Identification of Infiltration Features and Hydraulic Properties of Soils Based on Crop Water Stress Derived from Remotely Sensed Data
, Renata Duffková 2, Jan Haberle 3, Antonín Zajíček 2, Václav Nedbal 1, Tereza Bernasová 1 and Kateřina Křováková 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting research about how remote sensing technology can be used to study hydraulic properties of soils based on crop conditions focusing water stress. The manuscript is well written. However, I identified few points of concerns, which I think need to be addressed, and the manuscript should be revised accordingly before it can be published.
Specific Comments:
Please rephrase this sentence. It is confusing.
L: 6-9
‘Estimation of saturated soil hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and 7 field water capacity (FWC) was based on a combination of in situ measurements and crop water stress derived using the CropWater Stress Index (CWSI) from aerial thermal and hyperspectral imaging.’
L: 9
Put (SVR) after ‘Support Vector Regression’
L: 12-13
‘The regression coefficient values for estimation of FWC for topsoil (0–0.3 m) ranged from 0.38 to 0.99.’
Are trying to indicate R2, then you should say that.
L: 93
What is OPTRAM model?
L: 75-777
Need reference for the following statement:
‘A suitable approach for assessing soil hydraulic properties is offered by remote sensing (RS), which has considerable potential, especially for precision agriculture and, by extension, for protecting surface waters from eutrophication.’
L: 337
‘Root Mean Square Method (RMSE)’ should be ‘Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)’
Please check the accuracy of equation (13), looks like the square for (P-O) is missing.
Please double check all other equations as well for typos, just to make sure.
General comments:
- Need more references for the remote sensing section of literature review.
- All figures need a ‘north arrow’.
- Which data were used to calculate SAVI and MSAVI? CASI? I suggest adding some discussions to clarify this.
- MSAVI equation needs NIR and R. Why have you decided to use R800 and R670? Did you follow any specific procedure to select those bands? Please explain. Some may decide to select other bands to do the same calculation.
- Same goes to NDMI too.
- Conclusion doesn’t say specifics about what aerial image needs to be used, although this research used specific data.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
row 120: coarse fragments instead skeleton
row 141 Texturally heavier, maybe is better more clayey
it is not clear who did the soil survey: is it a soil legacy map? and which is the scale map?
row 404 never seen writing "skeletonisation"
pedotrasfer function abbreviation is PTFs
row 200 is more correct coarse fragmments instead of stone
row 486 for wrb 2014 Arenic in a supplementary qualifier: Leptic Arenic Regosol become Leptic Regosol (Arenic) and so on for others
concluding the part where the soil is described and the pedology needs to be reviewed
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Well written article for obtaining FWC and Ks using on in-situ measurements and RS data.
My comment on the article is as following:
Line 114
Better describe/add more specific research goals to what extent.
Line 176
Locate the sampling point where is measured of Ks in site figures (ex. figure6).
Each site size(locality) is over 10ha in table 1. Assuming special variability would be large, Is it enough measurements of Ks (e.g., 4 samples) to access each site??
Line 386
Would be great to add a figure of relationship between predicted FWC and measured FWC as like figure5.
Line 660
Recommend enriching conclusions
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for revising the manuscript by addressing my questions and suggestions. The manuscript has been improved significantly and it is my opinion that it is ready for publication now.
