Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper gives a systematic review of plant feature extraction and segmentation, but there are still many problems in this paper:

1.The structure of the paper still needs revised. Placing Figure 2 and the research objectives (Lines 138-160) within the “structure of the paper” section is unreasonable.

2.In Table 2, is it correct to use only medium and low resolutions for Canopy Level Phenotyping? The paper should be more explicit in defining the levels of canopy, plant, and organ.

3.The presentation of author names in the paper needs to be consistent. For example, in Table 3, there are two forms: Gutierrez et al. (2010) and Musungu, K et al. (2024). This issue occurs multiple times throughout the paper.

4.Why are different methods used for experiments in Table 8 and Table 9? The method chosen for Table 9 is not representative, firstly because it is not a SOTA (State-Of-The-Art) method, and secondly because the number of methods chosen is limited.

5.It is recommended to delete the experimental section.

6.The paper needs to add a future outlook section.

Author Response

We are very thankful for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you took to review our work and provide detailed suggestions. 

Comment 1: “The structure of the paper still needs revision. Placing Figure 2 and the research objectives (Lines 138-160) within the “structure of the paper” section is unreasonable.”

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the structure of the paper to ensure better flow and readability. We repositioned Figure 2 where it directly supports the content.

 

Comment 2: “In Table 2, is it correct to use only medium and low resolutions for Canopy Level Phenotyping? The paper should be more explicit in defining the levels of canopy, plant, and organ.”

Response: Thank you for your observation regarding the resolution used for Canopy Level Phenotyping in Table 2. The intention behind classifying the data resolution at the canopy level as medium to low is to reflect the nature of the imaging techniques typically used for canopy-level monitoring, such as satellite-based multispectral or hyperspectral imaging, LiDAR, or thermal sensors. These sensors, especially when used from high altitudes (e.g., satellites or UAVs), often have lower spatial resolution compared to close-range imaging techniques used for plant-level and organ-level phenotyping.

However, we recognize that this may not have been explicitly clear. To enhance clarity, we revised the table to explicitly define that while canopy-level techniques offer broad coverage and enable monitoring of larger areas, the trade-off is generally lower spatial resolution when compared to the more detailed imaging possible at the plant and organ levels, where proximity allows for much higher resolution data.

We also ensure that the distinction between canopy, plant, and organ levels is more clearly defined in the text, emphasizing that the resolution improves as the focus shifts from broad, large-scale phenotyping (canopy level) to individual plants (plant level) and then to detailed organ-specific features (organ level).

We hope this clarifies our intent, and we appreciate your suggestion to improve this section.

 

Comment 3: “The presentation of author names in the paper needs to be consistent. For example, in Table 3, there are two forms: Gutierrez et al. (2010) and Musungu, K et al. (2024). This issue occurs multiple times throughout the paper.”

Response: Thank you for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. We will standardize the format for all author names throughout the paper to ensure consistency, following a uniform citation style such as "Author et al. (Year)."

 

Comment 4: “Why are different methods used for experiments in Table 8 and Table 9? The method chosen for Table 9 is not representative, firstly because it is not a SOTA (State-Of-The-Art) method, and secondly because the number of methods chosen is limited.”

Response: Thank you for raising this point. The purpose of using different methods in Table 8 and Table 9 was to serve two different objectives:

Table 8 focuses on performance metrics such as processing time, frame rate, and data size of various deep learning-based methods over time, showing how advancements in neural networks and other Deep Learning (DL) methods have resulted in improved processing speeds, storage efficiency, and performance.

We renamed to “Comparison of Processing Time, Frame Rate, Data Size, and Storage Requirements for 3D Point Cloud Methods”.

Table 9 aims to highlight the differences between DL methods, such as PointNet, and traditional machine learning (ML) methods, such as SVM. The primary intention behind this table is to emphasize the contrast between DL and ML approaches for plant feature extraction and segmentation in terms of accuracy metrics like precision, recall, and F1-score. This is not meant to represent SOTA methods, but rather to show the foundational differences between the two approaches and illustrate their respective strengths and weaknesses.

In Table 9, we chose to compare SVM (as a representative ML method) and PointNet (as a representative DL method) because these methods are widely used and serve as good examples of their respective categories. Our goal is to demonstrate how DL methods like PointNet offer improvements in areas such as feature representation and accuracy compared to traditional ML approaches, which helps readers understand the evolution of these technologies.

