Geostatistical Methods to Build Citrus Cross-Pollination Risk Maps
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I inserted my observations about the text I was reading into the text in the form of notes.
A general note is that I think the list of cited sources is quite poor and I recommend significant changes in this section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank you for yourr comments and suggestions which have been of great help for improving the manuscript.
These are our point-by-point responses:
1.-I inserted my observations about the text I was reading into the text in the form of notes.
PAGE 4
- Explanation of factor f is added
- ‘Surface’ changed to ‘area’
- ‘1/2.5 per h’ is a mistake. Changed to 1/2.5 per ha
- Explanation about arbitrary values is included
PAGES 5 AND 6
Scalebar, legend and north are added to figures 1 and 2.
2.-A general note is that I think the list of cited sources is quite poor and I recommend significant changes in this section.
Because the introduction section has been partially re-written and the conclusion section has been totally re-written, 9 more references have been included in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Your manuscript addresses very important issue in agriculture, geostatistical application in determining the risk of cross-pollination. However, you could improve how the manuscript has been written. There are 25 minor and manor issues (altogether) indicated in the attached PDF. Please write the comments down and address all of them. Apart from these, here are a few issues to address.
1. The introduction is not well grounded in literature/theory. For instance, you did not mention the specific geostatistical methods/tools. You mentioned models but you did not mention how the models have been previously used in other studies. Also, you did not provide any justification regarding why you are using the models. You may want to address this in the introductory section of your paper.
2. The discussion section is not well grounded in literature. You rarely compared your findings to the literature. You did not mention previous findings in the literature and how they relate to your own findings.
3. The rare reference to literature reflects the number of references you have at the end section of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions which have been of great help for improving the manuscript. These are our point-by-point responses to your review:
1.-There are 25 minor and manor issues (altogether) indicated in the attached PDF. Please write the comments down and address all of them. Apart from these, here are a few issues to address.
INTRODUCTION
- surface -> area CORRECTED
- t (tons) changed to thousand kilograms (kg) CORRECTED
- FAO - > Full name first, then acronym in parentheses CORRECTED
- hives -> bee hives CORRECTED
- join paragraphs -> CORRECTED
- SSIM > Full name first, then acronym in parentheses CORRECTED
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Divide sentence - > CORRECTED
- Explanation of incoherences and effect of filtering -> CORRECTED
- As noted earlier -> CORRECTED
- : and . : CORRECTED
2.- The introduction is not well grounded in literature/theory. For instance, you did not mention the specific geostatistical methods/tools. You mentioned models but you did not mention how the models have been previously used in other studies. Also, you did not provide any justification regarding why you are using the models. You may want to address this in the introductory section of your paper.
The introduction section has been partially re-written paying attention to your comment.
- The discussion section is not well grounded in literature. You rarely compared your findings to the literature. You did not mention previous findings in the literature and how they relate to your own findings.
The conclusion section has been totally re-written paying attention to your comment.
- The rare reference to literature reflects the number of references you have at the end section of the manuscript.
As a consequence of answers 2 and 3, 9 more references have been included in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After making corrections to the manuscript, I think the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Your content has improved. However, please proofread the manuscript and correct minor and minor writing errors. Apply writing editing throughout the manuscript.
Best wishes.
