Prediction of Strawberry Dry Biomass from UAV Multispectral Imagery Using Multiple Machine Learning Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting manuscript with UAV and multispectral sensors, and I believe it adds technical knowledge to remote sensing applications. This manuscript aimed to explore the biomass model of strawberries using UAV multispectral imagery with machine learning methods. Six regression methods and two types of variables were studied and evaluated for biomass prediction. I believe the manuscript will interest the audience of Remote Sensing Journal. Following specific comments that may help the authors to improve this manuscript.
1. The term vegetative biomass appears in the title, and fresh biomass is also mentioned in the manuscript. However, the author uses dry biomass most often in the manuscript. I want the authors to explain the relationship between these three terms in the introduction.
2. How do the authors understand the biomass and yield of strawberries? As a cash crop, we are more concerned with its yield than biomass.
3. The authors obtained UAV images at an altitude of 15m. Does the image obtained by the UAV at different flight altitudes have any effect on the results of this manuscript?
4. In figure 1a. Is it possible to replace this picture? I'd rather see a picture with a flying drone and the multispectral sensor. I feel there is no need to do a comparison experiment with UAV imagery and ground base imagery. I would like to see the picture of the ground-based equipment if the authors insisted on doing a comparative experiment.
5. In figure3. Is the module of CHM calculation not associated with other parts? Not enough arrows in this picture.
6. In 2.4.4. The authors should add clarification on the choice of the six regression models. Why use these six methods?
Author Response
We have addressed the reviewer’s comments carefully and made all required revisions. All the edits in the manuscript are tracked. The following is a detailed itemized list of of our responses to all reviewer’s comments. Please see the attachments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Major revision is recommended. Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have addressed the reviewer’s comments carefully and made all required revisions. All the edits in the manuscript are tracked. The following is a detailed itemized list of of our responses to all reviewer’s comments. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
