Performance of Neural Networks in the Prediction of Nitrogen Nutrition in Strawberry Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review comments are in the attached files

Performance of Neural Networks in the Prediction of Nitrogen  Nutrition in Strawberry Plants

Abstract:

Abstract need more explain about the main aim of work.

•    Address existing gaps in knowledge regarding the impact of different treatments on plants under different stresses for context.

·         Provide specific quantitative results (percentage reductions, yield improvements, etc.) for increased precision.  

•    Discuss potential implications of the findings and suggest directions for future research.

 

Introduction

The introduction should be extended to discuss the hypothesis and research questions

 

in details. Additionally, the introduction should cover the recent literature related to this subject.

 

Clearly state the research objective and hypothesis, defining the investigation's purpose.

 

Discussion:  

 

The discussion section needs improvement, and should be linked to

the findings of the previous reports on this topic

The conclusion:

A section for conclusions need more explain and should include the

most significant findings and future works only.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our article and for the valuable feedback you provided. Your thorough work and insightful comments were instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript and ensuring its relevance to the subject matter.

We are at your disposal to clarify any questions you may have regarding the article. Your contribution is essential to us, and we are committed to incorporating any additional recommendations you may have to further strengthen the paper.

All suggested revisions and changes have been duly addressed and highlighted point by point in the attached file for your review.

We reiterate our gratitude for your dedication to reviewing our work. We are open to any additional suggestions you may have to further improve the manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction emphasizes the importance of nitrogen on plant growth, productivity, and soil fertility, however, no nitrogen evaluation was conducted in the research to support this argument. The study aimed to evaluate the performance of two convolutional neural networks in the classification of leaf nitrogen levels. The nitrogen levels were never evaluated, thus making the aim of the study imprecise. It is mandatory to change the approach of the manuscript in this regard or to perform a nitrogen evaluation for consistency.

Indicating that the model performance is better as it gets closer to 1.0 could have a more academic explanation.

It seems that the analysis would generate information of the nitrogen concentration (or status) of the leaves. However, the results did not show such information, hence the writing should be more precise to avoid such misconceptions. Also, the conclusions support this misconception. A proximal chemical analysis would be recommended to support this conclusion, otherwise it's not conclusive.

The final two paragraphs of "Results and Discussion" do not have any reference that supports the displayed arguments. Also, the final paragraph would seem more like a conclusion than a discussion of the results. Overall, the discussion lacks a more profound analysis and citation of related researches.

The approach of the study needs to be redirected to avoid misconceptions regarding nitrogen concentration in strawberry leaves and focus on their structure, color, size, etc., since there's not a proper analysis that supports this.

Also, if the research was conducted with the knowledge that ResNet-50 architecture and its performance was superior to custom CNN (with previous researches supporting this hypothesis), hence the approach used in the manuscript should be modified accordingly. Finally, if the aforementioned is the case, the study decreases its scientific soundness and merit. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has some minor typos (superscripts, words in portuguese, etc.) and the writing could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our article and for the valuable feedback you provided. Your thorough work and insightful comments were instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript and ensuring its relevance to the subject matter.

We are at your disposal to clarify any questions you may have regarding the article. Your contribution is essential to us, and we are committed to incorporating any additional recommendations you may have to further strengthen the paper.

All suggested revisions and changes have been duly addressed and highlighted point by point in the attached file for your review.

We reiterate our gratitude for your dedication to reviewing our work. We are open to any additional suggestions you may have to further improve the manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors provided an interesting research work. Such prediction tools in nutrition management for agricultural production is very necessary especially on the intelligent agriculture. Overall, authors gave details on the development and comparison of neural networks tools, hope authors to develop an applicable tools in further. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our article and for the valuable feedback you provided. Your thorough work and insightful comments were instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript and ensuring its relevance to the subject matter.

We are at your disposal to clarify any questions you may have regarding the article. Your contribution is essential to us, and we are committed to incorporating any additional recommendations you may have to further strengthen the paper.

