Multi-Parametric Approach to Management Zone Delineation in a Hazelnut Grove in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript explores management zone delineation in a hazelnut grove and while it is supported by an adequate number of references and results, several revisions are necessary to improve its quality.

1.     The abstract requires significant revisions to improve clarity. Specifically, the authors need to identify two VIs, restructure the abstract to improve organization, clarify the relationship between VIs, growth assessments, and ECa data, and avoid confusing and unclear sentences. Additionally, the reviewer believed the RGB imagery was associated with the UAV images. The authors should point it out.

2.     Line 127-128: The authors need to address the situation where trees are close to each other, making it difficult to separate plants from the background. This issue is not addressed in Line 127-128.

3.     Line 140-142: the authors should explain why they chose two additional VIs.

4.     the manuscript requires careful review and revision for clarity and accuracy. For example, there are several grammatical errors, inconsistent tense, inconsistent verb form, and unclear clauses in Lines 147-160.

5.     there are too many long sentences throughout the manuscript that make it unclear. The authors need to restructure these sentences, including Lines 25-28, 275-279, 285-288, and 327-330.

6.     the authors need to include the research gaps of existing studies in the introduction section, rather than in the discussion and conclusion sections. The discussion and conclusion sections should emphasize how this study fills the existing research gaps.

7.      the conclusion section needs to be rewritten to include a more detailed description of the results, rather than just one sentence that followed by the summary of the study's contribution.

In conclusion, the manuscript presents an interesting topic, but requires revisions to improve its clarity and accuracy. The authors should pay close attention to grammatical errors, sentence structure, and the organization of the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections.

The manuscript requires careful review and revision for clarity and accuracy.  The long sentences should be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my specific comments;

1. Introduction

1.1 Line 37-76: Why a hazelnut farmer need multi-parametric approach for his field? What are the research and practical gap leading to your research, using multi-parametric approach? What is wrong with the current approach?

 

1.2 Line 41-47: A duplication of two sentences, appear to convey the same meaning.

 

1.3 Line 56-58: Zude-Sasse et al. [5] reported low correlation of elevation, soil ECa and generative plant growth. Please check your statement.

 

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Line 82-83: Why not the whole 7.3-ha of hazelnut?

 

2.2 Line 84: Are they planted with the same variety of hazelnut? As different varieties of hazelnut demand different management options.

 

2.3 Line 109-110: Only one composite sample was taken in each MZ is too few to estimate the method of moments variogram reliably. At least 100 sampling points are required to estimate the method of moments variogram reliably (Oliver, 2010; DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9133-8). 

 

2.3 Line 117: 75 nm (red), should read 750 nm (red).

 

2.4 Line 127: ... a visual comparison,... how?

 

2.5 Line 164: h-1 should read h(superscript -1)

 

2.6 Line 172: How did you derive 84 randomly selected hazelnut plants from each MZ or from both MZs?

 

3. Results

3.1 Line 202: ECa values should read ECa models.

 

3.2 Line 214 and Figure 2: Should display the ECa map based on the ECa models in Table 1. Please see Figure 3 in Bonfante et al. (2015), cited as ref [4] in your manuscript.

 

3.3 Line 219: ECa values should be presented in Table 2.

 

3.4 Line 211-224: What were the management options implemented on MZ1 and MZ2 that influenced pH, organic carbon, Total nitrogen and C:N ratio?

4. Discussions
4.1 Please see comment 1.1, and
4.2 Again please discuss the contributions of your research results compare to other approach, may be your approach will be adopted by hazelnut farmers to improve decision for irrigation and other external inputs. Your approach may offer a better field delineation map than the current approach.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Line 353: ... that more fertile soil conditions ..., please provide definition or characteristics of 'fertile soil conditions' based on sections 2 and 3. Please see Maleki et al. (2023,  10.3390/agronomy13020445), which used the term 'soil quality'.

Thank you.

See above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A location map of the study area must be included

It is important to describe the climatic characteristics of the area

You can improve the discussion of results by using some additional references

In Figure 3, it would be advisable to show a zoom magnification to see the detail

Does not comply with the MDPI format

Author Contributions, Review MDPI format for references

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

To Authors:

 

Thank you for efforts to improve the manuscript to meet the Journal's quality. However, I find that some issues remain to be clarified as follows:

 

Lines 16, 93, 235 and 372: ~3 ha should read 2.96 ha (according to MZ1 and MZ2 areas reported on Line 235)

 

Line 88: Please add 'Canopy Index equations'.

 

Line 94: 7.3-hectare should read 7.3 ha.

 

Line 98: Please add soil series name based on the National soil classification system or USDA Soil Taxonomy or FAO World Reference Base for soil resources. 4th edition, i.e., 'The soil was classified under ... as a member of ...'

 

Line 231-232: Please add locations of a composite soil sample taken in each MZ as mentioned in line 127-128.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

They have not incorporated a location map of the study area in the geospatial context of the country.

The climatic characterization of the study region is not included.

Errors persist in the reference format, after reference 30, number 1 appears.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf