Digital In Situ Data Collection in Earth Observation, Monitoring and Agriculture—Progress towards Digital Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have with great interest read your manuscript and I have the following comments.

There are some typing mistakes, however, it is not easy to point them out due to missing line numbers.

I must admit that it is difficult to evaluate your manuscript. You have submitted a nice manuscript but it would have been nice with some results. I am aware that this is a technical note, but technical note can also contain examples. Your figure 3 and 4 contain results however it would have been nice if you were able to link your results to the schematic data flow in figure 2. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for sharing all these major ideas and minor corrections, which helped us very much to improve the quality of our article. Thank you very much for investing your time and effort in our article! In the following, please find your comments on the manuscript in bold letters and our responses below.

Dear authors,

 I have with great interest read your manuscript and I have the following comments.

 There are some typing mistakes, however, it is not easy to point them out due to missing line numbers.

Response: Thank you very much for this valuable advice. We cross-checked the grammar and style of the whole manuscript and improved where necessary.

I must admit that it is difficult to evaluate your manuscript. You have submitted a nice manuscript but it would have been nice with some results. I am aware that this is a technical note, but technical note can also contain examples. Your figure 3 and 4 contain results however it would have been nice if you were able to link your results to the schematic data flow in figure 2.

Response: Thank you very much. We rephrased parts of our results and linked our results stronger to the schematic data flow in figure 2. It is correct that a reader may be interested in the role of our technological development in further usage, e.g. in science or practice (precision agriculture). Thus, we added references [61,62] that exemplify the demand and utilization of ground truth information in the context of precision agriculture. References added:

• Dhillon, M.S.; Dahms, T.; Kuebert-Flock, C.; Borg, E.; Conrad, C.; Ullmann, T. Modelling Crop Biomass from Synthetic Remote Sensing Time Series: Example for the DEMMIN Test Site, Germany. Remote Sensing 2020, 12, 1819, doi:10.3390/rs12111819.
• Hosseini, M.; McNairn, H.; Mitchell, S.; Robertson, L.D.; Davidson, A.; Ahmadian, N.; Bhattacharya, A.; Borg, E.; Conrad, C.; Dabrowska-Zielinska, K.; et al. A Comparison between Support Vector Machine and Water Cloud Model for Estimating Crop Leaf Area Index. Remote Sensing 2021, 13, 1348, doi:10.3390/rs13071348.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reports a digital data management workflow of in-situ data from the field to the database for standardized data collection, processing, and dissemination for agroecological ground data. The main focus of the research is to ease the access and availability of ground truth data collected on the field by standardization of protocols for in-situ measurements and interoperability, which in turn allows harmonization of the in-situ data collected to follow the FAIR principles.

The main objectives of the work are clearly introduced, although some language style and grammar issues have been detected in the abstract and in the introduction. Furthermore, some clarifications are suggested.
Some examples are:
- page 1 lines 16-17: "In this study we present a digital workflow for the acquisition, processing and dissemination of agroecological information based ON proprietary and open source software tools with state-of-the-art web-mapping technologies."
- page 1, line 24: please, define which are FAIR principles 
- page 2, line 46: please, rephrase "However, hence it is not fully applied."
- page 2, lines 47-49: please, rephrase for more clarity: "Directly connected to current RS technologies, are big data workflows to deliver ground truthing data in time, to reduce preprocessing time of RS products and to ensure near real time provision of information, knowledge transfer and hence decision making"
- page 2 line 52: please add further information/reference on the sen4cap project
- page 2 lines 67-69: please, consider rephrasing the concept "For instance, traditional pen and paper collection requires time intensive postprocessing of traditional paper sheets. Therefore, increasing numbers of digital tools are available in general, for digital in situ data collection and also linking with remote sensing data."
- please double-check typos and grammar errors over the entire manuscript 

The adopted approaches and methodologies sound not completely convincing and may be further detailed for more clarity. 
Some examples: 
- section 2.1: the instruments used for field data collection are only briefly mentioned. Although they are reported in S1 table, more details would be useful (e.g. what about shortwave and longwave radiation measurements?). Also, clarify what the authors mean with ..."in a standardized way...". 
- section 2.2: "For the development of the digital survey instrument...", please clarify the concept: it is not clear whether the authors are developing a procedure, a workflow, an instrument, etc. Also, the authors are invited to clarify this sentence "Some of the scientific measuring devices produce no (e.g. Konica Minolta SPAD-502PLUS) or proprietary files and data formats."

