Developing a Hyperspectral Remote Sensing-Based Algorithm to Diagnose Potato Moisture for Water-Saving Irrigation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript (horticulturae-3085788) demonstrates that accurate monitoring of potato moisture using hyperspectral remote sensing is essential for precision irrigation and water-saving management. This study established effective hyperspectral water diagnosis models for determining the potato leaf water content (LWC) and aboveground water content (AGWC). The SVM model showed the highest predictive accuracy for LWC, demonstrating its significant potential for guiding precision irrigation practices.
The manuscript is interesting, some figures are good and others need to be improved. The sections are adequate, however, the material and methods section needs to be better described and clarified with all pertinent details. In addition, the discussion section needs major revisions. However, it is a manuscript with prospects for publication.
Comments:
Keywords should be different from the title and organized in alphabetical order.
L98-109. Rewrite to make the objectives of the work clearer and clearly the hypotheses, to be discussed and corroborated or refuted during the discussion.
Figure 1 needs corrections, as the legend is overlapping with the writing. I suggest the authors adjust to the same scale, accepting the compaction. The y-axis should be rewritten to “Reflectance (%)”. The scale was adjusted to 2500 nm.
Suggestion for Table 2, the authors could create a correlation map.
The most representative bands of the proposed model were not clear. The authors should adequately describe what these wavelengths are. Was the selection supervised or unsupervised?
Figure 6, what does this writing and units of the y-axis represent?
Figure 7. The distribution of points is poor. Low quality.
All the legends of the figures and tables need to be rewritten. Clearly, indicate what each colouration means, the representative lines, and clearly indicate what the figures and tables are about, without the reader needing to return to the text to understand what they mean. In addition, the sample number presented in each figure clearly needs to be indicated.
The discussion is not adequate. The authors presented many data, but discussed few of them. They need to delve into whether the models were adequate or not, and not just a repetition of data and results previously presented in the manuscript. I suggest the authors also use bibliographic references to improve the discussion of the last 5 years.
The conclusions are adequate, but it is still necessary to include future perspectives and advances that can still be improved in potato cultivation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required in grammar and spelling.
Author Response
1. Keywords should be different from the title and organized in alphabetical order.
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, we have modified the key words and highlighted them.
2. L98-109. Rewrite to make the objectives of the work clearer and clearly the hypotheses, to be discussed and corroborated or refuted during the discussion.
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, we re-edited the content of L98 – 109 and highlighted them.
3. Figure 1 needs corrections, as the legend is overlapping with the writing. I suggest the authors adjust to the same scale, accepting the compaction. The y-axis should be rewritten to “Reflectance (%)”. The scale was adjusted to 2500 nm.
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, we revised Figure 1 again and carried out highlighting processing.
4. Suggestion for Table 2, the authors could create a correlation map.
Response：We are very grateful for the valuable opinions of the reviewers. We have made the correlation graph, but there are too many first derivatives of the reflectance in the 337-2521nm band, and the correlation coefficients are not clear. So we chose to make a table of the extremely significantly correlated first derivatives and their coefficients that were screened out. Therefore, the table is still retained in the paper.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.Correlation between the first derivative of reflectance and LWC (a), AGWC (b)
5. The most representative bands of the proposed model were not clear. The authors should adequately describe what these wavelengths are. Was the selection supervised or unsupervised?
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, we described the selected range of sensitive bands.
6. Figure 6, what does this writing and units of the y-axis represent?
Response：According to the reviewer's opinion, the y-axis of Figure 6 has been modified. It represents the equation analytic formula, that is, the y output value corresponding to the x target value.
7. Figure 7. The distribution of points is poor. Low quality.
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, we improved the clarity of Figure 7 and highlighted it.
8. All the legends of the figures and tables need to be rewritten. Clearly, indicate what each colouration means, the representative lines, and clearly indicate what the figures and tables are about, without the reader needing to return to the text to understand what they mean. In addition, the sample number presented in each figure clearly needs to be indicated.
