Next Article in Journal
Perceptual Quality Assessment for Pansharpened Images Based on Deep Feature Similarity Measure
Next Article in Special Issue
Monitoring Yield and Quality of Forages and Grassland in the View of Precision Agriculture Applications—A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Surge Mechanisms of Garmo Glacier: Integrating Multi-Source Data for Insights into Acceleration and Hydrological Control
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cotton Yield Prediction via UAV-Based Cotton Boll Image Segmentation Using YOLO Model and Segment Anything Model (SAM)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Field-Level Classification of Winter Catch Crops Using Sentinel-2 Time Series: Model Comparison and Transferability

Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4620; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244620
by Kato Vanpoucke 1,2,*, Stien Heremans 1,2, Emily Buls 3 and Ben Somers 2,4
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4620; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244620
Submission received: 14 October 2024 / Revised: 22 November 2024 / Accepted: 8 December 2024 / Published: 10 December 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is well written and enjoyable to read. The quality is good. Only a few minor aspects given below:

1) "Cover crop" and "catch crop" are mixed. Most places it is "catch crop" but keyword is "cover crop". Please unify. Personally prefer "cover crop".

2) Fig. 1. Provide brief explanations for "experiment" 1 to 3.

3) Fig. 3. would be helpful to overlay the maps a and b with land use maps, or at least show agricultural land use

4) Line 228: Please introduce the nature, or the specifications of the boundaries of fields

5) line 369: explain the resampling method

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the potential of Sentinel-2 satellite time series to classify catch crops at the field-level in Flanders (Belgium).  In terms of methodology, no innovations have been found in this paper, so it is not recommended for publication.

The author's description in lines 92-94 is obviously wrong. Currently, in the field of crop mapping, machine learning and deep learning have been widely used, including the comparison and analysis of these methods.

In addition, the pictures in the paper are a bit vague, and there are too many introductions about several methods, so it is recommended to compress them.

I didn't see a specific introduction to sentinel data, especially the data used for classification. And I also didn't see the classification result map, these are all incomplete.

There are too many references listed, and it is recommended to delete some unnecessary references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As per attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop