Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature
, Jean P. S. da Silva 3 and Álvaro B. da Rocha 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature
General comments:
The manuscript titled "Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature" has been reviewed. The paper addresses an interesting and timely subject matter of the soil temperature aspects. I find the scope of the materials presented fitted better with this journal. However, the paper lacks content to be published in state.
The abstract presented in this article outlines the essential values of the article but the authors could add more significant results to strengthen the message.
Concerning the introduction section, the introduction lacks arguments and does not bring anything new. The authors do not clearly state the problem and their contributions.
About the materials and methods, this part is quite described.
About the results and discussion. there is a lack of results and discussions.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers
Firstly, we appreciate the comments and suggestions.
Meteorological stations frequently obtain soil temperature; however, it is rarely used since the thermal factor is not considered a limiting factor for agricultural production (in general, the studies emphasize only the water movement). This variable is estimated until the present day by the model proposed by Horton et al. (1983). Due to simplicity, it does not predict the influence of external factors such as cloud cover (in this way, daily cycles would be similar with slightly different magnitudes of temperatures). The article proposes a physical-mathematical review to insert a variable referring to cloud coverage and, in addition, aims to serve as a theoretical basis for future studies on this topic.
Reviewers #1 and #2 scored similar aspects that will be addressed below:
- In the Summary Section, an excerpt referring to the methodology and results was inserted. Such insertion seeks to “awaken” the interest of the bed from an overview of the article (lines: 19 – 22; page 1);
- In Section Introduction, aspects were inserted to expand the contextualization of the problem (lines: 42 – 52; page 1 – 2). However, the authors chose to present it clearly and succinctly, the main focus being the physical-mathematical review carried out in the Material and Methods Section; and
- The Result and Discussion section was renamed to “MODEL RESULT” since it is restricted to the theoretical application of the model for two different situations of the daily cycle (page 6). However, it becomes crucial because it is possible to identify the effects of cloud cover on heating (nighttime) and cooling (daytime).
Reviewer 2 highlighted that the model is limited since it is based on many assumptions. However, the authors emphasize that all premises are knowledge consolidated by the scientific community, and, in addition, similar premises were used by the model proposed by Horton et al. (1983). This, in turn, is widely used despite limitations.
Reviewers #3 highlighted aspects that the authors disagreed with. The article exposes to the readers the justification and importance of such reformulation, being evidenced in the MODEL RESULT the influence of cloud cover on the thermal behavior of the soil. The authors presented the knowledge objectively so that it became a short article but fulfilling and detailing all relevant aspects to achieve the objectives. However, the authors leave the option to the editor to reclassify the article to the Short Communication modality.
This article intends to contribute to an area of significant importance for precision agriculture. Finally, estimating the soil temperature is essential for cases where the thermal factor becomes a limiting factor for agricultural production.
Sincerely,
Carlos Antonio Costa dos Santos, Ph.D.
Corresponding author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I read the manuscript titled “Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature” with keen interest. Overall, the scale of reformulated model is limited as it is based on many of assumptions, therefore, its credibility is under mark. Your work is belonging to theoretical site, try to introduce some practical aspects in your study. The testing of model (calibration) should be carried out to prove the ability of model for estimating soil temperature under varying conditions. In abstract section, the methodology part is missing, please improve it. Introductions need to be improved to express the broader scope of the study. In Figure 2B, why the temperature is more under higher cloud cover than smaller one??? The discussion part is week and need to be expanded by giving more references.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers
Firstly, we appreciate the comments and suggestions.
Meteorological stations frequently obtain soil temperature; however, it is rarely used since the thermal factor is not considered a limiting factor for agricultural production (in general, the studies emphasize only the water movement). This variable is estimated until the present day by the model proposed by Horton et al. (1983). Due to simplicity, it does not predict the influence of external factors such as cloud cover (in this way, daily cycles would be similar with slightly different magnitudes of temperatures). The article proposes a physical-mathematical review to insert a variable referring to cloud coverage and, in addition, aims to serve as a theoretical basis for future studies on this topic.
