Enhancing Smart Agriculture Monitoring via Connectivity Management Scheme and Dynamic Clustering Strategy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Improving Smart Agriculture Monitoring through Connectivity Management Scheme and Dynamic Clustering Strategy" introduces four distinct algorithms designed to address challenges in heterogeneous wireless sensor networks within the context of smart agriculture. The authors have presented both theoretical analyses and simulation results. However, several points of feedback have been identified.

Firstly, the authors are advised to provide a more comprehensive problem statement. This should encompass a clear definition of the input, output, and objective function. This clarification is crucial for readers to understand which objective function is being optimized.

Concerning algorithm 1, it introduces a path information collection algorithm for gathering path data and constructing k-disjoint paths to m-mobile supernode connectivity. Yet, the paper lacks information about the theoretical performance of this algorithm. Readers need to understand the performance distance between the proposed method and an optimal solution to this problem. This issue extends to other proposed algorithms as well.

Additionally, algorithms 2 and 3 suffer from a similar lack of information. Specifically, the paper does not provide details about the probability of path elimination following node failure. Addressing these gaps would enhance the clarity and completeness of the presented work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear reviewer 
Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors propose innovative solution to improve connectivity by establishing connections between agriculture nodes and m-supernodes through k-disjoint paths with the longest lifetime.

The topic is interesting and is presented clearly and comprehensively. I suggest minor revisions before publishing the article.

In the literature review, the authors should highlight the state of the art of the application of these technologies in agriculture (Preite, L., Solari, F., & Vignali, G. (2023). Technologies to Optimize the Water Consumption in Agriculture: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 15(7), 5975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075975).

Figure 2 should be better described as the proposed methodology is not very clear. I would suggest including a flow chart to schematize the logic of the process adopted.

In the graphs in Figure 4 and Figure 5, it is not clear whether "node failure tolerance" or "percentage of failed nodes" is represented. Is there a difference between the two quantities?

The graphs in Figure 9 are too small.

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf