Developing a p-NDVI Map for Highland Kimchi Cabbage Using Spectral Information from UAVs and a Field Spectral Radiometer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of my concerns. There are two minor edits needed to be done before the publication.
(1) Several figures are not described in the text, for example: Figure 8 and Figure 11. I suggest removing the figure if no text cites the figure.
(2) "Figure 6 (F1 and F2) Figure 6 shows ..." in Lines 255-256, "Figure 7 Figure 7 ..." in Line 261 are not clear. Edit the sentence of figure description.
(3) Language needs to be edited throughout the manuscript, make sure it reads clear and concise.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for your meticulous, informative, and reasonable comments on our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
Thanks to your kind review, the manuscript seems to be getting into the final stage with good results.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your meticulous and careful review twice.
Sincerely.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing my concerns on your manuscript! The present version has improved a lot compared to the previous one.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for your meticulous, informative, and reasonable comments on our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
Thanks to your kind review, the manuscript seems to be getting into the final stage with good results.
Once again, we sincerely thank you for your meticulous and careful review twice.
Sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached document for comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for your meticulous, informative, and reasonable comments on our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
I reinforced the manuscript as possible following your point.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is to map Kimchi cabbages from UAV and spectroscopy. Field spectroscopy was used to identify the wavelengths that are mostly related to healthy/unhealthy cabbages, and to correct NDVI derived from UAV. And UAV was used to create the final NDVI map. In general, the goals, methods and results are clear, and the topic fits for Agronomy. However, the manuscript is not written concisely, I suggest to edit throughout the paper, and remove texts that are not necessary. Also add some clarification on several things I pointed in comments. Please see my detailed comments below:
Line 112: Remove one “Figure” from “Figure Figure 1”, this applies to all the figure and table index in the manuscript. Please remove the duplicate word throughout the paper.
Figure 4: How many cabbages were measured in each point?
Line 158: Does object refer to per cabbage? If yes, you mentioned measurements were averaged per cabbage, did you also average the measurements across cabbages to point level?
Section 2.4: I feel this section is kind of duplicating texts. For example, (1), (2) and (3) have been covered in section 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. (4) will be covered by section 2.5. You can convert (5) and (6) in a concise paragraph after section 2.5 to talk about NDVI mapping.
In addition, Figure 5 covers the info described in (1), (2), (3), and (4), you can add a block of creating NDVI map after “Comparison of Vegetation Index” to fully cover the texts in (1) to (6).
Line 213: “the hyper spectrum sensor” should be described as “the hyperspectral sensor”.
Line 215: Why hyperspectral data eliminate highly correlated bands?
Line 218: It would be useful to include more description on NDVI and PRI, what and why?
Line 222: Why GNDVI here? This index is not the focus of this manuscript.
Figure 6: Make y-axis the same (0-100) for (a) and (b), so readers can make a direct comparison from the figure. You showed two spectra figures for (a) and (b): raw spectra and mean/std, in my opinion, one of them is enough.
Figure 7: My comments on y-axis label and using one spectra, either raw or average, are the same as comments for Figure 6.
Figure 8: This is a good comparison figure.
Figure 13: The info from this figure seems to be covered by Figure 14.
Line 341: What’s the purpose of making the regression between PRI and NDVI?
Line 378: Any validation to the created NDVI map?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you for your meticulous, informative, and reasonable comments on our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
I reinforced the manuscript as possible following your point.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
