A First Attempt to Combine NIRS and Plenoptic Cameras for the Assessment of Grasslands Functional Diversity and Species Composition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work presented is innovative, but has limitations in its methodology that condition its application or/and interpretation. In fact, the authors are aware of these limitations and present this work as a preliminary for future studies.

Thus, I think the title should be changed to reflect the content of the article, perhaps "preliminary studies....". The authors can also revise the text, presenting a better link between the discussion and the results presented, i.e., sometimes the discussion is confused with the methodology, results and even conclusions.

However, I leave some suggestions:

Line 32: for animal feed the pasture can be characterized by the content of NDF, ADF and ADL, see Van Soest P.J., Robertson J.B., Lewis B.A. (1991): Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal feed. J. Dairy Sci., 74, 3583-3597.

Line 45-47: the affected areas are the sampling areas, not the entire plant cover. Depending on the study objective, there may be an advantage in estimating or predicting

Line 102-105: It would be interesting to know what the illuminance (lux) during the study

Line 196: Principal component analysis (PCA)

Line 372: the citation is from 2010, it should be updated to the present day.

Line 477-479: Based on the results, I don't understand this statement?

Author Response

This work presented is innovative, but has limitations in its methodology that condition its application or/and interpretation. In fact, the authors are aware of these limitations and present this work as a preliminary for future studies.

Thus, I think the title should be changed to reflect the content of the article, perhaps "preliminary studies....". The authors can also revise the text, presenting a better link between the discussion and the results presented, i.e., sometimes the discussion is confused with the methodology, results and even conclusions.

Responses

Dear Reviewer

We thank

We change the title in A first attempt to combine NIRS and plenoptic cameras for the assessment of grassland functional diversity and species com-position descriptors. We made some correction in the manuscript (introduction and discussion).

We had however not the time to make an English review of the manuscript. However, the first version was review by an English review.

However, I leave some suggestions:

Line 32: for animal feed the pasture can be characterized by the content of NDF, ADF and ADL, see Van Soest P.J., Robertson J.B., Lewis B.A. (1991): Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal feed. J. Dairy Sci., 74, 3583-3597.

We add the reference

Line 45-47: the affected areas are the sampling areas, not the entire plant cover. Depending on the study objective, there may be an advantage in estimating or predicting

We add a sentence

Line 102-105: It would be interesting to know what the illuminance (lux) during the study

It was not measured on the field so we cannot add this information

Line 196: Principal component analysis (PCA)

We add the full name of analysis

Line 372: the citation is from 2010, it should be updated to the present day.

We had a new reference

Line 477-479: Based on the results, I don't understand this statement?

We agree and deleted this statement.

Reviewer 2 Report

Combining between NIRS and plenoptic cameras for the assessment of grassland functional diversity and species composition descriptors

Dear Authors

The basic science of this paper is not conducted in a good way and is of inappropriate standard. The author and his team should try to write this paper according to journal scope. I reviewed this paper thoroughly and I found there is no novelty in this paper and also language of this paper is very poor. Its better for the author to use professional services for language modification. I gave comments on whole paper.

See PDF

Best Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Authors

The basic science of this paper is not conducted in a good way and is of inappropriate standard. The author and his team should try to write this paper according to journal scope. I reviewed this paper thoroughly and I found there is no novelty in this paper and also language of this paper is very poor. Its better for the author to use professional services for language modification. I gave comments on whole paper.

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for the feedback. The novelty of this paper is the use of the plenoptic camera. Furthermore, the combination of the different tools (NIRS) and camera and also the different types of analysis on the image (segmentation and colors estimation). The English was review by a native corrector in the submit version but we did not add time during this short period to make  a english review.

The text follow the Introduction , material and method , results discussion and conclusion format.

L2-3 : Tite is very complex and there is no fluency. The author should revise title of this manuscript

We change the title of the paper

L10-28 Why abstract in three paragraphs. The authors hould make one paragraph according to journal format

The author should write in scientific language. In revised ve, The author can following sequence.

Context/background Objectives Material and methodology results/findings siginificance of research or purpose novelty  In revised version i ll see abstract in this sequence. Abstract is very weak

We change the abstract

L31 what does it mean?

check this line

We change discipline into research area.

L51: Should be first letter in caps

Corrected.

L52 What type of calibration?

We change the sentence.

L54 What is NIRS.?

Near Infra red spectrometry we add in the text.

L55  Indexes or indices?

We change the line.

L59 The author should revise this line.

We changed it.

L60  Which assays?

We change into work.

L61 you are talking about some studies and why you cite 1 research here.

We removed some studies.

L78 We want to see clearly objectives of your study and secondly why you conduct this study? what is your purpose and what type of audiance you want to target and why you need to conduct this study?????????? Last paragraph of introduction focus on these above said questions

We change the end of the introduction.

L84 The author should prepare a figure about study area.

It is only one site in south of France that does not require a map.

L85 add reference here

We added it.

L87-89 :  need to proof science

We add the reference.

L103 June 29, 2016

Corrected.

L139 2500

Corrected.

L230 P Least square and write before

Corrected.

L246 -256-272 if this is a heading then add heading number

It is changed.

L 338  the author should use abbreviation here

It is changed.

L358 my previous year was 2021. are you sure, your previous year was 2015?

We change it it the year previous of the measurement.

L373 fe studies or one studies. if there are few studies, the author should mention, 4 to 5 studies here

We add one reference.

L394-395 and 409 First time i see here about what is main aim of objective. The author should prepare objective at the end of introduction part

We change the end of the introduction.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made the suggested changes, so I have no more comments.

Author Response

Dear Review

Many thanks for the review

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The author and his team try to improve this paper in better ways. But still, there are some minor and major mistakes.

I hope, the author will remove all these mistakes.

Conclusion part lack quantification results. We want to see some quantification results instead of theoretical results.

Further, you can find comments in the PDF file.

Best Wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Many thanks for th feedback. We made the ask correction in the pdf comments and we add a sentence in the conclusion.

Sincerely