Spatial Statistical Prediction of Solar-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF) from Multivariate OCO-2 Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting topic: mixing SIF and XCO2, while denoising and gap-filling, using CoKriging (with filtering) technique.

Negative (only cosmetics):

However, I noted a lot of repetitions which make the text longer (too long). Ex:

- one month delay between measurements of both variables is repeated 3 times in the text

- definition of the bivariate model should be addressed in a single paragraph 2.3 and not repeated elsewhere

- two test squares (Corn Belt and Cropland) repeated 3 times ...

Suppressing these useless repetitions will improve reading by shortening the text.

Questions:

- From my understanding, Cokriging ALWAYS gives better results than Kriging (if information and Model of the main variable is kept unchanged) as additional material is considered. At least, the results are the same when no spatial correlation. You do not seem to get to this conclusion...

- You mention that working at fine resolution is always preferable, as you can always "aggregate to coarser resolution". OK for estimation (linear). How can you manage the variance of estimation error (uncertainty)?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW

Title of the paper: Spatial Statistical Prediction of Solar-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence (SIF) from Multivariate OCO-2 Data

Manuscript Number: remotesensing-2506512

General conclusion: Minor Revision.

 

Comments

After carefully reading the proposed paper, this paper contains an interesting proposal; my overall impression is that the manuscript presents some results that could be useful in practice. I have a good opinion about this work and recommend its acceptance after addressing the following aspects:

 

My comments are:

1.    The Abstract is very general. It is necessary to mention a brief description of the content of the manuscript in a clear and concise manner so that the reader can understand the content of the manuscript.

2.    Some punctuation should be added especially on the end of the equations.

3.    Ther caption of the figures is too long.

4.    More information about figures 1 and 4 should be added.

5.    In general, it is usual that section of the introduction presents (in the following order) the topic, motivations of the work, bibliographical review, objectives, the novelty of the manuscript, and description of its sections, with no formulas, which can be moved to a section of background on the topic. This organization must be considered in the revised manuscript.

6.    The author must provide more details about the computational framework used in the manuscript. For example, software and packages used, features of the computer employed, runtimes, and other computational aspects must be added.

7.    The conclusions need to be improved. Also, the authors must add limitations to the study and more ideas for further research. Then, I suggest titling the final section as "Conclusions, limitations, and future research".

8.    Some nonparametric plots should be added for all datasets which be used in this manuscript such as box plot and kernel density plot.

9.    Some recent references should be added to the manuscript, only one reference after 2018.

 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf