Comparing Machine Learning Algorithms for Estimating the Maize Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) Using UAV-Acquired Remotely Sensed Data in Smallholder Croplands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally, the manuscript fits well the scope of the Journal. It is well written and expressed. But in current submitted form, the manuscript has many shortcomings as follow below:
1. Section Abstract is well written, but Authors must avoid using abbreviations in this section. Also make it concise and more informative

2. Add the significance of current study in introduction section.

3. Add the specifications of the sensors on board UAV in a tabular form.

4. Which radiometric correction method was applied on the images? Also briefly describe the atmospheric correction method used in this study.

5. How VPD and VPG is calculated? Is it based on any hand held instrument or some calculation?

6. Which method was used to optimize the regression models? Briefly explain.

7. Page 17; line 454. Make it sub-section under section 4. Similarly page 18; line 469...and so on.

8. The conclusion should be more elaborative. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the performance of three machine learning models, including RF, SVM, and PLS, to predict maize CWSI. I think the methodology is normal, and little novelty is in this paper. In summary, I think it was not suitable for the publication in this paper.

1. You can revise Fig.2, the lines is too thick.

2. Fig.3 also should be reviesed, a, b, c are not shown totally.

3. Why you select CWSI to represent the crop water stress? Are there other indices?

4. How about the significance of r? Please show it.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please correct and resubmit

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

this paper can be accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good work