Multi-Class Machine Learning to Quantify the Impact of Nitrogen Management Practices on Grassland Biomass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great work.

However, I have a question:

"To avoid bias, we applied a uniform preprocessing rule to every fertilizer- line 214
related variable in the dataset:  - line215
NbFertilization, Manure_tha, Slurry_m3ha, orgNitrogen_kgNha, minNitrogen_kgNha, - line 216
totalNitrogen_kgNha, minPhosphorus_kgPha, minPotassium_kgKha, Sulphur_kgSha - line 217

I wonder why you chose only 4 macronutrients (N, P, K, and S) and not Ca and Mg? After all, they are also very important for plants, aren't they?

Author Response

file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present research manuscript reports:  Multi-Class Machine Learning to Quantify the Impact of Nitrogen Management Practices on Grassland Biomass. Overall, the research manuscript is well-written and provides detailed information. Additionally, this manuscript presents a novelty.

A few suggestions are as follows:

1. I will suggest rewriting the objectives of this manuscript separately and the knowledge gap before the manuscript.
2. The variation and limitation of these models should be clarified.
3. The composition of N in each biomass is different. Does the model predict both Organic and Inorganic N.? Need clarification.
4. Authors can improve the conclusion section as well. I will suggest moving the research question answered section to the Novelty statement in a separate paragraph. Not in conclusions.

Author Response

file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript entitled „Multi-Class Machine Learning to Quantify the Impact of Nitrogen Management Practices on Grassland Biomass” contains interesting findings, which might interest an international audience. Nevertheless, I korund some imperfections, which (in my opinion) should be improved or at east clarified before an eventual publication. I have listed them below:

1. In Abstract section the main conclusion should be added.
2. Text in lines 79-82 might be omitted.
3. In my opinion Figure presenting study area and design of sample collection is desirable.
4. The information about statistical analysis is desirable.
5. Figures 6,9,12,15,17 should be larger. In present form they are hardly legible.
6. In my opinion Results and Discussion should be prepared as separate chapters. Moreover in present form Discussion section is focused on interpretation of results. In my opinion the larger number of literature sources should be involved.
7. Conclusion chapter is too long and it sounds like Summary. I suggest to make this section more concise. Please, point out the novelty of Your results and indicate the directions of future studies.

Author Response

File attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf