Beyond Fixed Dates and Coarse Resolution: Developing a Dynamic Dry Season Crop Calendar for Paddy in Indonesia from 2001 to 2021
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study introduced “Beyond Fixed Dates and Coarse Resolution: Developing Dynamic Dry Season Crop Calendar of Paddy in Indonesia from 2001-2021”. Knowing the dynamic of timing and location a particular crop is planted and harvested, with annual temporal resolution as well as fine spatial resolution, is crucial not only for monitoring crop conditions and production, but also for understanding crop management under changing climates. The topic is novelty, and the data and figures are pretty. Generally, this study was very well designed and written. I think the MS can be accepted for publication with Agronomy-Basel after major revision.
1. In abstract, I didn't find any real results from this study, and I think some analysis of the current results should be added. So I would suggest refreshing the abstract.
2. I think the MS should not be in revision mode when the authors initially submitted.
3. Table 1, These abbreviations should either be named in full or annotated below the table.
4. Figure 1, the present study investigated the year of 2001-2021, however, the figure 1 showed the rice planting map of 2009, so why 2009 is chosen, requires an explanation.
5. The secondary headings in Materials and Methods are inappropriate and it is suggested that they be reorganized.
6. Line 274, Why there are references in the analysis of the results is something I cannot understand.
7. I think all the abbreviations in the figures and tables should be clarified.
8. Figure 11, I think use “R square” is better than “R” in figures.
9. In fact, I'm most interested in learning about the best Start of Season (SOS) or planting dates, Peak of Season (POS), and End of Season (EOS) or harvesting dates for rice in Indonesia obtained from this study. In other word, the Developing Dynamic Dry Season Crop Calendar of Paddy in Indonesia.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNO
Author Response
Thank you for allowing us to improve our manuscript for potential publication in Agronomy. We really appreciate the time and effort you put into giving us feedback. We've taken all your comments and suggestions on board, and please find the detailed responses on the pdf file attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the paper 'Beyond Fixed Dates and Coarse Resolution: Developing Dynamic Dry Season Crop Calendar of Paddy in Indonesia from 3 2001 - 2021' should be thoroughly rewritten. Many sections are incomprehensible and written in poor language. The study itself is interesting but the quality of the paper is weak. I ask the authors to consider the following comments:
Please try to avoid the ,,we" form and use impersonal sentences e.g. made, performed, carried out, etc.
Do not start a sentence with ,,becouse" it is unprofessional.
The English of the paper is bad. I recommend a thorough rewriting with a native speaker.
The paper does not emphasise what is innovative. The authors have practically omitted this aspect.
In addition, the paper lacks a clearly defined research objective and a research hypothesis. I believe that this part of the text should be rewritten in detail. A research paper should not be considered for publication without a good objective and hypothesis that would enrich the current state of knowledge.
I am not convinced about the use of Land cover maps from 2009. You are analysing the period 2000-2021 so I think this is not a good solution. A lot has certainly changed in land cover between 2009 and 2021, which cannot be ignored.
The discussion should try to refer the findings to those published earlier in the literature. At present, the discussion is more a description of what has been done, and there are few links to the authors' work.
The conclusions section needs to be rewritten. At present, it is unclear from it what new contributions the authors have made to the state of the art. I recommend listing the most important conclusions as a list.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English of the paper is bad. I recommend a thorough rewriting with a native speaker.
Author Response
Thank you for allowing us to improve our manuscript for potential publication in Agronomy. We really appreciate the time and effort you put into giving us feedback. We've taken all your comments and suggestions on board, and please find the detailed responses on the pdf file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsR2 and R in Figure 11 do not correspond in the two versions, please check further.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback.
We checked the details of the R2 and R value between two version. In the revised document it seems that the R2 value slightly different because we only put one decimal number on the figure. Thus, we updated the R2 value written in the Figure 11 up to two decimal number to match the information in the initial manuscript version. Additionally, we want to highlight that because on the revised document, R2 values were written in the Figure 11, so we changed the information written in the text from R2 to R values.
However the values are the same as follows:
Validation with RICA dataset:
R2SOS: 0.60
RSOS: 0.88
R2EOS: 0.30
REOS: 0.77
Validation with RiceAtlas dataset:
R2SOS: 0.83
RSOS: 0.94
R2EOS: 0.53
REOS: 0.74
