Identification and Delineation of Broad-Base Agricultural Terraces in Flat Landscapes in Northeastern Oklahoma, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reported a technology for identifying and classifying terraces using computer vision. This work is of great significance to realize the automation of terrace recognition of digital soil mapping in order to improve the transmission of soil information, thus realizing resource protection and land use. This is an interesting story, but there are still some problems to be solved by the author. 

 

Specific comments:

Title

Please add “USA”.  Not all readers know where Oklahoma.

Abstract

Abstract is the main object and scope of the research work, the means and methods adopted, the results and important conclusions drawn, and sometimes other important information with intelligence value. However, it is regrettable that the current situation is not satisfactory, and it is suggested to modify it.

Keywords

1. Introduction

The introduction part is used for the background, significance, development status and current level of this research field. Review and summarize the literature in related fields, including previous research results, problems solved, and evaluate or compare them appropriately

It points out the unsolved problems and technical gaps left by the predecessors, and it can also put forward new problems, new methods and new ideas to solve these new problems, thus leading to the motivation and significance of their own research topics.

However, it is obvious that the introduction of this manuscript is insufficient.

It is suggested to modify it again.

 

2. Materials and Methods

This part is too messy. You need to divide it into several sub-headings.

The main problems were as follows: First, you should add a section about the research area, which I think is very necessary; Second, a separate section on data acquisition and processing; Third, a separate section was provided for the technical description, and a flow chart was suggested; Fourth, there were many English abbreviations here. Please use the full name of the place where it first appeared. Not all readers know English abbreviations; Fifth, the author should briefly introduce the random forest algorithm used later. Sixth, the verification methods of classification results need to be listed;

 

 

So I suggest that this part should be rewritten.

 

3. Results

This part is also very confusing. It is suggested that the author divide it into several sections to show your results and highlight your key points. At present, all the results are mixed together, which makes people feel confused, and the results are mixed with this discussion. In addition, the five research sites whether it can be moved into materials and methods.

 

Line 173 In Figure 1, the title name should be listed in a separate row.

4. Discussion

In the "discussion" section, the significance of the research findings is given based on the connection with the existing literature and research, that is, the results of this study are compared and discussed in the research field to which they belong, so as to establish the connection between individuals (this study) and academic communities (the research topic belongs). But at present, I feel that the discussion part is too scattered and needs to be further modified to make it more reflect the value of your research.

 

5. Conclusions

Conclusion, as a part of the writing content, is indispensable. The conclusion of the paper is a summary made by combining the preface, background and arguments in the paper. It can also predict the future trend or look forward to the future according to the analysis of the current situation, the analysis of the existing countermeasures and the analysis of the development trend in the paper. In addition, the last sentence is basically consistent with the last sentence of the abstract. I suggest whether it is possible to write a sentence that is more realistic. What practical significance this classification technology can bring to the United States or other similar regions in the world is now too common.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reported a technology for identifying and classifying terraces using computer vision. This work is of great significance to realize the automation of terrace recognition of digital soil mapping in order to improve the transmission of soil information, thus realizing resource protection and land use. This is an interesting story, but there are still some problems to be solved by the author. 

 

Specific comments:

Title

Comment: Please add “USA”.  Not all readers know where Oklahoma.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The “USA” has been added to the title.

Abstract

Comments: Abstract is the main object and scope of the research work, the means and methods adopted, the results and important conclusions drawn, and sometimes other important information with intelligence value. However, it is regrettable that the current situation is not satisfactory, and it is suggested to modify it.

Response: The abstract has been revised. Research objectives have been stated clearly and statements have been clarified with regard to the approach and the results.

 

Keywords

1. Introduction

Comments: The introduction part is used for the background, significance, development status and current level of this research field. Review and summarize the literature in related fields, including previous research results, problems solved, and evaluate or compare them appropriately

It points out the unsolved problems and technical gaps left by the predecessors, and it can also put forward new problems, new methods and new ideas to solve these new problems, thus leading to the motivation and significance of their own research topics.

However, it is obvious that the introduction of this manuscript is insufficient.

It is suggested to modify it again.

Response: We appreciate the comments of the reviewers. We slightly modified certain statements and paragraphs for clarity. In the introduction we provide background and rational on traditional terraces for sloping areas and the impetus for the need to recognize and delineate in efficient ways terraces in flat landscapes where their appearance is not obvious. We clearly state the objective of developing algorithms for delineating terraces in flat landscapes. Because such terraces are unique in comparison with traditional ones, it was hard for the authors to find study cases for comparison. Any suggestions from the reviewer are appreciated. The Introduction would have benefited most from specific comments.    

2. Materials and Methods

Comments: This part is too messy. You need to divide it into several sub-headings.

The main problems were as follows: First, you should add a section about the research area, which I think is very necessary; Second, a separate section on data acquisition and processing; Third, a separate section was provided for the technical description, and a flow chart was suggested; Fourth, there were many English abbreviations here. Please use the full name of the place where it first appeared. Not all readers know English abbreviations; Fifth, the author should briefly introduce the random forest algorithm used later. Sixth, the verification methods of classification results need to be listed;

So I suggest that this part should be rewritten.

Response. The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions. We have subdivided the methods section, incorporated the suggested rephrasing and rewriting, and incorporated a flow chart to capture the process step by step.

3. Results

Comment: This part is also very confusing. It is suggested that the author divide it into several sections to show your results and highlight your key points. At present, all the results are mixed together, which makes people feel confused, and the results are mixed with this discussion. In addition, the five research sites whether it can be moved into materials and methods.

Line 173 In Figure 1, the title name should be listed in a separate row.

Response: The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions. The results section has been divided into three sections that follow the logical steps presented in the methods. Also, statements and paragraphs have been clarified.  

 

4. Discussion

Comment: In the "discussion" section, the significance of the research findings is given based on the connection with the existing literature and research, that is, the results of this study are compared and discussed in the research field to which they belong, so as to establish the connection between individuals (this study) and academic communities (the research topic belongs). But at present, I feel that the discussion part is too scattered and needs to be further modified to make it more reflect the value of your research.

Response: The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions. The discussion part has been reorganized to better address the comments and the flow of the paper. A paragraph has been added to better describe the significance of the approach with regards to methodological improvements for delineating terraces and management of resources.    

 

5. Conclusions

Comment: Conclusion, as a part of the writing content, is indispensable. The conclusion of the paper is a summary made by combining the preface, background and arguments in the paper. It can also predict the future trend or look forward to the future according to the analysis of the current situation, the analysis of the existing countermeasures and the analysis of the development trend in the paper. In addition, the last sentence is basically consistent with the last sentence of the abstract. I suggest whether it is possible to write a sentence that is more realistic. What practical significance this classification technology can bring to the United States or other similar regions in the world is now too common.

Response: The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions. The conclusion section has been revised with clarifying statements about the importance of the study with regards to methodology development and farm management decision support. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The results of the paper - Identification and Delineation of Broad Base Agricultural Terraces in Flat Landscapes in Northeastern Oklahoma are significant in defining terrain derivatives for identification and delineating terrace features in flat landscapes. The authors point out random forest algorithm as effective for the classification of terraces and non-terrace areas in flat landscapes. I agree to accept the paper for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has carefully revised it according to the comments, and I suggest that it be published after minor revision.

It is recommended to remove the background color of Figures 4, 5 and 6.

Author Response

Thank you for this request. We have improved the figures by removing the background color and by saving them as .svg (scalable vector graphics), which will not lose resolution when resized according to the needs of the editor. We thinks this improves the quality of the visuals and we hope this satisfies the need for better graphics that are more compatible with publication.