Research on Red Jujubes Recognition Based on a Convolutional Neural Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
L22-28: It is not easy to understand the whole paragraph: concepts are mixed up and not well linked. In addition, the authors begin their justification of their work without any bibliographical citation to support their interest.
L34: “With a long history”. This has been said before: it has been repeated!
L36: “superior natural conditions”. What does this mean?
L39-44: In the second half of the paragraph, they unnecessarily repeat "red jujubes". It needs to be reworded without using redundant language.
L45-55: Use expressions such as: "good results”, “excellent results”, “reliable selection”… to present readers with the results of the research the authors have consulted is "childish". Authors must "specify" the results obtained by "other researchers" through unique methods, in order to place the research at a threshold of success (of the methods used) with which the results obtained by the authors in their research can be disputed.
I hope that the paper does not follow this line of work.
L53-55: The wording of the last three lines must be rewritten or else the paper is unreadable.
L56-67: Concerning the whole paragraph
- L56-58: The objective of the work is completely vague and imprecise. The authors should specify what they are aiming to achieve through the study they are going to present.
- “In the past, researchers have used various deep learning models to identify and classify red jujubes of different varieties and qualities, but they mainly studied red jujubes that had already been classified”. What is the point of this right after the objective of the work? Either it serves to "specify" the objective, so that they have to write it down-summarise it within the objective, or they introduce it before the objective so that it modifies what was previously stated.
- “This study chose images of red jujubes still growing on trees for detection and selected interference images such as berries and apples, which are similar to red jujubes, for research, compared to directly detecting red jujubes with many environmental interference factors”. Either the interest of these aspects, with their corresponding bibliographical citations, is introduced in a paragraph prior to the objective of the work, in the introduction, or they are added in the material and methods, justifying their inclusion for methodological reasons (comparisons). It makes no sense here!
- “Therefore, this study is significant”. But... what is this? What do the authors mean? This is irrelevant, ostentatious, even impolite! They justify the interest of their research by finding a place in the scientific literature or by a greater interest that... in no case have they justified so far!
- “In principle, the method proposed in this study can be applied to other crops to benefit precision agriculture and digital agriculture. This method is flexible and can be integrated in the future to replace a large number of single human work”. This should be at the end of the discussion or in a section where the authors indicate the implications of the fruit of their research, not in the introduction.
In general, the introduction lacks justification of the interest of the authors' work and a background of other work that has set the authors on the way to carry out their research. It needs to be reworded, with citations that support the authors' claims and guide the authors' work.
L86-88: This has been said before: it has been repeated!
L100-103: In other words, an undetermined number of images used in this work have not been taken by the authors, but have been "borrowed" from "public" image databases (which ones? how many??) and thus pretend that readers believe that the work is "original"???
L262: This has been said before: it has been repeated! In the following lines they also repeat again and again what they have already written before...
L399-400: This has been said before: it has been repeated!
L401-405: This seems more like a conclusion than a discussion of the results obtained. It should be removed from this section.
Figure legends should be better explained in the figure captions.
L422-434: The authors mention here a very important aspect: "the efficiency of the detection methods", but... this is not explained in the material and methods, nor does the information they provide give the reader a clear idea of the execution times or of a possible hierarchy of methods (in terms of execution times - detection).
L441-443: I beg the authors to re-read what they have written here: it is totally contradictory, it is very complicated to understand if one is better than the other and why!!!!
L445-449: In my view, the authors are "overly optimistic" about the applicability of their research, and venture applications that they have not discussed in the corresponding section. It does not seem to me to be a conclusion on what they have developed during the paper.
L450-456: What is written here is not exactly in line with conclusions. Rather, it could be understood as the authors' intentions for future work.
Overall, I find the paper very interesting and timely in today's times. However, it suffers from serious shortcomings in (i) structure, (ii) content in the various sections, (iii) precision in explaining the most important things the authors want to convey to the readers, and (iv) a discussion and conclusions on "what the authors have worked on during their research". I therefore recommend a significant amount of work on the paper to ensure that it has the format of a scientific article and that it is relevant to what the authors have researched.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your advice. Here is our response to the suggestions you raised:
1.We found that you had questions about the fluency of the language used in the article in your reply. Therefore, we used the English editing service provided by MDPI to edit the language of the article, and we hope this will be helpful for the relevant work.
2.We have added some references in L22-28 to support the content, and adjusted the language description in the paragraph to make the conceptual statements more coherent.
3.We have made modifications to address the repetition issue in L34 and adjusted the corresponding description accordingly.
4.We have rephrased the issue of "superior natural conditions" in L36.
5.We have made adjustments to address the issue of language redundancy in L39-44.
6.We have adjusted all descriptions related to the relevant literature in L45-55 to avoid misunderstanding, and rephrased the wording in L53-55.
7.We have deleted the entire paragraph in L56-67 and rephrased the unclear description in L56-58 to present the research more clearly. We have placed the corresponding descriptions before the target statement, added the background leading to the corresponding work, and adjusted the positioning of similar conclusions. We have also provided support for the content through citations.
8.In lines 86-88, there was an issue where it could be understood as repeating what you had already said. This section was added to provide a more detailed explanation of the dataset used in the study, as there was no clear description in section 2.1. However, this section should not have been included here, and in this revision, it has been removed and all content related to this section has been adjusted to section 2.1.
9.Regarding the dataset issue in lines 100-103, it was not clearly described previously, but now it has been detailed in section 2.1. As for the image issue used in the experiment, 1100 of them came from Kaggle, and the remaining 3004 images were from original dataset.
10.In line 262, the intention of this section was to show some of the data used in the experiment, but as you pointed out, there was indeed repetition. Therefore, the content and images of this section have been deleted.
11.Regarding lines 399-400, did you mean that the images were repeated? The six consecutive images in this section represent the detection status of completely detected, underfitting, and overfitting images, respectively. The specific display of the detection results for these three states of the Faster-RCNN algorithm is presented here for the first time, and the earlier section showed the different detection results of three states of YOLOV5.
12.In lines 401-405, yes, this section is more like a conclusion than a discussion. In the revision, the content of this section has been revised and edited. As for the graphics and illustrations you mentioned, modifications have been made in this revision.
13.Regarding lines 422-434, the issue of the efficiency of the proposed detection method has been addressed in the revision, and further explanation has been added in both the results and methods sections.
14.Regarding lines 441-443, the section where the suggestions were made has been revised in the discussion section, and this part has been completely deleted and revised.
15.Regarding lines 445-449, after considering your suggestions, we recognized that there are indeed some potential issues and risks. In this revision, we have added further explanation to address these issues and made adjustments to the development conclusions presented in the paper.
16.Regarding lines 450-456, there were some issues with the previous description of this section. The plan was to provide a summary of the future development and work that could be done in the conclusion section, but the description was not clear. Therefore, in this revision, adjustments have been made to make the conclusion more clear and complete, and a forecast for the future has been added.
17.Some formatting issues, as well as citation references, were also modified in the paper.
18.The previous title was too broad, so the title has been revised.
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Your feedback was very insightful, and the paper has been revised and responded to in detail. In this response, "applsci-2379572 Revised.doc" refers to a reply regarding the revised version of the entire article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Title is too generic
2. Abstract provided very brief information. You need to work on following:
The specific challenges faced in detecting red dates using traditional methods and how deep learning approaches address these challenges. The specific dataset used in the study, including the size and characteristics of the dataset, and how it was annotated. The evaluation metrics used to measure the performance of the different methods, i.e the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score.
3. Weak literature review and citations. It is only introduction section and it needs to be strong. Introduction talks about Red jujube, whereas title is Red Date. Technically, the introduction does not support the title and is weak. There are number of papers on the deep learning approaches
4. Authors mentioned"Different recognition methods and the methods used in this study are compared and summarised." There are not present in the study and also in the section 2.2. Figure 1 in unclear and presented as a flowchart without description. It is also a common picture found online. What is the novelty of the author approach?
5. Training dataset is also used from kaggle and these datasets are already preprocessed. So there is no effort further to do anything. AUthors mentioned in 2.3 that they just divided the dataset into training and verification set. It is not a big deal to do. The code is 1 line to do that.
6. There is weak clarity on explaining the concepts of CNN and Faster R-CNN. For instance, the sentence "It consists of multiple convolutional layers, pooling layers, and fully connected layers, which can automatically extract features from raw data and use these features for tasks such as classification, detection, segmentation, etc." Authors further did not mention any distribution of dataset according to the Faster R-CNN. Most of the information is general. All figures are unclear in the section.
7. The main issue in the text is the lack of context and explanation for the technical terms and formulas used. For instance, the excerpt introduces the concept of "convolution kernel" and "pooling kernel" without explaining what they are and how they work in the context of convolutional neural networks. Similarly, the excerpt provides a formula for calculating the output size of convolution and pooling layers, but does not explain how the formula is derived or what the variables represent.
8. To improve the excerpt, the author could add more explanation and context to help readers understand the technical terms and formulas. This could involve defining the key terms and concepts, providing examples, and explaining how the formulas are derived and how they work in the context of convolutional neural networks. Provided results are unclear without any parameters in figure 5.
9. There is lack of detail regarding the specific techniques and methods used. For example, in the section on YOLOV5, the text mentions "some improvement operations" made to the FPN+PAN-YOLOV5 neck network, but does not provide details on what these improvements are. Similarly, in the section on AlexNet, the text mentions that the model used removes some convolutional and fully connected layers, but does not specify which layers were removed or how this affects the performance of the model. There are inconsistencies in the presentation of equations. None of them has been explained or their usage has been provided. Authors are jumping from one concept to another without clear link. The model diagram is unclear and a common diagram used. There is further lack of any sources in this section to support author claims. As these sections are similar as a introduction or literature review concepts in methodology.
10. Results section is weak and does not provide any further details. Model training is repetitive and was part of the methods. You need to provide more details on how the performance metrics were calculated for each model. It is important to know if accuracy is the only metric used or if other metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score were considered as well. Regarding the HOG+SVM method, you need to provide more information on the limitations of using this traditional method for object detection. It would be useful to compare the accuracy of this method with more advanced methods such as deep learning-based models. You need to include a comparison of the detection speed of each model. This information is important to consider when deciding which model to use in practical applications. Provide more details about the training process. Learning rates and other hyperparamters. The current results are technically insufficient.
11. More thorough comparisons of the performance of the different object detection algorithms used in the study needs to be discussed. Authors have briefly discussed the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method, more detailed comparisons could help readers better understand the advantages and limitations of each approach.
12. Future research aspects are weak and need improvement.
Lastly, while you resubmit you need to provide detailed response point by point about each of the improvements. Avoid providing generic answers and updating with 1-3 lines mixed up within the same text. Do not rush to resubmit without working on each of the points.
English needs extensive editing. Various instances, the writing does not make sense at all.
Author Response
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Here is our response to the suggestions you made.
We found that you had some questions about the language editing of the article in your reply. Therefore, we used mdpi's English editing service to edit the language of the article. We hope this will help with the work.
1.We have modified the title due to the problem of being too generalized, as the previous title was too broad.
2.We have supplemented the abstract to address the issue of it being too brief, and added information about the challenges faced, how to address them, how to annotate the dataset, and how to measure parameters. The revised abstract covers scientific questions, research objectives, materials, methods, results, and so on.
3.We have supplemented the citation of references and resolved the issue of 'red date' and 'red jujube'. The expression 'red jujube' is used throughout the paper to indicate the crop under study.
4.With regard to the issues you raised about the flowchart, we found some problems with the image during the editing process and made modifications to it. We also provided clearer explanations in the image annotations. There were no issues of comparison and summarization, as one of the important purposes of the entire paper is to conduct recognition and detection. Therefore, we described this purpose in the previous sections and compared the methods in the discussion section. We supplemented some of the comparison content that was not detailed enough in this revision. As for the novelty issue you raised, so far, no one has done online recognition research on red jujubes that are still growing on trees. The research done so far has been limited to the detection of fruits that have been picked. The purpose of this research is to detect red jujubes that are still hanging on trees, with the ultimate goal of applying this technology to the practical automation of machine picking, in order to reduce the cost of large-scale red jujube cultivation and harvesting. Most of the datasets used in the study were original, but this was not clearly stated in the paper and has been re-explained in this revision. We have also adjusted different parameters in different algorithms to achieve better results in this study. This was not mentioned in detail previously, but has been added in this revision.
5.There were some problems with the description of the datasets used. About 75% of the datasets used in the study were original, while the images from the Kaggle dataset were mainly used for training. The validation and test set images were mostly from the original dataset. Yes, the code for dividing these images into training, validation, and test sets is simple, but I believe this part still needs to be explained. Otherwise, it may be misunderstood that we are training, validating, and testing all the images, which would render the recognition and detection work meaningless.
6.In the explanation of the parameters for CNN, YOLO, and FasterR-CNN, we found that there was indeed a problem with the lack of clarity in the explanation after rereading the article. Therefore, we added supplementary explanations of the relevant parameters for different methods in this revision. The images for the improved Alexnet method mentioned in the article were redrawn to make them clearer. However, as this method is not the main method in this paper, we did not provide a detailed explanation but instead pointed out the differences between this and the original method in the image.
7.There were indeed some terms and formulas that were not explained and a lack of understanding of some CNN concepts. In this revision, we supplemented the explanation of these concepts and provided an explanation of the parameters in the formulas.
8.As you mentioned, Professor, in order to better explain concepts and terminology, sufficient explanations and contexts should be added for descriptions. Therefore, in this revision, further explanations were provided for the terms, formulas, and other elements that you suggested should be added. Regarding Figure 5 that you mentioned, it was used to illustrate to the readers that the final result could possibly output such an image. Indeed, the image was output in the experiment, but it was not used to provide research results.
9.In the revision, we provided further details on the issues that you raised, and we supplemented the figure for the AlexNet method to demonstrate the adjustments made to different layers between the method used in this study and the method used in the original paper. However, we did not provide a lengthy text description of the method, as it did not perform as well as expected in our research and was ultimately used as a method of comparison.
10.We provided further details on the results, and we supplemented the precision, recall, and F1 score parameters that you mentioned. We also provided additional information on the limitations of the HOG+SVM method and described the selection of different methods in practice. Additionally, we provided further details on various parameter settings.
11.We compared and described different methods in the revision, and we discussed the pros and cons of each method.
12.Supplementary explanations were added to the conclusion, and improvements were also made for future research.
Thank you very much for your comments, Professor. Your comments are very pertinent and highlight the shortcomings of the article. We have made revisions to the article based on your comments, and also addressed the English editing issue that you mentioned by engaging an MDPI English editor. We hope that these revisions and adjustments will be beneficial for future work in this area. In this response, "applsci-2379572 Revised.doc" refers to a reply regarding the revised version of the entire article.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Below are my comments that may help the authors further improve their manuscript:
1. The manuscript’s title should be written according to the journal’s guidelines (i.e., Red Date Detection Based on Deep Learning).
2. Authors’ affiliations should be reviewed and rewritten in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.
3. In the abstract section: This section is too short. It needs to be amended and follow the scientific form in this section (i.e., the scientific problem, the aim of this study, a brief of materials and methods, the most important results and findings. Please try to follow these steps consequently.
4. In the introduction section: Lines 22-44: Starting from these lines did not mentioned any literature review. Please add references that are in harmony with these paragraphs.
