Suitability of Satellite Imagery for Surveillance of Maize Ear Damage by Cotton Bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) Larvae

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors aim to provide an overview of future approaches to the surveillance of the maize cob damage by cotton bollworm larvae based on remote sensing. We focus on finding the optimal combination of Landsat 8 or Sentinel 2 spectral bands, vegetation indices and maize phenology to achieve the best prediction. Experimental results show the good performance of the proposed method. However, there are still some rooms that need further improvement in this article, especially the introduction and experiment.

1) The introduction section needs further improvement. At present, most of the work only provides examples, with little detailed explanation of the specific implementation process and existing problems of some typical methods. In addition, some image processing based on mapping and detection should also be introduced, such as

[1] Super-Resolution Mapping Based on Spatial-Spectral Correlation for Spectral Imagery [J]. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2021, 59(3): 2256-2268. DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3004353

[2] A GAN-Based Augmentation Scheme for SAR Deceptive Jamming Templates with Shadows [J], Remote Sensing, 2023, 15(19), 4756, doi.org/10.3390/rs15194756

2）The main innovation of this article is not prominent enough. What are the main contributions of this article that the author should list at the end of the introduction?

2) The authors should compare with existing methods to highlight the superiority of the proposed method.?

3) Is the proposed method equally applicable to other sensors or regions?

4) Can the authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method?

Author Response

Thank you for giving the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort of your review regarding our manuscript and give your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Please find the detailed point-by-point responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- The abstract must be reformulated since it does not incorporate objective research results.

- Authors must provide a detailed contextualization of the study, highlighting its relevance and need within the current research field. This section should be reinforced with relevant and recent technical data and references.

- It is essential to conduct a broader and more up-to-date literature review, which includes a variety of relevant studies and establishes the state of knowledge in the research area.

- Research objectives and questions must be clearly defined, specific, measurable, and directly aligned with the identified research gap.

- Formulating clear and substantiated hypotheses is mandatory.

- A preliminary description of the methodology is required in the introduction, providing an overview of the approaches and methods that will be applied in the study.

- A detailed technical justification should be provided for the choice of the Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 satellites, including a discussion of the resolution and spectral capabilities concerning the study's specific objectives.

- It is imperative that the selection of vegetation indices be explained based on empirical evidence of their effectiveness in detecting pest damage differentiating between biotic and abiotic stress.

- Field methodology must be fully detailed, including sampling procedures, frequency of observations, and data analysis methods to ensure replicability and validity of the research.

- Authors must accurately describe the statistical methods used, justify their selection, and explain how they are applied to the data collected.

- It is essential to detail satellite and field data quality control procedures, including sensor calibration and atmospheric error correction.

- They must explicitly recognize and discuss methodological limitations and their potential impact on the results and conclusions of the study.

- Results must be reorganized to ensure a clear and logical presentation. 

- Full details of the statistical methods applied should be provided, including the rationale for their choice, p values, confidence intervals, and any other relevant statistical parameters. This information is essential to validate the results presented.

- Any unexpected or anomalous results must be identified and discussed in the study context. 

- It is mandatory to include a discussion about the limitations of the data and how these affect the results and conclusions of the study. 

These recommendations should be implemented before consideration for publication or at any subsequent review stage. 

- Inconsistent use of tenses, which can confuse the temporal sequence of the investigation

- Grammatical errors that interrupt the flow and clarity of the text

- Cases of ambiguous phrases that could lead to multiple interpretations, possibly misunderstanding the findings or arguments of the study.

- Lack of fluency 

The authors must carry out a thorough review of the document, preferably with the assistance of a professional editor with experience in the subject area. Addressing these language issues is not optional but a mandatory step before the paper can be reconsidered for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for giving the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort of your review regarding our manuscript and give your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Please find the detailed point-by-point responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the authors’ reply. I don't have any other questions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I confirm that all previously noted concerns have been adequately addressed. The modifications enhance the manuscript's clarity and scientific rigor, aligning it well for publication consideration.

I have reviewed the latest version of your manuscript and am pleased to note that the revisions pertaining to language, coherence, and cohesion have been effectively executed. The text now demonstrates improved readability and logical flow, enhancing its overall quality.