Reviewers #1 and #2 scored similar aspects that will be addressed below:
- In the Summary Section, an excerpt referring to the methodology and results was inserted. Such insertion seeks to “awaken” the interest of the bed from an overview of the article (lines: 19 – 22; page 1);
- In Section Introduction, aspects were inserted to expand the contextualization of the problem (lines: 42 – 52; page 1 – 2). However, the authors chose to present it clearly and succinctly, the main focus being the physical-mathematical review carried out in the Material and Methods Section; and
- The Result and Discussion section was renamed to “MODEL RESULT” since it is restricted to the theoretical application of the model for two different situations of the daily cycle (page 6). However, it becomes crucial because it is possible to identify the effects of cloud cover on heating (nighttime) and cooling (daytime).
Reviewer 2 highlighted that the model is limited since it is based on many assumptions. However, the authors emphasize that all premises are knowledge consolidated by the scientific community, and, in addition, similar premises were used by the model proposed by Horton et al. (1983). This, in turn, is widely used despite limitations.
Reviewers #3 highlighted aspects that the authors disagreed with. The article exposes to the readers the justification and importance of such reformulation, being evidenced in the MODEL RESULT the influence of cloud cover on the thermal behavior of the soil. The authors presented the knowledge objectively so that it became a short article but fulfilling and detailing all relevant aspects to achieve the objectives. However, the authors leave the option to the editor to reclassify the article to the Short Communication modality.
This article intends to contribute to an area of significant importance for precision agriculture. Finally, estimating the soil temperature is essential for cases where the thermal factor becomes a limiting factor for agricultural production.
Sincerely,
Carlos Antonio Costa dos Santos, Ph.D.
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Article does not meet requirements.
No theoretical justification for the problem is provided. Fairly old literature was used. There is no analysis, summaries, insights and comments of the authors.
The article is too short for a scientific journal of this level.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers
Firstly, we appreciate the comments and suggestions.
Meteorological stations frequently obtain soil temperature; however, it is rarely used since the thermal factor is not considered a limiting factor for agricultural production (in general, the studies emphasize only the water movement). This variable is estimated until the present day by the model proposed by Horton et al. (1983). Due to simplicity, it does not predict the influence of external factors such as cloud cover (in this way, daily cycles would be similar with slightly different magnitudes of temperatures). The article proposes a physical-mathematical review to insert a variable referring to cloud coverage and, in addition, aims to serve as a theoretical basis for future studies on this topic.
Reviewers #1 and #2 scored similar aspects that will be addressed below:
- In the Summary Section, an excerpt referring to the methodology and results was inserted. Such insertion seeks to “awaken” the interest of the bed from an overview of the article (lines: 19 – 22; page 1);
- In Section Introduction, aspects were inserted to expand the contextualization of the problem (lines: 42 – 52; page 1 – 2). However, the authors chose to present it clearly and succinctly, the main focus being the physical-mathematical review carried out in the Material and Methods Section; and
- The Result and Discussion section was renamed to “MODEL RESULT” since it is restricted to the theoretical application of the model for two different situations of the daily cycle (page 6). However, it becomes crucial because it is possible to identify the effects of cloud cover on heating (nighttime) and cooling (daytime).
Reviewer 2 highlighted that the model is limited since it is based on many assumptions. However, the authors emphasize that all premises are knowledge consolidated by the scientific community, and, in addition, similar premises were used by the model proposed by Horton et al. (1983). This, in turn, is widely used despite limitations.
Reviewers #3 highlighted aspects that the authors disagreed with. The article exposes to the readers the justification and importance of such reformulation, being evidenced in the MODEL RESULT the influence of cloud cover on the thermal behavior of the soil. The authors presented the knowledge objectively so that it became a short article but fulfilling and detailing all relevant aspects to achieve the objectives. However, the authors leave the option to the editor to reclassify the article to the Short Communication modality.
