Estimating Sugarcane Yield in a Subtropical Climate Using Climatic Variables and Soil Water Storage
, Jorge Luiz Moretti de Souza 2, Aaron Kinyu Hoshide 1,3, Ricardo Augusto de Oliveira 4, Daniel Carneiro de Abreu 1,5 and Wininton Mendes da Silva 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper which has originality and appropriateness for this journal. In the Introduction chapter, it can be seen that the authors gave an overview of the current situation, but there is still a lot of literature that is not included in the list and more worldwide not only local, which would still give a more precise picture of a better understanding of the estimating sugarcane yield. The paper is generally well structured, but without a somewhat too clear goal. Author did not explain how the data was collected. In Table 1 there is year 1998, but in text in line 108 it said that experiments were conducted from 1999 to 2019. In my opinion Table 1 must be reorganized in order to better understanding of problem which is observed. The methods are not detailed explained and it isn’t clear what the hypothesis is. In the discussion chapter the authors have provided a good overview of the comparative studies that have been done. The conclusion chapter isn’t clear and concise and I suggest revised version of the conclusion in that point.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting paper which has originality and appropriateness for this journal. In the Introduction chapter, it can be seen that the authors gave an overview of the current situation, but there is still a lot of literature that is not included in the list and more worldwide not only local, which would still give a more precise picture of a better understanding of the estimating sugarcane yield.
We agree and include some literature in the Introduction.
The paper is generally well structured, but without a somewhat too clear goal.
We agree and in the last paragraph of the Introduction section, we have clarified what the goal of our research is as well as the research objectives.
The methods are not detailed explained and it isn’t clear what the hypothesis is.
We agree and in the last paragraph of the Materials and Methods section, we have clarified the methods.
Author did not explain how the data was collected.
We agree and in the first paragraph of the Sugarcane data section, we have clarified the methods.
In Table 1 there is year 1998, but in text in line 108 it said that experiments were conducted from 1999 to 2019. In my opinion Table 1 must be reorganized in order to better understanding of problem which is observed.
We have re-organized Table 1 and provided the annual average yield by cultivar evaluated as well as overall average for each year.
In the discussion chapter the authors have provided a good overview of the comparative studies that have been done. The conclusion chapter isn’t clear and concise and I suggest revised version of the conclusion in that point.
We agree and improved the conclusion.
Submission Date
03 February 2023
Date of this review
07 Feb 2023 11:53:07
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are to be congratulated for their work.
Minor corrections to the article have been noted in the attached text. Regarding the figures, it would be good to adjust them so they are not cut, adjust their size and include some of the texts between them to make this adjustment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors are to be congratulated for their work.
Minor corrections to the article have been noted in the attached text. Regarding the figures, it would be good to adjust them so they are not cut, adjust their size and include some of the texts between them to make this adjustment
We agree that Figure 1 through Figure 5 disrupt the flow of reading the manuscript so we have made these into 10 figures from 5 figures and moved them to the Appendix A as Figure A1 through Figure A10. Since these figures are related to the input parameters of the model and not the model validation then they are important to present but tangential to the main story line.
peer-review-27059725.v1.pdf
We have made all requested edits in first sentence in both Abstract and Introduction, cited second sentence in the Introduction, as well as we have clarified what we used to run the regression model by adding a sentence to the end of the last paragraph in the Materials and Methods section.
Submission Date
03 February 2023
Date of this review
04 Feb 2023 19:50:28
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well written. The data used are long-term, which makes it possible to make high-quality mathematical calculations. With such data, scientists should make calculations using neuromodeling. Deviations in the actual yield from the predicted one indicate that it was necessary to include more weather factors in the model.
For figures 1-5 it was better to use a polynomial trend.
It was also necessary to provide actual data on precipitation, temperature, and other climate indicators in absolute units.
In the conclusions, it is necessary to indicate the specific crop models created, which will improve the article.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is well written. The data used are long-term, which makes it possible to make high-quality mathematical calculations. With such data, scientists should make calculations using neuromodeling. Deviations in the actual yield from the predicted one indicate that it was necessary to include more weather factors in the model.
For figures 1-5 it was better to use a polynomial trend.
We agree which is why we used non-linear fit to the data for these figures. We use the trend line only to point out that there was a difference in the values of the variable during the years analyzed in each phase.
It was also necessary to provide actual data on precipitation, temperature, and other climate indicators in absolute units.
Precipitation and degree days were expressed in accumulated values due to the magnitudes of these variables (mm and °C accumulated during the cycle).
In the conclusions, it is necessary to indicate the specific crop models created, which will improve the article.
We have added a sentence at the end of the Conclusion section to clarify this.
Submission Date
03 February 2023
Date of this review
07 Feb 2023 20:11:14
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors described the application of a linear regression model to evaluate sugar cane yield. The article describes the research exhaustively, supported by several bibliographical references. I recommend reviewing something and avoiding unnecessary repetitions (for example, unit of measure found too many times in the text).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors described the application of a linear regression model to evaluate sugar cane yield. The article describes the research exhaustively, supported by several bibliographical references.
I recommend reviewing something and avoiding unnecessary repetitions (for example, unit of measure found too many times in the text).
We have corrected this particularly in the Materials and Methods section.
peer-review-27160984.v1.pdf
We have made all edits suggested.
Submission Date
03 February 2023
Date of this review
14 Feb 2023 12:05:47
