Development of a Low-Cost Open-Source Platform for Smart Irrigation Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent and innovative paper

Author Response

We are grateful to reviewer 1 for his comment and time spent reviewing the manuscript. We have made corrections to the English language and style.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written but the abstract is not as well-crafted as it should. The transition from Methodology to Discussion is missing. I suggest the authors add information on Results of the IoT and technologies on smart irrigation and compare that with conventional practice because from the description, this is not a review paper but a research article.

Author Response

The paper is well written, but the abstract is not as well-crafted as it should

We are grateful to reviewer 2 for his valuable comments, suggestions and time spent reviewing the manuscript. We have made appropriate changes based on your comments and have improved the English language and style. In line with this comment, the abstract has been improved to make it clearer, and a final comment on the results and application of this solution in real conditions has been added.

The transition from Methodology to Discussion is missing.

An introductory sentence has been added after the methodology.

I suggest the authors add information on Results of the IoT and technologies on smart irrigation and compare that with conventional practice because from the description this is not a review paper but a research article.

Two paragraphs have been added to the discussion to compare this solution with conventional ones. It is difficult to compare them numerically, as we don’t have previous validated data, and this would depend on the farmer's knowledge and experience. However, the advantages of the system can be clearly seen and have therefore been listed.

Reviewer 3 Report

You must do the corrections your paper is very interest to pulish

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The article subject is extremely interesting, and its content is very well written and precise.

We are grateful to reviewer 3 for his valuable comments and time spent to review the manuscript. We have made appropriate changes based on your comments and have improved the English language and style.

Acronyms like SDI-12, RS485, API, LD version … must be explained.

Acronyms like SDI-12, RS-485, API and LD are now explained in the text.

Keyword section supports at least 6 words

The keywords dual crop coefficient and soil water balance have been added.

The paragraph structure (from line 52 to 60) should be verified.

A part of the paragraph has been modified and the term soil-water-plant-atmosphere models has been added to be more precise. In addition, one article uses the LD version of FIWARE and has been mentioned.

Figures are not too clear.

Two figures have been modified to make them clearer. Figure 4 is now coloured to make it more understandable and figure 9 has been restructured.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It appears the authors improved the manuscript. Please accept in its current form.