 

Comment 5: It is recommended to delete the experimental section.

Response: Our primary aim is to provide valuable insights for researchers, especially those new to the field or looking to initiate work. By sharing these insights, we hope to help others avoid common pitfalls, minimize errors, and reduce the effort needed in their research. To better reflect this objective, we have renamed the section to ‘Remote Sensing and Plant Phenotyping: Insights.' We encourage you to reconsider the relevance and value of this section in supporting and guiding future research in this field.

 

Comment 6: The paper needs to add a future outlook section.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have integrated the outlook into the Conclusion and Future Outlook section, to provide a cohesive summary that aligns with the paper's objectives. This section now offers a comprehensive review of the advancements in plant feature extraction and segmentation while also presenting future perspectives.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

How to extract vegetation features efficiently and accurately, the paper discusses and analyzes the current state of research in terms of data sources, methods and experiments. The revised paper has well addressed all my comments. I have no more concerns.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which helped us enhance the quality and clarity of our paper. We appreciate your acknowledgement of our efforts to address your concerns regarding feature extraction methods. We are pleased that the revised paper meets your expectations, and we look forward to the next steps in the review process.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 6)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered my questions comprehensively and made the corrections I requested. They also added to the literature many of the latest publications from 2024.

I believe the article is suitable for publication on Remote Sensing with minor corrections to text formatting.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which helped us enhance the quality and clarity of our paper. We appreciate your acknowledgement of our efforts to address your concerns regarding feature extraction methods. We are pleased that the revised paper meets your expectations, and we look forward to the next steps in the review process.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't have any new questions.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a review article entitled "Techniques for Plant Feature Extraction and Segmentation: A Survey", which seeks to present an extensive review of techniques for plant feature extraction and segmentation, addressing the growing need for efficient plant phenotyping. In my opinion, overall, the objectives are worthwhile, but unfortunately, I am afraid that the paper is not in a publishable state because this research lacks key aspects for a comprehensive review based on the title. This review only focused on the vision/3D point cloud but based on the title i would have expected more techniques to be introduced such as hyperpsectral imaging, thermal imaging, fluorescence images, etc. In addition, the sturcture of the manuscript does not flow well and images are in poor quality. The ideas needs to be clearly expressed and deeper thoughts should be discussed on methods with more comprehensive reviews.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of english is fine but the sturcture of the manuscript does not flow well 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you took to review our work and provide detailed suggestions. Below is our point-by-point response to your comments.

 

1. Comment: "This review only focused on the vision/3D point cloud, but based on the title, I would have expected more techniques to be introduced such as hyperspectral imaging, thermal imaging, fluorescence images, etc."

 

   Response: We understand the concern about the scope of the review. In response, we have expanded the manuscript to include additional sections on hyperspectral imaging, thermal imaging, and fluorescence imaging techniques. We have incorporated these sections in the updated manuscript and revised the title to reflect the inclusion of these modalities. This addition aims to provide a comprehensive overview aligned with the manuscript's title and objectives.

 

2. Comment: "The structure of the manuscript does not flow well, and images are of poor quality."

 

   Response: We have thoroughly revised the manuscript’s structure to ensure a better flow. The sections are now organized logically, and we have rewritten certain parts to create smoother transitions between topics. Additionally, we have replaced all low-quality images with high-resolution versions and ensured consistent formatting throughout the document.

 

3. Comment: "The ideas need to be clearly expressed, and deeper thoughts should be discussed on methods with more comprehensive reviews."

 

   Response: We have restructured and rewritten several sections to express the ideas more clearly. We also expanded the discussion on each technique, providing deeper insights and a comparative analysis. We believe these revisions make the paper more comprehensive and easier to follow.

