Spatial and Temporal Variability in Yield Maps Can Localize Field Management—A Case Study with Corn and Soybean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please review the attached document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Spatial and temporal variability of yield maps can localize field management” introduces a novel yield performance index aimed at capturing the spatial and temporal variability of yield data. While the study demonstrates potential and presents innovative insights, these are not sufficiently developed or clearly communicated within the current manuscript. The overall structure and organization are weak, which hinders the readability and scientific flow of the paper.

At this stage, a major revision is required, and I suggest the authors address the following concerns in revision:

1. Figure 1 presents a schematic workflow of the study, with actions highlighted in sky blue. However, the figure also includes green-highlighted actions whose role is not explained. The authors should clarify whether these are part of the study and, if not, why they are included.
2. The methodology section lacks sufficient detail. Each method used in the study should be described more thoroughly to allow reproducibility and better understanding of the workflow.
3. The results section is overly simplistic and lacks depth. The authors should provide more detailed descriptions and analysis of the findings to enhance the scientific value of this section.
4. In section 3.2, the authors state that IDW was used for interpolation. The rationale for selecting IDW should be justified, and a comparison with other interpolation methods would strengthen the study’s methodological rigor.
5. The manuscript employs numerous statistical tests and analysis techniques, but their presentation is disorganized. These should be introduced and explained in a logical, chronological order to improve clarity.
6. The discussion section is extremely limited and lacks depth. The authors should expand this section, especially with regard to the delineation of management zones, the classification criteria used, and the evaluation of the proposed yield performance index.
7. Additionally, both the discussion and conclusion sections largely repeat the results. These sections should be restructured to include critical analysis, comparison with previous studies, and a clear articulation of the study’s contribution to the existing literature.
8. The content of Appendices A and B does not warrant separate appendices and should be integrated into the methodology section where relevant.
9. Overall, the manuscript requires a comprehensive rewrite with improved structure and logical flow to enhance its scientific coherence and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my concerns so well and improving the manuscript considerably. I particularly like how the responses were prepared as a table.  

Minor formatting comment: The section added at Line 210 should be enumerated as done with other sections instead of using roman numerals.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised manuscript, the authors have adequately addressed the comments, resulting in substantial improvements to the quality of the manuscript. Based on these revisions, I recommend acceptance for publication in Agronomy in its current form.