Individual Maize Location and Height Estimation in Field from UAV-Borne LiDAR and RGB Images
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focused on the individual maize location and height estimation using LiDAR and RGB sensors. The methodology makes sense (although the scientific component of this study is not clear and some segments of this paper are structured as a professional paper) but the writing quality is not good enough for a scientific level of the Remote Sensing. I am suggesting a potential publication of this research after thorough major review.
The Results section lacks clearly written statistical accuracy values, preferably in tables.
The Discussion section is very poorly structured and must be significantly improved. Presently, it contains only a brief discussion solely from this study. The point of discussion is that you compare it to previous research and describe the implications and scientific contribution of this study. It is expected to also insert a substantial number of references.
The English language is subpar throughout the manuscript and must be improved.
Specific comments:
Lines 9-10: The first two sentences are too general and are somewhat unnecessary. Please insert a sentence consisting of a clear and specific importance of crop height in agriculture.
Lines 32-35: Please split this sentence into two shorter ones.
Lines 36-39: This part is too sensationalistic (and partially inaccurate). How is it unprecedented regarding the spectral resolution compared to satellite images? Also “game-changer” should be changed. Please fix these issues.
Figure 1: The text is too small and most of it is not visible at all. All components of the figure must be clearly visible to the readers (otherwise, what is the point of them?).
Line 148: What is the horizontal and vertical accuracy of the RTK corrections?
Lines 183-184: This sentence seems very weird (probably bad translation). Please make it clearer.
Figure 5: The figure is too small and the description is not written well (“Induvial”). The scale bar is missing here.
Lines 213-215: Please insert a reference for this statement.
Line 271: Fix “planta”.
Lines 284-286: Please insert a reference for this statement.
Line 298: Abbreviations r and p are not explained in the text.
Figures 10, 11, 12, 13: These are too small and are poorly readable, similar to Figure 1.
Figure 14: This should not be a part of a Discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292)
Manuscript ID remotesensing-1682436
Title
Individual Maize Location and Height Estimation in Field from UAV-borne LiDAR and RGB images
It is a valuable contribution although I have some comments to improve the quality of the work in case the editors and authors want to take them into account.
- I propose to add a table of abbreviations to make it easier for the reader to understand.
- Try not to express the manuscript in the first person. Avoid “ We …”
- In the tables and in the text, the days of sampling should be expressed in days after seeding. This way the results are easier to be interpreted.
- Add the keywords “maize” aand “corn”, delete the keyword “individual location”
- Figure 13 is not cited in the text. Please revise.
- Improve the discussion section by comparing with other previous studies where the results obtained are compared.
- Check line 430 “cm and the mean MAPE of 1.88%. ”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my previous suggestions. I have no more comments to add.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript following my suggestions. For my side it can be published.