 

4. Comment: "Quality of English is fine, but the structure of the manuscript does not flow well."

 

   Response: We appreciate your positive feedback on the English quality. To address the structural issues, we have reorganized the manuscript to improve readability and coherence, which we hope enhances the overall presentation of the content.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a review of techniques for plant feature extraction and segmentation

1. The Abstract chapter is relatively standardized and can reflect the core content of the manuscript. If possible,

1. the authors should state the significance of the research. For example, why more efficient plant phenotypes are needed and why measuring plant structure is so important

2. the authors should state the challenge of the research. For example, what is the shortcomings of existing methods

3. the authors should state the results of the experiment with numbers and metrics

4. the authors should write the acronym’s name, no matter how well known the acronym is. For example, “three-dimensional (3D)”

2. The Introduction chapter is relatively serious and standardized. If possible,

1. the authors should fix the typo in this sentence “Interested readers can access their code via the provided URL: (https://example.com)”

2. the authors should state the chapter arrangement

3. The authors highlighted point cloud applications “from architecture and construction to autonomous systems, geospatial mapping, environmental monitoring, healthcare, and cultural heritage preservation”. Meanwhile, the authors only discussed two-dimensional (2D) image-based methods for agriculture. Here is an article about a 2D image-based method for satellite imagery. If possible, the authors should discuss other 2D image-based applications such as satellite imagery which may draw inspiration for 2D image-based methods for agriculture. “Smoke recognition in satellite imagery via an attention pyramid network with bidirectional multi-level multi-granularity feature aggregation and gated fusion”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The overall writing is relatively serious and standardized. If possible,

1. the authors should write the acronym’s name, no matter how well known the acronym is. For example, “In this section, we compare a conventional method (SVM)”

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We appreciate your suggestions to improve the clarity and organization of the manuscript. Below is our response to your feedback.

 

1(a). Comment: "The authors should state the significance of the research. For example, why more efficient plant phenotypes are needed and why measuring plant structure is so important."

 

   Response: We have revised the abstract and introduction to clearly state the significance of plant phenotyping, its role in precision agriculture, and the need for efficient plant feature extraction techniques. These additions provide a stronger rationale for the research and better contextualize the study.

 

1(b). Comment: "The authors should state the challenge of the research. For example, what are the shortcomings of existing methods."

 

   Response: We have added a section in the introduction to outline the existing techniques in Scope and objectives section. This addition helps highlight the need for more advanced methods, which is a central theme of our review.

 

1(c). Comment: "The authors should state the results of the experiment with numbers and metrics."

 

   Response: We have updated the section to include outcomes from our experiments in Accuracy and Loss plots for simplicity.

 

1(d). Comment: "The authors should write the acronym’s name, no matter how well known the acronym is."

 

   Response: We have revised the entire manuscript to ensure that every acronym is defined at first mention. This change makes the text more accessible to readers unfamiliar with specific terminologies.

 

2(a). Comment: "The authors should state the chapter arrangement."

 

   Response: We have added a brief outline of the chapter arrangement at the end of the introduction. This change helps guide readers through the structure of the manuscript.

 

3. Comment: "The authors should discuss 2D image-based methods for satellite imagery."

 

   Response: We have discussing 2D image-based methods as suggested. This draws parallels between satellite imagery techniques and agricultural image processing to provide a broader perspective.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper gives a systematic review of plant feature extraction and segmentation, but there are still many problems in this paper:

1.There are a large number of paragraphs in the introduction, but the internal logical relationship between them is unclear.

2.Many literatures are listed in the introduction of this paper, but many of them are not related to the research topic. The authors should mainly focus on literatures on plant feature extraction and segmentation.

3.The section 2 should focus on the application of 3D point cloud in plant feature extraction and segmentation.

4.In line 287, the title should be "3.", not "3.3".

5.The format of the table in the paper should be uniform, and there are several formats at present.

6.Section 3.2 mainly introduces the 3D point cloud processing method based on deep learning, but the title is the traditional machine learning method, and the topic is irrelevant.

7.In section 3, using traditional methods, traditional machine learning methods, and PointNet seems unreasonable.

8.The numbers of the figures in the paper are confused.

9.Lines 696, 718, 730, and 754, it is recommended to add numbers. For example, (1) Color space analysis and conversion.

10.The limitations in Table 8 should be completed. For example, in image segmentation method, how to determine the optimal segmentation scale is a difficult problem, and the problem of over-segmentation and under-segmentation will occur if the segmentation scale is not good.

11.The paper needs to add a prospect section.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback. We appreciate your insights and suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining the manuscript. Below is our response to each point.

 

1. Comment: "There are a large number of paragraphs in the introduction, but the internal logical relationship between them is unclear."

 

   Response: We have revised the introduction to improve the logical flow between paragraphs. The updated structure provides a clearer narrative that guides the reader through the research background and objectives.

 

2. Comment: "Many literatures are listed in the introduction, but many of them are not related to the research topic."

 

   Response: We have carefully reviewed and revised the references in the introduction to focus only on literature directly relevant to plant feature extraction.

 

3. Comment: "The section 2 should focus on the application of 3D point cloud in plant feature extraction and segmentation."

 

   Response: We have restructured Section 2 to specifically address plant feature extraction in different levels of plants. This change enhances the coherence and focus of the section.

 

4. Comment: "In line 287, the title should be '3.', not '3.3'."

 

   Response: We have corrected the section numbering throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency and accuracy.

 

5. Comment: "The format of the table in the paper should be uniform."

 

   Response: All tables have been reformatted for uniformity. We have standardized the fonts, spacing, and alignment to ensure a consistent presentation.

 

6. Comment: "Section 3.2 mainly introduces the 3D point cloud processing method based on deep learning, but the title is the traditional machine learning method."

 

   Response: We have revised the title of Section 3.2 to accurately reflect its content, ensuring alignment between the title and the discussed techniques.

 

7. Comment: “In section 3, using traditional methods, traditional machine learning methods, and PointNet seems unreasonable.”

Response: We have revised the title.

 

8. Comment: "The numbers of the figures in the paper are confusing."

 

   Response: We have renumbered all figures and ensured that the numbering is consistent with the references in the text.

 

9. Comment: "Lines 696, 718, 730, and 754, it is recommended to add numbers."

 

   Response: We have added numbering to the subsections and key points, as suggested, to improve clarity and readability.

 

10. Comment: "The limitations in Table 8 should be completed."

 

   Response: We have expanded Table 8 to include more detailed limitations for each method. This addition provides a more balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of each technique.

 

11. Comment: "The paper needs to add a prospect section."

 

    Response: We have added a dedicated section on future research directions and prospects, outlining potential areas for improvement and emerging trends in the field.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an extensive review of techniques for plant feature extraction and segmentation, including 2D images and 3D point clouds. Overall, the paper comprehensively describes and analyzes the existing techniques for plant feature extraction. There are some issues that need to be carefully addressed.

1.         The structure and organization of the paper needs to be adjusted and modified to make the structure clearer and more understandable.

2.         The paper layout needs to be modified to meet RS publication requirements.

3.         Recent research advances need to be added in 3D point cloud data processing

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and recommendations. We have carefully considered your feedback and made the following revisions.

 

1. Comment: "The structure and organization of the paper needs to be adjusted and modified to make the structure clearer and more understandable."

 

   Response: We have restructured the manuscript to ensure a clearer and more logical flow of information, making it easier to follow.

 

2. Comment: "The paper layout needs to be modified to meet RS publication requirements."

 

   Response: We have revised the layout to align with the journal’s guidelines, ensuring that the format meets the required standards.

 

3. Comment: "Recent research advances need to be added in 3D point cloud data processing."

 

   Response: We have incorporated recent research on 3D point cloud processing, including novel algorithms and emerging applications. This update ensures that the review is up-to-date and relevant.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript with the title “Techniques for Plant Feature Extraction and Segmentation: A Survey” aimed to perform a state-of-art of techniques for plant feature extraction and segmentation and preformed some experiments for plant segmentation.

This manuscript is not well organized and needs to be improved in all sections.

There are a few comments and suggestions about this article that should be addressed:

The structure of the manuscript as follows:

1         1.  Introduction

           2. Applications of 3D point Clouds

3.3. Technical progress in 3D point cloud classification

3.1. Conventional methods

3.2. Conventional Machine Learning Approaches

3.3. PointNet

3.3.1 Data processing

3.3.2 methodology

3.3.3. Results

3.4. Advanced neural networks methods after PointNet

3.5. Progress in performance (complexity/data size)

4. Plant feature extraction

4.1. 3D plant data collection

4.2. 2D image-based plant feature extraction

4.3. 3D point cloud based plant feature extraction

5. Experiments

5.1 . 3D plant data collection (need help from Oscar and Mahendra)

5.2. 2D Image based plant feature extraction

Image Annotation and Segmentation

Model Training and Implementation

Contributions and Limitations

Future Directions

5.3 3D point cloud feature extraction

6. Conclusion

 

Comments about manuscript structure:

Point 1: The structure of the manuscript is not logically organized. For example, after section 2, it jumps to subsection 3.3. On the other hand, the structure of the manuscript suggests that it is an experimental work involving different types of feature extraction and segmentation methodologies. In my honest opinion, the authors should thoroughly review the structure.

