Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       The abstract is very loosely written. The key contributions of the author's work are not clear in the abstract. Secondly, please explain BLB pressure. What are the key metrics to analyze the IST treatment? How many types of treatments are analyzed?

2.       The results discussed in section 4 can be expressed in the form of statistical plots of graphs

3.       The entire methodology can be explained through a workflow diagram that illustrates each essential step.

4.       How did the authors conclude that the presented method is precise? Did they make any comparisons?

5.       Did the authors capture RGB images?

 

6.       Explain the formula used to calculate yield mentioned in line 128

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check for minor spelling mistakes.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  Based upon your feedback we have made the following edits in response to concerns:

1. The abstract is very loosely written. The key contributions of the author's work are not clear in the abstract. Secondly, please explain BLB pressure. What are the key metrics to analyze the IST treatment? How many types of treatments are analyzed?

Line 21 updated to clarify the objective of the research in measuring agronomic and efficacy for 2 soybean ISTs.  Lines 22 to 24 added to describe locations as low or high BLB feeding pressure.  Lines 24 to 29 compare the performance of the 2 soybean ISTs to No IST control for agronomic and efficacy traits in low or high BLB pressure locations.  Lines 29 to 31 contrast cyantraniliprole to imidacloprid IST in high pressure, where significant differences were observed for both efficacy and agronomic traits.  Lines 31 to 34 highlight the significant yield increase for cyantraniliprole, imidacloprid as compared to no IST in locations with low or high BLB feeding pressure as these are unique results compared to previous research.  Lines 34-37 summarize our methods for comparing the 2 ISTs as a conclusion of the abstract.

1. The results discussed in section 4 can be expressed in the form of statistical plots of graphs

I agree with this idea, but I think that may make the results more complicated and potentially more difficult to interpret.  Table 3 is a concise way to present all the results and allows the reader to contrast the treatments within each trait and set of BLB pressure locations, and across traits and/or location breakouts.  Creating multiple box plots or bar/line graphs may cause more confusion in trying to compare shapes or colored bars, as instead of 1 table we would need 5 sets of box plots or 5 sets of bar charts.  I think the table is easier to use and interpret for all the results.

1. The entire methodology can be explained through a workflow diagram that illustrates each essential step.

Figure 1 has been created for the workflow

1. How did the authors conclude that the presented method is precise? Did they make any comparisons?

We have those comparisons, but they are from different datasets in 2015-2016 that compare the UAV data to human scores.  For those data the variance of the human scores was very large and the UAV data had very low variance.  In the manuscript I have removed the language that describes the methods as being more precise, as we cannot compare to human scores or other methods.

1. Did the authors capture RGB images?

Those methods are described in reference 49; a similar approach was used in this manuscript. 

6. Explain the formula used to calculate yield mentioned in line 128

Added in line 127-128

The current draft has also been edited (yellow highlighted text) in attempt to correct spelling mistakes, enhance clarity, and improve explanation of the interpretation of results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work "Utilizing Remote Sensing to Quantify Performance of Soybean Insecticide Seed Treatments" uses unmanned aerial vehicle image analysis to compare the performance of different soybean insecticide seed treatments in locations with low or high bean leaf beetle feeding pressure.

The authors do an excellent job of presenting their findings. The methodology is well-described and appropriate. Results are presented understandably and discussed well in the context of other research on related topics. My comments and suggested changes are relatively minor and are generally related to improving the reader's understanding of this work:

 

1)      To cite bibliographic references, use [1-4] on line 33 and [7-13] on line 38. So on and so forth.

2)      In Materials and Methods: It would be interesting to add a map with the field trials' locations.

3)      In Materials and Methods: At the end of this section, I would like to see a new figure about the study flowchart.

4)      References 20, 44, and 58 appear to be written in a different font.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  The attached draft has been edited to address your concerns: 

1)      To cite bibliographic references, use [1-4] on line 33 and [7-13] on line 38. So on and so forth.

This has been corrected for the manuscript; highlighted in yellow

2)      In Materials and Methods: It would be interesting to add a map with the field trials' locations.

I created this but I think it wound up being too confusing.  Since the locations were evaluated from 2018 to 2023, and there were 60 of them it was difficult to show where the locations were each year, as there was overlap that was difficult to graph.  Table 1 was an attempt to show the details of each location and allow the reader to compare locations within a year and/or state.

3)      In Materials and Methods: At the end of this section, I would like to see a new figure about the study flowchart.

Figure 1 was added to describe the workflow

4)      References 20, 44, and 58 appear to be written in a different font.

Corrected the font for all references.

For the updated draft, additional editing has been highlighted in yellow.  These edits are intended to provide more clarity and explanation of the data interpretation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript an unmanned aerial vehicle is used to quantify performance of soybean insecticide treatments. The article is well written and presents interesting and useful information. Overall, the discussion and conclusions are well written, and the implications of the research are adequately stated. In general, the proposed technique and the study are suitable for publication in Agronomy. I recommend that the Material and Methods section include a description of the technique with which the insecticide was applied. The hectares treated in each field should also be included in Table 1.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  The following corrections were made to address your concerns:

I recommend that the Material and Methods section include a description of the technique with which the insecticide was applied. The hectares treated in each field should also be included in Table 1.

Lines 91-98 describe the methods for treating the seed.  There are 3 seed treatments (FST no IST, cyantraniliprole + FST, and imidacloprid + FST).  The seed is treated the same for each treatment; a slurry of the active ingredients is mixed together with water and that slurry is then applied onto the seed using a laboratory bowl seed treater.  Since the treatment is applied directly to the seed, there is not really a way to calculate hectares for each treatment like you would have with conventional spraying the entire field plot with a treatment.  The seed treatment has 0.075 mg ai/seed; whereas a sprayer would be spraying pounds of chemistry per hectare.

The attached draft has yellow highlighted text of additional editing that is intended to provide more clarity in the description and interpretation of the results.