Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through Precursors IperSpettrale Della Mission Applicative Hyperspectral Spectroscopy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author submitted the manuscript entitled "Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy" for possible publication in the Applied Science journal. They used PRISMA hyperspectral data and the SAM classification method to improve the mapping of the AOC of soil content. Furthermore, they assessed soil nutrient parameters and predicted soil nutrient levels using advanced models.

 

1. The objectives of the paper are commendable, and it falls within the scope of the journal. However, I will not review the manuscript due to several errors. I kindly request the editor to send the paper back to the authors for the following reasons:

 

2. The author submitted a revised version in which I found comments from another person, possibly the corresponding author or editor, in the manuscript body text. However, the author did not incorporate these comments, and the questions remain in the manuscript body.

 

3. The quality of the figures is very poor and should be improved, with a slightly larger size provided.

 

4. Remove the semicolon from the title.

 

5. The references are incorrect.

 

Furthermore, there are several errors that need to be addressed before resubmission to the journal. I will review it after these revisions have been made.

 

The references should be updated to include recent publications. For instance, a manuscript with similar objectives from the same region has been published, and it should be cited in the manuscript. Here is an example: https://doi.org/10.56946/jspae.v2i1.186 

Author Response

Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper researches an assessing soil nutrient content and mapping in tropical  tamil nadu, india, through PRISMA hyperspectral spectroscopy, the research of this paper has certain significance, but there are many problems in this paper, as follows

1)The author uses hyperspectrum to achieve soil content in tropical areas, but does not give a specific theoretical calculation method, which is not the highlight of this paper. I think the author needs to clearly give the specific calculation method of soil composition, and give the specific relationship between soil composition and spectrum, and give a specific calibration method for detection.

2)Figure 5-7, 10 are not very clear, it is recommended that the author provide a suitable figure

3)in part 3, author does not give specific methods, just a simple description and introduction, can not see how the author to solve the problem, Nor does the author give a comparison of other methods.

4)This theory is relatively shallow, so it is suggested that the author supplement the theoretical method of the specific relationship between spectral wavelength and soil composition. At the same time, give the concrete verification method.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the expression needs further improvement

Author Response

Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript is not appropriate for publication both in scientific and editorial terms. Even in abstract there are errors as "(USD ??)". This is just example. Final maps were not produced.

Sincerely yours,

Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript entitled: “Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy” is scientific interesting. It is well-written, with proper English language and syntax.

However, there are some points that the authors need to be addressed, before publication.

The text throughout the manuscript appears to be in a primary form, without any editing. The bibliographical references are not shown in the lines 43-47 and in numerous additional lines. Are the authors in the process of deciding which bibliographic reference to place at this point or is there a technical problem? The authors are kindly requested to have a look at the issue and come up with a solution. References should be clearly visible, always in the journal's spirit and follow the guidelines provided by the journal for reviewers.

The following suggested articles (among others) could enhance the manuscript:

Soil parameters affecting the levels of potentially harmful metals in Thessaly area, Greece: a robust quadratic regression approach of soil pollution prediction, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 29544–29561, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14673-0, 2. Multiple regression is not multiple regressions: the meaning of multiple regression and the no problem of collinearity. PTPBio 10. https://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.003, 3. Spatial distribution and mobility assessment of carcinogenic heavy metals in soil profiles using geostatistics and random forest, Boruta Algorithm. Sustainability 10:799

Table 1: It is not clear what the authors present in this table. Is it about concentrations of nutrients in soil samples? Are there any units? It is not a scientifically acceptable way of presenting results using a table. The Table should be rewritten from scratch, the correct way of presenting numerical data should be used, with the correct number of decimal places, and the appropriate units of measurement should be placed.

In Figures 4 and 5 no diagram is clearly visible. Probably the font used by the authors should be enlarged.

 

Since throughout the text of the manuscript, the authors use the initials of the techniques and mathematical models, it might be useful for the reader to have some kind of Appendix explaining the initials and their meaning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted a manuscript entitled 'Assessing Soil Nutrient Content and Mapping in Tropical Tamil Nadu, India, through PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy' to the Journal of Applied Sciences. The aim is to critically analyze the application of PRISMA hyperspectral spectroscopy in evaluating soil nutrient levels within the tropical region of Tamil Nadu, India. Furthermore, they attempt to enhance the comprehension of remote sensing techniques' application in addressing soil nutrient deficiencies and variability in tropical soils.

The manuscript is a good fit for the journal; the analysis is reasonable, and the results and discussion are well-written. However, I still have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed before publication.

1. The manuscript has extra spacing, such as lines 18 and 24; remove it throughout the manuscript.

2. The quality of the figures is not good; improve it, and the parts of the figure should be together and separated with sections such as A, B, C etc. (figure 1, 4, 5 etc.)

3. Figure 2 is petite, improve it.

4. There are still references not according to the journal format, such as lines 240, 248 etc. Check throughout the manuscript and correct it carefully.

5. Results and discussion are too different from a regular experimental research paper; I had no idea about this kind of research paper, which conducted only study on software; however, the flow of results and discussion should be in order like the importance of AOC, current findings, reason or explanation of current findings, then previous inline or contrast reports.

6. The paper is mainly improved compared to the previous version; I don’t have further comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this revised manuscript, I can't see the specific content of the author's modification. After reading the whole paper, I still can't see what the author needs to solve. There are no obvious highlights and innovations.

(1) How does the author calculate and evaluate the soil nutrient content? What is the specific method? If PRISMA Hyperspectral Spectroscopy is used, what is the main principle of this method?The author should give a specific method, for example, the formula (1) proposed in the paper, which parameters in the formula how to obtain? What is the relationship between the value of the parameter and the soil nutrient content?

（2）How is the constant value determined in formula (2) - (5)? Are the other parameters in the formula measured? If so, what is the test method? These authors are not clear.

（3）the expression and calculation of the correlation between spectrogram and soil are relatively few. There is no concrete theoretical approach.

（4）The author's paper gives a lot of data, these data are measured by the author himself? If not, what is the source of this data? Is there authorization?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language can accept

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors followed the instructions and suggestions of the reviewers to the letter and now the revised manuscript meets the requirements for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have reviewed the comments/suggestion carefully and modified the manuscript and addressed the inputs from editor and reviewers. The corresponding changes made in the revised paper are summarized in our responses below and can be easily tracked in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript basically answers the questions raised, basically meets the requirements, and is approved for publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English sentence expression is basically appropriate