Evaluation of the Water Conditions in Coffee Plantations Using RPA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article in question presents two main positive points that demonstrate its relevance: understanding the origins of hydrological processes and the use of RPA techniques to amplify knowledge and praise the conclusions of the hypotheses regarding the coffee plantations. However, some points are important to emphasize: although English is not my native language either, it is notable that some verb conjugations and general terms need revision by the authors. I also believe that the authors can improve the discussion of the results in terms of generating diagnostic information to fulfill the objective of the work: to identify the hydrologic conditions of coffee plantations. The biggest gap in the work is that it does not present rainfall data. So, hydrological data are not presented to improve these discussions, something that is fundamental to discuss the origin of the process. On the other hand, I would consider that the presentation of the results can be made in a more beneficial way to the reader. In this sense, the authors are able to improve the work and meet the objectives and quality of the agriengineering journal. Further, I have some doubts about the discussion write in the study. A relevant discussion of the context and new knowledge of the work provides is missing, especially in context of previous studies, which is not cited. So, I find the need for significant editing for expression of thought and clarity of discussion. Please take the time to thoroughly edit the discussion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we authors of this work thank you for your willingness to correct our article and point out several aspects that could improve this research. Within all the scores that suggested corrections/addition of information, we tried to respond to your suggestions within the deadline.

A highlight would be the addition of information on climate variation (temperature and precipitation) for our study region. Regarding the size of the area, research carried out by the authors observed that the average size of coffee plantations in Brazil revolves around 8ha, that is, we believe that the study in our experimental field can be replicated in other plantations.

Response to detailed remarks:

Title: modified (lines 2-3)

Keywords: modified (lines 33-34)

INTRODUCTION:
 
The authors decided to maintain the structure of the introduction to maintain the context of the work as well as to avoid that hypotheses and justifications are excluded by reducing the size of this topic.

Line 49-52: the sentences in this range were constructed by the authors themselves, there are no references.

Line 55-56: added reference

Line 62-65: Added references

METHODOLOGY

Flowchart added on line 100
Average Temperature and Precipitation added on line 111

Rainfall and temperature data added in lines 302 and 306

Line 221- what would this uncertainty map be, the authors had some doubts about this.

Line 286: Soil type added on line 112

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Line 365: the authors had doubts about what might be seen as “conceptual models”

FIGURES:
The authors improved the quality of figures 5, 6, 7 and 9.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

First of all, I highly doubted that if the 3 sampled leaves can accurately represent water potential of the whole coffee tree, and I think the R-square of 15.95% conformed my concern to some extent.

And detailed comments are as following:

1.     Line 20: Abbreviation of PA should be explained in first use.

2.     Line 24: the sentence “By using …” could be deleted or rephrased.

3.     Line 26: Which vegetation indices were calculated?

4.     Line 85: I believe there should exist plenty of literatures on this topic, please find and add some related papers.

5.     Line 126: Move line 135 to 141 here to explain scholander pressure bomb method.

6.     Line 130: I think the way how the leaves were stored should not be skipped.

7.     Line 186: The spatial resolution of the remotely sensed image here as 6.8 cm is inconsistent with the parameter of 5 cm in Table 2, which is of paramount importance in the analysis of agricultural remote sensing. You must not make mistakes here.

8.     Line 350: Figure 6, not 5, and please move it to the part of 2.5 Image Acquisition.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your willingness to correct our article and score improvements for it.
Regarding the number of leaves, we believe that this topic has been poorly explained in our article. A total of 90 leaves were collected around the perimeter of the crop, which were collected from the 30 georeferenced plants.

Line 20: corrected
Line 24: corrected
Line 26: as it deals with 15 vegetation indices, we decided not to include this information in the summary.
Line 85: There are many literatures that address the study of leaf water potential in different cultures as well as in coffee, but the authors did not find any research that evaluated the spatial variability of this attribute using high resolution images in coffee growing.
Line 126: corrected
Line 130: added on lines 143-146
Line 186: corrected information
Line 350: corrected information, however the authors decided to keep these figures within the results topic, as the RGB image is part of the visual results to evaluate the dry and rainy periods obtained by image processing.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper which prepared by autors can be accepted. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we appreciate your willingness to evaluate our work and conclude that it is suitable for acceptance.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.