Comparison of Methods for Estimating Damage by Wild Ungulates on Field Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study compared four methods for evaluating field crop damages caused by ungulates. The manuscript is short and straightforward to understand. I have a few major concerns for the manuscript, but the most important one is its low sample number or the number of fields being analyzed in the study, which were only two in total, or one per group. Any conclusion made based on such a low number of samples cannot be scientifically and statistically trustworthy. Hence I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication. As a suggestion for the authors, the authors might divide the damaged field into multiple subsections such as 20 subsections, and compare the damage levels obtained from the three methods within the subsections (the yield method might not be appropriate in this case), giving more statistical power to the results and conclusions. Below are some of my other observations.

No proper literature review was conducted. The authors illustrated the pros and cons of each method in line 56-68 but did not review the existing studies that either used these methods and or compared these methods. A knowledge gap in current literature is not defined and a proper study justification is missing.

Line 23 and 232, inappropriate to say “most accurate” for the yield method, as which requires another baseline method for the yield method to be compared with.

Section 2.2, what is the precise definition of “damage”?

Section 2.3, what about using this method for the undamaged reference field and see how much of the field would be classified as damaged? That might be a good indication on how well the 30 cm threshold is. Additionally, there should be a thorough investigation on the ideal threshold rather than just using the 30 cm threshold for no good reason.

Section 2.4, too much subjectivity is involved in this method, making it unscientific. What exactly are the objective standards to identify what is damaged and what is not? Delineations from multiple observers would be necessary for this method.

Section 2.5, this method requires the assumption that both field have similar yields, which is unknown and not proved in the study. One way to prove it would be to see their historical yields.

Line 154, the 100 m2 unit seems very large, considering the high precision capability of both drone GPS and ground survey GPS.

Line 160, I personally do not understand the intention behind such a classification. Damaged vs undamaged should be binary. I don’t see how creating classes of damage rate is more appropriate. To me it seems to only complicate the problem.

Figure 1. it is concerning to see how little the damage areas obtained by each method resemble each other. Also, what damage level do the red pixels in the graph represent?

Section 5, conclusions should be only limited to winter wheat.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting topic and important. There are similar papers and studies to estimate the damage. This study is for a specific area and crop and the results.

The study aims to compare the accuracy, workload, and cost of the four commonly used methods.

The authors explained that the UAS Crop Height Method appeared to be more efficient and, potentially, more accurate than the other methods.

- I think using drone technology can be more suitable for future research. In this paper, the authors did not mention the possibility of drones and new technologies and cameras in estimating the damage to crops

- I think the keywords do not match the paper and need to modify

Keywords: crop growth and development; pest management system; crop ecology; ecosystem management; other crop management.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, the work makes a favorable impression, but it seems to lack scientific novelty and generalization. To provide a clearer explanation, it is important to outline the new contribution made in addressing this problem and specify the conditions or context in which your approach could be applied without compromising quality. This entails identifying the unique circumstances or specific field requirements where your methodology would be most effective and beneficial.

·         Line 19: Please provide the full term when using an abbreviation for the first time. Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS).

·         Lines 153-155: It is unclear what the number 2173 represents.

·         Lines 59-64. Since you have provided the related papers [25-30] where the core methods considered in your study were used, can you also provide any information about their performance.

·         Conclusion. At first, the conclusion is too short. At second, the recommendation of the Yield Method as most appropriate, having a high degree of accuracy at relatively low cost is doubtful. Finding two exactly similar fields can indeed be challenging, and it is important to consider the limitations and potential sources of error in such method. When using the method described, the goal is to select comparable areas within the damaged and undamaged fields to minimize variations in factors that can affect yield potential, such as soil fertility, crop management practices, and microclimatic conditions. The yield potential maps can help guide the selection process by identifying areas that are expected to have similar productivity based on known variables. I recommend using this method as a baseline but not as a reliable method or provide more information about limitations and advantages of all compared methods.

·         Also, I recommend considering the utilization of vegetation indices based on satellite imagery for damage assessment. This approach is highly advanced and has shown great potential in accurately evaluating and quantifying damages. By analyzing the spectral information captured by satellite sensors, such as NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) or EVI (Enhanced Vegetation Index), it is possible to assess the health and vigor of vegetation, detect stress or damage, and monitor the recovery process over time.

Good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the response, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication this time.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Jakub Drimaj

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,  You have addressed all the omissions that I identified. While I still have some reservations regarding the yield method's effectiveness in the digital age, your experimental work undeniably contributes to filling a gap in crop damage research. Therefore, unless there are objections from other reviewers, I believe your manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Line 78. Please remove the tautology "a method that calculates the calculation."

 

English is good, but certain instances of tautology need to be addressed and corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for re-correcting the manuscript and commenting. Your comment regarding: Line 78 - Please remove the tautology "a method that calculates the calculation.", was resolved by replacing the word "calculation" with the word "value". Thank you once again for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Jakub Drimaj