Ultra-High-Resolution UAV-Based Detection of Alternaria solani Infections in Potato Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript " Hyperresolution UAV-based detection of Alternaria solani infections in potato fields" (remotesensing-2039413), demonstrated the potential use automatic detection of foliar diseases in potato plants. Based on a UAV-based high resolution in NIR, the author proposed a hyperresolution term using an RGB-NIR modified camera. However, the term “hyperresolution” is not adequate because it is a simple high-resolution or a “zoom” with a lens based on an image for identification and classification. Maybe a correct can be “high resolution based…,  in your title”

However, the manuscript has a merit to publication, after major correction, specially a results and discussion topic, which should be separated.

The authors have done a large amount of work, employing various references and critical analysis based on a scientific method and structure. The introduction, M&M, its ok, but results and discussion it’s a single topic. Minor correction in points its necessary by adjusting in English synthases. Table 1 (need adjust) and figures are good qualities.

My conception, the manuscript is suitable for publication, after major corrections (separated topic) in special the results and discussion. The structure is adequate, and the information is new and of great significance for comprehension, even if “Hyperresolution” I not considered adequate.

In addition, I would just like to ask the authors a few questions, on small points that I was confused or that were not written in the manuscript.

#01: There is a scope for improvement in the introduction section: a) additional emphasis on the significance of the study to potatoes and other cultures, b) scientific contribution of the paper in integration managing of the crop protections; Maybe a one paragraphs with potential economic by ecotypes selected in your manuscript.;

#02: How this methodology can be extended for other plants: potential challenges, advantages? Do you have any competitive disadvantages (economic, competition between species, changes in phenotypic plasticity based Hyperresolution-UAV)? Added in your results and discussion topic, please.

-Please, use to template “Microsoft or Latex Template” of manuscript to figures, table and references need adjust following “Author Instructions in Remote Sensing” journal.

-Please, check standardizing to scientific and notation terms;

-Please. All standardization of nomenclature equipment/reagents/software when necessary. Example: Fabricant, City, State, Country (three-letter). Check all manuscript.

-Alphabetic order keywords; and not repeat title words

Minor points

L47. Titila (need adjust in reference)

L68. L. no italics

L80. 30^th

L81. Standardization

L101. Error reference

L102. Standardization

L111-112. Standardization

L119-120. Standardization

L145. Standardization

L165-168. Standardization

L177. Standardization

188. “A 1:1 line”,?

L203. Augmentation is increased?

L210. Scientific name; italic

Figure 5. Why test was minor accuracy?

Table 1. check, its not table; What is heatmap? Not a conventional graphics or analysis.

L227. Standardization

L248. Results and discussion; Separate, please follow “Author Instruction” of the Remote Sensing journal;

L255. 135 mm

L346. Accuracy

Author Contributions, Please, check following system submission;

Best regards

Author Response

Pleese see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written and well presented. However it can be improved with minor effort but resulting in a much better product, in my opinion.

Following some concerns the author may want to consider:

the pros and cons of using UAVs should be better detailed. many papers can be found in the literature, for instance the Authors may want to consider this https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/7/1604 (doi: 10.3390/rs14071604) where many related issues are explained and where they also can find good references for a deeper analysis as well.

In general the introduction is well structured however it seems a little bit short. This is a pity because with a small effort it can be quickly expanded in order to achieve a better self contained paper. For instance concepts as NIR, superresolution and proximal sensing, if better developed (not so much, but just few words more), they will provide a more comprehensive background for the interested reader.

line 101: reference seems missing

line 159: the explanation is unclear, more details should be given on how Pij is used. For instance, is it actually a convolutional kernel? Is it actually a density (pdf) instead of a probability (cdf)? Further, what are the consequences of using narrow bandwidths against wider? What is it found in the literature about this problem? What are the tradeoff involved and why you opt for one choice instead of another? In this, the used presentation style does not help because in a text you refer to an equation that you place later, so you tend not to introduce it appropriately and with enough justification. While all these things I am mentioning are provided after the formula.

Section 2.3 in general should be rearranged. For instance at line 144 you firstly recall fig 4, but then at line 170 you recall fig 3 and at line 182 fig 4a is again mentioned. Try to be sequential.

Fig 4 exceeds the margins.

Author Response

Please see te attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider the authors made important changes in the manuscript and it was highly improved. I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments and especially for change to "very high resolution". I recommend the publication of the manuscript in its current form. Best Regards