Meteorological-Data-Driven Rubber Tree Powdery Mildew Model and Its Application on Spatiotemporal Patterns: A Case Study of Hainan Island
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Meteorological Data-driven rubber tree powdery mildew model and its application on the spatiotemporal pattern: a case study in Hainan Island
Abstract
Add some results in digits.
Introduction
Add more about the significant of the models
Materials and Methods
add some more parameters about disease epidemiology.
Results discussions
Co-relate your results with parameters and disease and season.
Give more detail about disease as with area severity.
Conclusion
Ok
References
Re-check the references e.g., format etc.
Improve text by reading, rewrite etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The writing of the English needs a great improvement throughout the text, some sentences are difficult to understand.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript submitted by Kong et al. describes an analysis of data sets from 1980 to 2018 on factors affecting RTPM infection on Hainan Island. The results of the analysis indicate that the RTPM-DI has an influence on the average wind speed and the number of days with moderate rainfall. The topics described are interesting.
I am wondering if the achievements of this case study can be applicable to others. In this manuscript, the authors describe the data analysis and do not discuss specific applications or methods. Is it possible to apply the findings to other diseases and trees on Hainan Island, or to other plantations elsewhere? Or how are the past cases on Hainan Island being reconfirmed? Can they be reproduced in the current working model?
Minor comments
Line 83; The full name of GIS should be provided.
For my opinion, the quality of English on this paper is acceptable, the text is partly fluent but not always.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
L 52-53: Please restructure this sentence for better understanding
L 50-75: There are very few references to support the claims and statements made. Moreover, primarily focuses on powdery mildew in rubber trees (RTPM), but it does not provide a comprehensive overview of the disease itself. Including a brief background on powdery mildew in general, its characteristics, and its impact on various plants would enhance the context and understanding for readers.
L 80-82: While the introduction mentions utilizing a novel methodology and innovative methods, it does not clearly state the specific contributions or novel aspects of the study. Clearly articulating the unique elements of the research would help differentiate it from previous work in the field.
L 82-87: The introduction does not address the potential limitations of the study, such as data availability, sampling biases, or the generalizability of the results. Acknowledging and discussing the limitations would provide a more realistic and balanced perspective for readers.
L 82-83: Please rephrase this sentence for better flow of information
L 99-101: Please rephrase this statement to make it in active voice
L 108-113: The study area (Hainan Island) is briefly described, but important details such as the type of rubber plantations, their geographical distribution, and any potential variations in environmental conditions within the island are missing. Providing more specific information about the study area would improve the clarity and context of the study.
L 140-144: While the sources of meteorological data are mentioned, there is no discussion of potential limitations associated with these data sources. For example, the use of data from multiple sources (CMFD and TPDC) could introduce inconsistencies or biases that may impact the accuracy of the study's conclusions.
L 155-169: The description of the factor expansion methodology is cut short and lacks important details about the statistical techniques used (e.g., PCA). It would be helpful to include more information about the rationale behind choosing factor expansion, the steps involved in the analysis, and how it helps in enhancing the precision and reliability of simulations.
This section does not mention the statistical analysis used to identify meteorological factors that influence RTPM. The process of factor selection should be described in more detail, including any validation techniques used to ensure the robustness of the selected meteorological factors.
L 331-333: The discussion section could benefit from providing more specific details about the analysis methods used, such as the factor expansion and feature selection methods. Including more information about the rationale, statistical techniques, and any limitations of these methods would strengthen the section.
L 334: While the discussion refers to previous studies and their findings, there is a lack of in-text citations. It is essential to support statements with specific references to enhance the credibility and demonstrate a thorough review of the existing literature.
L 351-364: This section could provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the findings. It would be helpful to discuss the implications of the observed correlations between meteorological factors and RTPM-DI, how they align with existing research, and any potential underlying mechanisms. Providing more contextual information would enhance the understanding of the significance of the results.
L 370: This section briefly mentions inherent errors in the meteorological data and acknowledges the complex interaction among different climatic parameters. However, a more comprehensive discussion of the study's limitations, such as data limitations, potential biases, and uncertainties, would enhance the transparency and strengthen the conclusions drawn.
L 371-375: This section acknowledges that RTPM is influenced by factors beyond meteorological conditions, such as wintering patterns, leaf age, and tree species. However, it would be beneficial to address the potential limitations of focusing solely on meteorological factors and discuss how future research could incorporate a more comprehensive analysis of these other factors.
L 384-403: The conclusion section would benefit from summarizing the key findings in a more concise and specific manner. Additionally, it could provide practical implications or recommendations based on the research findings to address the issue of powdery mildew in rubber trees.
Overall, the paper showcases the author's impressive command of the English language. The attention to detail and commitment to clear communication are evident throughout the manuscript
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of my concern, but I have a minor concern.
1) In the conclusions section, which results are summarized to produce the first conclusion with data (R2=..., ..., MSE=...) ? In my opinion, the values in parentheses could be present in the results not in the conclusion.
2) The references in the text. In one sentence, no more than 3 references could be better, and excessive refences may not be necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for following the reviewer's suggestions. The manuscript is a better shape for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