The supporting visual materials used are well readable and understanding for the exposed concepts. The authors may consider expanding the captions for more clarity. As an example.
- figure 1: the study site is represented but numbers and letters are not explained. The authors may consider also inserting a picture showing the field instruments setup. 

The analysis of results answers quite convincingly the challenges exposed in 2.2 section, although some concepts of the adopted methodologies may be further clarified. Some examples:
- pag. 6, line 189: the word "topic" may be substituted (instruments?)
- pag. 6, line 205: the word "hindrances" may be substituted
- table S2, the authors are invited to improve the readability of the information. As examples:
- are these notes? "When using plot measurement type, keep in mind to use 10th measurement as one long integrated measurement while walking around the plot", File names and upload for Spectrometer Allowed file formats are ascii, csv, txt, asd & sedFile upload will be done after fieldwork"
- are all the data reported necessary? "File name", "Upload file"

Finally, for what concerns the overall discussion, there are in the reviewer's opinion, some concepts to consider:
- the benefits of using a proprietary storage environment, like ArcGIS tools, are well described. But, is this solution affordable in economical terms for end-users (non-experts, farmers, etc.) and is it scalable to other contexts?
- also, the expert contribution in data management, evaluation and interpretation is still required. The final interface and the downloadable information are not easy to read for the final users (not scientists). Have the authors considered providing more user-friendly data output or some kind of education initiatives for farmers, non-experts, general end-users? 
To improve readability:
- please consider mentioning the bibliographic references reported in the text in extenso: page 11, lines 296, 309, 316
- page 11, lines 320-322, please rephrase the concept
- page 11, line 323, 325, please check the words "a saved..." and "clerical"

The reviewer's opinion is to try to improve the clarity and readability of the paper, especially of the methodological approach, with a major revision before publishing it. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for sharing all these major ideas and minor corrections, which helped us very much to improve the quality of our article. Thank you very much for investing your time and effort in our article! In the following, please find your comments on the manuscript in bold letters and our responses below.

The manuscript reports a digital data management workflow of in-situ data from the field to the database for standardized data collection, processing, and dissemination for agroecological ground data. The main focus of the research is to ease the access and availability of ground truth data collected on the field by standardization of protocols for in-situ measurements and interoperability, which in turn allows harmonization of the in-situ data collected to follow the FAIR principles.

The main objectives of the work are clearly introduced, although some language style and grammar issues have been detected in the abstract and in the introduction. Furthermore, some clarifications are suggested.

Response: Thank you very much for this valuable advice. We cross-checked the grammar and style of the whole manuscript and improved where necessary.

Some examples are:

- page 1 lines 16-17: "In this study we present a digital workflow for the acquisition, processing and dissemination of agroecological information based ON proprietary and open source software tools with state-of-the-art web-mapping technologies."

Response: We corrected accordingly.

- page 1, line 24: please, define which are FAIR principles

Response: Thank you for this advice. We included a short definition in the abstract and refer to the longer definition in introduction section

- page 2, line 46: please, rephrase "However, hence it is not fully applied."

Response: We rephrased this sentence accordingly.

- page 2, lines 47-49: please, rephrase for more clarity: "Directly connected to current RS technologies, are big data workflows to deliver ground truthing data in time, to reduce preprocessing time of RS products and to ensure near real time provision of information, knowledge transfer and hence decision making"

Response: We agree with the reviewer and rephrased this paragraph as follows. “The full access to ground truthing data in time is crucial for most RS technologies to enhance product quality, to reduce preprocessing time of products and to ensure near real time provision of information, knowledge transfer and thus decision making [14,15].”

- page 2 line 52: please add further information/reference on the sen4cap project

Response: Thank you very much for this feedback. We added the following information/reference on the sen4cap project.

- Koetz, B.; Defourny, P.; Bontemps, S.; Bajec, K.; Cara, C.; de Vendictis, L.; Kucera, L.; Malcorps, P.; Milcinski, G.; Nicola, L.; et al. SEN4CAP - Sentinels for CAP Monitoring Approach. Presented at the 2019 JRC IACS workshop, Valladolid, 2019.

