Simulation of Spatiotemporal Variations in Cotton Lint Yield in the Texas High Plains
Shuai Gao
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study provides a good insight into simulating temporal and spatial changes of cotton growth and lint yield and proposes a new integrated crop model based on the existing crop model and remote sensing data. Experiments show that the new model can effectively predict leaf area index and lint yield of cotton in different sites and irrigation systems. The paper generally showed strong interest for the community trying to predict the crop yield.
However, I have a few concerns that I would like the author to clarify. Please check out my specific comments for more details.
- P4: In section 2.3(Proximal Sensing and Satellite Data),“…was periodically conducted with a 28° field of view for the reflected irradiation sensors at 2 m vertically above objective zones.” why the specific number 28° ,2m were chosen?
- P4: In section 2.4(Model Calculation and Evaluation), the overall model structure should be described.
- P6:“We assumed that the LAI and NDVI relationships at the proposed cotton fields were consistent with the experimental data obtained at PSWCL over three years (2003–2005).” What evidence is there to support the hypothesis?
- In the section “3. Results”, the authors analyzed the performance of RSCM, In addition to comparisons with field datasets, comparisons should also be made with large public datasets.
- In the section “3. Results”, I recommend the authors increase the comparison of cotton yield data.
- P11：In the phase of Discussion,“…which has a pixel resolution of 30 m and a swath width of 185 km, would be ideal for monitoring and mapping agricultural lands and crop productivities for medium‐sized farms.” Which literature or experiment proves this conclusion?
- Please modify the Reference format according to the journal requirements.
Author Response
- P4: In section 2.3(Proximal Sensing and Satellite Data), "…was periodically conducted with a 28° field of view for the reflected irradiation sensors at 2 m vertically above objective zones." why the specific number 28°, 2m were chosen?
Response: Please notice that the field-of-view angle is fixed in the specific multispectral radiometer (CROPSCAN) we used in this study. Also, the specified height measurement condition of 2 m is theoretically appropriate for measuring cotton canopy reflectances, similar to those for the short-statured row crops. Therefore, we have revised the corresponding description portion to make it clear,
- P4: In section 2.4(Model Calculation and Evaluation), the overall model structure should be described.
Response: We have revised the corresponding description portion for better readability as recommended.
- P6: "We assumed that the LAI and NDVI relationships at the proposed cotton fields were consistent with the experimental data obtained at PSWCL over three years (2003–2005)." What evidence is there to support the hypothesis?
Response: We have included our assumption in the text. "This hypothesis was made considering that all the cultivars planted in the study were similar to upland cotton, which should allow limited genetic variation. In addition, all the cotton cultivars were grown and cultivated under the same High Plains region environment."
- In the section "3. Results", the authors analyzed the performance of RSCM. In addition to comparisons with field datasets, comparisons should also be made with large public datasets.
Response: Sure, it is of great interest to include study results using the extensive public datasets. However, please understand that it would require more effort and datasets to deal with those, mostly limited to performing additional research. Furthermore, it is out of the current research scope as well. Therefore, we have included other results (Figures 8 and 9) using a dataset obtained from field #30 with our best and sincere effort.
- In the section "3. Results", I recommend the authors increase the comparison of cotton yield data.
Response: As recommended, we have expanded the cotton yield comparison using field #30.
- P11：In the phase of Discussion, "…which has a pixel resolution of 30 m and a swath width of 185 km, would be ideal for monitoring and mapping agricultural lands and crop productivities for medium‐sized farms." Which literature or experiment proves this conclusion?
Response: We have included references and an additional description to support the concluding sentence.
- Please modify the Reference format according to the journal requirements.
Response: Please notice that the citation and reference listing methods were carefully followed based on the style guide that MDPI requires. However, we have double-checked this issue. It will also be confirmed once the manuscript is accepted during the proofreading process.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors and editor,
the manuscript “Simulation of Spatiotemporal Variations in Cotton Lint Yield in the Texas High Plains” aims at simulating the spatiotemporal variation in cotton using remote and proximal sensing-based modelling. The authors tested their model on different areas, treatments, and crop parameters.
The Introduction provides a decent frame of the state of the art of research in the field. The topi may be of some interest for the scientific community and deserves to be considered. However, the authors should improve some sections of the manuscript and clarify the focus on RS technics before considering the manuscript for publication.
In M&M, the experimental fields description is a bit messy, some of the fields are described with a number, some others with a name. Moreover, irrigation management is not provided for all fields. I suggest resuming the description in a table with consistent information. It is not clear how spectral data were used. Therefore, I think that the sentence in lines 163-165 must be expanded to explain the indices (calculation, significance, references).
The results’ statistics should be reported in a table, as they are very confusing.
We miss information on how you obtained weather parameters to calculate GDD and PAR, whereas it is important to know their accuracy.
There are several redundant references (i.e., 10, 19, 21, 22, 24).
Here are some specific comments:
Figure2 must be edited (the upper circle is incomplete)
Figures 4 and 5: provide information on the acronym used in the figure (OLAI, SLAI, SAGDM)
Author Response
In M&M, the experimental fields description is a bit messy; some of the fields are described with a number; and some others with a name. Moreover, irrigation management is not provided for all fields. I suggest resuming the description in a table with consistent information.
Response: As recommended, we have summarized and presented the field and irrigation management info in a table, revising the corresponding portions of this subsection. Thanks.
It is not clear how spectral data were used. Therefore, I think that the sentence in lines 163-165 must be expanded to explain the indices (calculation, significance, references).
Response: We have described this portion using the reference that determined the coefficients.
The results' statistics should be reported in a table, as they are very confusing.
Response: We have summarized the statistical analysis result and presented it in Table 1. Thanks.
We miss information on how you obtained weather parameters to calculate GDD and PAR, whereas it is important to know their accuracy.
Response: We have included the weather data acquisition sources.
There are several redundant references (i.e., 10, 19, 21, 22, 24).
Response: We have carefully double-checked any repetition or redundancy of the references throughout the main text.
Figure 2 must be edited (the upper circle is incomplete)
Response: The incomplete circle is corrected, and the figure is replaced.
Figures 4 and 5: provide information on the acronym used in the figure (OLAI, SLAI, SAGDM)
Response: The full terms of OLAI, SLAI, and SAGDM are provided.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no other questions.
Author Response
Thanks.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been revised. However, there are 12 self-citations here. For ethical reasons, I don't think this I acceptable.
Author Response
We have deleted several references with our best effort. Thanks.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for your understanding.
