Correlation between Ground Measurements and UAV Sensed Vegetation Indices for Yield Prediction of Common Bean Grown under Different Irrigation Treatments and Sowing Periods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

English correction needed in Abstract and across the paper

Not clear how the authors calculated Transpiration, or even actual ET ( ETc is not actual ET);

Deep percolation is not accounted for in the water balance equation

Irrigation treatments (12, 15, 18) look preset and they are not correlated with the 100% ETc /80%/60% as claimed. 

Information about dripsystem is  missing (spacing, rate, emitters, timing, etc) to arrive at the depths applied

How are 80%ETc or 60%ETc relevant across multiple sowing dates; the comparison is not valid in my opinion as sowing dates affect the ETc due to weather differences, so we cannot compare among the variables as such. How were Kc, Kcb and Ke and Ks  calculated? Not shown

Soil moisture: from what depth? 

Was the 60%ETc and 80%ETc successful given the abundant rain and did the experiment succeed in this regard? 

LAI index unit is not correct (should be unitless)

Statistical significance of the results for 2020 (difference between I, II, III) is lacking

Please add:

1) The scientific name of common bean (Genus species)

2) details about ET and T calculation; not shown or justified

3) Precipitation vs. ET data on one figure to compare

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study has carried out yield assessment using UAV-based multispectral imagery. Different stages of the bean crop have been monitored.

n  The acronyms in the abstract must be specified. For example, what is “S treatment,”; “F”, “Etc” ????

n  Overall, the abstract needs to clarify the purpose and/or significance of the study and clearly describe the main methods, results, and/or conclusions

n  The introduction does not have sufficient background information about the study, and the literature survey needs to be more exhaustive

n  The aims and objectives need to clearly specified in the introduction section.

n  The methods/techniques have not been adequately described and need more elaboration

n  The conclusion should discuss the wider implications of the study findings and specify future research avenues and limitations

n  Overall, the manuscript requires a lot of language corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in current form.