All suggested revisions and changes have been duly addressed and highlighted point by point in the attached file for your review.

We reiterate our gratitude for your dedication to reviewing our work. We are open to any additional suggestions you may have to further improve the manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the following comments:

In general, this study focused on the comparison of the two convolutional neural networks in the classification of leaf nitrogen in strawberry crops, based on RGB images. This study is low in originality and written with several typos. Please be consistent using a decimal symbol (full stop or comma). This study includes a destructive method of leaf image acquisition and it is difficult for practical applications to monitor the nitrogen status of strawberry plants. It is required to perform the nondestructive leaf image acquisition to monitor nutrient or nitrogen status in plants.

1. Line 80: Put a GPS location of the greenhouse used in this study.

2. Table 4. Use all terms in English. remove "especificidade" with specificity.

3. Figure 2. Put unit g/kg for the y-axis.

4. Conclusion. The authors must show how this finding could contribute to precision agriculture. The way how the image is obtained will highly influence the CNNs. How the authors consider it. The destructive and non-destructive leaf image acquisition is two big different ways. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time you dedicated to reviewing our article and for the valuable feedback you provided. Your thorough work and insightful comments were instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript and ensuring its relevance to the subject matter.

We are at your disposal to clarify any questions you may have regarding the article. Your contribution is essential to us, and we are committed to incorporating any additional recommendations you may have to further strengthen the paper.

All suggested revisions and changes have been duly addressed and highlighted point by point in the attached file for your review.

We reiterate our gratitude for your dedication to reviewing our work. We are open to any additional suggestions you may have to further improve the manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review comments in the manuscript did not included in the new version of the manuscript so you must do it

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are incredibly grateful for your insightful review of our article. Your meticulous examination and thought-provoking comments significantly enhanced the manuscript's clarity and subject-matter relevance.

We welcome any further questions you may have, and we remain eager to incorporate any additional recommendations that could further strengthen our work. As a testament to this, we have meticulously addressed all suggested revisions and highlighted them point-by-point in the attached file for your reference.

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution. We are truly appreciative of your dedication and remain open to any further suggestions you may have.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please explain the keyword San Andreas.

The study lacks a control using 0% of the control fertilization.

Also, the authors argument that the approach of the research was to highlight the existing relationship between nitrogen and green levels, emphasizing its importance in differentiating the classes when it comes to making folders with an RGB image bank. However, it requires a “leap of faith” to accept this. Even though they are correct, the scientific method requires to support this argument with a valid reference or incontrovertible data. The computer vision (concentration of green in the leaves) must have a proven relationship with N content supported on data analysis, not assumptions, which are correct, but unsupported for this specific research. A proximal chemical analysis wouldn’t have to be performed on all the treatments, only on some that were representative following a valid methodology. Another option would be to change the approach and style of the manuscript, by suggesting a possible relationship between N content and the color of leaves (supported by references) while avoiding being overly conclusive on this regard.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript still has some minor typos (superscripts, words in portuguese, etc.) and the writing could be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are incredibly grateful for your insightful review of our article. Your meticulous examination and thought-provoking comments significantly enhanced the manuscript's clarity and subject-matter relevance.

We welcome any further questions you may have, and we remain eager to incorporate any additional recommendations that could further strengthen our work. As a testament to this, we have meticulously addressed all suggested revisions and highlighted them point-by-point in the attached file for your reference.

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution. We are truly appreciative of your dedication and remain open to any further suggestions you may have.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been revised. Now, it can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are incredibly grateful for your insightful review of our article. Your meticulous examination and thought-provoking comments significantly enhanced the manuscript's clarity and subject-matter relevance.

We welcome any further questions you may have, and we remain eager to incorporate any additional recommendations that could further strengthen our work. As a testament to this, we have meticulously addressed all suggested revisions and highlighted them point-by-point in the attached file for your reference.

Thank you once again for your invaluable contribution. We are truly appreciative of your dedication and remain open to any further suggestions you may have.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf