Spatiotemporal Hybrid Random Forest Model for Tea Yield Prediction Using Satellite-Derived Variables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work a Spatio-temporal Hybrid Random Forest Model for Tea Yield Prediction using Satellite Derived Hydro-meteorological Variables Coupled with Dragonfly Algorithm and Support Vector Regression was proposed.

The analysis carried out by the authors is extremely interesting. However the work would appear to be poor, badly described and missing in most of its parts and therefore it can be published at present. The organisation of the work needs to be revised in many aspects. The entire bibliography does not meet the requirements of the journal. In addition, 13% of the reference appear to be from the authors underlining a presence of self-citation. Below are some general and specific comments.

General comments

Introduction: I just want to remind, according to the journal instruction for authors that: “the introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.” Author introduction appears to be rich in bibliographic references but poor in content and form, I do not find the sense of listing works without a link between them, the notions should be expressed clearly, trying to link what the works test with those of your own work. I recommend a complete revision of this section.

Aim of the work: what year the authors have investigate? Remote sensing is a technique, what kind of satellite you have used? What is study region??? Again I suggest to revise this section. Why you make this work?

Material and methods. Please first of all define the study area so that the reader can understand where the survey is taking place. After that describe the materials that were used and after that how the authors combine the materials in the procedure of the work in order to obtain the results. Furthermore in the methods section you do not give the theoretical framework of the methods (how a RF works ect) but simply introduce the procedure and tell why you chose the algorithms and what parameters you fit for your work. Finally the author should define in different step all the materials used in this work, how it is possible that in 15 lines the study area and all the materials are well explained?? To make more clear authors must make different paragraph like: 2.1 Study area; 2.2 Satellite data; 2.3 Meteorological data; 2.4 Ground reference data…

Figure quality is very low, all the chapter are different. Is not acceptable for a journal such as remote sensing.

Results and discussions: Where are the discussion with other works? Just 10 lines at the end of the paragraph (624-633)? Again I report the instruction of authors provided by the journal “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.” The comparison with other studies is completely missing.

 

Specific comments

Line 29: Define SWL

Line 30: define BRF

Line 46: define GDP

Line 48: please Kg·ha^-1

Line 59: “have used deterministic or probabilistic approaches for modelling” for modelling what?

Line 60-64: is not necessary to cite two time the reference 8, delete one.  

Line 65: “Das et al.” is missing the reference. Add the reference after the name and not at the end of the sentence

Line 69: you have just define RS. Please check

Line 65-72: please rewrite the paragraph… is not clear

Line 72: define LAI

Line 73: “Phan et al.” is missing the reference. Add the reference after the name and not at the end of the sentence

Line 73-77: please rewrite the paragraph… is not clear what Phan does in his work.

Line 77: “Rama Rao et al.” is missing the reference. Add the reference after the name and not at the end of the sentence

Line 81: “Dihkan et al.” is missing the reference. Add the reference after the name and not at the end of the sentence

Line 85: “Duncan et al.” is missing the reference. Add the reference after the name and not at the end of the sentence

Line 87 “Rajapakse et al.” is missing the reference. Add the reference after the name and not at the end of the sentence

Line 122: check bracket

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate thoughtful responses that would have been important to implement this revision and the useful recommendations from the reviewers. Please see our responses to the issues posed below, as well as the edits made to meet all reviewers’ comments in the updated manuscript for more details. Most valuable feedback motivated us to revise this paper extensively. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The ms remotesensing-1562392 with the title of “Spatio-temporal Hybrid Random Forest Model for Tea Yield Prediction using Satellite Derived Hydro-meteorological Variables Coupled with Dragonfly Algorithm and Support Vector Regression” developed a novel Spatio-temporal hybrid DRS-RF model with a dragonfly optimisation algorithm and support vector regression as a feature selection approach. Below are my comments:

The title is very long, can be shorted.

The order of the authors is wrong>> look>> Md Wasique Islam Chow- dhury4! It should be affiliation number 3 instead of 4.

L27-28 Several important performance evaluation criteria? What are they? Please mention them or some of them.

L29 SWL? What is this? Suddenly appeared, please define any abbreviation in the first time.

Same in L 30 for BRF? See previous comment

The abstract is superficial written, I recommend the author to go through their ms and make it deeper.

L55-90 try to divide this paragraph into two. Also, try to show the importance of your investigation instead of describing other investigations.

I recommend the authors to cite this ref (DOI: https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v36n4a2020-54560) and add few sentences about the effect of COVID-19 on the tea productivity in next few years.

In the introduction, also try to focus on the issue as universal instead of localizing it.

In the ms, you used (the authors) more over ten times, please avoid using this particularly when you talk about yourselves such as in the aim at the end of the introduction.

In material and methods, the authors should cite the different equations and methods. Some were not cited

Leave a space between the values and the units such as 5000mm, check all these issues in the whole ms. There are many and many issues such this in the ms, please correct.

Fig 4 should be converted to be a Table.

Table 2>> the authors should indicate what does mean the colour? Red, Blue and Black?

The discussion part is very weak written and superficial, please revise this part and make it deeper and cite the relevant references.

The conclusion can be summarized and try to add the most important findings that were found in your investigations.

Regards, Reviewer

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate thoughtful responses that would have been important to implement this revision and the useful recommendations from the reviewers. Please see our responses to the issues posed below, as well as the edits made to meet all reviewers’ comments in the updated manuscript for more details. Most valuable feedback motivated us to revise this paper extensively. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

authors responded to comments made during the first round of reviews

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate thoughtful responses that would have been important to implement this revision and the useful recommendations from the reviewers. Please see our responses to the issues posed below, as well as the edits made to meet all reviewers’ comments in the updated manuscript for more details. Most valuable feedback motivated us to revise this paper extensively. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS has been improved, but the authors have to go through the MS and correct all typos error. Also, remove the (etc.) from the whole Ms.

Please also add ref 13 also with ref 12 in lines 56-58.

 

 

Good luck, Reviewer

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate thoughtful responses that would have been important to implement this revision and the useful recommendations from the reviewers. Please see our responses to the issues posed below, as well as the edits made to meet all reviewers’ comments in the updated manuscript for more details. Most valuable feedback motivated us to revise this paper extensively. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.