Point 2: The captions for the figures and tables should be referenced in the text, in order to inform the audience. For example, Table 1, which is presented between lines 222 and 223, is only referenced in the results section (Line 487). The authors should carefully review the text to avoid confusing the audience. They should also be more descriptive to inform the readers.

Point 3: Figures 3 and 4 are not legible, for instance. The authors should improve the quality of the images. I would suggest that the authors need to review all the figures.

Point 4: The authors did not prepare the manuscript according to the journal’s suggestions. The references must follow the ACS style guide. I would suggest using the journal recommendations.

General comments and recommendations

Point 5: Although the abstract provides the study’s objectives, it does not include a summary of the methods used in the research. Additionally, there is no information about the main results and key conclusions. In my honest opinion the abstract is not informative and attractive for the audience.

Point 6:  The introduction is a summary of the whole document. The topic is clear, but the audience do not have the arguments about the importance and novelty of this review. Some parts are missing. The state of knowledge is not explained because it is not focused on the research topic. In my honest opinion, it only describes a series of studies related to the general topic of feature extraction and segmentation. I would suggest choosing a careful selection of the most pertinent publications. The authors should try to achieve a balance between relevant background information and excessive detail. I would suggest identifying the knowledge gaps and the principal and secondary objectives of the manuscript. I would also recommend describing the schema of the manuscript to inform the audience.

Point 7:  The authors do not clarify how they conducted their research. The purpose of the methodology section is to describe precisely what was done and how. In my opinion, the methodology is very hard to replicate. I would suggest following PRISMA methodology, for instance.

Point 8: The authors presented experimental results using plant segmentation techniques in images. Is the author’s manuscript a review of major trends and research gaps, or is it a research article? I would suggest describing what you observed. In this case, The authors should summarize relevant bibliometrics about the research topic using tables and figures.

Point 9: I would suggest adding a section to explain the significance of the authors results and the main findings of the study.

Point 9: The conclusions are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate the detailed suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving our manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to your comments.

 

1. Comment: "The structure of the manuscript is not logically organized. For example, after section 2, it jumps to subsection 3.3."

 

   Response: We have reorganized the structure of the manuscript to ensure a logical sequence of sections and subsections. The updated manuscript now follows a clear hierarchical structure, starting from introductory concepts and proceeding to more advanced techniques. We believe this change enhances the readability and coherence of the paper.

 

2. Comment: "The captions for the figures and tables should be referenced in the text to inform the audience."

 

   Response: We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure that all figures and tables are appropriately referenced in the text. Each figure and table now have a corresponding mention in the relevant section, along with a descriptive caption to enhance the reader's understanding.

 

3. Comment: "Figures 3 and 4 are not legible. The authors should improve the quality of the images."

 

   Response: We have replaced all low-quality images, including Figures 3 and 4, with high-resolution versions to improve clarity and readability. We have also adjusted the formatting of images to ensure they are legible across various devices and screen sizes.

 

4. Comment: "The authors did not prepare the manuscript according to the journal’s suggestions."

 

   Response: We have revised the manuscript formatting to adhere strictly to the journal’s guidelines. This includes updating the references to follow the ACS style guide and ensuring that the overall layout and formatting align with the journal’s requirements.

 

5. Comment: "Although the abstract provides the study’s objectives, it does not include a summary of the methods used in the research."

 

   Response: We have revised the abstract to include a summary of the key methodologies employed in our review and experiments. This addition makes the abstract more informative and provides a clearer overview of the content.

 

6. Comment: "The introduction is a summary of the whole document, but it does not explain the importance and novelty of the review."

 

   Response: We have rewritten the introduction to clearly highlight the importance and novelty of our work. We now emphasize the need for comprehensive reviews in this domain, specifically focusing on multi-modal feature extraction and segmentation techniques. We have also identified existing knowledge gaps to justify the relevance of our study.

