Combining Proximal and Remote Sensors in Spatial Prediction of Five Micronutrients and Soil Texture in a Case Study at Farmland Scale in Southeastern Brazil
, Sérgio Henrique Godinho Silva 1, Anita Fernanda dos Santos Teixeira 1, Marcelo Mancini 1, Renata Andrade 1, Michele Duarte de Menezes 1, João José Marques 1, David C. Weindorf 2 and Nilton Curi 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The methodology of experiments and experiment design is complicated. A graphic diagram would express it better.
From what measurements or sources were remotely sensed data obtained?
To clarify the progress of the work, it would be appropriate to include pictures or photos from the experiments.
The results are processed from a large number of models and combinations. They mainly present only the detected condition. Conclusions must be formulated concretely and clearly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: agronomy-1956417-peer-review-v1: Combining Proximal and Remote Sensors in Modeling and Spatial Prediction of Soil Available Micronutrients and Texture at a Farmland Scale in Brazil.
I have reviewed the following manuscript, and found it as an interesting work. However, before considering for publication, I have highlighted few review comments, which need to considered for making this manuscript scientifically more concrete and interested for the general readers of this journal. In this regard, I suggest for the major revision. The specific comments on this manuscript are as follows:
1. The term “soil micronutriments” is a broad term, however, this study considered five micronutrients. In the same way, “Farmland Scale in Brazil” shows the extensive assessment of five micro nutrients in Brazil at farmland scale. However, this study is conducted over a specific study area, which is reflecting just as a case study. Therefore, kindly revise the title, and be specific to the used number of micro-nutrients, and study area.
2. Why the authors considered only five micronutrients in this study? Does other micro nutrients are not important or not deficient at the farmland scale in Brazil.
3. Use the exact keywords reflected in this study, e.g., “machine learning techniques” is a broad term, however this study only used Random Forest model.
4. Section 2.1: Also mention English name of plants/crops in addition to technical names.
5. Section 2.1: Use explanation of acronym used for the first time.
6. Lines 126-127: There is no explanation available about the sub-figures of Figure 1. Kindly explain the utility of each sub-figure in this figure.
7. Lines 127-128: This statement is confusing, e.g., “samples were air-dried, ground, and passed through a 2-mm sieve (ADFE)………..”, what does air-dried, ground dried mean, and also what does ADFE stand for…….? Kindly explain it with clarity, and also explain the acronym used for the first time.
8. Lines 147-151: What does “recovery results” mean? This statement is quite confusing, that present study only accounted five micronutrients, but then why authors described a wider range of additional micronutirens in this statement? Is this really necessary to account all these micronutrients other than five main micronutrients. If yes, then discuss the purpose, otherwise, be specific to the five main micronutients.
9. Section 2.3: What is the difference between “catchment slope (CS)” and slope (slp)? What is the utilities of these two terms?
10. Lines 189-190: This statement is confusing. Here, the authors considered only one landuse class: crops, for all models (144 models) consist of both specific (n= 39) and general (n=78) models. However, from Figure 1 b and c, all sampling points are covering different landuse covers, rather only one landuse alone. How to justify this?
11. Lines 190-191: This statement is confusing. Kindly rewrite for easy understanding.
12. Lines197-100: What does authors mean by “variables importance was calculated….”? Kindly explain it for easy undersigning.
13. Lines 205-206: The R2 and RMSE are well known, no need to put their equations. If it is very necessary, then kindly also add the equation for R2.
14. Why did the authors only use multilevel B-splines alone? Why not other interpolation methods: Krigging, IDW, Spline Tension Interpolation, etc.
15. Section 2.4: This section is confusing and hard to fully understand. Kindly rewrite it for easy understanding.
16. Table 3: Kindly present only those five primary micronutriens, which are considered in this study.
17. Figure 5: What is the purpose of this figure? Kindly be specific to those primary micronutrients, because in the current form, it is hard to understand particularly from diverse Y-axis variables.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: agronomy-1956417-peer-review-v2: Combining Proximal and Remote Sensors in Spatial Prediction of Five Micronutrients and Soil Texture in a Case Study at Farmland Scale in Southeastern Brazil
I have reviewed the following manuscript, and found that the manuscript has been greatly improved. However, before considering for publication, the authors also need to describe the following keywords in the abstract, such as “Oxisols; Ultisols; Inceptisols”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