This article intends to contribute to an area of significant importance for precision agriculture. Finally, estimating the soil temperature is essential for cases where the thermal factor becomes a limiting factor for agricultural production.
Sincerely,
Carlos Antonio Costa dos Santos, Ph.D.
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature
The review paper entitled "Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature" has been reviewed. The authors have sufficiently corrected the paper. They also proposed to move the type of the paper to short article. I am okay with that. However The "Results model" is not sufficient to me. According to the authors, the paper is adressed to readers in the context of agricultural soil. Many studies worked at evaluating the relationship between soil temperature and weather data (https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/42/8/1520-0450_2003_042_1139_adstda_2.0.co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf)
In addition, the authors should argue why they used data during nighttime period at 1 am and daytime period at 1 pm.
Also, they could compare the results with other tools like: https://www.greencastonline.com/tools/soil-temperature
My opinion is that 2 figures are not sufficient to be considered as model results. The authors could for example present results in summer cloudy day, compare with sunny day, to see the real impact of the model on soil temperature. May be repeat this to all seasons.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.002
Author Response
Answers to the reviewer comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Firstly, thanks for the comments and suggestions.
In particular, the authors point out that all sections were revised in order to the article. The answers to the observations made by the reviewers will be shown below.
Reviewers #1
The authors were excited by the recognition of the corrections made. As a strategy to broaden the discussions, studies focusing on air temperature were used. In addition, it used a study that analyzed the maximum and minimum soil surface temperature trends over China. From these, two new paragraphs were inserted in the “Model Results” Section (line: 198 – 215; page 7).
This section highlighted the motivation for estimating the temperature for those specific times (line: 175 – 179; page 6). Such a strategy was employed to facilitate the reader's quick perception of the main approaches: nighttime heating and daytime cooling. Inserting more graphics would only “visually pollute” the article as it would not bring anything new.
The authors are conducting experiments in order to apply the model to estimate soil temperature. In particular, equipment developed to obtain cloud coverage is being employed. These, in turn, were published in the journal Sensors (MDPI): 10.3390/s20164606 and 10.3390/s21113836.
Reviewers #3
The authors proposed the reformulation of the model based on a grounded theoretical review. In addition, the authors intend to broaden the discussion using data obtained by conducting experiments soon.
We appreciate all suggestions for improvements to our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Carlos A. C. dos Santos
(Corresponding author)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the future, it would be worth providing a deeper theoretical rationale for the topic.
Author Response
Answers to the reviewer comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Firstly, thanks for the comments and suggestions.
In particular, the authors point out that all sections were revised in order to the article. The answers to the observations made by the reviewers will be shown below.
Reviewers #1
The authors were excited by the recognition of the corrections made. As a strategy to broaden the discussions, studies focusing on air temperature were used. In addition, it used a study that analyzed the maximum and minimum soil surface temperature trends over China. From these, two new paragraphs were inserted in the “Model Results” Section (line: 198 – 215; page 7).
This section highlighted the motivation for estimating the temperature for those specific times (line: 175 – 179; page 6). Such a strategy was employed to facilitate the reader's quick perception of the main approaches: nighttime heating and daytime cooling. Inserting more graphics would only “visually pollute” the article as it would not bring anything new.
The authors are conducting experiments in order to apply the model to estimate soil temperature. In particular, equipment developed to obtain cloud coverage is being employed. These, in turn, were published in the journal Sensors (MDPI): 10.3390/s20164606 and 10.3390/s21113836.
Reviewers #3
The authors proposed the reformulation of the model based on a grounded theoretical review. In addition, the authors intend to broaden the discussion using data obtained by conducting experiments soon.
We appreciate all suggestions for improvements to our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Carlos A. C. dos Santos
(Corresponding author)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Reformulation of the Used Model to Estimate Soil Temperature
The authors have answered all comments and questions. No further comments.