 

7. Comment: "The authors do not clarify how they conducted their research."

 

  Response: We have updated the Experiments section to describe how the research was conducted, including literature selection criteria, experimental setup, and loss and accuracy plots.

 

8. Comment: "Is the authors’ manuscript a review or a research article?"

 

   Response: We recognize the confusion caused by mixing experimental results with the review content. We have separated the experimental section from the review portion, making it clear that our work includes a review and additional experiments to validate the discussed methods.

 

9. Comment: "The conclusions are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented."

 

   Response: We have revised the conclusions to better align with the presented evidence and findings. The revised conclusions now summarize the key insights from the review and experiments, along with clearly stated future directions.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

The article "Techniques for Plant Feature Extraction and Segmentation: A Survey" presents a comprehensive review of methods for object extraction and segmentation in 2D and 3D images. Plant extraction and segmentation techniques are described in Chapter 4. Previously, the authors focused on image processing techniques of other types.

The article basically does not contain information related to remote sensing. In my opinion, this topic should be emphasised in the article (including in the abstract and conclusions) to make the paper suitable for publication in the Remote Sensing journal.

Other comments:

1. The introduction lacks a summary of the authors' contribution and the plan of the article. There is also nothing about remote sensing.

2. The article contains many errors related to the numbering of chapters, figures, and tables, including:

- line 287 should be point 3, not 3.3

- incorrect numbering of figures - line 225 has figure 1, and line 442 also has figure 1,

- line 478 refers to figure 3, and below is figure 2, etc.

Figure 4 - the confiusion matrix is not discussed,

- Table 5 without caption.

3. Lines 695 and 696 - Are these the titles of subchapters, what does the sign : at the end of the line mean?

4. In the experiment described in point 5, the images were not acquired by remote sensing. So how do you justify the choice of the Remote Sensing journal?

5. Table 6 does not contain a references to the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggestions. Your comments have helped us identify areas for improvement, and we have made the following changes accordingly.

 

1. Comment: "The article does not contain information related to remote sensing. This topic should be emphasized in the article (including in the abstract and conclusions)."

 

   Response: We have significantly revised the manuscript to include detailed discussions on remote sensing techniques, their role in plant feature extraction, and segmentation. We have also highlighted the relevance of remote sensing in the abstract and conclusions to align with the journal’s scope and audience.

 

2. Comment: "The introduction lacks a summary of the authors' contribution and the plan of the article."

 

   Response: We have rewritten the introduction to include a summary of our contributions, along with a brief outline of the manuscript structure. This addition helps guide readers through the key sections of the review and clarifies the scope of the research.

 

3. Comment: "The article contains many errors related to the numbering of chapters, figures, and tables."

 

   Response: We have corrected all numbering errors in chapters, figures, and tables. Each figure and table now follow a consistent numbering scheme, and all references in the text have been updated accordingly.

 

4. Comment: "The confusion matrix in Figure 4 is not discussed."

 

   Response: We have added a detailed discussion of the confusion matrix in the corresponding section. This discussion explains the matrix's significance and how it relates to the classification results of the segmentation models.

 

5. Comment: "Table 5 is presented without a caption."

 

   Response: We have added a caption to Table 5, explaining its content and relevance to the text. This change ensures that all tables in the manuscript are properly described.

 

6. Comment: "Lines 695 and 696 - Are these the titles of subchapters? What does the sign ':' at the end of the line mean?"

 

   Response: We have revised the formatting of these lines to ensure they are presented correctly as subchapter titles. The use of the colon was an error, which has now been corrected.

 

7. Comment: "In the experiment described in point 5, the images were not acquired by remote sensing. So how do you justify the choice of the Remote Sensing journal?"

 

   Response: We acknowledge this oversight and have revised the manuscript to include additional experiments that incorporate remote sensing techniques. We have also updated the justification in the introduction and conclusions, emphasizing the relevance of these methods to the broader scope of remote sensing in agricultural monitoring.

 

8. Comment: "Table 6 does not contain references to the literature."

 

   Response: We have updated Table 6 to include appropriate references to the literature for each technique discussed. This addition provides readers with sources for further reading.