Determination of Crop Soil Quality for Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni Morita II Using a Fuzzy Logic Model and a Wireless Sensor Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read this manuscript very carefully, the manuscript is presented in a good manner with some typographical errors and the text needs a bit edit. The manuscript's concept is very well; however, the discussion should be scientifically deeper. In view of the above, I consider that the work requires MINOR REVISION to proceed with its publication in the journal. Please see the attached pdf revised manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Avoid using the same words from title on Keywords.

It isn't clear the accuracy or validation of the sensors used for measuring soil parameters. Also, it is required to describe the procedures to measure those parameters (soil depth, frequency of data acquisition, etc.).

The authors should describe better the step of pre-processing data, such as elimination of outliers before data storage.

Why did you consider all inputs as relevant on modeling? It isn't clear the output from FLM, is it soil quality? So, it isn't quantitative, how are you converting numerical variables into qualitative output? Did you normalized the input values before modeling?

Why did you use Trapezoidal MF type? Temperature means from surface of the soil or vegetation?

Some Figures on Material section can be allocated to Results section.

Convert the terms on Figure 11b for English language. The same for Figure 12.

Include x-axis and y-axis on Figure 13. And units (if applicable). The same for Figure 15.

You need to adopt the same scale on axis of Figure 14. Include the means of red line and blue dots.

It should be interesting to present some information about weather data (field conditions) in order to clarify the behavior of the data collected by the monitoring system proposed on study.

It is missing a comparison of your findings with other results in literature. Also, you need to include a conclusion focusing to answer your main objective.

There are many citations on References, review if those are essential to your paper.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors presented a mostly scientific sound scholarly contribution to advance our literature.

In the Introduction (page 3:lines 142-144), authors provided "Collectively, these components form an 142 integrated monitoring system that provides valuable insights into the SQ of the stevia 143 crop, enabling better decision-making for farmers." Though the needs to disseminate innovations were not provided. 

Also, authors began to discuss the advantages for farmers in the Discussion and  but fell short of providing details and social science to substantiate the innovation-decision process from scientists to farmers (stakeholders). Enhance the connectivity to farmers in both the Introduction and Discussion. 

1. Innovation Adoption Barriers 

As argued by https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347 "a number of adoption barriers exist reducing the adoption of new technologies including cultural habits and a lack of operational knowledge as well as continuing education regarding contemporary high-tech innovations." 

2. Demonstration Strategies to Enhance Farmer Adoption

As indicated in https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2239056 demonstration plots setup to reinforce farmers’ knowledge about the application of agroecological innovations' impacts, and therefore, improving farmers’ skills in agroecological techniques increased adoption. 

3. Aligning the Innovation with Farmer's Needs

As indicated by https://doi.org/10.3390/s22186833 the monitoring system for Stevia production should be disseminated to farmers by communicating the "relative advantage, compatible with their existing needs, not challenging to use, easily testable to examine how to use the innovations, and possessing easily discernible benefits" of the innovation.

Expanding the Discussion, specifically providing details strategies to improve farmer adoption on page 21 lines 691-698 "The implications of these findings are significant for stevia producers and the agricultural industry as a whole. The monitoring system offers quasi real-time information and historical data access, enabling producers to make informed decisions regarding soil management and crop health. By monitoring SQ indicators, farmers can optimize nutrient application, irrigation strategies, and overall crop productivity. Additionally, the ability of the system to operate continuously for extended periods, combined with a reliable web server, ensures uninterrupted data collection and analysis, enhancing its practicality and usefulness in the field."

You have the science now improve the practice portion of the manuscript. Our science is only as good as it can be translated to stakeholders, farmers, or actors. I offered specific suggestions above to enhance your translational research. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did a much better job at conveying how their research can be translated to practice not just science. 

Authors addressed all aspects of my previous feedback in this revised version. I hope the scholarship sustains readers and citations to better inform the next group of scientists and practitioners. 

 I do believe it is a noteworthy piece of scholarship that could be replicated beyond Stevia and with other Industry 4.0 tools in hopes of expanded scientific discoveries that inform practice and thus, improve the optimization of land sustainability and food security.