Crop Classification Based on Temporal Information Using Sentinel-1 SAR Time-Series Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have revised the manuscript well, I think the paper can be accepted for publication now. 

Author Response

We appreciate the thorough reviews provided by the referees . We agree with these suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an approach for including the temporal variations in the growth cycle for crop classification with Sentinel-1 data.

The approach is of interest. However, the differences in the growth cycle of similar plants in different areas are making the development of a widely usable classifier difficult, as the authors also state in line 225 ff. This would make the approach much less usable in practice and I think the authors should state the problem of their approach in this regard more clearly.

The discussion section seems to be missing

The results and the comparison with other classifiers should be discussed in more detail. There are differences and the claimed superiority of the approach is far less clear when looking at details, Not all crops are better classified with the proposed approach and here a detailed analysis on the reasons would be of interest for the readers.

The English needs improvement. The manuscript is understandable, but not publishable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer， 

We appreciate the thorough reviews provided by the referees and handling editor. We agree with these suggestions and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is our response to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications. We hope these revisions resolve the problems and uncertainties pointed out by the referee. In the manuscript and this file, the red parts are revisions to suggested by the referee: 2. The underlined parts in the manuscript are the changed contents corresponding to the suggestions. The contents of wave lines are the changed parts to improve the expressions.

 

 

Regards,

 
 
Hong [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The main questions have been answered and the discussion now reflects better the experimental results. However, the English is not acceptable and the manuscript cannot be published like this. I suggest using a professional language editing service before publication.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-Chief                     

Dr. Prasad S. Thenkabail                                        December 20, 2018

Remote Sensing

 

Manuscript ID remotesensing-407959 entitled

    “Crop classification based on temporal information using Sentinel-1 SAR time series data”.

We appreciate the thorough reviews provided by the referees and handling editor. According to the requests of Editorial Office and the second referee, we sent the manuscript to American Journal Experts for professional English editing. The editorial certificate provided by the company was given below. We hope these revisions resolve the writing problems of this paper and uncertainties pointed out by the second referee. In the revised manuscript, the contents of wave lines are the changed parts to improve the expressions.

 

Regards,

 
 
Hong [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf