Estimating Organic Matter Content in Hyperspectral Wetland Soil Using Marine-Predators-Algorithm-Based Random Forest and Multiple Differential Transformations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Provide some significant results in quantified terms in the abstract.
L No. 23-24: Only correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the models? But in results RMSE and RPD are also mentioned. Revise this line.
L No. 24-27: Break it into 3 sentences
L No. 96-97: Delete “create hyperspectral inversion models… machine learning regression models” as it is a repetition.
L No. 105-137: Delete this part. Identify the research gap based on literature review and write the objectives of the study clearly at the end of the introduction section.
L No. 155: Why 0-5 cm? It should be 0-15 cm to represent plough sole layer.
L No. 150: average annual sunshine hours are 2,074 hours? Average or total annual sunshine hours? Please check.
L No. 161: What is the reference for SOM determination? Walkley and Black (1934)?
How SOC was converted to SOM?
L No. 163: Whether the spectra were resampled or native spectral resolution was used for further analysis?
L No. 167: What was the diameter of each portion? It should be at least 3.45 cm (2*20*tan(5)) to ensure that camera takes spectra of the sample only not the background.
L No. 187: Please correct “Savizkg and Golag”. It should be “Savitzky and Golay”
L No. 200-203: Savitzky Golay transformation has 3 parameters namely (1) derivative order, (2) polynomial order and (3) window size. Please mention these 3 parameters clearly.
Table 1: Where is log component in inverse logarithmic first-order differentiation (RFD)?
Which software packages were used to implement SCARS, MLR, PLSR, RF and MPARF?
L No. 257: Interaction among the different spectral bands is not taken into account in MLR model. Please correct it.
L No. 264: How PLSR reduces the dimensionality of dependent variable? The dependent variable is only one i.e. SOM.
L No. 284: What are the values used for grid search?
L No. 297: The CPU time required to run SCARS, MLR, PLSR, SVR, RF and MPARF should be presented to justify the training speed. Please refer 10.1016/j.geodrs.2023.e00628
What about mtry (number of features that are selected at each split)?
L No. 347: What was the value of FDA? Mention it here.
L No. 371: “Secondly, he acquired” to “Secondly, the acquired”
L No. 388: Any reference where CV classification is given?
L No. 388: “The soil organic matter content” to “The mean soil organic matter content”
L No. 394-395: How can you say that? Please elaborate.
L No. 409: Please check this statement. According to Planck’s Law energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. As 900-1440 nm is lower than 1400-1700 nm, its energy should be higher.
L No. 416: 1420 nm is the major water absorption peak (O-H). Please correct it.
L No. 431: Why only first sample? It should be for all the samples.
L No. 474: What was the total number of bands? If it is 224 then (32/224*100 = 14.29%). How 7.5% was calculated?
Provided in the Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript tries to estimate the wetland soil organic matter content based on MPARF. The article attracted my attention as it focused on the usage of MPARF and hyperspectral data. However, the subject has not been handled critically, comprehensively, and comparatively. Though the topic has raised some pertinent points, it still has several loopholes in terms of representation, handling of the subject, clarity in experimental setups, and overall writing style. Therefore, here are my major and minor comments, which could help the authors for improving their manuscript.
1) Title seems to be confusing. Please make it lucid, direct, and explicit.
2) Abstract: It needs to be improved. Various punctuation, grammatical errors, and misuse of the English Language can be found in it as well as in the overall manuscript. Further, it just described the basic implicit methods and minor results. A strong rationale and a brief methodology could enrich this section to make it complete.
3) Introduction: I observed that the manuscript didn't use the latest references for its literature review. Furthermore, defining the problem is also not handled critically. Most importantly, why the subject is important? Why the study area has been chosen for the study? Therefore, it is requested to address the same. Moreover, the manuscript can also be enriched by the explicit mention of the aims and objectives instead of explaining the briefings of different sections.
4) Materials and methods:
4a) L-154: "The experimental soils in this paper?" Better to state, "The experimental soils in this study." Please correct this here and elsewhere in the manuscript.
4b) It is implicit what chemical technology was actually utilized for SOM determination. The reference is also missing. Reference for soil spectral reflectance determination is also missing.
4c) L-185: Better to state: "In this study..." instead of "In this paper..." Correct here and elsewhere in the manuscript.
4d) It is unclear what data resources have been used. Please describe clearly in the section as a tabulated item.
4e) The usage of equations. Do authors derive the mentioned equations, or have they been taken from some other literature? It is implicit.
4f) It is implicit whether the model validation was done in this study. Please incorporate a separate sub-section. In addition, another section of model limitation could also enrich the manuscript to come up with a critical account.
5) There is a complete mismatch in the representation of results and their respective methods. One should be very systematic while handling the results. It should only represent those results whose methodology has been clearly mentioned in the concerned section. For instance, L-382: Statistical analysis? Is it been described in the methods section?
6) Results and analysis? The word 'analysis' represents the theme of methods. Please be careful in mentioning such words. Better to write "results and discussion." Hence, the discussion must be the inferences of systematic findings in the study conducted.
7) Better to shift the discussion to the results and discussion section. And the conclusion must be a separate section detailing the core results obtained accompanied by future implications.
8) The usage of the English language. Either use British English or American but kindly avoid the mixing of both. In addition, there are various sentences representing unclear Antecedents, Article misuse, etc. Please try to address those issues as well.
The usage of the English language. Either use British English or American but kindly avoid the mixing of both. In addition, there are various sentences representing unclear Antecedents, Article misuse, etc. Please try to address those issues as well.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Please specify:
1. How the sampling point was decided, and what is the method of selecting the sample areas? Is there any logic or is it randomly selected?
2. Each dot represents a sampling area of what size? How the coordinates of the sample areas are followed?
3. Please describe briefly the method and circumstances of the utilization of the potassium dichromate oxidation. Please briefly detail the results as well and use it as a comparison. or highlight in wording, that the model depended on the two major methods, the hyperspectral and the chemical method.
4. Why the natural air drying method was selected? Please detail the circumstances, what are the assurances for not compromising the samples?
5. Please highlight the role of the chemical process' role in the model building process, how it was evaluated and how it was used for corrections on the model (if it was used)
In line 371 after: Secondly... a t is missing from the word the. Please correct.
6. Please highlight, that the use of learning algorithms and models are helping reduce chemicals used in science and can be as accurate as chemical results. This is a shift towards sustainability
7. Please use more international results and literature in discussion which are aligning with your paper's result, or highlight the most important debates it can create.
8. Please decide the true purpose of the paper, if it is aiming to research the soil features of the area or to test a method you have developed. If the second is the main aim, please highlight the role in the international discussion, and emphasize more the importance and the best practices that can be used for other researchers.
9. It would be interesting to test aerial hyperspectral data on the area and the use of GIS, but it is just an interesting door-opening idea.
The paper is sound and well-written. The model seems clear, small modifications are needed though to highlight the main purpose. The literature used must be broadened.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
L124-125: Delete the results part from here.
MATLAB 2020 itself contains very few functionalities. It would be better to mention the exact toolboxes like “carspls” or “libPLS” or “Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox”, especially for MPARF
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable comments and suggestions during the first round of review of our paper. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality and academic standard of our research work.
During the second round of review, we carefully reviewed and considered your comments. Attached, you will find a detailed response addressing each of the points you raised. Once again, thank you for providing us with valuable insights and suggestions during the review process. Your expertise and rigorous approach have had a profound impact on our research work, and we are sincerely grateful for your guidance.
We have thoroughly analyzed and discussed the issues you raised, and our understanding and proposed solutions are outlined in the attachment. We greatly value your professional knowledge and meticulousness, and appreciate your guidance. Your review comments have significantly influenced our research work, helping us further refine and enhance the quality of the paper.
Once again, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for your efforts and valuable input during the review process. We will incorporate your suggestions and ensure that the paper meets academic standards in all aspects. Should you have any further questions or require additional discussion, we would be more than willing to engage in further dialogue.
Thank you wholeheartedly for your support and guidance!
Please see the attachment for the detailed responses to your questions.
Sincerely,
Liangquan Jia
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