- ESA Sen4cap - Project Background. http://esa-sen4cap.org/content/project-background.

- page 2 lines 67-69: please, consider rephrasing the concept "For instance, traditional pen and paper collection requires time intensive postprocessing of traditional paper sheets. Therefore, increasing numbers of digital tools are available in general, for digital in situ data collection and also linking with remote sensing data."

Response: We agree with the reviewer and rephrased this paragraph for more clarity as follows: “Traditional pen and paper collection requires time intensive postprocessing of hand-written paper sheets to access and archive information digitally. Through the promotion of digitalization in this sector, there is an increasing number of digital tools available for general applications [25–28], for digital in situ data collection and also linking with remote sensing data [29].”

- please double-check typos and grammar errors over the entire manuscript

Response: Thank you very much for this valuable advice. We cross-checked the grammar and style of the whole manuscript and improved where necessary.

The adopted approaches and methodologies sound not completely convincing and may be further detailed for more clarity.

Response: Thank you very much for this valuable feedback. We included more details for more clarity on methodology. Please also see the following responses.

Some examples:

- section 2.1: the instruments used for field data collection are only briefly mentioned. Although they are reported in S1 table, more details would be useful (e.g. what about shortwave and longwave radiation measurements?). Also, clarify what the authors mean with ..."in a standardized way...".

Response: Thank you again for this feedback. Although we concentrated in the digital acquisition and processing of information, we included more details on instruments used for standardized field data collection.

- section 2.2: "For the development of the digital survey instrument...", please clarify the concept: it is not clear whether the authors are developing a procedure, a workflow, an instrument, etc.

Response: We totally agree with the reviewer and corrected terminology throughout the manuscript to be more precise on the developed workflow for digital data collection. In the referred section we corrected as follows: “For the development of the workflow, that consists of a digital survey instrument for data acquisition in the field, subsequent processing, visualization and dissemination some practical challenges need to be considered.”

Also, the authors are invited to clarify this sentence "Some of the scientific measuring devices produce no (e.g. Konica Minolta SPAD-502PLUS) or proprietary files and data formats."

Response: Thank you very much for this advice. We included information to clarify the proprietary file format of some devices used as follows. “Some of the scientific measuring devices produce no digital data files, for instance the Konica Minolta SPAD-502PLUS which only shows raw data on the device display. Others use proprietary files and data formats, e.g. LI-COR LAI-2200, which are not directly transferable during acquisition.”

The supporting visual materials used are well readable and understanding for the exposed concepts. The authors may consider expanding the captions for more clarity. As an example.

Response: Thank you very much for this feedback. We are pleased that the illustrations are easy to read and support the understanding. We have added appropriate details in the captions mentioned.

- figure 1: the study site is represented but numbers and letters are not explained.

Response: We agree with the reviewer and added information on numbers and letters in figure caption. We modified the caption as follows: “Figure 1. Study Area and Elementary Sampling Unit Design (ESU) of the winter wheat sampling campaign in 2021. A ESU comprises of 13 Secondary Sampling Units (SSU). Nine of these are arranged in three rows of three sampling locations each and numbered from one to nine. Additionally, there is a quadrant of sampling locations around the centre (SSU 5) labeled A through D. All sampling locations are aligned according the management direction to minimize conflicts with regular management activities.”

The authors may consider also inserting a picture showing the field instruments setup.

Response: Thank you for this advice. Most of data are acquire with mobile portable devices in the field. Therefore, unfortunately there is no permanent field instrument setup referenceable. We try to clarify this more precisely in section 2.1 Study Site: DEMMIN.

The analysis of results answers quite convincingly the challenges exposed in 2.2 section, although some concepts of the adopted methodologies may be further clarified. Some examples:
- pag. 6, line 189: the word "topic" may be substituted (instruments?)

Response: We agree and corrected as follows: “and measurements are performed according to the mentioned parameters in table S1”.

- pag. 6, line 205: the word "hindrances" may be substituted

Response: We changed hindrances to impediments to highlight more clearly, that although a proprietary software is used, the benefits outbalance possible shortcomings.

- table S2, the authors are invited to improve the readability of the information. As examples:

- are these notes? "When using plot measurement type, keep in mind to use 10th measurement as one long integrated measurement while walking around the plot", File names and upload for Spectrometer Allowed file formats are ascii, csv, txt, asd & sedFile upload will be done after fieldwork"

Response: The review is absolutely right. We have corrected this part accordingly.

- are all the data reported necessary? "File name", "Upload file"

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable feedback. With Table S2 we wanted to visualize all parameters/information, that are collected. As we did not want to leave out any, we also included the remarks and repetitive fields of the input mask on the device.

Finally, for what concerns the overall discussion, there are in the reviewer's opinion, some concepts to consider:

- the benefits of using a proprietary storage environment, like ArcGIS tools, are well described. But, is this solution affordable in economical terms for end-users (non-experts, farmers, etc.) and is it scalable to other contexts?

Response: Thank you very much for this feedback. Although ArcGIS tools are proprietary and uses proprietary storage environment, the developed workflow with the included survey tool is freely available in the web. Thus, all interested stakeholders can access the survey tool through weblink and use the survey on own devices without the need for subscription or login. Furthermore, we think, that most of digital solutions available on the market are developed in close cooperation with stakeholders from science or agribusiness, the presented solution, partly relying on ArcGIS tools, is no matter of economic affordability. As most scientific institutions in the context of smart agriculture or remote sensing have free access to ArcGIS platform through educational licenses. Once developed and released as freely accessible, the digital survey tool can be used in almost every comparable environment.

- also, the expert contribution in data management, evaluation and interpretation is still required. The final interface and the downloadable information are not easy to read for the final users (not scientists). Have the authors considered providing more user-friendly data output or some kind of education initiatives for farmers, non-experts, general end-users?

Response: We totally agree with the reviewer, that most of tabular information presented as downloadable are more usable for scientists and experts. We are currently working on more easily understandable data visualizations with different types of diagrams. Furthermore, we are currently introducing the workflow to farmers and non-experts in the context of a project, where these stakeholders will undergo training in usage and interpretation of data. More details are available at the following website: https://www.agrisens-demmin.de/

To improve readability:

- please consider mentioning the bibliographic references reported in the text in extenso: page 11, lines 296, 309, 316

Response: We agree with the reviewer and although citation style is pre-defined, we corrected accordingly. As we think this improves readability.

- page 11, lines 320-322, please rephrase the concept

Response: Thank you very much for this advice. We rephrased this paragraph accordingly.

- page 11, line 323, 325, please check the words "a saved..." and "clerical"

Response: Thank you very much for these advices. We changed “a saved” to “from the ground are saved together”. We corrected “clerical” to “avoids spelling mistakes” to be more precise.

The reviewer's opinion is to try to improve the clarity and readability of the paper, especially of the methodological approach, with a major revision before publishing it.

Response: We totally agree with the reviewer and are extremely grateful for the valuable feedback. We improved clarity and readability of the manuscript like documented above and hope the new version of our manuscript fulfills the high standards of Remote Sensing.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Remote sensing (RS) as an innovation technology for suppling reliable information for agricultural have been more and more important in smart agriculture. This is good paper presenting a digital workflow for the acquisition, processing and dissemination of agroecological information based proprietary and open-source software tools. This is a very good one for stakeholder familiar with Remote sensing technic. However, I think it is still not easy to use for the for stakeholders which deal with smart agriculture. Hope there will be a good APP for agricultural stakeholders in future.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for sharing all these major ideas and minor corrections, which helped us very much to improve the quality of our article. Thank you very much for investing your time and effort in our article! In the following, please find your comments on the manuscript in bold letters and our responses below.

Remote sensing (RS) as an innovation technology for suppling reliable information for agricultural have been more and more important in smart agriculture. This is good paper presenting a digital workflow for the acquisition, processing and dissemination of agroecological information based proprietary and open-source software tools. This is a very good one for stakeholder familiar with Remote sensing technic.

Response: Thank you for the valuable feedback, which encourages us in our work and highlights the importance of digitally collected agroecological data in smart agriculture.

However, I think it is still not easy to use for the for stakeholders which deal with smart agriculture. Hope there will be a good APP for agricultural stakeholders in future.

Response: We agree with the reviewer and tried to include appropriate details on usability in the conclusion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer is satisfied with the author's responses and the manuscript's improvement in clarity and readability.