study at Lakehead University Agriculture Research Station, Thunder Bay, Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled "Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop growth pattern analysis 2 using remote sensing". While the authors have presented a manuscript with a good structure, I have several comments and suggestions for both the editors and authors to consider.

1-      In my view, the article's title is overly broad and doesn't align well with the specific content, focusing on a single type of remote sensing data, a single study area, and a single year. A less generalized title is needed.

2-      The assertion that the results highlight the capability of remote sensing technology in assessing wheat status is somewhat generic and has been explored in other studies (https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9080437 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12183223 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15184631 ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2007.09.002 ). It would be more beneficial to draw conclusions specific to the use of optical drone imagery.

3-      The innovation of the research, particularly the use of the space-time cube in evaluating winter wheat conditions, needs a clearer presentation in the introduction.

4-      Additionally, details about methods for removing errors and outliers in canopy data (mentioned in lines 219 to 220) should be elaborated upon.

5-      A flowchart outlining the general steps of the research would enhance reader understanding.

6-      More information on the XGB algorithm's application for wheat yield prediction is crucial, including details about input data, algorithm parameters, and variations in yield data that are used in modeling.

7-      The performance of the XGB algorithm in predicting wheat yield seems suboptimal, prompting consideration of simpler ML algorithms. The impact of data on these results is notable, and a decision regarding machine learning algorithm selection should be taken regarding the input data.

Author Response

Hello Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. They helped to improve the manuscript .

Regards,

Authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled „Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop growth pattern analysis using remote sensing” presents interesting study on application of remote sensing methods for crop growth monitoring. Manuscript demands some changes:

Please follow the guidelines for authors, eg. in the title of the manuscript words should start with capital letters.

Please be more careful in proper writing the words, eg. line 26: typo in word “Yeild”.

I suggest to shorten the Introduction. The part of Introduction between lines 30 and 63 is very general. It should be shortened to be more specific and connected with the aim of the study.

Please adjust the format of multiple citations, for example line 71: there is “[9][11][12][13]” but should be: “[9, 11-13]”.

Please be more specific in describing the aim of the study. In line 131 there is “remote sensing technology”. Please notice that remote sensing has very vast meaning, including different methods of measurement. Please add some details.

Why do you write in some parts of the manuscript “Remote Sensing” or “Nitrogen” using capital letters. It is not proper name.

Line 155: “very high spatial resolution”. Please notice that spatial resolution depends on flight altitude and at very high altitude it can be not very high. I suggest to present number of pixels of the camera sensor.

It the Table 3 I suggest to add additional column which will present total dose of pure nitrogen. Moreover, the names “ESD” and “Anvol” demand explanation.

In the Fig. 3 in the charts there are usually 2-3 lines but the photo next to each chart is only one. For each line? Moreover, for what treatment are these images and charts?

3.2.1. Times Series Clustering: It is not clear what method was used for clustering. Please provide more details of methodology for clustering presented in 3.2.1

Fig. 8: In which units is presented volume per plot?

Fig. 9: In which units is presented “green weight data”?

Fig. 8-10: What does it mean “index” on horizontal axis in the chart in the left upper corner?

3.4 Yield estimation: Please provide more details on the results of yield prediction. How it was performed and validated?

Some expressions are not clear enough. For example in Conclusions there is phrase “Root Mean Square Error was 70g”. 70 g per what? Yield is usually presented per certain unit. It is per 1m2 or other area?

One important disadvantage of the study is only one year and one environment study. Such studies should include environmental variability.

Author Response

Hello Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions. They helped to improve the manuscript .

Regards,

Authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to most of my comments and I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved according my comments.

The manuscript is still not formatted according the guidelines for authors. Please adjust formatting of the references.