Lines 22-26: In recent years, with the continuous expansion of production scale, it has become increasingly difficult to predict crop yields and harvest crops by using manual labor, so people need to invest a lot of human and material resources to carry out related work. Due to the importance of crop yields to farmers and related departments, this demand remains high ]1[. As a suggestion, I can recommend this article that is in line with this paragraph.
]1[ El Ghobashy, H.; Shaban, Y.; Okasha, M.; Abd El-Reheem, S.; Abdelgawad, M.; Ibrahim, R.; Ibrahim, H.; Abdelmohsen, K.; Awad, M.; Cottb, M.; Elmeadawy, M.; Fathy, W.; Khater, E. Development and evaluation of a dual-purpose machine for chopping and crushing forage crops. Heliyon, 2023, 9, e15460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15460.
5. Lines 29-38: Please add the references that agree with this paragraph.
6. Line 45: Please reformed this sentence according to the journal’s style (i.e., Wang et al. ]1[ used Sentinel-2 images to extract the red jujube planting area by NDVI threshold in Ruoqiang County and achieved good results. Please follow this style throughout the introduction section.
7. The study’s aim should be written clearly at the end of the introduction section. Please clearly add the study’s aim at the end of this section.
8. Figure 1 needs a clear caption (Figure 1. Flow chart ----------- add a specific caption).
9. Figure 2 (a, b, and c) needs to be zoomed in to be clear.
10. Figures 3, 4 and 7 need to be clear; please amend the resolutions.
11. Formula 2 is not cited throughout the manuscript’s text; please add it to the text.
12. Line 202: The reference number (25) is not the same as the reference mentioned in the references list. Please revise it.
13. Line 381: Please revise this line.
14. In the results and discussion section: The authors should add some references that are in line with their findings to support and subsidized their findings.
15. What about the limitations of this study? The authors need to clearly add and mention the study’s limitations.
16. The conclusion section is too short and needs to be amended.
17. In the references section: All references are cited in the references list, but the authors should format all references according to the journal’s format and style; please revise the form for all references.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Here is our response to the suggestions you raised.
Firstly, we found that you had some questions about the language and phrasing of the article, so we used MDPI's English editing service to edit the language of the article. We hope this will be helpful for our work.
1.We made modifications to the title and addressed the issue raised in the journal's guidelines.
2.We reviewed and modified the author affiliation information according to the journal's guidelines.
3.We made modifications and added information to the abstract section based on the scientific questions, research purpose, materials and methods, and results that you raised.
4.We supplemented the introduction section with additional references to support the content you pointed out as lacking (lines 22-44). Furthermore, the article that you recommended was very inspiring and relevant to this part of the paper. Therefore, we cited it in the text.
5.We modified and supplemented the content related to the reference materials you raised in lines 29-38 and added relevant reference materials.
6.We made modifications to the entire article, including the reference list, in accordance with the journal's style.
7.We added the specific research direction and purpose at the end of the introduction section.
8.We revised and corrected some errors in Figure 1, made the image clearer, and added relevant captions. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This prompted us to re-examine the images in the revision process and correct corresponding errors.
9.We replaced Figures 2a-c with clearer and more illustrative images.
10.We redesigned Figures 3, 4, and 7 and provided descriptions of their content. Regarding Figure 7, we redesigned it to show the differences between the original AlexNet model and the modified model used in this study. However, as this algorithm performed relatively poorly in this study and cannot serve as the main method, we did not provide extensive explanations in the text and instead highlighted the differences in the image.
11.We referenced Formula 2 in the text and added explanations for all related parameters in the text.
12.We modified the content that was different in L202 and modified all the reference materials in the text that did not match.
13.We made modifications to the content in L381.
14.We added some reference materials to support the related research content in the results and discussion section.
15.We made modifications to the content in the discussion and conclusion sections and explained in detail the limitations of this study.
16.We significantly increased the content of the conclusion section and provided more detailed explanations for the future prospects of this research.
17.We modified the format of all references in the reference list according to the journal's style and checked all citations in the text to adjust any incorrect reference materials.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, which were very insightful and addressed the shortcomings of the paper. We have made revisions and provided responses to each suggestion you raised. In this response, "applsci-2379572 Revised.doc" refers to a reply regarding the revised version of the entire article.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The submitted manuscript titled „Red date detection based on deep Learning” contains very interesting results. Nevertheless, I have found some imperfections-which in my opinion- should be corrected or clarified before an eventual publication. I have listed them below:
1. In my opinion in Abstract section the full names of all acronyms should be added. Moreover, this part should present main information from particular parts of manuscripts: background and aims, methods, results, conclusions.
2. Key words should contain full names of acronyms.
3. At the end of chapter Introduction the aims of investigations should be presented.
4. The description of red jujube in lines 29-38 should be improved. I suggest to add latin name and the short description of morphology, lifespsn, range and habitat affiliation of of this species. It is worth enlarge section about use history and advantages of fruits in diet.
Please see publication of Mohamad Hesam Shahrajabian, Wenli Sun, Qi Cheng 2020. Chinese jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) –a promising fruit from Traditional Chinese Medicine. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Naturae, 5: 194–219.
5. I suggest to improve the chapter Discussion and enlarge the number of literature sources allowing the comparissons of outcommes.
6. Figures are illegible. In my opinion their quality should be substantially improved.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your advice. Here is the response to the suggestions you made.
Firstly, we have used the English editing service from MDPI to edit the language of the article. We hope this will be helpful for the relevant work.
1.In the abstract section, we have added relevant content based on the background, purpose, method, result, and conclusion you proposed. We have also added the full names of all the abbreviations that appeared in the revision.
2.We have added the full names of all the abbreviations in the keywords.
3.At the end of the introduction, we have added the research direction and purpose of this study.
4.In lines 29-38, we have improved the description of jujubes by adding the Latin name, as well as information on the morphology, lifespan, range, and habitat relationship of the species. At the same time, we have elaborated on the history and advantages of jujubes. Meanwhile, I carefully read the article you recommended, which inspired me a lot. I found that the content is very suitable for this section, so I quoted it in the article.
5.In this revision, we have modified and supplemented the discussion and conclusion sections to enrich the whole article. We have also added references to support the entire article and reviewed and modified any inappropriate or incorrect citations.
6.Regarding the image issues, we have made extensive modifications to improve the quality of the images, making the related information more clear and readable.
7.The title has been modified as it was previously too broad. We have also made some modifications to the relevant format in the text.
8.We have made some modifications to the content in the introduction and methods sections as well.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Your opinions are very pertinent and have filled in the gaps in the article. We have responded to each of your suggestions and made modifications accordingly. In this response, "applsci-2379572 Revised.doc" refers to a reply regarding the revised version of the entire article.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is much improved. The authors themselves, by making so many changes, will have realised this. I have made small contributions to the text in the word document (it will not be difficult to find them). I regret that I am unable to examine the article further. Nevertheless, I congratulate them on their work. I found it very interesting and I hope and wish that you will pass on good results to your farmers.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your feedback. The suggestions you made during the revision process of our article were timely and effective, and your contribution was significant. We would like to respond to your suggestions as follows:
1.Firstly, regarding your suggestion to delete certain parts of the document, we have reviewed these parts and found that they were indeed redundant. Therefore, we have deleted them.
2.Regarding the descriptions of the superiority of the planting area, we agree that it is necessary to add some descriptions of superiority, so we have added relevant content about "superior" in this revision.
3.We have made adjustments to the format of the article, including the issue you raised about Figure 3 exceeding the page margin, as well as the size of Figures 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. We have also adjusted the format of other content according to the journal format.
4.We have further described the relevant information in Figures 1, 2, 6, and 7. We have also adjusted the order of some content and modified the title of section 2.4. We have mentioned AlexNet in the abstract and the materials and methods section.
5.We have provided further descriptions of the best results obtained from each method.
