Headland and Field Edge Performance Assessment Using Yield Maps and Sentinel-2 Images
Florian Ellsäßer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the topic of your work is very interesting and relevant. I think this manuscript could make an exciting contribution to both, the remote sensing as well as the agriculture community.
However, there are a few things that have to be changed. First of all, please have your entire manuscript checked by an English professional. I'm also not a native speaker, but the text quality has to be improved significantly!
Please also check the structure of your chapters. You often mix different topics, stay focused on what you want to describe.
Here are a few more details:
L21-L22 I think you can generally drop the zero e.g. in 12.20%, but this is just a style opinion
L23-L24 Maybe reformulate the sentence “The yield losses in headland and field edges increased with the clay content increasing and sand content decreasing.”
L65-L67 Please rephrase this sentence e.g. “time limit” -> time consuming, I wouldn’t also use the word “avoid” in this context. Ground truth/field surveys are still important. Maybe describe RS more like an additional tool that can cover much larger areas.
L68-L69 please add what these studies did, e.g. “to study Within field variability and biomass in wheat, corn and alfalfa yields”
L70 please name the indices
L70-L71 there are many more strategies for yield monitoring, what you might actually mean is general strategies for yield prediction/estimation
L71 a bit more information on “the harvest index” please
L78 “many researchers” please rephrase to sth like: Satellite data was frequently used in several studies…
L79-L82 please rephrase, also it is not about the satellites but about the data they record
L86 “so our idea was to”… please rephrase the whole sentence
L99 The area is located in the Mediterranean …
L100 could you give us a bit more information? What is the average temperature Which soils are present? What are the predominant farming methods and crops etc. How is the revisit frequency of Sentinel-2 in this area? Is it in the center of the scenes or at the sides? Why was this area of special interest for you or for Italian/European agriculture?
L103 111 as a number, could you please indicate where these fields are located in the map, would be interesting to see if they are clustered or evenly spread.
L108 Please actually draw the locations of the study sites in the map.
L110-L111 Please give a bit more details on the machines and cite them as you would cite field measurement devices
L113 rephrase sentence, avoid “could” -> was able to and give an average number of collected points per hectare
Methods generally: To avoid confusion about which data was used, which methods were applied and which outputs were generated, please think about including a flow-chart or process diagram.
L125 Fields
L127-L129 Did you check for other crops that were planted and rotation patterns?
L130 This sentence should be moved as an explanation to the other one soil sentence
L134-L137 How was this selection performed? Visually or with an algorithm? Are only fields included that have exactly 90° angles or did you have a certain tolerance e.g. 87°
How about the slope of the fields? Did you check for flat fields with a slope e.g. of max 5%... This would be very important too. Please clarify!
L140 up to which distance do you define neighboring? Please clarify
L142-L144 Please rephrase and make the message clearer!
L146 rephrase please
L152 Was the width of the headland always e.g. 10m? How did you define the width? Is there a general definition? How did you detect Headland and Field edges? Visually?
L158 I like the figure, it explains the categories very well. Could you still write a little bit more in the figure caption?
Figure3 great, Now I understand this better, maybe you can also color the pixels that were actually used for analysis?
L173-L174 I don’t understand what you mean with highest three dates
L210-212 This should be in the Methods section
Figure4 But this is not a rectangular field!! If the fields are not rectangular, then the pathways of the harvesters are different! It also has a forest close by.
L230 0.05 confidence level
L314 ranged from instead of was
L327 confidence level
L326-L332 this should be in the results section
L322-L341 please put your own results in context with the previous findings. If there are differences, could location or climate zone play a role here? How about field size generally?
L345-L346 please rephrase
L347-L349 this is a repetition from the introduction
L349 – L354 this is speculation, please add some sources for each claim
L354 please remove this sentence as it adds nothing new
L356-L362 please add your own findings here too (the same also for the following sections!)
L371 please avoid the use of “would” and rephrase
L374 which index was highest?
L395 which data products would have a higher resolution? Also sample sizes of field boundary pixels and headland largely vary with the field border angle and its relation to the pixel angles. A field border aligned with the pixel angle would therefore create a much higher number of useable pixels.
L408 why will hyperspectral data make a difference, please explain? What pixel sizes are available for hyperspectral data?
L426-L428 for the smaller fields? Why did you not just use fields >10ha then?
L435 fields with a higher clay content
Discussion: The discussion should be restructured and shortened. Please focus on putting your own results in the context of previous findings and discuss why they are the same or different. Please avoid speculation.
Conclusions: Please structure your main findings in a better way and add one sentence why your findings are interesting and for whom.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Dear Authors,
The topic of your work is very interesting and relevant. I think this manuscript could make an exciting contribution to both, the remote sensing as well as the agriculture community.
However, there are a few things that have to be changed. First of all, please have your entire manuscript checked by an English professional. I'm also not a native speaker, but the text quality has to be improved significantly!
Please also check the structure of your chapters. You often mix different topics, stay focused on what you want to describe.
Dear Reviewer,
We tried to fix the paper during the last two weeks based on the five reviewers' comments. We hope that all the errors are fixed. Please let us know if anything else could be fixed and improved.
Here are a few more details:
L21-L22 I think you can generally drop the zero e.g. in 12.20%, but this is just a style opinion
This sentence has been rewritten.
L23-L24 Maybe reformulate the sentence “The yield losses in headland and field edges increased with the clay content increasing and sand content decreasing.”
This sentence has been rewritten. “Additionally, the results indicated that the yield losses in the headland and field edges increased as the clay content increased and sand content decreased. These findings suggest that soil compaction and structural damage caused by higher traffic frequency in the headland and field edges negatively affect crop yield.” has been added into the abstract.
L65-L67 Please rephrase this sentence e.g. “time limit” -> time consuming, I wouldn’t also use the word “avoid” in this context. Ground truth/field surveys are still important. Maybe describe RS more like an additional tool that can cover much larger areas.
Fixed. The sentence has been rephrased, and the word “avoid” has been changed. In addition, more information of RS has been added.
L68-L69 please add what these studies did, e.g. “to study Within field variability and biomass in wheat, corn and alfalfa yields”
Added with “Previous studies have utilized remote sensing data [27–29] to examine the within-field spatial variability, specifically focusing on the study of within-field variability and biomass in wheat, corn and alfalfa yields.”
L70 please name the indices
Done
L70-L71 there are many more strategies for yield monitoring, what you might actually mean is general strategies for yield prediction/estimation
Changed into “In yield monitoring studies, two common strategies are used for predicting and estimating crop yields. The first strategy involves xxx. The second strategy involves xxx”
L71 a bit more information on “the harvest index” please
The first strategy involves using biomass and the harvest index, which is a measure of reproductive efficiency calculated as the ratio of grain to total shoot dry matter (Gao et al., 2018; Tucker et al., 1981; Yao et al., 2015).
L78 “many researchers” please rephrase to sth like: Satellite data was frequently used in several studies…
Done
L79-L82 please rephrase, also it is not about the satellites but about the data they record
Rephrased: "Several studies utilized high-resolution satellite data, such as the publicly available Sentinel-2, to implement yield prediction models. Initiated by the European Commission (EC) and the European Space Agency (ESA), Sentinel-2 provides a valuable resource for yield prediction research with its high-resolution recordings (Bukowiecki et al., 2021; Cohrs et al., 2020; d’Andrimont et al., 2021; Drusch et al., 2012).”
L86 “so our idea was to”… please rephrase the whole sentence
Rephrased into “The aim of this research is to determine the yield and vegetation index variations between headlands, field edges, and field centers by utilizing yield map and Sentinel-2 data, instead of solely relying on harvester yield or manual collection methods as seen in prior studies.”
L99 The area is located in the Mediterranean …
Fixed, sorry for the mistake.
L100 could you give us a bit more information? What is the average temperature Which soils are present? What are the predominant farming methods and crops etc. How is the revisit frequency of Sentinel-2 in this area? Is it in the center of the scenes or at the sides? The sentence has been rephrased with the more detailed information.” The selected fields for this study are located in the Mediterranean climatic zone in North Italy. The area experiences an average rainfall of 994 mm. The average soil texture of clay, sand and loam are 29.19%, 30.53% and 40.28%, respectively within the study fields. The study area has maize planting dates from March to April, with an average crop age of 160 days from planting date.”
Why was this area of special interest for you or for Italian/European agriculture?
And it is because where our university located in this region. With previous research, our study this time got support from the VIs methodology and harvest data which already published before.
L103 111 as a number, could you please indicate where these fields are located in the map, would be interesting to see if they are clustered or evenly spread.
Done, Figure 1 has been improved.
L108 Please actually draw the locations of the study sites in the map.
Done, the locations of the study fields have been marked in the map.
L110-L111 Please give a bit more details on the machines and cite them as you would cite field measurement devices
Done, the more information of the machines has been added.
L113 rephrase sentence, avoid “could” -> was able to and give an average number of collected points per hectare
“could” has been removed and the sentence has been rewritten.
Methods generally: To avoid confusion about which data was used, which methods were applied and which outputs were generated, please think about including a flow-chart or process diagram.
The majority part of the methodology has been rewritten based on the comments of the 5 reviewers.
L125 Fields
Fixed
L127-L129 Did you check for other crops that were planted and rotation patterns?
Yes there are other crops in this region. However, maize is one of the most common crop and was only considered in this study. It could be interesting to do future research based on several crops.
L130 This sentence should be moved as an explanation to the other one soil sentence
Done
L134-L137 How was this selection performed? Visually or with an algorithm? Are only fields included that have exactly 90° angles or did you have a certain tolerance e.g. 87°
More explanation has been added. “The fields selected for this study were chosen based on their regular rectangular shape. This was performed visually, by hand, without a specific screening criteria. The regular shape was deemed important for maintaining consistency among the selected fields and providing more disciplined traffic conditions than irregular fields. A certain tolerance for the angle requirements was allowed during the selection process, as it was recognized that obtaining strictly standard fields can be difficult.”
How about the slope of the fields? Did you check for flat fields with a slope e.g. of max 5%... This would be very important too. Please clarify!
Because the region called sth Padana. The average slope of this region is less than 1 degree. So the slope of the study field has not been focused on during the analysis. Added “Based on the USGS global digital elevation model, the average slope in the low plain in North Italy is 0.27%.”
L140 up to which distance do you define neighboring? Please clarify
“The specific distance for defining a field as near trees, rivers, or irrigation canals was not defined. The study only excluded fields that were visibly close to these features.”
L142-L144 Please rephrase and make the message clearer!
“The presence of neighboring trees, rivers, or irrigation canals can lead to yield variability in cultivated crops. To ensure the comparability of selected fields, the study avoided fields that were located too close to these features, as the presence of these features could impact the availability of water, leading to yield variability. The aim was to choose fields with clean boundaries.”
L146 rephrase please
Changed the position of that part at the beginning of methodology.
L152 Was the width of the headland always e.g. 10m? How did you define the width? Is there a general definition? How did you detect Headland and Field edges? Visually?
Yes, from visual of the GEE, the difference between the headland and field edges could be seen. The headland has the sight of the machines turning. “The width of the headland and field edge areas were not standardized in the study, and there is no general definition for the width of these areas. The headland and field edges were defined based on their respective functions during the farming operation and were visually identified in the yield maps collected from the fields.”
L158 I like the figure, it explains the categories very well. Could you still write a little bit more in the figure caption?
Thank you and improved
Figure3 great, Now I understand this better, maybe you can also color the pixels that were actually used for analysis?
Sorry I can not color the pixel because it it generated by GEE auto matically. That is why we marked them using the nails with different color.
L173-L174 I don’t understand what you mean with highest three dates
“Each year, three dates were selected for the collection of Vegetation Indices (VIs) results from each area (headland, field edges, and field center) of each field. These dates represented the highest VIs in Google Earth Engine annually, typically occurring in July and August. This selection allowed for a more thorough analysis of the VIs.”
L210-212 This should be in the Methods section
done
Figure4 But this is not a rectangular field!! If the fields are not rectangular, then the pathways of the harvesters are different! It also has a forest close by.
Yes we selected the VIs fields with the rectangular shape. However, the harvest yield that we selected could not guaranteed the rectangular. Because we could filter all the maize field in north Italy to selected the rectangular fields. However, we only have limit amount of the harvest yield data.
L230 0.05 confidence level
fixed
L314 ranged from instead of was
fixed
L327 confidence level
fixed
L326-L332 this should be in the results section
Removed and improved
L322-L341 please put your own results in context with the previous findings. If there are differences, could location or climate zone play a role here? How about field size generally?
Rewritten this part. “In this study, we found similar results to previous studies (Wilcox et al., 2000) that showed the headlands (turning areas) had lower yields compared to the field center (mid-field area) (Cook and Ingle, 1997; Kuemmel, 2003; Sparkes et al., 1998b; Speller et al., 1992). This results showed that the headlands had lower yields compared to the non-headland areas. However, the exact magnitude of the yield differences between headlands and field centers varied among previous studies. The average yield reduction ranged from 7-45% for cereals, 10% for potatoes and 26% for sugar beet in previous studies (Chaney et al., 1999; De Snoo, 1994; Kuemmel, 2003; Sparkes et al., 1998a; Sunoj et al., 2021).
It's possible that location and climate zone played a role in the variability of these results, as different areas may have different environmental conditions that could impact crop growth and yield. Similarly, field size could also impact the results, as larger fields may have less headland area compared to smaller fields. Further research could examine these factors to gain a better understanding of how they impact the relationship between headland yield and field center yield.”
L345-L346 please rephrase
Done
L347-L349 this is a repetition from the introduction
Rewrote
L349 – L354 this is speculation, please add some sources for each claim
Done
L354 please remove this sentence as it adds nothing new
Done
L356-L362 please add your own findings here too (the same also for the following sections!)
In this part we try to analyzed the reason why the headland and field edges have the lower VIs and yield. However, we do not know what happened in each field exactly. So we could not say that we found something cause that situation in this study. Maybe future possible.
L371 please avoid the use of “would” and rephrase
Fixed
L374 which index was highest?
The highest value each year rather than the highest VIs between NDVI, GNDVI and NDRE.
L395 which data products would have a higher resolution? Also sample sizes of field boundary pixels and headland largely vary with the field border angle and its relation to the pixel angles. A field border aligned with the pixel angle would therefore create a much higher number of useable pixels.
Yes, the resolution of other data products will be higher, meaning there will be smaller pixels. Furthermore, the sample size of site boundary pixels and headlands varies largely with site boundary angle and its relationship to pixel angle. Therefore, field boundaries aligned to pixel angles will create a greater number of usable pixels and will also lead to more accurate experimental results. However, we cannot guarantee that all pixels are aligned to field boundaries during data collection.
L408 why will hyperspectral data make a difference, please explain? What pixel sizes are available for hyperspectral data?
Added “Besides the increment of geometric accuracy provided by high-resolution images, advanced spectral resolution, in terms of bands and bands width may improve the inter-pretation of crop behavior. By way of example, the application of the PRISMA satellite (experimental satellite from the Italian Space Agency) may improve such classification thanks to 240 bands from 400-2500 nm with a spatial resolution of 5m (panchromatic). Unfortunately, the PRISMA satellite is still in experimental use and it cannot be used for wide-area land monitoring.”
L426-L428 for the smaller fields? Why did you not just use fields >10ha then?
Added the discussion about the larger field (more than 10ha)
L435 fields with a higher clay content
Fixed
Discussion: The discussion should be restructured and shortened. Please focus on putting your own results in the context of previous findings and discuss why they are the same or different. Please avoid speculation.
Fixed with restructured and shortened.
Conclusions: Please structure your main findings in a better way and add one sentence why your findings are interesting and for whom.
Fixed and rewritten.
Bukowiecki, J., Rose, T., Kage, H., 2021. Sentinel-2 data for precision agriculture?—a uav-based assessment. Sensors 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082861
Chaney, K., Wilcox, A., Perry, N.H., Boatman, N.D., 1999. The economics of establishing field margins and buffer zones of different widths in cereal fields. Asp. Appl. Biol. 54, 79–84.
Cohrs, C.W., Cook, R.L., Gray, J.M., Albaugh, T.J., 2020. Sentinel-2 leaf area index estimation for pine plantations in the southeastern United States. Remote Sens. 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/RS12091406
Cook, S.K., Ingle, S., 1997. The effect of boundary features at the field margins on yields of winter wheat. Asp. Appl. Biol. 50, 459–466.
d’Andrimont, R., Verhegghen, A., Lemoine, G., Kempeneers, P., Meroni, M., van der Velde, M., 2021. From parcel to continental scale – A first European crop type map based on Sentinel-1 and LUCAS Copernicus in-situ observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112708
De Snoo, G.R., 1994. 13 Cost-benefits of unsprayed crop edges in winter wheat, sugar beet and potatoes. Unsprayed F. margins Implic. Environ. Biodivers. Agric. Pract. 167.
Drusch, M., Del Bello, U., Carlier, S., Colin, O., Fernandez, V., Gascon, F., Hoersch, B., Isola, C., Laberinti, P., Martimort, P., Meygret, A., Spoto, F., Sy, O., Marchese, F., Bargellini, P., 2012. Sentinel-2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services. Remote Sens. Environ. 120, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026
Gao, F., Anderson, M., Daughtry, C., Johnson, D., 2018. Assessing the variability of corn and soybean yields in central Iowa using high spatiotemporal resolution multi-satellite imagery. Remote Sens. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10091489
Kuemmel, B., 2003. Theoretical investigation of the effects of field margin and hedges on crop yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00086-5
Sparkes, D.L., Jaggard, K.W., Ramsden, S.J., Scott, R.K., 1998a. The effect of field margins on the yield of sugar beet and cereal crops. Ann. Appl. Biol. 132, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1998.tb05190.x
Sparkes, D.L., Ramsden, S.J., Jaggard, K.W., Scott, R.K., 1998b. The case for headland set-aside: Consideration of whole-farm gross margins and grain production on two farms with contrasting rotations. Ann. Appl. Biol. 133, 245–256.
Speller, C.S., Cleal, R.A.E., Runham, S.R., 1992. A comparison of winter wheat yields from headlands with other positions in five fen peat fields. Monogr. Crop Prot. Counc. 47.
Sunoj, S., Kharel, D., Kharel, T., Cho, J., Czymmek, K.J., Ketterings, Q.M., 2021. Impact of headland area on whole field and farm corn silage and grain yield. Agron. J. 113, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20489
Tucker, C.J., Holben, B.N., Elgin, J.H., McMurtrey, J.E., 1981. Remote sensing of total dry-matter accumulation in winter wheat. Remote Sens. Environ. 11, 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(81)90018-3
Wilcox, A., Perry, N.H., Boatman, N.D., Chaney, K., 2000. Factors affecting the yield of winter cereals in crop margins. J. Agric. Sci. 135, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185969900828X
Yao, F., Tang, Y., Wang, P., Zhang, J., 2015. Estimation of maize yield by using a process-based model and remote sensing data in the Northeast China Plain. Phys. Chem. Earth 87–88, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.08.010
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- Although the abstract is good, it fails to provide specific information regarding the study's goals.
- There is a good structure to the introduction and it provides a general picture of what motivates the researchers to undertake the research project.
- I suggest to insert at line 70: Caturegli, L., Gaetani, M., Volterrani, M., Magni, S., Minelli, A., Baldi, A., Brandani, G., Mancini, M., Lenzi, A., Orlandini, S., Lulli, F., de Bertoldi, C., Dubbini, M., & Grossi, N. (2020). Normalized Difference Vegetation Index versus Dark Green Colour Index to estimate nitrogen status on bermudagrass hybrid and tall fescue. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 41(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1641762
- The material and methods sections would benefit from an in-depth review of the statistical analysis to be conducted
- I would recommend that in order for the results to be more meaningful, we should examine more deeply the limitations of the study
- Conclusion. It would be interesting to explore in more detail the future scenarios and determine how the results that you obtained can be replicated in the future
- References [6], [13], [15], [16], [17], [18], [21], [37], [50], [52], [62], [64], [65], [68], [81] are incomplete
- Wrong DOI for references [71]
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
We tried to fix the paper during the last two weeks based on the five reviewers' comments. We hope that all the errors fixed. Please let us know if anything else could be fixed and improved. And also we hope to publish this paper through the joint efforts of everyone.
- Although the abstract is good, it fails to provide specific information regarding the study’s goals.
- There is a good structure to the introduction and it provides a general picture of what motivates the researchers to undertake the research project.
The abstract has been improved based on the comments of reviewers.
- I suggest to insert at line 70: Caturegli, L., Gaetani, M., Volterrani, M., Magni, S., Minelli, A., Baldi, A., Brandani, G., Mancini, M., Lenzi, A., Orlandini, S., Lulli, F., de Bertoldi, C., Dubbini, M., & Grossi, N. (2020). Normalized Difference Vegetation Index versus Dark Green Colour Index to estimate nitrogen status on bermudagrass hybrid and tall fescue. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 41(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1641762
Added and thank you for your comment.
- The material and methods sections would benefit from an in-depth review of the statistical analysis to be conducted
The article's statistics have been improved with a more detailed explanation of the method.
- I would recommend that in order for the results to be more meaningful, we should examine more deeply the limitations of the study
Yes, sure, the study must have some limitations compared to a general conclusion. However, the study was improved and rewritten based on the reviewer’s comments. We will try to work our best and proceed with deeper research on this topic in the future.
- Conclusion. It would be interesting to explore in more detail the future scenarios and determine how the results that you obtained can be replicated in the future
Done
- References [6], [13], [15], [16], [17], [18], [21], [37], [50], [52], [62], [64], [65], [68], [81] are incomplete
Reference problem have been solved.
- Wrong DOI for references [71]
Fixed
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Very interesting and well written report.
However, the authors should make the following minor corrections:
1. Abstract: If there is no limitation on the number of words in abstract for articles in Sustainability, please give the full meanings of NDVI, GNDVI & NDRE. This is because they are appearing in the article for the first time
2. Line 125 on Page 3: Change ‘Field’ to ‘Fields’
3. Line 154 on Page 4: Recast
4. Line 171 on Page 5: Change ‘yield’ to ‘yields’
5. Line 185 on Page 5: Change ‘The temporal resolution was also influenced’ to ‘The temporal resolution might also be influenced’
6. Results: Lines 210 – 212: Do you still need to state these while presenting the results of your study? The facts should have been captured under section 2 (Materials and Methods)
7. Line 262 on Page 8: Change ‘the three positions all’ to ‘all the three positions’. Make similar corrections anywhere they appear in the text
8. Line 278 on Page 8: Remove ‘Determine’
9. Line 292 on Page 9: Remove ‘Determine’
10. Line 332 on Page 10: Change ‘Our’ to ‘This’
11. Line 385 on Page 11: Change ‘Methodology of the data collecting’ to ‘Methodology of data collection’
12. The conclusion section of your article is fairly okay. However, it should end with the summary of your thoughts and convey the larger implications of your study
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
We tried to fix the paper during the last two weeks based on the five reviewers' comments. We hope that all the errors fixed. Please let us know if anything else could be fixed and improved. And also we hope to publish this paper through the joint efforts of everyone.
- Although the abstract is good, it fails to provide specific information regarding the study’s goals.
- There is a good structure to the introduction and it provides a general picture of what motivates the researchers to undertake the research project.
The abstract has been improved based on the comments of reviewers.
- I suggest to insert at line 70: Caturegli, L., Gaetani, M., Volterrani, M., Magni, S., Minelli, A., Baldi, A., Brandani, G., Mancini, M., Lenzi, A., Orlandini, S., Lulli, F., de Bertoldi, C., Dubbini, M., & Grossi, N. (2020). Normalized Difference Vegetation Index versus Dark Green Colour Index to estimate nitrogen status on bermudagrass hybrid and tall fescue. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 41(2), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2019.1641762
Added and thank you for your comment.
- The material and methods sections would benefit from an in-depth review of the statistical analysis to be conducted
The article's statistics have been improved with a more detailed explanation of the method.
- I would recommend that in order for the results to be more meaningful, we should examine more deeply the limitations of the study
Yes, sure, the study must have some limitations compared to a general conclusion. However, the study was improved and rewritten based on the reviewer’s comments. We will try to work our best and proceed with deeper research on this topic in the future.
- Conclusion. It would be interesting to explore in more detail the future scenarios and determine how the results that you obtained can be replicated in the future
Done
- References [6], [13], [15], [16], [17], [18], [21], [37], [50], [52], [62], [64], [65], [68], [81] are incomplete
Reference problem have been solved.
- Wrong DOI for references [71]
Fixed
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Though the data have very and very slight relation to sustainability, nevertheless the work is rather good job and can be counted as input to sustainable agriculture.
The main remark for the work – the often use of abbreviations make reading and understanding rather hard. That is not good for interdisciplinary journal. It is better to place list of abbreviations between the Abstract and Introduction. Abbreviations are completely impossible for the text of abstract and figure captions. They must be replaced by their meanings.
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Dear Reviewer,
We tried to fix the paper during the last two weeks based on the five reviewers' comments. We hope that all the errors are fixed. Please let us know if anything else could be fixed and improved. And also we hope to publish this paper through the joint efforts of everyone.
Though the data have very and very slight relation to sustainability, nevertheless the work is rather good job and can be counted as input to sustainable agriculture.
The main remark for the work – the often use of abbreviations make reading and understanding rather hard. That is not good for interdisciplinary journal. It is better to place list of abbreviations between the Abstract and Introduction. Abbreviations are completely impossible for the text of abstract and figure captions. They must be replaced by their meanings.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is an interesting study, investigating the value differences between headland, field edges, and field centre using yield maps and the VIs result calculated by the GEE. The study is an original work with extensive analyses providing new contributions to the body of knowledge in the associated field.
Author Response
Reviewer 5
Dear Reviewer,
We tried to fix the paper during the last two weeks based on the five reviewers' comments. We hope that all the errors are fixed. Please let us know if anything else could be fixed and improved. And also we hope to publish this paper through the joint efforts of everyone.
The paper is an interesting study, investigating the value differences between headland, field edges, and field centre using yield maps and the VIs result calculated by the GEE. The study is an original work with extensive analyses providing new contributions to the body of knowledge in the associated field.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for considering the feedback from the review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions during the paper review.
Here is the new file with the comments of the editor.
Thank you for your help.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
