Soil Reflectance Composites—Improved Thresholding and Performance Evaluation
, Pablo d’Angelo 1, Peter Schwind 1, Paul Karlshöfer 1, Rupert Müller 1, Simone Zepp 2, Martin Wiesmeier 3 and Peter Reinartz 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to read your MS. I hope this feedback will find you with great spirit to improve the MS. The authors have an interesting experiment and showed information about the “Acidification of raw cattle slurry with whey reduces gaseous 2 emission during storage with positive effects on biogas produc-3 tion”. Please, find below some suggestions I raised about your MS.
Abstract: abbreviation without previously description
Add the subtitle “Material and Methods”, line 151
Figure 1: The X axis is not clear. Please, check it.
Line 189: explain the impact of “Distribution of available Sentinel-2 images per tile”, in the Figure 1, in the text.
Do not need to introduce the section 3.1, “For the compositing approach (see section 3.1), S”, in the section 2.3
In general, there is so many abbreviations in the text. It makes difficult to understand. The authors could avoid some abbreviations.
The site characterization is poor. The authors demonstrate the methodologies used between lines 151 and 427, and used just one line 151 to explain the site. This is an article, and not a review. The manuscript should focus on Results, but need a superficial review of methods.
Results, line 431, Do not need to use the expression “According to section 3.1”, line 430. Describe the three indices and two tmin threshold versions. In addition, lines between 430 and 432 are part of Material and Methods.
Line 440: What is (1) and (2)?
In the Material and Methods, characterize the area of grassland.
The discussion raised all important results. The Conclusion is clear and focused on objective of study. Congrats.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting paper which is fully in the scope of Remote Sensing.
I only have few remarks.
1) It is not very clear for me how the validation is realized. Is there a real ground truth at a given stage, or is it based only on comparizons of models and spectra? If it is the last one can we call it real validation? Indeed the section on validation lacks of clarity.
2) I don't understand the added value of using CLC which is an aggregated product the resolution of which is much larger.
3) Line 372 (see section ??) please replace the question marks with the section number
4) There are a lot of typos or missing stuff in the references
Ref.16 Incredible number of initials 'RRPRRNEQ....' Should be a problem with Zotero of any soft used to generate the refs
Ref 20. de Forges A.R., should be Richer-de-Forges, A.C.;
Ref 38. Same problem with number of initials M.P.; D.E.; S.F.; etc.
Ref 65. the number of the paper and the DOI are missing.
Nice paper anyway
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is devoted to development of methods of the soil remote sensing on basis of forming soil reflectance composites. The work developed approach for estimation of threshold of this forming. The work seems to be potentially interesting and useful for development of the soil remote sensing; I have on some minor comments.
1. Using soil reflectance composites should be described in more detail in Introduction. It can be useful for understanding the main aim of the work by potential reader.
2. Criteria of selection of reflectance indices NDVI, NBR2 and PV+IR2 for the analysis should be shown.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