These are the main revisions we have made to the article. Attached is the revised document. Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Authors have improved the title. But work on the formatting as author names are starting in the same line from the title. Correspondence is empty
2. Abstracts have been significantly improved
3. Introduction has been improved
4. Dataset details are provided now. However, consider checking the formatting of the paper. 2.2 heading is same in the line 115.
5. Work on the figures. These are not following the margin of the mdpi template. Further, explain figure 1 role
6. Explain all figures and explanations for figure no 2a,b,c
7. Method used in the section heading does not make sense at line no 145. Methods should be in the methodology section
8. Figure 3 and 4 is out of the region and margins. cannot read
9. Results on the line 234 onward are all of sudden without a proper logical flow
10. figure 6 and 7 need to be explained. Figure 7 is schematic diagram and presented as comparison but this model information was not discussed earlier or mentioned that it will be proposed.
11. Figure 8 and 9 also out of margin
12. Paper need a serious work on logical flow of information. it is very confusing.
13. Line no 367 mentioned best result of each model were selected. But only one figure ? what about results of other models ?
English is fine now but formatting is poor.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your suggestions. Below is our response to your suggestions:
1.We have made modifications to the format of author-related content as you suggested.
2.We appreciate your approval of the modifications we made to the abstract and introduction.
3.We have made modifications to the format of section titles such as 2.2 and have checked and revised the entire document.
4.We have made modifications to the format of all images and captions according to the journal requirements. We have also provided further explanation for the content in Figure 1.
5.We have provided further explanation for the content in Figure 2a.b.c.
6.We have made modifications to the name of section 2.4 as suggested.
7.We have made adjustments to Figures 3 and 4 to ensure that their content does not exceed the text boundaries.
8.We have made adjustments to the content near L234 to improve the logical sequence.
9.We have provided further explanation for Figures 6 and 7 and have supplemented related content in the abstract and materials and methods section.
10.We have made adjustments to Figures 8 and 9 to ensure that their content does not exceed the text boundaries.
11.We have carefully read through the entire document and organized some parts of the logical sequence.
12.We have provided further description of the best results obtained from each method and other models obtained from the same method.
13.We have provided further description of the planting area and related content in the introduction.
These are the main revisions we have made to the article. Attached is the revised document. Thank you for your valuable suggestions, which were timely and effective.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have responded to my comments point by point, and I am satisfied with their responses.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your approval of our modification work. The suggestions you made during the revision process of our article were timely and effective, and your help was significant. Of course, we would like to explain the modifications we made.
1.In this revision, we made modifications to the format of the article according to the journal requirements and adjusted the size of the images and related content.
2.We provided further explanation for Figures 1, 2, 6, and 7. We also organized and adjusted the logical sequence of some content and supplemented related content for Figure 7 in the abstract and materials and methods section.
3.We provided further explanation for the best results obtained from each method and other models obtained from the same method. We also provided further description of the planting area and related content in the introduction.
These are the main revisions we have made to the article. Attached is the revised document. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank You to providing changes. In my opinion Your manuscript was sufficiently improved. I have only one remark referring to Figures 6 and 10, which seem to be clipped.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Thank you very much for your approval of our modification work. The suggestions you made during the revision process of our article were timely and effective, and your help was significant. Of course, we would like to explain the modifications we made.
1.Regarding your suggestion to delete some images, we mainly made modifications to the images in this revision. We deleted some of the repetitive images, and in the previous revision, we modified Figures 1-4 and 6-10 to make the images more readable. We also deleted Figures 11-13 because of the content repetition and re-edited the image numbering due to some issues with the original numbering.
2.In this revision, we made modifications to the format of the article according to the journal requirements and adjusted the size of the images and related content.
3.We provided further explanation for Figures 1, 2, 6, and 7. We also organized and adjusted the logical sequence of some content and supplemented related content for Figure 7 in the abstract and materials and methods section.
4.We provided further explanation for the best results obtained from each method and other models obtained from the same method. We also provided further description of the planting area and related content in the introduction.
These are the main revisions we have made to the article. Attached is the revised document. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
