New 3-D Fluorescence Spectral Indices for Multiple Pigment Inversions of Plant Leaves via 3-D Fluorescence Spectra

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Personally, I am not native speaker. Even though it seemed to me, that at certain parts of the text you made some sort of shortcut and that decreased it's fluency.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. We have read your comments carefully and have responded to your questions in detail with the following responses and corrections. Below are our point by point responses.Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel that this manuscript can be considered for publication after many minor revisions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think that Minor editing of English language is required

Author Response

Thank you very much. Language had been revised through the manuscript by a professional company. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a poorly written manuscript. The contents are hard to follow with busy writing. It can tell the authors have made efforts for this report. However, this study lacks basis from optical remote sensing without any benchmark study and comparison. Any scientific research should have basis and cannot be jumped in without any justification and foundation studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The contents are busy. The logic is hard to follow. English needs extensive editing.

Author Response

We apologize for the lack of clarity in explaining the basis for the optical remote sensing aspect. We have sorted out the overall logic of the article and highlighted the basic part of optical remote sensing. We have explained your confusion and hope to gain your approval and that of other readers. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper is dedicated to identifying fluorescence spectral indices for various pigment inversions in plant leaves. However, I am unsure whether it is a research paper or a technical note for a report. Therefore, I have some questions and concerns that need to be addressed in the manuscript.

1. Materials and methods
I strongly recommend adding a roadmap highlighting the main steps in your research approach. The flowchart presented in Figure 4 appears to be overloaded with information and lacks clarity in its layout.

2. Introduction
You wrote: "Spectral index from vegetation reflectance can greatly extract spectral characteristics for monitoring vegetation information [27]. For example, NDVI, the central band reflectance (red band) that could express the spectral feature of the monitored objective substance was used for the extraction of vegetation chlorophyll information, and the reference band reflectance (NIR band) was used to avoid the effect of vegetation background in the way of the normalization algorithm [28]. However, the spectral extraction from leaf fluorescence in the current researches only considered a single band or the fluorescence integral with the specific band exciting light [29]."

Please confirm the statement on utilizing of vegetation indices for determining chlorophyll fluorescence. There are some pertinent references to be kindly asked for including listed as follows: https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/6/1387; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102603

3. Discussion
The discussion section appears to lack crucial information regarding the uncertainties associated with your measurements and modeled results. Moreover, there is a notable absence of details regarding the applicability of imaging fluorescence to other areas and objectives. I am unable to find any information about transferring the results to other study sites under various scenarios. Please ensure that these paragraphs are included in the discussion.

Please find some reference on determining fluorescence for monitoring crop conditions in the context of drought and leave senescence in Poland (2021) and Europe (2023).

4. While the problem you're addressing is undoubtedly of interest to the readership and your methodology appears sound, your manuscript suffers from poor writing quality. Throughout the document, including the Introduction and Abstract, there is a lack of clarity. Notably, you have failed to highlight the novelty of your study and have overlooked important contributions from existing literature, including publications in the journal Remote Sensing.

Your Method description is somewhat satisfactory but lacks clarity for a broader audience. Additionally, the Discussion section is limited and fails to contextualize the presented results with relevant studies from the peer-reviewed literature. It is imperative to significantly augment the Discussion section by evaluating your work in comparison to similar studies in the field of fluorescence. This should include providing context, discussing the broader implications of your work, and critically addressing uncertainties."

This version maintains a professional and constructive tone while clearly outlining the areas that need improvement.

Kindest regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed questions and suggestions in the revised manuscript. These suggestions have helped us a lot in revising the manuscript. The structure of the article has been optimized. We have responded in detail to your questions and suggestions and have made revisions in the manuscript.Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Appreciate the efforts the authors have made to address my concerns. However, I believe that the manuscript still stays the same with fundamental flaws even it is revised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

Thank you for adressing all the concerns. No further comments I have. I accept the manuscript in present form.

Kindest regards