Recent Trends and Advances in Utilizing Digital Image Processing for Crop Nitrogen Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author should revise the review to make it more concise and clearer. It is essential to dedicate a paragraph at the end of the Introduction section to clearly outline the review

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author needs to double-check to ensure accuracy and consistency regarding the data used.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort to see improvement in the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all your concerns as outlined in the Point-by-point response document. We hope our updating addresses all your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review aims to analyze research trends in applying DIP to PNM over the past 15 years, summarize the most recent studies, and identify challenges and opportunities available for future research. Some concerns are below.

(1) In Overview of Digital Image Processing, it is suggested that the diagrams of some cases should be combined to present a certain aspect of the technology to make the paper more readable.

(2) It is recommended to increase the longitudinal axis in Figure 2.

(3) In Challenges and Future Directions, the content is scattered and lacks a central argument to effectively distinguish them in order to improve coherence.

(4) Table 2 is a long spread, and it is recommended to further condense the keywords to make this table compact.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As shown in comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort to see improvement in the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed all your concerns as outlined in the Point-by-point response document. We hope our updating addresses all your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript summarized recent applications of Digital Image Processing for crop nitrogen inspection and management. The quality of writting, format, figures and table is satisfactory. The logic of the whole manuscript is very clear. However, some problems must be addressed. Suggestions are provided below for your consideration. 

1. Quite a lot important references were missing. It was declaired that 'analyze research 12 trends in applying DIP to PNM over the past 15 years, ... Only 62 articles have been published within the time considered. ' It is almost impossible that only 62 articles could be found about this topic. 

I have searched the papers about this topic via Web of Science. I used the terms 'nitrogen', 'machine learning', 'computer vision'. The first three records were:

A deep learning approach to measure stress level in plants due to Nitrogen deficiency

Nondestructive measurement of total nitrogen in lettuce by integrating spectroscopy and computer vision

Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Techniques Using RGB Imaging for Nitrogen Stress Detection in Maize

All these references fit the scope of this review. But non of them was cited and discussed in the manuscript. 

2. Abstract. 'Although digital image processing (DIP) is a promising solution to address these issues, less attention is being given to this research area.' This sentence was very hard to understand. Some many articles are published in this topic, why did the authors say 'less attention'?

3. Keywords. SPAD is listed as a keyword. I have searched this term in the whole manuscript. Only two were found. Another one appear at Line 216. Since SPAD is considered very important, why not make a detail introduction and discussion about this point? Moreover, no explaination about what is SPAD, what is the relationship between SPAD and nitrogen, were all missing.

In addition, search on Web of Science, using 'SPAD', 'machine learning', 'deep learning' , there were also quite a lot published papers. For example,

Development of a low-cost portable device for pixel-wise leaf SPAD estimation and blade-level SPAD distribution visualization using color sensing

Contactless and non-destructive chlorophyll content prediction by random forest regression: A case study on fresh-cut rocket leaves

Machine learning regressor for the prediction of the SPAD value of indoor basil with RGB monitoring

Three-Dimensional Quantification and Visualization of Leaf Chlorophyll Content in Poplar Saplings under Drought Using SFM-MVS

Simultaneously predicting SPAD and water content in rice leaves using hyperspectral imaging with deep multi-task regression and transfer component analysis

Please kindly pay attention that when searching for published articles, different results would be observed using 'image processing' or 'computer vision' or 'RGB imaging' or 'intelligent vision' or 'color imaging' or 'machine vision'. Similarly, 'deep learning', 'AI', 'machine intelligence' and so on, express the the meaning. Please used more combinations of the terms to search for published articles.

4. It's already October 2024 now. Why did the authors choose papers published during 2009-2023 for analysis? The latest progress in this area was missing. It was also not suitable to consider methods presented at 2009 as recent methods. Only discuss those over the past 5 or 10 years could be better.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort to see improvement in the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for giving specific comments as how we could improve our manuscript quality We have addressed all your concerns as outlined in the Point-by-point response document. We hope our updating has addressed all your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thanks for your submission and work!
I may contribute some suggestions and reflections on it:

1) delete 'precision' from the title and leave it in the key-words. And actually - you work on "N-fertilization", and I miss this term.

2) line 9: replace misuse by use
3) line 16: insert: Outcomes show and delete 'widespread' (especially latter is not discussed in the paper): you may refer to "hindering wider application of...."

4) line 16 and several more: please use neutral statements only. Avoid judgmental terms like "only...." - or use it, when there is a clear comparison or scale.

In the Introduction:

The physiology of N appears supernumary in this context, focus on the topic of your review.
Nitrogen is a macro- or major nutrient for plants and should be described such as.
line 73 - is it really a "huge" necessity? Why?
line 78 - again, avoid judgmental terms, keep to pure facts. That makes reading easier and more fluent. Leave the evaluation to your readers.

I have the impression, you already present results/outcomes in the introduction. As to be suggested:

Create a Results and Discussion paragraph and consequently results and the discussion in this.

Comments on Material and Methods:

Clearly describe your Methods and Way to work and analyze. Nothing else.

Line 89 - is it 3 or 4 databases?

Paragraph 3 - to my understanding - should be in the introduction

Paragraph 4 - to my understanding - should be split into Introduction and Results

What is the scientific reason/question for Figure 4? Are there consequences in argues from this?

Explain Figure 3 and the process to it in more detail (Methods) - what is the scientific reason for it?

Once more: clearly present results and their discussion and maybe evaluation in "Results and Discussion"

Finally - re-write Conclusions. Compared to the major part of your work, I apologize, it appears a bit poor. There is much more in your review that can be presented in Conclusions.

All the best and kind regards.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time and effort to see improvement in the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for giving specific comments as how we could improve our manuscript quality We have addressed all your concerns as outlined in the Point-by-point response document. We hope our updating has addressed all your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your review goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please eliminate the use of redundant words. Eg. In this way, Recently, Respectively, therefore, currently, thus, hence, finally, to do this, first, in order, however, moreover, nowadays, today, consequently, in addition, additionally, on the other hand, furthermore. – Please revise all similar cases, as removing these term(s) would not significantly affect the meaning of the sentence. This will keep the manuscript as CONCISE as possible. Please check ALL.

Author Response

Thank you for your continuing support to see improvement in the overall quality of our manuscript. They are valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed your concerns and comments as given in the attached Point-by-Point Response document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved their manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for all the comments and guidance given in the first round of review that made to improve our manuscript's quality.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for your responses and the effort to work the paper over!

All the best.

 

Author Response

Thank you for all the comments and guidance given in the first round of review that made to improve our manuscript's quality.