Local-Scale Cereal Yield Forecasting in Italy: Lessons from Different Statistical Models and Spatial Aggregations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review concerns the manuscript entitled „Local-scale cereal yield forecasting in Italy: Lessons from different statistical models and spatial aggregations”. The aim of this study was estimate of different local-scale statistical crop yield forecasting tools. The wheat, barley, maize and rice in diverse agro-climatic areas in Italy were tested. The studies showed better predictability of summer crops compared to winter crops, irrespective of the model considered.
The manuscript is very clear and written in a very reader-friendly way. The research methodology was planned and carried out in the proper way. I have only minor comments to the manuscript. Please describe in more detail the climatic conditions of the areas studied (temperature, precipitation, seasonal weather variation). Does the author think "soft wheat" is synonymous with "common wheat"? If so, please change 'soft' to 'common'. In the "Conclusions" chapter, please explain why the summer crops showed relatively better predictability than winter crops. In my last comment you can find tips and suggestions for the future. In this paper were analyzed both common (?) and durum wheat. In my opinion, they cannot be assessed together, because they are characterized by different climate requirements and react differently to the weather changes. This can distort and modify the results.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract is very well done, highlights the structure of the study. In the abstract, more concrete information should be introduced regarding the types of cereals analyzed, the characteristics that influence the forecasting capacity of production, the most important meteorological indicators or remote sensing, some should be exemplified to give even greater importance to the abstract.
In the chapter 2 Material and Methods the study area is described. The studied area cannot be part of the Material and the Method should be a separate chapter representing the study area or this subchapter could be included in the introductory chapter.
The maps (Figure 2.) must be modified as indicated in the legend of the unit of measurement. What are the values 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? From a cartographic point of view, the represented unit of measurement must be included in the legend
Three remote sensing indicators were used in the analysis, indicators that have different spatial resolutions. A brief explanation should be introduced as to how these indicators were integrated into the analysis so that the different resolution would not lead to errors.
The results are presented concretely, the discussions being based on results.
The conclusions could be improved by referring to the methodology, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of the implementation of the proposed methodology.
The bibliography is properly structured.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