Response：The sample number of the figure has been stated in Table 2. All the legends of the figures and tables have been supplemented.
9. The discussion is not adequate. The authors presented many data, but discussed few of them. They need to delve into whether the models were adequate or not, and not just a repetition of data and results previously presented in the manuscript. I suggest the authors also use bibliographic references to improve the discussion of the last 5 years.
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, the discussion of the paper has been supplemented.
10. The conclusions are adequate, but it is still necessary to include future perspectives and advances that can still be improved in potato cultivation.
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, we added the future perspectives and advances that can still be improved on water-saving cultivation of potatoes at the end of the conclusion.
Please see the attachment for the revised manuscript"horticulturae-3085788-revision".
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript No. 3085788: Constructing a potato moisture diagnosis model based on hyperspectral remote sensing for water-saving management
The authors, Suyala et al., investigated the potential for the potato crop's water availability to produce a higher yield through irrigation as a water-saving technique. Researchers employed a hybrid water diagnosis model for potato leaf water content (LWC) and aboveground water content (AGWC) and developed about six moisture monitoring models with sensitive bands in potato crops. Three different types of models were used to find the R2 values for the LWC and hyperspectral data. These were PLSR (0.8418), SVM (0.9020), and BP neural network (0.8926). The R2 values for the AGWC and hyperspectral data were 0.8003, 0.8167, and 0.8671. Thus, all six models were found to predict the moisture content of the potato crop. However, the best model for predicting the LWC of potatoes turned out to be SVM.
Research Title
Can be improved. I recommend the title be “Developing a hyperspectral remote sensing-based algorithm to diagnose potato moisture for water-saving irrigation.”
Abstract
Lines 12–15: Enhance the text by clearly stating the problem and outlining the goals of the research to solve it.
- Introduction
Lines 36–40: Rephrase them as they appear to repeat information.
Line 61-74: Consider reviewing this section, as it talks about rice, corn, and wheat. How do these crops correlate with potatoes?
Line 76-97: Summarize and focus solely on your field of study. What is the primary challenge associated with the moisture issue in potato production that you plan to address?
Lines 107–109: Rephrase to state: What was your study's overall objective?
- Materials and methodologies
2.1. Plant Material and ….
Lines 120–121: Where did you source the drought-resistant and drought-sensitive potato varieties in your study?
Lines 121–151: Use past tense and check the entire document. Organize this section logically by stating the materials used, their source, the experimental design, the plot size, the treatments applied, the date of sowing, the types of basal and topdressing fertilizers, the application time and rates, and so on.
2.2. Sampling and measurements
(Rearrange the contents of this subsection in a logical manner.)
Lines 153–154: Emphasize the harvesting of mature potatoes. But before harvesting, the measurement of the hyperspectral reflectance of the canopy, leaves, aboveground stem, etc. was done first. If this is the case, please rephrase the subheading as follows:
2.3 Statistical analyses
Before this section, please introduce a subsection of the model you used in your study, since sections 2.3 and 2.4 will be statistical analyses (including equations on regression, correlations, etc.) and their descriptions.
Line 183-208: This section is confusing because it combines the use of modeling with statistical analyses. Please differentiate the two as per the above recommendations.
3.Results
In lines 210–313, give the results for the soil's ability to retain water. Next, give the results for the water content of potato plants and the growth of drought-resistant and sensitive varieties from various soils and places. Next, examine the alterations in hyperspectral reflectance, moisture modeling models, and hyperspectral feature parameters in connection with modifications in plant moisture status.
4.Discussions
Lines 315–346: Reorganize the discussion in a logical manner as per the reported results. To justify the obtained results, also discuss the correlation between plant moisture levels and growth.
5.Conclusions
Lines 516–538: The conclusion is excessively lengthy, containing numerous hypotheses and references to literature. Authors need to provide a summarized conclusion of their research findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed improvement
Author Response
1. Research titlecan be improved. I recommend the title be “Developing a hyperspectral remote sensing-based algorithm to diagnose potato moisture for water-saving irrigation.”
Response：The title has been modified according to the opinions of the reviewers.
2. Abstract: Lines 12–15: Enhance the text by clearly stating the problem and outlining the goals of the research to solve it.
Response：According to the expert opinions, the abstract has been supplemented with the main research problem and the research goals.
3. Introduction:Lines 36–40: Rephrase them as they appear to repeat information.
Response：We have modified this part of the content.
4. Line 61-74: Consider reviewing this section, as it talks about rice, corn, and wheat. How do these crops correlate with potatoes?
Response：Thank the reviewers for their valuable opinions. The research on the screening of sensitive bands for other crops in this part can serve as a reference for the screening of characteristic spectra of potatoes in our study. Moreover, studies on the sensitive bands for the water status of potatoes are rarely reported at present.
5. Line 76-97: Summarize and focus solely on your field of study. What is the primary challenge associated with the moisture issue in potato production that you plan to address?
Response：This issue has been supplemented in the paper. Thank you for your valuable opinions.
6. Lines 107–109: Rephrase to state: What was your study's overall objective?
Response：This part has been modified. Thank you for your valuable opinions.
7. Materials and methodologies
2.1. Plant Material and ….
Response：This part has been modified. Thank you for your valuable opinions.
8. Lines 120–121: Where did you source the drought-resistant and drought-sensitive potato varieties in your study?
Response：We have supplemented the source of the seed potatoes.
9. Lines 121–151: Use past tense and check the entire document. Organize this section logically by stating the materials used, their source, the experimental design, the plot size, the treatments applied, the date of sowing, the types of basal and topdressing fertilizers, the application time and rates, and so on.
Response：This part has been modified. Thank you for your valuable opinions.
10. 2.2. Sampling and measurements
(Rearrange the contents of this subsection in a logical manner.)
Response：This part of the content has been revised.
11. Lines 153–154: Emphasize the harvesting of mature potatoes. But before harvesting, the measurement of the hyperspectral reflectance of the canopy, leaves, aboveground stem, etc. was done first. If this is the case, please rephrase the subheading as follows:
Response：This part of the content has been revised.
12. “2.3 Statistical analyses”
Before this section, please introduce a subsection of the model you used in your study, since sections 2.3 and 2.4 will be statistical analyses (including equations on regression, correlations, etc.) and their descriptions.
Response：This part of the content has been revised.
13. Line 183-208: This section is confusing because it combines the use of modeling with statistical analyses. Please differentiate the two as per the above recommendations.
Response：This part of the content has been revised.
14. Results
In lines 210–313, give the results for the soil's ability to retain water. Next, give the results for the water content of potato plants and the growth of drought-resistant and sensitive varieties from various soils and places. Next, examine the alterations in hyperspectral reflectance, moisture modeling models, and hyperspectral feature parameters in connection with modifications in plant moisture status.
Response：According to the opinions of the reviewers, the results of yield and plant water content have been supplemented in this article.
15. Discussions
Lines 315–346: Reorganize the discussion in a logical manner as per the reported results. To justify the obtained results, also discuss the correlation between plant moisture levels and growth.
Response：Relevant contents have been supplemented in the discussion part.
16. Conclusions:Lines 516–538: The conclusion is excessively lengthy, containing numerous hypotheses and references to literature. Authors need to provide a summarized conclusion of their research findings.
Response：According to the opinions of the reviewers, the conclusion of this paper has been condensed.
Please see the attachment for the revised manuscript "horticulturae-3085788-revision".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is focused on applications of the hyperspectral model for the diagnosis of water content in leaves. A quick method for determining the irrigation dose has an indispensable application. As mentioned in the article, monitoring water consumption is one of the essential aspects of modern irrigation. The authors applied three methods for evaluating the applicability of hyperspectral measurement for the determination of water content in leaves. Based on the regression analysis, the results pointed to the most suitable solution.
Strengths side:
Introduction – sufficiently extensive
Methodology – targeted location and applied soil was defined at a sufficient level
Work results - the achieved results are graphically processed and described, the statistical analysis is at a sufficient level
Discussion - the authors discussed the achieved results with the results of other authors
Conclusion - sufficient
Weaknesses side:
Introduction - it is very extensive, but I suggest adding a more detailed description of NDWI and NDVI
Methodology - the calculation of RWC, the type of drip irrigation (drippers) is missing, the pictorial documentation of experiments and devices is missing, I suggest adding information about PLSR, SVM, BP models
Discussion - maybe it could be expanded
Other comments:
- The entire article talks about the benefits of precision irrigation, but the definition and application are not cited or analysed in more detail
- Line 224 – it is the correct reference to fig. 3a and 3b
- Chapter 2.1 What was the soil treatment in terms of structure?
- What kind of irrigation (drip irrigation) was used? After all, there are different droppers
- How was the dosage of individual droppers verified?
How was RWC calculated? In what units was I?
- Formula 1 is listed correctly? Are you missing the brackets?
Author Response
1. Introduction - it is very extensive, but I suggest adding a more detailed description of NDWI and NDVI
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, relevant descriptions of NDWI and NDVI were supplemented in Introduction.
2. Methodology - the calculation of RWC, the type of drip irrigation (drippers) is missing, the pictorial documentation of experiments and devices is missing, I suggest adding information about PLSR, SVM, BP models
Response：The calculation formula and unit of RSWC have been supplemented. The picture of the test instrument have been supplemented. The calculation steps of PLSR, SVM and BP models are rather long. So the relevant references with detailed calculation steps are respectively provided.
3. Discussion - maybe it could be expanded
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, relevant supplements have been made to the discussion part.
4. The entire article talks about the benefits of precision irrigation, but the definition and application are not cited or analysed in more detail
Response：According to the opinions of the reviewers, we supplemented the definition and application prospects of precision irrigation in the first paragraph of the discussion.
5. Line 224 – it is the correct reference to fig. 3a and 3b？
Response：The book cited in L224 was wrongly written. We have corrected it and made it highlighted.
6. Chapter 2.1 What was the soil treatment in terms of structure?
Response：It has been supplemented and explained in the paper.
7. What kind of irrigation (drip irrigation) was used? After all, there are different droppers
Response：The irrigation method and the hole spacing of the drip irrigation tape are supplemented and explained in the second paragraph of Section 2.1.
8. How was the dosage of individual droppers verified?
Response：This part of the content has been supplemented and explained in the second paragraph of 2.1.
9. How was RWC calculated? In what units was I?
Response：According to the reviewers' opinions, the calculation formula and unit of RSWC have been supplemented.
10. Formula 1 is listed correctly? Are you missing the brackets?
Response：We listed Formula 1 in the correct format.
Please see the attachment for revised manuscript " horticulturae-3085788-revision".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have considerably improved the manuscript. Small language corrections are still necessary, but it is acceptable.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCorrection is necessary.
Author Response
Comment 1 :The authors have considerably improved the manuscript. Small language corrections are still necessary, but it is acceptable.
Response: We have revised the inappropriate language expressions in our manuscript and have also marked the corrections in red.
please see the attachment for revised the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded critically to the issues that I raised.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFor the entire manuscript, minor English corrections are required.
Author Response
Comments 1: For the entire manuscript, minor English corrections are required.
Response: We have revised the inappropriate language expressions in our manuscript and have also marked the corrections in red.
please see the attachment for revised the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have sufficiently changed the article, I recommend accepting it.
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors have sufficiently changed the article, I recommend accepting it.
Response: Thank you for your support and the affirmation to our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
