Remote Sensing-Based Monitoring of Cotton Growth and Its Response to Meteorological Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript is interesting and written well, Data presentation is effective. However, i found some minor issues related to typing errors and references style etc. so, please read whole manuscript once more and cross check all the references before the possible publication of present manuscript. 

It seems ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

I hope you are well, I attach the review report with comments included in the document.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

I reviewed a manuscript entitled "Remote sensing-based monitoring of cotton growth and its response to meteorological factors" submitted to the Special Issue on Agricultural, Land, and Farm Management in the Sustainable Agriculture section. I have checked carefully.

Overall the manuscript is acceptable. However, some areas need improvement:

Concise: Content can be more concise. Simplifying the text and reducing the number of pages increases the readability of the manuscript.

Figures 4 and 5: These figures need further explanation. Please provide more explanation or context to help readers better understand the significance of these figures in the study.

Grammar: There are grammatical issues throughout the manuscript that need to be addressed. I recommend thorough proofreading and possibly rewriting some sections to ensure clarity and coherence.

As a reviewer, I appreciate the effort that goes into this and believe that the manuscript will be greatly improved with these revisions. Please consider my comments to revise your manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dear authors

I reviewed a manuscript entitled "Remote sensing-based monitoring of cotton growth and its response to meteorological factors" submitted to the Special Issue on Agricultural, Land and Farm Management in the Sustainable Agriculture section. I have checked carefully.

Overall the manuscript is acceptable. However, some areas need improvement:

Concise: Content can be more concise. Simplifying the text and reducing the number of pages increases the readability of the manuscript.

Figures 4 and 5: These figures need further explanation. Please provide more explanation or context to help readers better understand the significance of these figures in the study.

Grammar: There are grammatical issues throughout the manuscript that need to be addressed. I recommend thorough proofreading and possibly rewriting some sections to ensure clarity and coherence.

As a reviewer, I appreciate the effort that goes into this and believe that the manuscript will be greatly improved with these revisions. Please consider my comments to revise your manuscript.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript analyzed the variation characteristics of cotton NDVI and its driving meteorological factors in northern Xinjiang. The manuscript was well organized and provided valuable results. However, there remained some questions, especially on the CMI method, and should be carefully revised before acceptation.

Major:

1. The authors used the CMI method to extract cotton plant area and claimed this method required no training samples. However, the authors used the surveyed data to determine the threshold value of CMI and called this process ‘validation’. I think the authors confused the two concepts: calibration and validation. The process to determine the threshold value of CMI (0.74 in this study) using, for example, one year surveyed data is calibration, not validation. After determined the threshold CMI, using other data to confirm that whether the threshold CMI perform well in other years, is called validation. In this study, Figure 2(b), is validation.

In addition, validate the CMI method using planting areas of county from statistical yearbook can demonstrate the effectiveness of the CMI method to some extent. However, the threshold CMI value was calibrated using surveyed data containing spatial information. In figure 1, there are plenty survey data. May it be possible that using half of the survey data for calibration and the other half for validation??

2. Figure 2, what is OA, UA FI-score, PA? No explanation was found.

3. Section 2.2 Data sources. From the statements, this part was more like method other than data sources. How to use these data should not be included in the part, only the introduction of data sources. For example, two import data sources, Sentinel-1 SAR and Sentinel-2, was not found in this part. What is the spatial-temporal resolution of Sentinel-1 SAR and Sentinel-2 ?? How many bands?

4. line 177. What is RE1,RE2 ??  Which band was used?

5. figure 9. No need to classify significance level by too many segment. For example, <0.01 for Extremely significant, <0.05 for significant, >0.05 for not significant.

average

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear

Editor the authors have included all suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.

Regards

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have solve all the questions and the manuscript can be accepted