A Decision-Making System for Cotton Irrigation Based on Reinforcement Learning Strategy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors are commended for the manuscript idea, the concepts presented and accompanying results. Indeed, harnessing the predictive power of reinforcement learning can improve the output of the DSSAT model. The authors are requested to review the manuscript to further highlight the data set used in model calibration, the results of stand alone DSSAT model calibration as well as improvements resulting from addition of the reinforcement learning model. Figure 10 hints on these results but further and/or detailed results are requested. Also, possibly to include additional data from other growing season(s). It will also be insightful to include the reinforcement learning model inputs and outputs including datasets used for model training, testing and validation as well as present the model performance metrics including model accuracy.
Additionally, consider improving results description and associated schematics especially the figures in the manuscript. The detailed comments can be found in the attached manuscript with tracked changes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English language in the manuscript is sound and there only a few minor grammatical errors that have been corrected in the reviewer edited manuscript document
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate your commendation of the manuscript idea, concepts presented, and accompanying results. We fully agree that leveraging the predictive power of reinforcement learning can greatly enhance the output of the DSSAT model.
In response to your suggestions, we have made significant revisions to the manuscript. We have provided a detailed description of the data set used in the calibration of the DSSAT-CSM-CROPGRO model, along with the results of the stand-alone DSSAT model calibration. Furthermore, we have highlighted the improvements achieved through the integration of the reinforcement learning model. In the updated version of the paper, we have included additional data from other growing seasons to enhance the comprehensiveness of our findings.
To address your request for more detailed results, we have expanded upon Figure 10 and supplemented it with additional figures and tables to provide a more comprehensive overview of our findings. Moreover, we have included a section dedicated to presenting the inputs and outputs of the reinforcement learning model, including the datasets used for model training, testing, and validation. Additionally, we have incorporated model performance metrics, such as model accuracy, to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the model's performance.
We have taken your feedback regarding the improvement of results description and associated schematics seriously. We have revised and refined the figures in the manuscript to enhance clarity and provide a more comprehensive visual representation of our results. We have carefully reviewed the attached manuscript with tracked changes and incorporated the necessary adjustments accordingly.
Once again, we appreciate your time and effort in providing valuable feedback to enhance the quality of our manuscript. We believe that the revisions we have made address your concerns and significantly improve the manuscript. We are confident that the updated version will meet the standards set forth by the journal.
Thank you for your continued consideration of our work, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Presenting figures in introduction is not necessary. It is better to state the data (statistics) in sentence
- Line 38 – 39; This is a fact, please use a citation to establish the statement
- Make correction to Figure 2. Sentence presenting the statistics is preferrable
- Similarly in Figure 3
- SECTION 2; This should have been captured in the literature review part of the introduction
- In the materials and methods, I expect to see the evaluation metrics comparing observed data with the modelled or simulated data. I expect to see the coefficient of determination, mean absolute error (MAE), Root mean square error (RMSE), NRMSE and the likes
- In the final phase of the M&M, statistical method adopted in the manuscript must be presented
- Figure 10 is blurred. Please, replot and make it clearer
- Similarly Figures 11, 12 and 13
- Table 5; What do you mean by real experiment, why not say observed yield or whatsoever parameter you are measuring
- Since the evaluation metrics was not carried out, we don’t know the best algorithm
- After the incorporation of this correction, the abstract must be re-written
Comments on the Quality of English Language- Presenting figures in introduction is not necessary. It is better to state the data (statistics) in sentence
- Line 38 – 39; This is a fact, please use a citation to establish the statement
- Make correction to Figure 2. Sentence presenting the statistics is preferrable
- Similarly in Figure 3
- SECTION 2; This should have been captured in the literature review part of the introduction
- In the materials and methods, I expect to see the evaluation metrics comparing observed data with the modelled or simulated data. I expect to see the coefficient of determination, mean absolute error (MAE), Root mean square error (RMSE), NRMSE and the likes
- In the final phase of the M&M, statistical method adopted in the manuscript must be presented
- Figure 10 is blurred. Please, replot and make it clearer
- Similarly Figures 11, 12 and 13
- Table 5; What do you mean by real experiment, why not say observed yield or whatsoever parameter you are measuring
- Since the evaluation metrics was not carried out, we don’t know the best algorithm
- After the incorporation of this correction, the abstract must be re-written
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions on our manuscript. We appreciate your thorough evaluation of the paper and your attention to detail. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made significant revisions to address the concerns raised.
In response to your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript to present the data and statistics in sentences instead of relying on figures in the introduction. We have also incorporated appropriate citations to support factual statements, as advised (lines 38-39).
Regarding the figures, we have made corrections to Figure 2 and Figure 3, presenting the relevant statistics in sentences to improve clarity. Additionally, we have re-evaluated and improved the presentation of Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 to ensure clear and crisp visual representation.
In the Materials and Methods section, we have included the evaluation metrics that compare the observed data with the modelled or simulated data. We have incorporated commonly used metrics such as the coefficient of determination, root mean square error (RMSE), and normalized RMSE (NRMSE). Furthermore, we have provided a detailed description of the statistical methods adopted in our manuscript in the final phase of the Materials and Methods section.
We have carefully addressed your concerns regarding Table 5. We have revised the table to provide a clear and concise description of the observed yield or the specific parameter being measured in our real experiments.
To address your comment about the evaluation metrics, we have thoroughly evaluated and compared the performance of different algorithms. We have provided a comprehensive analysis of the results, enabling us to identify the best-performing algorithm.
Finally, we have taken your suggestion into account, and we have rewritten the abstract to reflect the updated content and findings of our revised manuscript.
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript. We believe that the revisions we have made address all the concerns raised and significantly enhance the clarity and quality of our work.
Thank you again for your time and valuable input. We look forward to your further evaluation of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy recommendation is accept
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMy recommendation is to accept
