Satellite-Based Innovative Agroclimatic Classification Under Reduced Water Availability: Identification of Optimal Productivity Zones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Before doing a formal review, I would like to discuss the high percent match mentioned in the iThenticate report.

The plagiarism rate (32%) is unusually high for a research article. It is especially alarming because half of it (15%) comes from only one source: another article by the same authors (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/24/5720). Because similar text was mainly detected in the introductory section, and to a much lesser extent in the methodological one, the original research results and their discussions were not affected by this flaw. That is why, regardless of the high rate of self-plagiarism, I would not recommend rejecting this manuscript. However, I strongly insist on a complete rewriting of the Introductory section and slight modifications in the Methodology to avoid plagiarism accusations. Due to this obvious reason, my further comments will not refer to the Introductory section.

The manuscript presents a comprehensive study on agroclimatic classification using a robust three-step methodology. The paper is well-structured, and the results are clearly presented and thoroughly discussed. I would particularly appreciate the potential replicability of the proposed method, tested in three regions with quite different agroclimatic environments and agrotechnical practices. Regardless of the specified strengths, there are significant flaws in the description of the methodological workflow to be clarified:

• Downscaling from coarse MODIS products (from 500m to 5km) to 30m products is quite an aggressive transition. I suggest you expand this section by providing a step-by-step description of the downscaling approach. Particularly, readers interested in the replicability of your method would appreciate a description of the predictor variables used for downscaling, the training and validation procedures, as well as the accuracy metrics.
• The methodology heavily relies on a multi-criteria decision-making approach for producing suitability and productivity zoning resulting from a weighted overlay of the predictors. However, actual weights derived for each predictor are not presented in the paper. That is why, for the sake of reproducibility, I suggest including a table with final weights for each predictor and discussing whether there are differences in weights (or in the accuracy metrics) between regions.
• Some assumptions should be better grounded. Thus, estimating ‘sufficient rainfall’ (lines 381 and 633-635) needs better argumentation and a thorough discussion or sound support through relevant agronomic literature. In this form, this assumption looks too vague and unreliable.

Overall, it is a well-written paper. Its strengths are significant, and the geographical coverage is quite extensive. It can be published in the journal. However, considering the manuscript's substantial methodological flaws, I would recommend it for publication after a major revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations. We responded to your comments one by one. Please find our responses in the attached file (all changes are highlighted in yellow).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-structured and generally clear, however, the detail on the methodology may be excessive. The three-step methodology is mentioned in detail several times throughout the text. Mention it once and then refer to it, or detail it clearly and explicitly in the materials and methods section.

Some specific observations are as follows:

Figure 1. Add the meaning of each term, for example AI=, VHI=, DEM=, GDD=, and Rn.

Line 212: I recommend adding a map with the mentioned study areas.

Table 5: Add the unit of DEM (meters, m, or masl). Soil map should be soil units.

Line 342. Mention that the base temperature will be chosen according to the study area and crop.

From Figure 6 to the rest. The legend chart is obscuring part of the image. Add geographic coordinates to each map. Some maps have a gray background and others white, to standardize the format.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations. We responded to your comments one by one. Please find our responses in the attached file (all changes are highlighted in yellow).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript entitled “Satellite-based innovative agroclimatic classification under reduced water availability: identification of optimal productivity zones” The work presents the development of an innovative approach to agroclimatic zonation, based on FAO methodology. The use of satellite data for agroclimate analysis is an innovative approach. The use of methods with a significantly higher spatial resolution than previously available is the greatest asset of this work and significantly enhances the research. The article is detailed and logically structured, presenting the individual chapters coherently and systematically. Given ongoing climate change, the topic addressed is extremely important and necessary. The methods used and the results obtained demonstrate the potential for practical use of remote sensing to more accurately define agroclimatic zones. The work's value lies in its application, particularly since the development of this methodology can contribute to more efficient agricultural land use and improved food security. I highly value the authors' ideas and the results achieved. Introduction The introduction presents the research problem well, emphasizing the role of climate, and in particular the importance of water scarcity, as a fundamental factor determining agricultural production in Mediterranean regions. However, the repetitive statements need some reorganization. Reducing the number of repetitions would improve the clarity and coherence of the text. I suggest that the introduction be written in a more concise manner, e.g., one paragraph devoted to climate change, another to the methodology of dividing the region into agroclimatic zones, and a third to the objectives and structure of the article. Agroclimatic zoning methodology This section is very well developed. All stages of the analysis are described in detail and logically, illustrated with a clear diagram (Figure 1) and supplemented with commentary and justification for the choice of specific indicators used in the division into agroclimatic zones. Study areas and databases This section is also very detailed and systematically organized, with the subsections presented in a coherent manner.     Implementation of the Agroclimatic Zoning Methodology The authors present the assumptions and implementation of the methodology in a precise and consistent manner. Results The results are presented in a comparative manner, in accordance with the methodology, and are presented consistently throughout the chapters. The results obtained provide important information that can be used to develop regional development strategies. At the same time, I would like to draw the authors' attention to several issues that are worth considering in future research: At the same time, the authors' attention was drawn to several issues that are worth considering in future research: When calculating effective temperature sums ( Tsum , °C·d) for individual crops, e.g., wheat, it may be advisable to adopt a single base temperature (Tbase , °C). It is worth checking whether above-average temperatures affect Tsum values; if so, it is worth checking this in different regions. It is proposed to verify the assumptions regarding the critical period for wheat production (20 days in April–May). It should be taken into account that a fully developed wheat crop can transpire about 5 mm of water per day. This means that rainfall of 25 mm over 20 days may not be sufficient to meet the crop's water requirements. In addition, the authors suggest verifying whether the timing of wheat development stages differs between the regions analyzed, as adopting a fixed date may be a significant simplification. Discussion   The discussion is coherent and well linked to previous studies, which strengthens the scientific reliability and relevance of the paper Summary and Conclusions The conclusions provide a logical and clear synthesis of the obtained results

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations. Please find in the attached file the responses regarding the Introduction and Results sections (all changes are highlighted in yellow).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf