Remote Sensing on Alfalfa as an Approach to Optimize Production Outcomes: A Review of Evidence and Directions for Future Assessments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor,

I have concluded the revision of the manuscript “Remote Sensing on Alfalfa as an Approach to Optimize Production Outcomes: A Review of Evidence and Directions for Future Assessments” by Tedesco et al. submitted to Remote Sensing.

This is an exceptionally well done research article. One of the best and most substantial that I have reviewed in many years. The authors are to be congratulated on the thoroughness of their work and the way that it is tied into a total subject.  

The relevance to not only the intended topic but also showed the possible wavelengths and vegetation indicators as well as methodologies for reliable alfalfa biomass and quality trait forecasts, which are widely dispersed in scientific literature

The authors present a case and process for remote sensing in the alfalfa production that they work in and that relates to smart agricultural system, which in this day is very important. 

The methods used were adequately described with sufficient detail to repeat the research. The quality of English language, figures and tables are satisfactory. The authors used relevant literature to interpretate the data.

The conclusions of the review can be applied very readily in common sense terms. excellent.

Cordially,

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The review article is well written easy to read and free from grammatical or spelling errors. The content is technically accurate and sound. The abstract is concise and sufficient, the introduction provides the necessary background and rationale. The methodology of systematic review is well laid out, clear, appropriate, and applied properly. The results of the systematic review are well summarized and interpreted.

My only comment is on the conclusion where the influence of soil (physical and chemical ) properties was introduced. This was not mentioned in the literature review as well as the result.  Therefore, it is important to either expand the review and include this topic or remove it from the conclusion altogether. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 2: My only comment is on the conclusion where the influence of soil (physical and chemical ) properties was introduced. This was not mentioned in the literature review as well as the result. Therefore, it is important to either expand the review and include this topic or remove it from the conclusion altogether.

A: This part has been removed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 3:

Introduction:

Line 24: How reliable is the statement, maybe a reference?

A: We improved this part and included a reference. Lines: 24-33.

Line 36-38: It could better mention major food crops worldwide. Top 3 or Top 5.

A: This comment was addressed in the new version. Lines: 48-49.

 Line 47: Please mention an approx. lifetime (range would also work) of Alfalfa

A: This comment was addressed in the new version. Line: 58.

Materials and Methods

There is no information on where the studies have been conducted. It is important because alfalfa yields and quality is not the same in all places. Even though satellite images are available on a global scale, it is not necessarily all spectral signatures/vegetation indices that can be used globally. Therefore, least to know, please mention the study regions and satellite/drone/handhelds used in Table 1.

In figure 1: Calculation of a number of articles bit confused in "Citation analysis". Connect the box "Full-text articles excluded in citation analysis" and "full-text articles assessed for eligibility in citation analysis."

A: Figure and Table have been updated, including the requested information.

Results:

Line 106: Various vegetation indices such as?

A: We added examples. Line: 119.

Discussion:

What is the scope for SAR?

A: Comments regarding the use of active sensors were added in the discussion. Lines: 221-243.

What is the scope for integrating crop models and remote sensing?

A: Comments regarding the use of crop modeling in combination with remote sensing were added in the discussion. Lines: 230-243.

Others:

Line 246, In abbreviation, there is a DM instead of DB?

A: Thank you for pointing out this error. It was addressed in the new version.

It could be better if Alfalfa's range of production and quality were mentioned. Therefore, readers can relate the accuracy of estimation (mainly RMSE).

A: thank you for your valuable comment, unfortunately, the papers included in our analysis use different units to provide information about yield as well as different ways of measuring it, making really difficult to combine the results. In addition, some articles do not provide the RMSE values (e.g., Noland 2018, Marshall 2015, and Starks 2016). To avoid possible confusions, we decided to remove RMSE from the tables.